This is, put simply, an unacceptable abdication of our moral responsibilities. Even though our standing in the world has been severely diminished by Iraq, we should at least be debating intervention in Burma. There are, no doubt, many logistical complications and unintended consequences that would follow from such a policy. But there are also reasons why it should be a live option. The goal of such an intervention need not be regime change; it should simply be to make sure that a vulnerable population receives the supplies it desperately needs. Of course, if violating the sovereignty of a murderous regime happens to undermine that regime's legitimacy, then that would not be such a terrible result. But this does not necessarily have to be our goal.
Are you kidding me?
As a result of these same a-holes protests regarding our intervention into Iraq, they effectively nullified our ability to "intervene" anywhere in the world. After all, how do we justify losing the life of one American soldier for anything anymore?
Well Gordon, this would be a humanitarian intervention.
At least in Iraq, we had a national interest, oil, but there was also a humanitarian component of our invasion into the country. Have you ever read the reports of the Hussein boys and how they got to break in a bride before she married? What about their Olympic athletes and their run through the hot tar after defeat, ultimately boiling to death.
I guess that humanitarian effort doesn't count because...... why?
Once again, "progressives" show that they have no conscience for the long term consequence of their beliefs. Ween us off of oil through ethanol production; wow, people are now starving. Protest a war; wow, now we've neutered any future military intervention. Give people welfare; wow, now they don't want to work.
Once again, someone please tell me what's so "progressive" about "progressives".
3 comments:
Gordon;
This is what we can expect from an Obama presidency. Make no mistake about it, the temptation to use force in the hands of the untrained is too great. Clinton tried and got scared, but he still tried. Obama will try but with “softball slow bleed” actions in Burma. I predict that he will take us to conflicts in the continent of Africa, and you can bet Zimbabwe or Darfur will be first in the shoot.
The best course of action is to return to US Constitution, and force Congress to take responsibility for any conflicts. And then make sure that we can’t finance the war through European or Chinese banks (guns and butter policy). We finance it right here at home through higher taxes to make sure that every American feels the pain in the pocket book for the war. You want to fight then feel the pain.
VOTE RON PAUL 08
Very good predictions Brian. Hopefully we never have to find out if you are right.
I'm a libertarian to the core except for one issue(s). National defense and securing borders.
Ron Paul and his libertarian brethren sound like they should be wearing aluminum foil fedoras with their seeming paranoia about having a secure border.
Post a Comment