"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and more profoundly our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
Unfortunately, it seems that the atrocities in places such as Darfur and the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo), don't seem to count. How long has the genocide in Darfur been going on 1, 5, 10 years or more and yet you don't find the United States of America going to the aid of these innocent people with its military might. This begs the simple question...why?
It appears from the outside that we only invoke the use of the military when it directly affects our national interest. It appears that only certain people need to be saved from slaughter while others in less strategically important countries are expendable.
Libya has a leader who we do not like and his country borders countries that are of national interest to the us, namely Egypt and Tunisia. This makes Libya a viable target for U.S. intervention.
I think President Obama should reevaluate his priorities or his choice of words when it comes to the use of military force throughout the world.
If he wants to make the United States the worlds policeman, which is something that we are not capable of doing alone, then he needs to look long and hard at nations where atrocities are essentially being ignored.
What do you think?