At a time when the American people overwhelmingly oppose our continued military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama has responded by committing the United States to another war. Today, the U.S. attacked Libyan forces with over a hundred cruise missiles hitting the capitol and surrounding areas. With the two wars already draining the United States of billions a day, these cruise missile attacks alone will cost hundreds of millions in both the equipment and commitment of forces.
While we go to war against Libya for its crackdown on democratic reformers and protesters, the United States continues to support its allies like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (which have unleashed tanks on protesters). What is the principled line determining when we go to war to support protesters or reformers? Will the same line apply to our allies?
Here is what Obama has stated today: ”Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world . . .”
We are now going to war in a country which seems to be experiencing a civil war. It is also a country that greeted the mastermind of the PanAm terrorist attack as a national hero. Finally, we are once again going to war without a declaration of war. While the Framers were quite clear about the need for a declaration, we are once again simply circumventing that inconvenient principle. The same Democrats who insisted that they were misled in using a resolution to start the Iraq War are again standing silent in the face of another President committing this country to war without a declaration. I consider bombing the capitol city of a nation to be an act of war.
I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans are opposed to the other two wars but would want to go fight in Libya.
While we are clearly not committing to a ground conflict, this is a move that is clearly opposed to the public’s desire to end this foreign military entanglements — and not to add new ones. The political disconnect over these wars is both distressing and dangerous for a system that, while a representative democracy, is still based on the notion of responsiveness to the voters.
Source: CNN
bdaman,
You are correct. But since Obama is still POTUS, his is only a rebuttable presumption. In Carter’s case, I have yet to find a policy from his presidency or afterwards that actually benefitted the US. Carter has more of a record than Obama.
Jeff: “I’m certain England and France pushed us into it. Probably said, “WTF? This is the big chance to get rid of Gadhafi. And you’re going to sit there and just let it pass by?”
The objective in Libya should be to get rid of Gadhafi. Simple as that.”
Jeff,
I’m as conservative as a duck’s ass in a windstorm when it comes to national defense and more importantly deciding when to commit our military to ANYTHING.
You never point the barrel of your rifle at anything you’re not prepared to destroy; and ready to pay for it.
Getting rid of Gadhafi does nothing for our national defense picture and costs a whole lot of money.
Is risking possible mission creep there in our interest?
If we get compensated for our cruise missiles and other expenses, I got no problem helping out. But don’t tell me we have any real interest here. Somehow I don’t think the Pentagon was champing at the bit waiting for this opportunity.
As a general rule, one is best served by finding out what policy Carter supports and doing the opposite.
and as much can be said of Obama.
Rafflaw,
Europe already has dibs on the oil from Libya; so what’s in it for us?
Pete,
Jimmy Carter was by far the worst POTUS of the modern era and quite possibly the worst POTUS ever. Until now. Carter is to US presidents what Ryan Leaf is to quarterbacks.
Carter’s policies were almost uniformly bad for the US, and the majority were not just bad but disastrous, to the point where we are still paying for them today. Carter could not have been worse if he had tried, and many wonder if he was trying.
So, yes, you cite a Jimmy Carter policy as a good thing, you lose. As a general rule, one is best served by finding out what policy Carter supports and doing the opposite.
Jeff,
Are you suggesting that morality has no religious aspect to it?
Like Kucinich, if you’re citing Jimmy Carter as a “credible” source, you automatically lose the argument.
======================================================
makes arguing easier when you define the perameters.
Rafflaw,
There is indeed a moral aspect. Just not a Christian one.
Jeff,
I agree that morality and government don’t mix. You are the one who suggested that there was a moral aspect of the decision to be part of the no-fly zone festivities.
Shano,
If we had kept on Carter’s energy plan we would have no energy, no means of transportation, no electricity, no gas, no heat, no AC, no economy and no life.
Like Kucinich, if you’re citing Jimmy Carter as a “credible” source, you automatically lose the argument.
Most of us, from 1960 on, have been advocating for alternative energy. If we had kept on with Carters energy plan we would not have had to start the Iraq war. We would not be borrowing from China to buy oil.
We would be the world economic leader in energy technology instead of the world biggest borrower.
Libya oil is mainly bought by Italy and the EU.
It will not affect the US that much.
While Farrakhan has some good points, I would like him to address Gadhafi saying he was going to “show no mercy” and kill people in their beds.
And if Farrakhan is such a friend of Gadhafi, why didnt he call him up and ask him about that statement? Because he goes on and on about all the good things Gadhafi has done. What about threatening mass murder of his own people? does that mean nothing?
I really like Susan Powers. I hope they all keep this short and uncomplicated. Dream on, right?
Rafflaw,
I’m a security conservative and a social liberal. Arguments about Christian morality are out of place for government because, as Christ hunselfish acknowledged, government has a different responsibility than the individual. And Christianity is a guide for the individual.
And so what if it’s a war for oil? if the alternative is letting the US economy collapse because its lifeblood has been cut off, most of us would choose the war. As we should.
Kucinich is not calling for impeachment hearings although he is not happy with Obama’s decision but some of tea party people over on red state are calling for impeachment hearings.
P.S. Buddha is out sick but please do not say anything negative about D.K. if Buddha shows up. It could get ugly.
“America cares about one thing – maintaining its standard of living. As Americans we represent 5% of the world’s population and consume 25% of the world’s resources.”
Glenn,
You say that as if it should be a mark of shame of some sort. We also produce more of the world’s goods and services and create more if its inventions than our percentage of the population would suggest. We have nothing to apologize for in this area.
If you are willing to lower your own standard of living, that is your prerogative. Most of us will not and resent efforts to force us to do so. The story of the human condition has been humanity’s efforts at improving its standard of living. There is no reason, technological or moral, to reduce it.
No Jeff I was citing what was said in a Politico article linked by Swathmore Mom with the notation that this is Buddha’s main frame.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Bdaman,
If you’re citing Dennis Kucinich as a “credible” source, you’ve automatically lost the argument.
Maybe there are WMD’s in Libya but they cant tell us because, well, you know. 🙂