Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Protecting the Libyan People Means What?

A month or two ago, Libya was just another insignificant Arab country with some oil and a dictator with at least two crimes committed over a decade ago against America. Now America is leading a "NATO coalition" with warships, missiles, jets and who know what else in a program to "protect the Libyan people".

Today, the all-wise-one stated in San Salvador: "we will continue to support the efforts to protect the Libyan people, but we will not be leading them."

Those people that favor Gadhafi are also Libyan people. He is obviously taking sides. It is okay to kill some Libyans, just the other ones.

A few Libyans, encouraged by their Tunisian and Egyptian neighbors, elected to move on their dictator, hoping he would do what their neighbors' leaders did: abdicate and depart. However, in this case, Gadhafi was able to garner a sufficient group of supporters -- mostly from his tribe -- and fight against those trying to take over. This has been carried out thousands of times in global history.

America elected to spend billions, dedicate military resources and will eventually sacrifice American soldiers' lives to support a bunch of unknowns in a country that is of little concern to America.

Obama's unilaterally decision to go into war is even questioned by some as being in conflict with our Constitution.

In Obama's corner is the idiot John Kerry. The anti-Vietnam dolt is now fully behind the military intervention. He says the goal of the mission in Libya is limited to saving lives, not necessarily getting rid of a tyrant.

If America has a problem with Libya, it is with Gadhafi. America sure goes about addressing a problem in a convoluted and costly manner.


Charles D said...

Would you agree that it is wrong to sit idly by and watch a dictator massacre his own people because they want democracy? I think most of us would. Do you believe that the US intervened in Libya out of purely humanitarian motives? I think most of us recognize that is not the case, and one should not expect that to be the case.

It seems to me there is a central underlying problem: the world needs a police force to intervene when despots are killing their own people or attacking their neighbors, but why should American taxpayers bear the cost, and American soldiers be placed in harm's way?

Hayes said...

The problem I have with foreign military involvement is we pick our battles. We ignore most. We have done nothing meaningful in N Korea, Iran or most African nations. I don't think the govt's role is to decided when and to whom to show compassion. Like all politicians, they try to pick winners and to manipulate, and rarely do they get it right.