I disagree on Libya by
Scott
Hi Bart:
You wrote in response to Ted Rall:
> Hey
Ted, did you see this story?
> Helpless player's
wife attacked
> When innocent
people are attacked by violent aggressors,
>
stepping in to defend them is NOT the crime you're painting it to be.
> No
soldiers are dying and we're saving Libyan lives - so why complain?
> If
that was your wife and kids, wouldn't you want someone as "violent" as
Obama to help?
The problem with your line of reasoning is that you substitute
individuals for countries.
I use parables to teach - like
Jesus.
There is nothing wrong with an
individual or law-enforcement
coming to the aid of another who is suffering a violent attack.
I agree.
However, there is something dreadfully
wrong with a president, who is bound
by Constitutional (Article 1, Sec 8) and statutory (WPA) restraints
from doing
the same as it engages the entire country in an action that citizens
may or may not
support which renders any democratic opinion or rule of law on the
matter irrelevant.
I disagree.
If a man is beating up a girl
at a Pizza Hut or a dictator threatens to slaughter
his unarmed people "with no mercy"
one can either come to the aid of the helpless
or one can go to the UN and dither for months on end while thousands or
tens of
thousands of innocent people are murdered as their cities are torched.
If you're a "dithering" kind of
guy, I understand but I disagree.
If it was your wife, would you want the rescuer to "respect the rule of
law?"
Or would you like to see your wife again, healthy and unharmed?
Dont yuo remember, as a kid,
they talked about the "No swimming"
sign?
That applies in REGULAR circumstances, not when your child falls in the
water.
Additionally, if this is allowed
to stand, any future president can and will use the example
of Libya as a justification for taking the country to war at any time,
any place, for any reason.
No two circumstances are the
same.
If some brute looks at your
wife "funny" at a Pizza Hut,
there's no need to rush in and
commit violence in the name of saving her.
I
think, as usually happens, we're talking about different things.
We
can argue the abstract use of force like Smurfs (till we're blue in the
face)
but when you hear a woman screaming. "Please, somebody
help me!"
are you really going to drive to the law library and research rescue
protocol?
I
think that's what Obama wanted to do with Libya and Hillary set him
straight.
I also believe that's why Gates resigned - he didn't like losing that
tug-o-war to Hillary.
And
it's possible Obama went with Hillary on this to prevent her from
jumping ship and primary-ing his ass next year - it's possible.
Are you sure you want the likes of
Sarah Palin to have the power of a queen?
If
history has taught us anything, it's that a US president is going to do
what he's going to do.
Bush had no right to steal Iraq's oil - we all know that.
But that's different from stopping a massive, country-wide
extermination.
That's
why we should only elect sane people, not cowboys with oil hardons.
This is not to say that the US cannot intervene in Libya, but there
ought to at least
be a debate about it to weigh the relative national interests, justice
of the cause, and goals.
But
at what price?
Would you let 1,000 people
die while we debated?
Would you let 10,000 people
die while we debated?
Would you let 50,000 people
die while we debated?
Besides, today's GOP would let those people die just because they're
assholes.
It is worth noting that the president's
original promise of "days, not weeks" is already
a distant memory and the mission has escalated from that of
establishing a no-fly zone
to regime change. Mission creep anyone?
Respectfully Yours,
Scott in Arizonastan
If
we were tabulating the Libyan body count every day, you might have a
point.
Our boys are off-shore where
Gadaffy Duck can't harm them.
Plus, it
also sends the signal to other dictators:
If you attack, or threaten to
attack peaceful demonstrators,
the US military just might kick
your about-to-be-out-of-power ass.
That's
saving lives without firing a shot.
I'd call that a win-win.
Remember,
Obama didn't start the freedom dominoes falling in the Middle East.
Facebook did that and what would history say about Obama if he failed
to help
a dozen countries struggling for their freedom for the very furst time?
Class
dismissed.
God
help me, I love to argue!
Send
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com