- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
no. tempting as it is, a fit of pique is no reason to turn a blind eye to the slaughter of innocents.
on the contrary; since our founding we have done so, the Founders were very open to the idea of aiding the American ideal spread, and were hardly above a little interference to spread the ideology of the "American Empire". i would urge you to read "Dangerous Nation" on precisely this topic.
President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson's phrase "entangling alliances" is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.[1]
In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines.
They don't want us to intervene. I say we don't intervene.
This is exactly what everyone around the world has been cryin' about for the past 30+ years; I say we give them exactly what they want.
ON THE CONTRARY. Here is what the Founding fathers had to say on foreign wars:
United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome to retract your claim whenever you want. The founders were military isolationists. They didn't believe in sending in troops to another country unless our own system of governance was in jeopardy. It was only in the late 19th century that America became open to the idea of 'spreading our ideals'. Read about, progressivism played a huge role in this.
Or not arming people like Gadafi in the first place.
Originally Posted by Red_Dave
U.S. eyes arms sales to Libya | Reuters Maybe our outrage would be more constuctively applied to haulting arms sales to the authoritarian regimes in the gulf that we still support.
...Start with the official figures: €343 million of weapons sold in 2009 alone. The EU Observer, Deutsche Welle and Der Spiegel summarize those numbers and examine what is behind them. They speculate, for example, that the €43m of German electrical exports includes jamming equipment used to block the mobile phone and GPS networks.
Italy is the biggest exporter: they officially sold Libya €111m of weapons, but are also responsible for €80m of firearms dubiously licensed through Malta. The Corriere della Sera has found a government report detailing the Italian companies involved, which Sky News summarizes in English...
In Britain, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade reports that “the UK Government had approved the export of goods including tear gas and crowd control ammunition and sniper rifles to Bahrain and Libya“. The arms-promotion wing of the UK government counts Libya as a “priority market”, and says “high-level political interventions” have supported UK weapons sales there. Last November, over half of the exhibitors at the Libyan Defence & Security Exhibition (LibDex) were UK companies...
Belgian sales to Libya consist mostly of small arms made by FH Herstal. Le Soir is doing a fantastic job of investigating this. Last Monday they were already reporting contracts for guns. By Thursday they’d identified spent ammunition from the libyan city of Al-Bayda as manufactured by FH Herstal...
...In its statements and actions, Russia has joined the international community in condemning the violence by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya against his citizens. But that has not stopped Russia from counting up its business losses from canceled arms sales to Libya. Russia will lose $4 billion because of the unrest in Libya and the subsequent United Nations embargo, Sergei V. Chemezov, the director of the Russian state company in charge of weapons exports, said on Friday.
South African arms sales to Libya were done strictly in accordance with the law, Justice Minister and National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) chairman Jeff Radebe said on Friday... Earlier this week, David Maynier of the Democratic Alliance said the DA understood that "more than 100 sniper rifles and more than 50,000 rounds of ammunition may have been exported to Libya in late 2010".
Other weapons systems sold appeared to include 40mm multiple grenade launchers, Hercules C130 aircraft, and armoured personnel carriers, he said.
Amnesty International and other NGOs on Friday urged Spain’s government to stop arms sales to Libya and to review defence contracts with other countries in North Africa and the Middle East... Spain sold arms to Libya, including planes and equipment, worth 7.0 million euros ($9.6 million) in the first half of 2010, according to figures quoted by the group of NGOs, which also includes Oxfam and Greenpeace...
I don't think we have much to worry about. Obama isn't going to do anymore than air-drop MRE's and bandaids. Then, we'll have to hear the anti-American crowd go on-n-on about we're not doing anything.
ON THE CONTRARY. Here is what the Founding fathers had to say on foreign wars:
United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome to retract your claim whenever you want. The founders were military isolationists. They didn't believe in sending in troops to another country unless our own system of governance was in jeopardy. It was only in the late 19th century that America became open to the idea of 'spreading our ideals'. Read about, progressivism played a huge role in this.
As much as I'd love to go in guns blazing and "liberate" Libya, it is involved in a civil war, so one way or the other we would be killing Libyans, including civilians. Unless NATO votes on establishing a no-fly zone, the USA dares not do anything unilaterally to interfere with the internal affairs of that country. The same nations that will criticize us for doing nothing (while they, too, do nothing) will crucify us if we do anything on our own. It would be the worst thing we could do to our foreign policy, which is already much reviled.
If I were calling the shots I would have every captured AK-47 we have which has to be thousands and the millions of rounds of ammo and get it to the rebels fighting Qaddaffi forces.
We could stand to build some good will there when it's over.
This is a world issue. If the UN isn't willing to send in peacekeepers and NATO does not want to get involved, then our hands are tied (in my opinion of course). It seems we are stretched thin enough right now, along with everyone else, and the last thing we want to do is begin nation building again. I hear Gaddafi may be having trouble accessing money due to sanctions which could be very good news.
an intervention is overdue.
there's been plenty of terrible things happen in the past Laila but that is no reason to say we shouldn't expect our leaders to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need. the Libyan people.are asking for freedom and democracy.
and screw the oil. who knows, someday the voting public might actually elect someone who will be untouched by corruption. somebody, somewhere has to love the truth.
Why?
Africa has had worst atrocities done upon it by the Government.
The US and NATO/UN most certainly did not act with such similar speed to atrocities a million times worse than what is happening now in Libya.
I suppose the oil must play a role eh ....
What about Sudan? Who I think atrocities and deaths eclipses many of the others you mentioned.
Darfur did not call for a intervention and war. Why should Libya?
What makes Libya so special to get the world's attention but Darfur was ignored?
Don't get involved. I agree.
US will be blamed if anything gets wrong. Let the world show US how they expect it to act.
Why should Libya register the world's attention when Darfur did not? What makes Libya so damn special? Just thinking about it makes me furious. Tens of thousands died in Darfur. Thousands and the UN most certainly did not act in the same speed.
Leave Libya alone. Let them deal with it and their own Government.
And if the people die. Well ... every revolution in history has shed blood. This will be no different.
What about Sudan? Who I think atrocities and deaths eclipses many of the others you mentioned.
Darfur did not call for a intervention and war. Why should Libya?
What makes Libya so special to get the world's attention but Darfur was ignored?
For that matter, why are people that are today calling for intervention in Linya so aghast about our war against IRaq? In Hussein you had a brutal dictator that spent decades slaughtering opposition, going so far as to gas an entire village. I thought eliminating despotic leaders from long term genocide was a BAD idea...
Only if the United States does it. If someone else does it, it's wonderful and champagne rains from the heavens.
Arrogance and stupidity are bad combination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?