Pres. Obama, Winner of Peace Prize, Starts New War.

[prophetofdoom]

I personally think that this war is being started over control of the oil. Europe gets a lot of oil from Libya. The humanitarian reasons are for political cover as they continue military operations.

[pam]

Is there a link to a story or something that you wanted to discuss? Or purely to get a political debate going?

LDS.Net will allow political discussion, also long as all posts remain neutral with respect to partisan politics and candidate campaigns for public office. You may not use the site to show support, endorse, oppose or sanction any candidate. In addition, all posts must be respectful and sensitive to readers of all political beliefs and backgrounds. Any post that violates any of the above conditions will be dealt with according to the consequences of breaking the rules. Effective 9-24-09 political discussion has been suspended. Any threads of this nature will be closed.

[MarginOfError]

I personally think that this war is being started over control of the oil. Europe gets a lot of oil from Libya. The humanitarian reasons are for political cover as they continue military operations.

Well duh. If we cared about humanitarian reasons, we'd have a much larger presence in Africa.

[Just_A_Guy]

I haven't been following this as closely as I ought, but it seems to me that if all we were after is oil then the safe bet would be to give Gadaffi a free hand to crush the rebels (and get the oil flowing again) ASAP.

Coincidentally (or not): Anyone notice that the Palestinians just launched the heaviest mortar assault against Israel in the last 2 years, just this week?

[rameumptom]

I personally think we need to get back to George Washington's concept of no entangling alliances. Nor should we be the world's police force. I worry that we'll entirely wear out our military and then not be able to defend ourselves from a real threat down the road.

Instead, we should be the beacon of freedom. Encourage others to seek freedom in their own lands. And welcome them here when they seek to escape tyranny. We can also politically encourage other nations towards freedom, hopefully without war.

[Wingnut]

Nor should we be the world's police force.

I couldn't agree more. But isn't that the arrogant American way? We can fix anything, so we should fix everything?

[MarginOfError]

Just for the sake of Devil's advocacy...

Nine days in Iraq with the 36th Engineer Brigade. (3) - By Whitney Terrell - Slate Magazine

The author essentially makes the claim that, even though it took years longer than expected, establishing democracy in Iraq--even if it is still working to stabilize itself--may have been a strong impetus for the demonstrations happening elsewhere in Muslim countries. Essentially, people are thinking that if Iraq can make it work, maybe they can too.

But that may just be my American arrogance

[NeuroTypical]

From what I can tell, American effort in the middle east (no matter who is president) is meant to accomplish two things:

1- Keep the oil flowing

2- Play the folks living there against each other to keep everyone from uniting. No Caliphates allowed.

Everything else, like democracy or human rights or ability to control the media cycle, is gravy. And I doubt we're really all that fervent about promoting democracy there, because so many people are ticked off at us, we know what they'll pick if they're given the ability to choose.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying...

[Dravin]

I couldn't agree more. But isn't that the arrogant American way? We can fix anything, so we should fix everything?

I'm more cynical. We certainly don't involve ourselves in a lot of places that are arguably deserving of some 'fixing'. We have a big military and there is political advantage to be had by using that big military in certain situation so we do such. Sometimes the outcome is nice and benefits the people on the receiving end but I don't think the motivation (for the power players) is altruistic but geopolitical.

[slamjet]

I attended a fireside last night with the speaker who is involved in diplomatic circles, works in international law and diplomacy and was the U.S. representative at the U.N. general assembly. His experiences clearly shows that the arrogance of the U.S. is a misnomer. The world at large are constantly wanting to know what the U.S. stance is on things. They will act if and when the U.S. will act. It's all part of the promise in the Book of Mormon about this country.

What we are seeing is what happens when the U.S. does not act. Other countries come begging us to do something. This inaction/late action in Japan and Libya will shape the world's opinion for a long time to come. That opinion will be that the U.S. is still an absolute necessity in the world. Yea, France and the UK can take the lead but nothing will happen without us being involved.

Whether we like it or not, we are the world's police force. We'd better get used to it.

[marshac]

Whether we like it or not, we are the world's police force. We'd better get used to it.

We have been used to it ever since WWII- it's not like our bases around the world just popped up last week. It's too bad if the world wants us as a scapegoat to solve their problems- unfortunately with multi-trillion dollar current budget deficits and over a $100T entitlement deficit, we're not in any financial position to solve everyone's problems.

As far as Libya goes...

When I read the news headline Sat morning that some Arab league countries were basically saying "we wanted a no-fly zone... not THIS kind of no-fly zone..." I was really upset- seriously- we should have taken our ball and gone home. You can't have it both ways guys- you ASKED for help. You GOT help. You can't then turn around and say "Well, we didn't really want help" in order to appease some fundamentalist faction within your population. Ugh. I'm still upset.

[BenRaines]

Why did we not get involved in Rwanda, 500,000 murdered. Darfur? There are a lot more deserving places if we are going to be the worlds police.

Ben Raines

[marshac]

Why did we not get involved in Rwanda, 500,000 murdered. Darfur? There are a lot more deserving places if we are going to be the worlds police.

Ben Raines

Maybe it they exported ~1Mbbl/day in oil it would be a different story

[talisyn]

Why did we not get involved in Rwanda, 500,000 murdered. Darfur? There are a lot more deserving places if we are going to be the worlds police.

Ben Raines

I was wondering the same thing! And the Congo is still ongoing, why aren't we there? But on the other hand, maybe it's just a matter of who the president is. And what nation the UN has decided it wants to ummm..peacekeep?

[BenRaines]

Clinton was President during the massacre in Rwanda.

Ben Raines

[slamjet]

Clinton was President during the massacre in Rwanda.

Ben Raines

Interesting you mention that. This gentleman that spoke at the fireside was at the U.N. during the Clinton Admin. He said that Pres. Clinton many times apologized to the Rwandans for his lack of action.

[applepansy]

I couldn't agree more. But isn't that the arrogant American way? We can fix anything, so we should fix everything?

No I don't think its the American people's way. Its the arrogant politicians way.

[HoosierGuy]

I personally think we need to get back to George Washington's concept of no entangling alliances. Nor should we be the world's police force. .

Tell that to the powers on Wall Street. I wish the U.S. would end our relationship with Saudi Arabia, a country that is brutal and disgusting.

[prophetofdoom]

Is there a link to a story or something that you wanted to discuss? Or purely to get a political debate going?

LDS.Net will allow political discussion, also long as all posts remain neutral with respect to partisan politics and candidate campaigns for public office. You may not use the site to show support, endorse, oppose or sanction any candidate. In addition, all posts must be respectful and sensitive to readers of all political beliefs and backgrounds. Any post that violates any of the above conditions will be dealt with according to the consequences of breaking the rules. Effective 9-24-09 political discussion has been suspended. Any threads of this nature will be closed.

Okay, the way I phrased it might be considered political. Although it is fact that Pres Obama is a nobel prize winner and did authorize military force in Libya. War is political, am I not allowed to discuss it?

[FunkyTown]

Okay, the way I phrased it might be considered political. Although it is fact that Pres Obama is a nobel prize winner and did authorize military force in Libya. War is political, am I not allowed to discuss it?

I'm uncertain you realize that America isn't the one who pushed for action in Libya.

France was the most hawkish on saving Libya, and most people feel that this is because the Egyptians were upset nobody helped their pro-democratic leanings, which is poisoning them to the West. Nobody wanted a repeat where everyone in the area was upset. Then, when airstrikes were authorized on his own people, the UN said they had hours - Not weeks - To make a decision.

Obama just authorized what the whole world wanted. What would probably be best for your country at the moment would be to allow Europe to save Libya.

That does carry a lot of baggage and headaches, though. If the EU becomes the worlds police force(Which it's starting to push for), then the US gets marginalized as more and more irrelevant on the political stage, which is not what a lot of people in the US want.

This sort of thing is very complex. The lessening of America on the world stage is having a lot of unforeseen effects. On the homefront, your lack of entanglements will result in higher prices for things like oil and non-domestic products, which will definitely cause problems for the US as the highest consumer nation in the world(The EU nations export more to the US than to all of its member countries combined). It will definitely affect your lifestyle, but it will also remove you from the politics of the world and allow your nation far more freedom.

World politics are becoming more and more of a headache. I honestly don't know what way the world is going now and I suspect neither do most people or governments. What the world will look like and what our lives will be like 10 years from now is anyone's guess, but we definitely are living in interesting times.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm uncertain you realize that America isn't the one who pushed for action in Libya.

France was the most hawkish on saving Libya, and most people feel that this is because the Egyptians were upset nobody helped their pro-democratic leanings, which is poisoning them to the West. Nobody wanted a repeat where everyone in the area was upset. Then, when airstrikes were authorized on his own people, the UN said they had hours - Not weeks - To make a decision.

Obama just authorized what the whole world wanted. What would probably be best for your country at the moment would be to allow Europe to save Libya.

That does carry a lot of baggage and headaches, though. If the EU becomes the worlds police force(Which it's starting to push for), then the US gets marginalized as more and more irrelevant on the political stage, which is not what a lot of people in the US want.

This sort of thing is very complex. The lessening of America on the world stage is having a lot of unforeseen effects. On the homefront, your lack of entanglements will result in higher prices for things like oil and non-domestic products, which will definitely cause problems for the US as the highest consumer nation in the world(The EU nations export more to the US than to all of its member countries combined). It will definitely affect your lifestyle, but it will also remove you from the politics of the world and allow your nation far more freedom.

World politics are becoming more and more of a headache. I honestly don't know what way the world is going now and I suspect neither do most people or governments. What the world will look like and what our lives will be like 10 years from now is anyone's guess, but we definitely are living in interesting times.

You realize that Europe gets most of its oil from Libya, right?

[rameumptom]

Last I looked, Pres Obama was not elected as president of the world. He was elected as president of the United States. He is to take care of OUR interests, not those of France or others, unless there is a compelling USA interest.

I do not understand how he can jump into such events as a leader, yet not lead in our own country. For example, we still do not have a budget, and we're more than 1/2 way through the fiscal year (began October 2010). If he wanted to actually be a leader, he could easily have gotten the Democrats to pass it last year, when they held both houses. Even now, he's not being involved, and it continues to be delayed. It risks hitting the debt ceiling, and causes many corporations to not make long term deals with the nation, because they don't know what will actually be approved if and when a budget ever is agreed upon.

When the USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. That is still generally true. If we catch a bad cold, they get pneumonia. Helping in Libya is a distraction that helps no one in the long run, because we are only going part in. The rebels cannot win without more intervention, including toppling Khaddafi. So Pres Obama is straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Or as Thoreau would say, "he's slashing at the leaves, when he should be chopping at the roots.

[Sali]

Last I looked, Pres Obama was not elected as president of the world. He was elected as president of the United States. He is to take care of OUR interests, not those of France or others, unless there is a compelling USA interest.

.

It'd be nice if we all looked after each other in the world, instead of just OUR own interests. As leader of a country there is a responsibility to the rest of the world whether we like it or not, or whether it involves us or not. We are all in this together.

[rameumptom]

But whose beliefs do we use to work in the world? Many Muslims believe the world would be a better place if we all lived under Sharia law. Others think that we should establish a fourth Reich.

Would we want China to impose its communism upon us or other nations?

Why is it okay for the United States to use military force to impose its view of good upon the world, but then we complain when Al Qaeda seeks to do the same?

It is best if we were the Light on the Hill for the rest of the world to see and aspire to. When we become the world's police force, we no longer are that light, as we are now imposing our will on others.

Our Civil War was a nasty one. Would we have wanted Great Britain to jump in and fought for the South? What would history have been like if we ended up with the United States and the Confederate States as two separate nations? Would many not have seen Abraham Lincoln as a despotic leader as he had Sherman burn cities on the way to the sea? Or have Grant starve complete cities in Mississippi to gain unconditional surrender? Should we then be involved in others' civil wars? Or should we use other methods, such as being the light on the hill?

Methinks the USA has forgotten its true mission and has become a military complex instead. Even our military leaders were reticent to go into Libya. It was Pres Obama and Hillary Clinton that chose to go in with military.

All we seem to have done is slow down the Libyan army's attack. We cannot stop it from the air without using bigger bombs on Libyan forces and perhaps on Tripoli. But then we begin doing the exact thing we condemned Khaddafi of doing.

[FunkyTown]

But whose beliefs do we use to work in the world? Many Muslims believe the world would be a better place if we all lived under Sharia law. Others think that we should establish a fourth Reich.

Would we want China to impose its communism upon us or other nations?

Why is it okay for the United States to use military force to impose its view of good upon the world, but then we complain when Al Qaeda seeks to do the same?

It is best if we were the Light on the Hill for the rest of the world to see and aspire to. When we become the world's police force, we no longer are that light, as we are now imposing our will on others.

Our Civil War was a nasty one. Would we have wanted Great Britain to jump in and fought for the South? What would history have been like if we ended up with the United States and the Confederate States as two separate nations? Would many not have seen Abraham Lincoln as a despotic leader as he had Sherman burn cities on the way to the sea? Or have Grant starve complete cities in Mississippi to gain unconditional surrender? Should we then be involved in others' civil wars? Or should we use other methods, such as being the light on the hill?

Methinks the USA has forgotten its true mission and has become a military complex instead. Even our military leaders were reticent to go into Libya. It was Pres Obama and Hillary Clinton that chose to go in with military.

All we seem to have done is slow down the Libyan army's attack. We cannot stop it from the air without using bigger bombs on Libyan forces and perhaps on Tripoli. But then we begin doing the exact thing we condemned Khaddafi of doing.

Khaddafi is now toppled.

The reason that Obama and, indeed, the rest of the EU got involved does have to do with oil.

But it also has to do with the volatile situation in the middle east. Country after country is having their government toppled: Oman, Egypt, Syria. There are two types of governments who can come in to play out there: Those friendly to the west, and those who are not.

Egypt is currently feeling very cool towards western interests.

Nobody wanted another Egypt, not with a country as oil-rich as Libya.

I guarantee you that if Obama hadn't stepped up to the plate there, history would judge him far more harshly. The world is changing Ram - You of all people on here know that. I respect your opinion on international politics. I understand you pushing for an isolationist viewpoint from the US, but you do understand why Obama chose to do something, from a purely pragmatic view?