Saturday, March 19, 2011
Why Aren't Arab States - Instead of the U.S., France and Britain - Taking Care of Libya?
Gaddafi is a lying psychopath who is slaughtering his own people.
So is the imposition of a no-fly zone a good thing?
Perhaps. The Arab League called for it. And even some Libyan rebels pleaded for imposition of a no-fly zone.
But if someone is going to stop Gaddafi, it should be Arab League nations - like Saudi Arabia, which is armed to the teeth.
America should not be involved, because:
- Most Americans are strongly against U.S. intervention in Libya
- America was already involved in 2+ wars costing the U.S. many trillions of dollars (Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Iraq war alone will cost $3-5 trillion dollars.) Indeed, America's engagement in multiple wars is bankrupting our country - despite the claims by the military Keynesians
- We are creating more terrorists than we're stopping by bombing and invading Arab countries
- And both conservatives like Ron Paul and liberals like Dennis Kucinich have pointed out that American intervention is unlawful without a Congressional resolution of war ... which no one bothered to ask for
So I don't care whether or not someone imposes a no-fly zone or takes out Gaddafi ... but the U.S. shouldn't be the one to do it, even as part of a coalition with France and Britain.
Indeed, Gaddafi has accused the efforts by the three former colonial powers - U.S., France and Britain - as being "neo-colonial" aggression and a "crusade".
If Arabic countries were the ones to intervene, Arabs wouldn't be able to make those charges.
And if Arab countries are not willing to intervene themselves, that speaks volumes as to their true priorities ... especially since Saudi Arabia just sent 1,000 troops to Bahrain to help the tyrants in that country brutally put down a pro-democracy protest .
3 comments:
→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).
→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).
→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:
-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over
-- Comments that explicitly call for violence
→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.
Posts
Ultimately we need to decide if we want to continue playing empire or not.
ReplyDeleteIf not, then we should cut the military budget in half and save $350 billion a year. China spends the 2nd most at $100 billion …we would still outspend them by 3.5 times!
If so, then this *may* be a good deal if it keeps oil prices down and averts a recession. And if it also means potentially giving democracy to those who are *actually* willing to die for it …and stopping a genocide …well then, so be it.
I do agree that Arab counties should be part of the coalition that is enforcing the UN Resolution though. The UN got unanimous approval of the Arab League, but they should also participate (if only for appearance sake).
With respect to what Qaddafi says though …really? The idea that anyone believes a shred of the rhetoric that leaves his mouth is simply amazing to me. Or that anyone else will take it seriously.
April 1861: Lincoln is a lying psychopath who is slaughtering his own people.
ReplyDeleteAgree with NoFate, but, if you're going to keep playing empire you need to do a better job of it. Start genociding the natives that won't support you and enslaving the rest. Take their wealth and bring it back to the US. Break your ties with NATO etc - they are weak. In short, take some lessons from the Romans.
ReplyDelete