The Kansas Infidel will go on record with the position that toppling Ghadaffi will be a huge mistake. Yes, he's a brutal dictator. Yes, he's a state sponsor of terror. Yes, he should be brought to justice for the Lockerbie Scotland jet bombing, among other terrorist acts, but he should have been brought to justice 20 years ago. BHO dithered for weeks, then did the same thing Bush did regarding Afghanistan & Iraq, but instead of acting as a super power as Bush did, BHO went to the UN for approval to attack Ghadaffi. This is the only way libtards would accept the use of force. Acting as a moral super power by seeing something evil and acting to stop it is just not acceptable to libtards. No, we have to go to an international body of do-nothings to get permission under BHO. Now BHO has really stepped in it, as you would expect from his lack of experience. He's allowed an international body to authorize U.S. use of military force, but did not seek authorization from the U.S. Congress. He's definitely not following the Constitution and members of both parties are understandably angry. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that members of Congress have no idea who is running the operation, and Army General Ham has publicly stated that the UN defined mission could leave Ghadaffi in power. The POTUS has publicly stated that Ghadaffi has to go. If this third rate dictator stays in power after the coalition operation, it will severly diminish U.S. prestige and credibility, but BHO has already made it a mission to do just that to the U.S. on the world stage. This latests blunder just unintentionally assists his earlier goal.
My position on Ghadaffi is consistent with my earlier stated position that only a brutal dictator can keep hordes of 7th Century mindset Moozlums in check. Unlike Iraq, where we had heard for years from those who escaped and were part of a (for lack of a better word) democratic resistance to Saddam, there is no democratic opposition in Libya. I'd much rather see an opposition group who was willing to establish a Republic, but what M3 calls a democracy would be a vast improvement over dicatorship. Even if democracy could be established, which it can't currently, it would quickly deteriorate in the middle east as our Founding Fathers predicted it would here - that's why they gave us a Republic!
"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." --Fisher Ames, speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Toppling Ghadaffi will leave a power vacuum, as there is no opposition group ready to step in and control the country. Toppling Ghadaffi will only ensure that another middle east nation becomes an Islamic state - and a radical Islamic state is almost certain. Is that BHO's plan? His union supporters have been very active in the middle east revolutions and his incompetent handling of the events almost assures that Israel will be surrounded by radical Moozlum states. This is going to go very badly, as you would expect from the least qualified man in any room.
"The President does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorized a military attack on a situation that does not involve stopping an action or imminint threat to the nation." -- Barrack Hussein Obama 12/20/2007
Why is it Arabs never lift a finger to help their fellow Arabs or Moozlums? Why do western countries have to step in and do the heavy lifting? Why don't the Arab countries take in the Palestinians? Why don't the Arab countries deal with Ghadaffi if they want him gone? Why did BHO get authorization from the UN to overthrow another nation, but not from the U.S. Congress?
From The Patriot Post, Chronicle - March 23, 2011
The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)
"At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled. Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama's record of deception." --columnist Timothy P. Carney
"At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled. Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Third is the complete disregard for public opinion and lack of debate. Fourth is the unclear role the United States will play in this coalition. Fifth is the lack of a clear endgame. Compounding all these problems is the lack of trust created by Obama's record of deception." --columnist Timothy P. Carney
"So in the eleventh hour we have decided to bomb Libya. What is the mission? What are our objectives? The public is in the dark. Barely anyone has mentioned how Congress hasn't debated or authorized any of this. Secretary of State Clinton is reportedly furious with the administration's dithering. Vice President Biden, the purported foreign policy expert, is missing in action. And President Obama is away touring South America. The whole scene is very strange and a bit surreal. We have stumbled into war and it feels as though the intervention is both belated and haphazardly rushed at the same time." --columnist N. M. Guariglia
"Hourly cost of whatever it is we're doing in Libya: about $4 million. Total cost of building one mile of border fence, as undertaken by our horribly inefficient, bloated, largely incompetent federal government: about $2 million. So, every 30 minutes we're in Libya is one mile of border fence we could have built: Assuming the mission is accomplished in each case, which investment would make us safer?" --columnist Kevin D. Williamson
Update - 4/1/11: Pat Buchanan's ariticle A Community Organizer Goes to War.
No comments:
Post a Comment