Libya No Fly Zone Approved;War Number Three For US (wage, crime)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instability in the world? We've had world instability since before the First World War. The world hasn't been stable in well over a century. It's not our job to keep the world stable. My interest is in keeping America stable.
Without a clear US foreign policy, i.e. no leadership from the US, there will be more instability in the world. Arguing that it was unstable before, so more instability is acceptable, is a nonsensical position to take.
How are we to keep America stable, if we have no US foreign policy? The US is not an island unto itself, we have seen oil prices soar by instability in other parts of the world.
Running every US foreign policy decision thru the UN, allows people like Qaddafi to game the system, and they can even rig the game itself by getting another nation to veto the US thru the UN, at a crucial moment.
Last edited by Wapasha; 03-18-2011 at 09:46 AM..
Reason: typo
Instability in the world? We've had world instability since before the First World War. The world hasn't been stable in well over a century. It's not our job to keep the world stable. My interest is in keeping America stable.
Without a clear US foreign policy, i.e. no leadership from the US, their will be more instability in the world. Arguing that it was unstable before, so more instability is acceptable, is a nonsensical position to take.
How are we to keep America stable, if we have no US foreign policy? The US is not an island unto itself, we have seen oil prices soar by instability in other parts of the world.
Running every US foreign policy decision thru the UN, allows people like Qaddafi to game the system, and they can even rig the game itself by getting another nation to veto the US thru the UN, at a crucial moment.
In what way are we running every foreign policy decision through the UN?!? Obama simply made the decision that it's not in our best interest to invade another country on our own.
The neo-con worldview that you espouse has been proven to be a disaster already when it had control of our government in the beginning of this century.
We've elected leadership that has moved us beyond that dynamic and is requiring the international community to step in. Obama called for Ghaddafi to step down and he called for an international NFZ, if any at all. The UN abided.
I'm missing the part where he's indecisive or weak.
In what way are we running every foreign policy decision through the UN?!? Obama simply made the decision that it's not in our best interest to invade another country on our own.
The neo-con worldview that you espouse has been proven to be a disaster already when it had control of our government in the beginning of this century.
We've elected leadership that has moved us beyond that dynamic and is requiring the international community to step in. Obama called for Ghaddafi to step down and he called for an international NFZ, if any at all. The UN abided.
I'm missing the part where he's indecisive or weak.
He's not. Neo-cons are just looking for an excuse to criticize him. Obama is already a hawk on foreign policy and that's still not enough for some.
Umm.... I defined we as "the international community". Obama had Clinton pushing for an international NFZ. It would have been foolhardy for us to bumble into yet another war to oust a dictator without UN support.
Seriously. This is the wise path for a 21st century world. It's just not the striden cowboy path, so it appears to be weak to those who view leadership in a conventional machismo manner.
I know what you meant, which is why I said "we".
In your view, making decisions on right and wrong are now "machismo"? Well, it certainly allows us an enlightened way out when the next racial or ethnic, genocidal purge occurs, ooops sorry, the UN has decided that your genocide is okay.
What are you talking about? England and France would lead any invasion, with Norway in support. By not blundering ahead with a full invasion led by the US, Obama's proved himself to be lightyears more enligthened than the last administration.
Why would we be invading Libya in the first place? Human rights - freedom, democracy?
Why not Rwanda or Darfur? No fly zone = military action.
Who didn't agree with NFZ : Germany, Russia, China, India.
and others.
"It seems clear to me that President Obama’s instincts leaned against intervention, and that he was only willing to involve the United States if we could lead from the rear, as it were, and let other countries supply the cover — rhetorical and military alike. But as Greg Scoblete points out, this means that we’re now already committed to a military conflict that our president has barely spoken publicly about:
… what’s more troubling about this whole episode … is that it has proceeded almost entirely without debate. When the Bush administration wanted to wage a war of choice against Iraq, it at least spent several months building a public case. The Bush administration had to resort to some wild rhetoric about the possibility of the United States getting nuked, but at least it was making a case built (however absurdly) on American security interests. What has the Obama administration said? What interests are at stake? Why is American security at risk if we do nothing?
And what of Congress? I know it’s considered old-fashioned in national security circles to trot out the Constitution and remind folks that it is the people’s representatives who get to decide whether the U.S. wages war or not, but it remains the case nonetheles."
Get back to me in a couple months, about Obama's
enlightenment.
Why would we be invading Libya in the first place? Human rights - freedom, democracy?
Why not Rwanda or Darfur? No fly zone = military action.
Who didn't agree with NFZ : Germany, Russia, China, India.
and others.
"It seems clear to me that President Obama’s instincts leaned against intervention, and that he was only willing to involve the United States if we could lead from the rear, as it were, and let other countries supply the cover — rhetorical and military alike. But as Greg Scoblete points out, this means that we’re now already committed to a military conflict that our president has barely spoken publicly about:
… what’s more troubling about this whole episode … is that it has proceeded almost entirely without debate. When the Bush administration wanted to wage a war of choice against Iraq, it at least spent several months building a public case. The Bush administration had to resort to some wild rhetoric about the possibility of the United States getting nuked, but at least it was making a case built (however absurdly) on American security interests. What has the Obama administration said? What interests are at stake? Why is American security at risk if we do nothing?
And what of Congress? I know it’s considered old-fashioned in national security circles to trot out the Constitution and remind folks that it is the people’s representatives who get to decide whether the U.S. wages war or not, but it remains the case nonetheles."
Get back to me in a couple months, about Obama's
enlightenment.
I'm not really clear about the point you're trying to make, but
1. If this surge of revolution throughout the Middle East for democracy and, ultimately, peace is going to have a chance, the world needs to protect the rebels from being bombed as they work to eradicate a dictator. If Ghaddafi wins here, the whole process in other countries might stop.
2. England and France are leading this operation, if it comes to pass. We are wisely not the first ones in.
In your view, making decisions on right and wrong are now "machismo"? Well, it certainly allows us an enlightened way out when the next racial or ethnic, genocidal purge occurs, ooops sorry, the UN has decided that your genocide is okay.
Obama made a strategic decision of right and wrong: he decided it wasn't in our best interest to unilaterally lead an invasion into yet another country in this circumstance.
You're attempting to extrapolate the Libyan situation to hypothetical future situations that don't exist. I trust our president will make the best decision on a case-by-case basis. That's why I voted for him. If there's some atrocity that requires our leadership, I have no reason to believe he won't provide it. He's just being wisely selective about which issues to lead on and which to let others lead on.
That's the sign of a strong leader.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
