Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.

I've never heard anybody argue that "genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home." People who want us to pull out tend to believe one of two things about a potential genocide:

1) It won't happen, or
2) It's inevitable no matter how long our troops stay, so we might as well minimize the damage.

Besides, I could make essentially the same .sig about conservatives:

Conservatives used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was too big a price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is too large a price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.

Of course that reverses the actual positions of the two groups, which are that liberals would in fact like to prevent genocide and would generally support using troops if they thought it would help, while conservatives couldn't care less unless the genocide in question takes place in a country with a lot of oil.

I've never heard anybody argue that "genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."

I think this is referring to Barack Obama's statement in New Hampshire on July 20th, when, according to this AP report:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.

There is a lot of oil in the Sudan, but the UN and the 'international community' have no plans to do anything useful about the situation there. In fact, preventing genocide has never been a demonstrable goal of the UN or its supporters.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

That's not remotely what he said, if you read his quotes. This is a perfect example of how liberally-biased the media aren't. Obama basically said that the justification for staying in Iraq is BS because if it were true, we'd be doing the same thing in the Sudan. His point is that invading and occupying a country is not an effective way to prevent genocide, not that we shouldn't try to prevent them.

Barack Obama has received an “A+” for supporting and voting in favor of all significant Darfur legislation. This member of Congress is a champion of the cause and has taken crucial action to end the genocide in Darfur.

http://www.darfurscores.org/barack-obama

His point is that invading and occupying a country is not an effective way to prevent genocide, not that we shouldn't try to prevent them.

So how should we prevent genocide - through 'accountability acts' and visualizing world peace? We're doing that in the Sudan, and it's not working.

Military action did prevent full scale genocidal annihilation in WWII, the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia ended the genocide there, and our actions in Bosnia prevented another civil war/ethnic cleansing disaster.

Inaction allowed genocidal annihilation in Rwanda, and it's currently allowing ethnic cleansing to continue in the Sudan.

I don't claim to know how to solve the Sudan problem.

Obama basically said that the justification for staying in Iraq is BS because if it were true, we'd be doing the same thing in the Sudan.

IOW If we can't do it everywhere at once we shouldn't do it at all.

So do you want us to send a large enough force of troops to Sudan to end the genocide? And what if it doesn't end soon enough, do you favor then bringing them home without having solved the problem?

liberals would in fact like to prevent genocide and would generally support using troops if they thought it would help, while conservatives couldn't care less unless the genocide in question takes place in a country with a lot of oil.

Right now the conservatives are the ones who are trying to prevent genocide in Iraq, whatever you think their motives are. (But that is typical lefty thinking to say something isn't worth doing unless the motives are pure.) Plus old-style liberals like Joe Lieberman.

And they were the ones trying to prevent genocide and totalitarianism in Vietnam. Just last week we had the spectacle of typical liberal John Kerry - who was instrumental in creating the conditions which led us to abandon the Vietnamese to their fate - say that the boat people and re-education camps and massacres never happened.

"Barack Obama... is a champion of the cause and has taken crucial action to end the genocide in Darfur."

If it was "Crucial" why has it been totally ineffective? If I "take crucial action" to repair something, I expect my repair to work! Is there some new definition of crucial going around? I missed the memo! Wouldn't it be more accurate to replace "has taken crucial action" with "had offered well intentioned but functionally worthless lip service"?

There is only one proven way to actually end a real genocide. Kill the bad guys.

"Of course that reverses the actual positions of the two groups, which are that liberals would in fact like to prevent genocide"

Funny, almost. The LEFT (long since divested of actual liberals) will support any genocide which opposes US military or economic power, or is "Anti-Bush", (Or Reagan, or Nixon, or the villain du-jour) and oppose any US effort to end one. If Bush were to send the 82nd Airborne into Darfur to clean up the mess, the LEFT would be first in line to demand immediate US withdrawal and an "end to the War on Sudan." Posters and puppets would be out in force as soon as the first street rallies could be organized. After all, Darfur is in no worse shape than the southern Iraq Marsh Arabs in 2002- and where were Leftist voices begging for action to end THAT genocide?

Ben