Printable View
The Wall Street Journal has a good piece on President Obama's thinking and the shaping of his policy on the Libya issue, that speaks to some of the questions regarding his decisions here. A fairly clear description of how and why he's taken the position he has, and the ramifications of it. I found it interesting, and many of you might as well.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...438332144.html
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by IshbelRobertson
And what about Saudi Arabia?
Incidentally, the description of the French as "frogs" in a post 25 is offensive.
oh all right, I will edit it. For you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs and Shrubs
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
I never thought I would spring to the defence of the French but we live in strange times!
Hello, I'm new here and thankful for the opportunity to join the discussion.
I am wondering however, within the context of this thread, what the US's "priority" of "life and liberty" means? I know them to be two different words that can imply many different things, they are also two of the inalienable rights (inherent to all humans upon birth, where ever they live) referred to in the US Constitution, but when used together within political dialog they seem to represent an ideal, which I'm hoping could be elaborated/substantiated for the benefit of this thread.
Thanks!
You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is not law. The word "inalienable" does not occur in the US Constitution. "Life and liberty" is mentioned in the Constitution in the 5th and 14th Amendments, in the context "nor be deprived of...without due process of law".Quote:
Originally Posted by LaBryon
Well it seems we insist on being consulted about almost every other nation's economic policies, political systems, human rights records, military forces, international objectives, and more. In fact, there is virtually no country on earth where American forces are not located.Quote:
what the US's "priority" of "life and liberty" means?
Luckily, most people in most of those nations are not trying to kill Americans. In fact, many foreigners enjoy being protected at U. S. expense.But our desire to garrison most of the earth's surface helps explain why we are effectively bankrupt. As Bae said - at what cost and I don't mean that in money alone.
It is almost impossible to comprehend our many overseas military installations. By one Pentagon count there are 865 foreign facilities. But that doesn't count bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, which probably pushes the total past 1000.
I think it is important to "pick our battles" understanding that there are consequences to our actions and nothing is ever as simple as we might think. Our political heroes seem willing to commit America with virtual ease as long as we can get someone else (another country) to agree with us.
Maybe, just maybe, the American people should begin to understand that "Supporting our Troops" should be about defense - not democracy, oil, or empire.
Washington politicians traded in the American republic for a global empire decades ago. It's time for the American people to trade back. - Ron Paul
Peace
Apologies and thanks for the clarification, I did mean to say Declaration of Independence. And for further clarification, my question on what "life and liberty" means was in reference to posts #13, #35 and #37.
Thanks!
I wonder if the mood in the US will change when it becomes clear the US taxpayer is paying to protect the rather large assets of BP? If I understand correctly BP is not that popular in your country.
Furthermore, there are echoes of Suez here. Isn't it likely that the ruling family in Bahrain will intensify their suppression knowing the West's resources will be limited? Rather like Suez gave the Soviet Union a green light to invade Hungary.
*QUICK MOD COMMENT*
Thank you to everyone who "self-moderated" over the weekend. It is, and should be, hard to comprehend further US military action on the global stage. Most of the members of this community have difficulty with the thought of sending our troops to another battle on the far side of the world. We are all aware of and thoughtful of the extremely high costs of such actions which is exactly why we should take the time to consider all sides of the discussion. It is difficult to determine what is the "right" course of action in our debates. Even with only small differences in ideology there will probably not be a consensus. Let's all just take a deep breath and remember to show respect for posters who's viewpoints may differ from your own.
I guess for me the concerns about getting involved in Libya are two-fold.
First, I tend to believe the libertarian viewpoint that our military should only be used for defense of our homeland. There's simply nothing in the US constitution about helping other country's citizens become free of tyrant rulers or, even moreso, aggressively attacking countries because they "might" harm us at some point in the future as we did with Iraq. And other than defending the steady supply of oil I don't think one could, even stretching in the most desperate way, make a credible argument that US safety is any way dependent on what happens in Libya.
Secondly, I'm VERY concerned that our involvement in Libya will become yet another open ended, long running conflict. Our stated goal at this point seems to be to depose Gaddafi. But then what? Will we leave as soon as that's accomplished? I doubt it. Are we going to stay and "keep the peace" while the differing groups within that country set up a democracy? We've already been doing that in Iraq and I question whether we've really made too much progress after all these years. Are we really prepared to stay as long as it takes to do it in yet another country? And if we are then are we going to do so in every middle eastern country where the population has decided to overthrow their government in a yearning to be free? Or will we pick and choose? And if so, how will we choose? What if Saudi Arabia is the next country to undergo revolution? The House of Saud has been a staunch ally for many years. Would we really stand with the people on that one? Or would we decide that somehow Saudi Arabia is "different"?
Count me as another one who's concerned we're becoming entangled in War No. 3. I heard an author on TV discuss this very question, and his answer made a lot of practical sense: Don't become engaged in these unless a) you can be succesful and out in 3 yrs or less; and b) there is a stable effective leadership ready to replace the old bad regime.
Of course we failed both those tests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there as in Libya, while there's no question of our being successful "militarily," the question of being out quickly and seeing the right leaders step into position is very much open.
In fairness, the Europeans are so inept they can't handle a country in their own backyard with a population smaller than Honduras (or metropolitan Dallas for that matter) without US forces. We get pulled into these things as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
I guess my question would be inept at what? Handle a country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
I would much prefer that we help poor people regardless of their national affiliation. I will never believe that armed conflict is ever a good thing in regard to "helping anyone". We are simply taking sides and the loss is never those that run a nation or those in power.
As much as we like to think we have all of the answers, I think we only need to look inward to see that is not the case. If we really care about "human rights" we have a lot of work to do locally.
"I'm already against the next war"
Peace.
Best, you know better. Avoiding Godwin's law I will use Rwanda as an example. Would you use force to protect an innocent child from criminal harm? Should cops use force to stop criminals? Can the world use force to stop genocide?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
Seeking nonviolent solutions does not mean sacrificing the innocent for principle.
I can agree with avoiding conflict. I can see the argument to stay out of Libya. But what I can't condone is an inability to stand up for what's right. So if you do decide that intervention in Libya is "right" as many countries have, it's a poor excuse for pursuing good if you can't do anything about it.
Take bae. Not a guy that goes looking for a fight but one that seems ready if one comes to him. Nations should be subject to the same moral requirements as individuals. So fair argument if you want to say we should stay out, but I don't agree that once it is the right thing to do it's acceptable to be impotent.
I choose to not live vicariously through the eyes of Bae and his island world:0!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
Nationalistic conflict is what I was referring to - not local conflict. It seems we are quite quick to decide where and which fights are important. The criteria is ever changing but mostly based upon politics not moral resolve.
I guess to make it simple or on my terms - I think war should only be a last resort understanding that those killed and displaced are never those in-charge for the most part - just simple humans much like ourselves. We can easily claim the moral highground but that is just rhetoric.
Peace
So my old buddy Beststash is Zigzagman. It only took me months to figure that out. Glad he is back.
There is also a constitutional matter here.
Bombing the heck out of Libyan air defenses and military installations would traditionally be considered an act of war. The US Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war on his own initiative. In fact, Obama said in 2007, when asked when the President could use military force without Congressional approval: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Pesky rules.
Excuse me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
As someone who comes from one of those 'inept' countries, I really resent your comments.
I might agree with you in many cases, but I think your statements are still overbroad. The Bosnians were getting killed before we got there. My guess is fewer were killed because we (and others) helped. Saying we shouldn't take actions that will harm people is righteous, bro. But saying there is no way we will help people who are suffering if it means we may have to get a little rough with the bad guys is just a recipe for greater suffering among those you claim you care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
In places like Libya the people are basically having a civil war - Libyan against Libyan. Why are we taking sides? Probably OIL, not because we "care about" anyone. I worry that our "reputation" and credibility as a "good" nation is damaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
What if the world community got together and focused on tackling stuff like sustainable energy instead of sustaining the status quo? I think our existence probably depends on it at some point. Why not now?
Diplomacy not war, solar panels not guns!!
Peace
Artificial legal boundaries do not relieve you of your moral responsibilities. Would you help a child that was being beaten and raped on your property? On the street in front of your house? If it was your neighbor on the property next door?
There are many factors that affect when and where you should risk the things you value to assist others. I'm not saying every situation warrants intervention. But I am saying that I find your blanket prohibition against helping others against aggression merely because they don't claim the same nationality as you to be morally unacceptable.
There has only been 5 declared wars following the constitution. They are The War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Even the Civil War was not a declared war.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I think the practical arguments are enough. Yes hypothetically *if* this war could be won in a few weeks of bombing it might be worth it. But I don't believe it when they say that. What we're really in for is being involved in yet a 3rd war. And yes like in all wars, an immense amount of suffering will occur/be inflicted/whatever. And yes our troops will be put in harms way for it. And yes we can't afford it financially.
But you want to make it purely about moral duty to save lives. Fine, riddle me this: how many lives would be saved by spending the same money we spend on this war on say medicine in Africa or something? I don't think you can make the case the war is cost effective here. Simply ROI (return on investment), right? Other investments offer more.
Then when I'm off debating philosophy 101 points about moral duty, I'm supposed to ignore actual real world reality. The first instance of ignoring reality is to make the assumption that the U.S. government (and yes even, it's coalitions) and yes especially when acting military, is a moral being that just wishes to do good in the world (and then it merely becomes a question of "what is good?" :~)). This has to ignore a massive amount of history.
The second reality I have to ignore is that of strategic interests (OIL), never mind the strategic interests they are irrelevant to the moral question. Hmm, but if strategic interest are the actual motive, is actual motive really that irrelevant, or does it maybe have some bearing on the results you get? Not to deny that good results can come from bad motive but they often don't.
I'm what?? :laff: You made me pull my dusty ethics text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
As a utilitarian, we should be weighing the costs/benefits of action vs inaction, and opting for the best strategy based on available evidence. Regardless of the ‘moral’ responsibility of acting or not acting, most nations, I would argue act in the ways that fits the image they wish to project to the international community. The moral implications are secondary because if we were to adopt a "moral responsibility" outlook, nations would intervene in every major conflict. That’s why we create rules (for ourselves and for each other), and in this case this seems to be more about "image" than obligation.
There are several conflicts going on these days that seem to have a more "moral" obligation but are not in the headlines.
Peace
Most people and nations do not seem to operate from morals, but from expediency and rationalization.
I would add politicians take action for reelection purposes and our men and women in uniform die for their reelection.
Fair enough. Maybe most times that leads to minding your own business, maybe not. But I think it would be difficult to presuppose that it always dictates a failure to use force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
Cheers.:)
Cheers to you, my brother :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
Admittedly I am cynical of most US foreign policy initiatives but do agree that sometimes it is necessary. In those cases I would much prefer congressional approval versus executive authority.
My experience in Vietnam taught me not to trust many politicians, regardless of the flavor.
Peace
ZigZag, curious, were you drafted? My DBIL had one of the first numbers drawn in the lottery here. He didn't have to go, at his physical, they discovered his Hodgkins disease, being drafted actually saved his life. Go figure. Sorry to birdwalk, but have wondered about that ...
" Sorry to birdwalk, but have wondered about that ... " (catwoman)
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, dana, but even Google didn't help me......what does "birdwalk" mean in this context? I'm wracking my brain, and spent fifteen minutes on Google, but couldn't come up with it.
It seems to me that we were well aware that the average Libyan person was being oppressed by Gaddafi long before the "rebels" started fighting back a few weeks ago. At that time no one was suggesting that we needed to help the libyan people then. Why only now that they're starting to get slaughtered. It's easy enough to say "but they weren't being slaughtered before," but isn't it maybe that they've finally gotten hungry and desperate enough that they're willing to risk being slaughtered. Their situation hasn't really changed.
And it shouldn't be a surprise that Gaddafi has reacted the way he has to the rebels. Governments and their leaders want to keep power and amass more power. Virtually everything they do has those as their main aims. We may consider the US government to be more benign than Gadaffi, (and in many many ways it is) and we may talk about the horror of him shooting down libyan citizans, but it would be naive to think that the US government would react even slightly differently if US "rebels" took arms with the intention of deposing our government. And in fact when US citizens took arms not even to depose but simply to seceed 150 years ago, the US government reacted exactly as Gaddafi has and instigated the bloodiest war the US has ever known.
It's horrible that Libyan people are being gunned down by Gaddafi's people but it's not our fight to fight.
I was drafted into the United States Army in 1968, I almost joined earlier that year, but backed out to take my chances with the draft. I will never forget stepping off that plane at Bien Hoa airbase around midnight. I can honestly say that I received more from my military service than I gave including a college degree and lifelong friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
Peace
Loosechickens, "birdwalk" means veer off track, probably just idiomatic to my region :)
In fairness(sic), this post is idiotic, offensive and downright wrong. My parent's generation were so "inept" that they stood alone in 1940 handling a rather large country in their own backyard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dharma Bum
I would be grateful if you withdrew this crass remark.
You're wasting your fingers typing the above E&S.... I have already posted my resentment regarding that remark!
Dharma Bum, perhaps you could clarify what you meant. As written your post is not specifically in violation of forum guidelines, but I can see how it could ruffle the feathers of our European members. There are many examples of European peoples enduring great hardship while fighting oppression and a fair number of folks here that think many European countries do a better job of managing their affairs than the US does so I am also not quite sure what you meant by your comment.
Thanks Gregg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
This site and it's predecessor are, thankfully, free of the jingoism shown in Dharma Bum's post. In this case, to use British parlance, he or she is talking out of their bum!
Oh puh-lease. For 15 years we've had Europeans voicing their criticism of US global policy and military actions, often in harsh and quite impolite terms. That fine, it's an open forum and everyone has an opinion. But to get your panties in a bunch over a comment that EU attempts to project military force are "inept" is pretty lame and a complete over reaction that seems to have more foundation in a cultural insecurity than offensive language. "Inept" is not a character assessment, so save the stories of the Blitz 70 years ago. The sun has long since set on the British Empire and in referring to the EU's ability to impose a no fly zone in Libya I used the word inept, which means
Inept
1: lacking in fitness or aptitude
3: not suitable to the time, place, or occasion
I stand by my point- the EU military forces are not nearly as effective as US forces in true conflicts. Yes, the French flew some sorties. But the hard missions and over 90% of the initial strikes were handled by US forces. So drop the misplaced indignation and face the facts. You can criticize the US for spending too much on the military. You can criticize the US for intervening where you think we should not. I would probably agree with many of those comments. But in the case of Libya, it's a fair criticism that the EU lacks an effective capacity to intervene where it politically thinks it should. And as a result the US gets pulled in to a deeper role than perhaps it otherwise would if the EU militaries weren't, well, so inept at such things.
I saw this today regarding thoughts on Libya. It reminded me of the Simple Living forums over the years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCd...layer_embedded