The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: twyacht on March 20, 2011, 07:24:25 AM
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/libya_and_the_lefts_sickening.html
March 20, 2011
Libya and the Left's Sickening Hypocrisy on the Use of Military Force
By Michael Filozof
An evil Arab dictator has been in power for decades. He personally controls his country's vast oil wealth. A sponsor of terrorism, he has provoked the West to take military action against him in the past. Islamic fundamentalists despise him as much as the West does. When his people rise up against him, he murders them ruthlessly. The United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions condemning him. An American president, intent on promoting democracy in the Middle East, demands that the dictator abdicate. When the dictator fails to leave, the American president authorizes the use of military force. Our "allies," including Great Britain, are asked to help. The endgame for the use of force is unclear.
Sound familiar? No, we're not talking about Moammar Qaddafi and Barack Obama. We're talking about Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. The difference is this: in almost the exact same set of circumstances, Bush was called "Hitler" by the Left. Leftists wrote plays and stories and movies about killing him. Democratic Party politicians, like Sen. Dick Durbin, likened our troops to "Nazis." Democratic Senators like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, who voted for the military action, accused the president of lying. Mass demonstrations and protests, sponsored by the communist and socialist Left, broke out in the U.S. and Great Britain. Antiwar groups like Code Pink staged demonstrations at military recruiting stations, and had to be dragged shrieking from the halls of Congress. Opponents of the war shouted that Saddam's Iraq never attacked us, and that our military action was a violation of international law. The Left cried for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
President Obama has just committed American forces to engage in acts of war against Moammar Qaddafi. Where are the protesters? Where are the accusations that Obama is a liar and a Nazi? Where are the groups of "artists" wishing death upon the "warmonger" Obama? Where are the cries for Obama's impeachment? There aren't any, and there won't be any, either. Obama - who made a fetish out of his opposition to the "surge" in Iraq, yet ordered a "surge" of his own in Afghanistan - has just committed American forces to combat action against a third Muslim country. No matter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize a priori. The Left regards him as a man of peace in its own mind; the facts are irrelevant.
The Left's hypocrisy on matters of war and peace is sickening. When the Democratic Party is in power, it routinely commits America to war. When Republicans are in power, Democrats engage in shameless demagoguery and paint the Republicans as bloodthirsty warmongers.
In the 1996 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Bob Dole raised some hackles when he said that the majority of American lives lost in combat in the 20th century had been lost in "Democrat wars." Well, Dole was right. Democrat Woodrow Wilson sent American forces to Europe in 1917 not for concrete American interests but for the hazy notion of making the world "safe for democracy." 100,000 were killed. Germany became democratic, all right, and in 1932 the Nazi Party won enough seats in the Reichstag to get Adolf Hitler appointed Chancellor.
When World War II broke out in Europe, Americans wanted neutrality. Democrat Franklin Roosevelt wanted involvement, but public opinion would not allow him to send troops when the British were being bombarded by the Luftwaffe in 1940. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress rightly declared war on them; but commander-in-chief Roosevelt committed American forces first to North Africa, then to Italy, then to Germany. Japan, the only Axis power to actually attack the U.S., was defeated last. 400,000 Americans were killed.
Democrat Harry Truman sent American forces to defend South Korea after communist North Korea invaded in 1950. The communists believed they had a green light to attack when Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson failed to include South Korea in America's defense "perimeter." Truman refused to use nuclear weapons to save American lives. End result: 50,000 American dead for a stalemate. Sixty years later, communist North Korea is still there, and now it has nuclear weapons.
Democrat John Kennedy began American involvement in Vietnam, and Democrat Lyndon Johnson escalated the war, sending 500,000 American troops. End result: 58,000 American dead, and a humiliating withdrawal. When Republican Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, he promised to end American involvement in Vietnam; yet he and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger are regarded as "war criminals" by the Left.
Democrat Bill Clinton sent American warplanes to bomb Serbia, which never attacked us; and on Dec. 16, 1998 (which just happened to be the night before he was to be impeached) Clinton ordered four days of bombing missions against Iraq. Did anyone call him "Hitler" or a "war criminal"?
By contrast, Republicans have been reticent to commit American forces to combat operations, and have acted decisively when they have. It was Eisenhower who produced a cease-fire in Korea, refused to commit troops to Vietnam, and warned us of the "military-industrial complex." It was Reagan who committed aid but not troops to anti-communists in Nicaragua, and acted decisively and quickly in Grenada. Partially as a result of Reagan's defense build-up, the USSR collapsed without a shot being fired by American forces. And it was George H.W. Bush who produced quick, decisive victories with almost no casualties in Kuwait and Panama.
Democrats and liberals commit American forces to war promiscuously because they are arrogant and cocksure that their gassy ideals about "democracy" and the "international community" are correct and everybody else is stupid. Woodrow Wilson, the college professor, vowed to "teach Mexico to elect good men." When he went to Versailles in 1919, he was accompanied by a group of professors nicknamed "The Inquiry" who were going to fix the world. FDR had his famous "Brain Trust," and Kennedy and Johnson had the "Best and Brightest." The world thought otherwise.
By contrast, Republicans have been concerned with concrete American interests. When Bush invaded Iraq, making sure that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction that could be given to terrorists was indeed a concrete American interest. He went "off the reservation" when the mission morphed into creating an Iraqi democracy.
What are the concrete American interests in Libya? If promoting a "democratic" uprising in the Middle East is our goal, what do we do if Qaddafi is replaced by America-hating Muslim fundamentalists in a democratic election? And why didn't we call for a "no-fly zone" in Iran during the uprising of 2009? If promoting democracy in the Middle East is our goal, should we back the protesters trying to overthrow Saleh in Yemen? Should we back the Shi'ite uprising in Bahrain -- home of the U.S. 5th Fleet? If there is an uprising against the royal family in Saudi Arabia, should we commit American forces to help overthrow King Abdullah?
Who knows how this will end? Surely not Obama. Like virtually all military interventions instigated by the Democrats, the Libya involvement is not well thought out at all. And Democrats will not concern themselves with opposing war until the next Republican is in power.
-
Just sent it to all the non-forum members in my address book.
-
Just sent it to all the non-forum members in my address book.
Me too....as well as facebook. ;D
-
The Left regards him as a man of peace in its own mind; the facts are irrelevant.
That right there seems to say it all.
Facts to a libtard are a mere inconvenience that can be ignored if they don't feel right.
-
This is no surprise. I've been trying to think of something the left isn't hypocritical about, and I'm not coming up with much.
-
The left??? Hypocritical??? And this surprises you, why??? ::)
-
The left??? Hypocritical??? And this surprises you, why??? ::)
No more than the right's hypocracy in regard to "nation-building" in Iraq vs. Somalia/Bosnia.....
-
No more than the right's hypocracy in regard to "nation-building" in Iraq vs. Somalia/Bosnia.....
Two big differences,
1st- It's actually working in Iraq and Bosnia, and things were improving in Somalia until Clinton turned it over to the UN.
2nd- We went into Somalia and Iraq with actual objectives, A- feed starving people, (the US expressed no interest in the local politics, that was the UN ) B- Remove Saddam Hussein. C- Make the Serbs quit murdering women and children.
What exactly do they intend to accomplish in Libya ? (Other than taking the focus off what a screw this administration is ? Hey, it worked for Clinton, right ? )
-
Top 10 Rejected Mission Names
Apparently the White House tossed out a number of perfectly good names before arriving at "Operation Odyssey Dawn":
10.Operation Nine Months In The Senate Didn't Prepare Me For This
9. Operation Organizing for Libya
8. Operation Double Standard
7. Operation FINE! I'll Do Something
6. Operation Enduring Narcissism
5. Operation So That's What the Red Button Does
4. Operation France Backed Me Into A Corner
3. Operation Start Without Me
2. Operation Unlike Bush Wars This One Is Justified Because, Hey Look, A Squirrel
1. Operation Aimless Fury
-
Top 10 Rejected Mission Names
Apparently the White House tossed out a number of perfectly good names before arriving at "Operation Odyssey Dawn":
10.Operation Nine Months In: The Senate Didn't Prepare Me For This
9. Operation Organizing for Libya
8. Operation Double Standard
7. Operation FINE! I'll Do Something
6. Operation Enduring Narcissism
5. Operation So That's What the Red Button Does
4. Operation France Backed Me Into A Corner
3. Operation Start Without Me
2. Operation Unlike Bush Wars This One Is Justified Because, Hey Look, A Squirrel
1. Operation Aimless Fury It's Still Bush's Fault!!!!!
FIFY
;D
-
Two big differences,
1st- It's actually working in Iraq and Bosnia, and things were improving in Somalia until Clinton turned it over to the UN.
2nd- We went into Somalia and Iraq with actual objectives, A- feed starving people, (the US expressed no interest in the local politics, that was the UN ) B- Remove Saddam Hussein. C- Make the Serbs quit murdering women and children.
What exactly do they intend to accomplish in Libya ? (Other than taking the focus off what a screw this administration is ? Hey, it worked for Clinton, right ? )
...and the Republicans were screaming about the nation-building then until it was their guy in the White House doing it?....besides, were we in danger of Bosnia or Somalia attacking us?......and have they become docile places since our involvement?....
Until we reduce one of the ME nations to ash and glass, they're not going to take us seriously.....and we don't need to put "boots on the ground" to accomplish that.....
-
Two big differences,
1st- It's actually working in Iraq and Bosnia, and things were improving in Somalia until Clinton turned it over to the UN.
2nd- We went into Somalia and Iraq with actual objectives, A- feed starving people, (the US expressed no interest in the local politics, that was the UN ) B- Remove Saddam Hussein. C- Make the Serbs quit murdering women and children.
What exactly do they intend to accomplish in Libya ? (Other than taking the focus off what a screw this administration is ? Hey, it worked for Clinton, right ? )
Tom has it right. Look, there are two reasonable views on FP. The first (my preferred option) is the realist one. You go to war only if it is in your national interest. The other is the neo-liberal view which says that that the actions of nations must be governed by international law in order to maintain the stability of the system and enforce a basic line of human rights (such as preventing genocide). Force is justified to enforce this.
Europe, particulatly underTony Blair, a true believer of the neolib position, sided with us in humanitarian interventions and supported the war in Iraq because Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN.
Fast forward to today. WTF is our interest in Libiya? I have no love for Quadaffi and would like to see him gone. But why is it our problem? Its the same argument I made against the Iraq war. This a bad guy. So what? He has plenty of company in the ranks of heads of state. Let the Libiyans deal with him or not. Not our country, not our war and as long as the oil flows and Al Queda isn't given a safe haven, not our problem. Call me a bastard, but I'll kill fewer people and fill fewer American body bags than someone like W. or BO who want to bring democracy and human rights to the Middle East. If those in the Middle East want these things, good for them. I'll cheer them on. I just won't sacrifice a single Marine in a war where we don't have a stake. Blood for oil? Hell yes. Blood for fuzzy idealism? No chance in hell.
FQ13 who is going straight to hell, but at least I won't be taking uneccesary US casulties along with me. :-\
-
Part that pisses me off is that the side we are supporting is far more likely to give AQ a safe haven than Qadaffi, he's been through that crap before with the PLO and knows it is more likely to bite him on the ass than not.BO is supporting suspiciously unknown forces against a predictable prick who has maintained a stable govt. since 1968.
In other words, Obummer is helping to DEstabalize the region which can only lead to more bloodshed.
...and the Republicans were screaming about the nation-building then until it was their guy in the White House doing it?....besides, were we in danger of Bosnia or Somalia attacking us?......and have they become docile places since our involvement?....
Until we reduce one of the ME nations to ash and glass, they're not going to take us seriously.....and we don't need to put "boots on the ground" to accomplish that.....
Wake up and smell the coffee. The nations got built under the R's, Iraq has a stable Govt. The stated purpose was to remove SH, He's gone, Hung by an Iraqi court. Mission Accomplished.
Bosnia/Kosovo, Stated objective, stop the Serbs from exterminating Muslims, that was by the way requested by most of the countries in the world. Milosivic is dead, most of his cronies, who are not dead are, or have been, tried and sentenced for war crimes, Serbs are no longer killing Muslims. Mission accomplished.
Somalia, Stated mission of Marine presence (The US involvement) was to organize the distribution of food. When the Marines left food was being distributed, mission accomplished. The Blackhawk down incident did not happen to US troops, it happened to an American unit serving under UN Command.
Afghanistan is Obama's war, he is the one who ramped it up. What is the objective ?
Libya, is another Obama war, What is the objective.
Wars are real easy to get yourself into, but when you don't know what the f*ck you intend to accomplish they are damned difficult to get out of.
Like say, Vietnam, another case where we thought we had to pull Frances balls out of a fire.
-
Afghanistan is Obama's war, he is the one who ramped it up. What is the objective ?
Libya, is another Obama war, What is the objective.
Wars are real easy to get yourself into, but when you don't know what the f*ck you intend to accomplish they are damned difficult to get out of.
Like say, Vietnam, another case where we thought we had to pull Frances balls out of a fire.
While I disagree with the rest (esp. since I was pointing out political hypocracy, not military accomplishment), I'm in full agreement with you on this....
-
That line pretty much sums up my whole Foreign Policy ;D
-
Did you guys happen to notice that a Dem Rep from Ohio is saying that Obummer has overstepped his authority and possibly should be impeached for launching strikes in Libya? Both parties are going after him for that but both are also asking "what took so long?" Make up your collective minds!!! Oh wait, it's Congress, they haven't done that in decades.