Remember how President George W Bush was crucified by the left during a 9 month debate over the war in Iraq?
Well, what's the left saying now that President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war? This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.
While I understand the concept that America believes that we have a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and who seek self-government for their people. I understand that it's terrible that Qadhafi attacks his own people. But why are we standing up with these specific people and not others around the globe with similar plights? If you're looking at any kind of humanitarian scale so to speak, Libya is small compared to Rwanda. If you're looking at our interests, Libya only represents about 2% of the world's oil. Also, there's plenty of historical information out there to suggest that intervention in a civil war only prolongs the conflict.
I agree with columnist George F. Will's comment when speaking on ABC's This Week:
“It is not worth war,” Will said, arguing that the U.S. should not become entangled in “tribal” conflicts. “We have taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand, for the purpose — not avowed, but inexorably our purpose — of creating a political vacuum by decapitating the government. Into that vacuum, what will flow we do not know and cannot know.”
So why are we in Libya? Also, there are the basic questions as to what is our strategy here, our specific goals? How will the military know when they are finished in Libya?
In a three-minute statement to the media on Saturday after the first cruise missiles were launched, President Obama noted 6 times the international support for the use of force, saying the attack on Libya was an "international effort" and that the U.S. was acting with a "broad coalition" that included European and Arab partners. My concern is that, while I understand why France would want to become involved, I don't understand our involvement. For Europe it is about mass migration. They have a direct interest here that they have to protect. But just because it serves Europe's needs to be involved, does not make it good policy for America.
What are your thoughts on America becoming involved in Libya's civil war?
He Came to a World at War: O King of Nations
3 hours ago
8 comments:
Since Britian and France were clamoring the most to 'do something' re: Libya, let them do the heavy lifting.
We have enough going on with Iraq, Afghanistan and the Korean peninsula.
Chuck Colson had some interesting insight recently though. Link to the full article.
I was just thinking about the same thing re:Pres. Bush's take on Iraq and now, Pres. Obama on Libya.
It's hard to help out those countries not knowing who truly are your friends or enemies.
With our bad economy, where does this lead to? We're so buried in DEBT! :( God bless.
I'm the last person who will stand opposed to war. However, I have the same wonders in my head: (1)why intervene in a civil war? and (2)where are all the libs?
where are all the libs?
Some are actually talking about impeaching Obama/ Link
Eh, at least a few of them are consistent
JD, well, at least they're being consistent, then!
I think the state of polarized politics has handcuffed whomever sits in the White House.
Republicans were ready to pounce either way: 1. You took too long, or 2. Why are we doing this?
Democrats did the exact same thing to G.W.
Statesmanship is dead. As a Christian, I believe our great Nation has a moral obligation to prevent genocide. As a conservative, there should be an acceptable risk/reward factor in our involvment. Reconciling the two requires compromise some where...and compromise died with statesmanship.
Authur Vandenberg said it best in 1947...politics should stop at the water's edge. Especially blind partisan politics.
We should just stay out of there! We might have learned our lesson in Vietnam. In the even 3 million Cambodians lost there lives.
Get those the are our aggressors such as Al Queda, and leave the rest alone.
I think we don't really will know the answer but I have a suspicion that Obama thinks it will make him look good in the future 2012 elections that he didn't waste time to save a few rebels from anilation.
However, this uprising can get costly very quickly. The question is "what does he hope to gain from this activity politically?
Post a Comment