Getting involved in Libya

[loosechickens]

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

[Eggs and Shrubs]

Whilst I am ambivalent about my country's role in assisting the Libyan 'no-fly' zone - I am bemused by the American stance over riots and disorder in Yemen and Bahrain.. both countries with major human rights issues, but both great allies of the USA... hmmmmmmmmm

Exactly.

And what about Saudi Arabia?

Incidentally, the description of the French as "frogs" in a post 25 is offensive.

[iris lily]

Exactly.

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.

[Eggs and Shrubs]

oh all right, I will edit it. For you.

Thanks.

I never thought I would spring to the defence of the French but we live in strange times!

[LaBryon]

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!

[bae]

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,

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".

[Zigzagman]

what the US's "priority" of "life and liberty" means?

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.

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

[LaBryon]

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!

[Eggs and Shrubs]

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.

[Gregg]

*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.