It Was Right To Intervene

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Also posted on Bible-Discussion.com

It's Obama's own fault that the message he's trying to get through, that our actions prevented a massacre, is drowned out by the illegal method he used to intervene. But it needs to be said that Gaddafi's forces including tanks and aircraft were surrounding civilian protesters and Gaddafi promised there would be no mercy. I strongly criticized Bill Clinton when he didn't do enough to prevent the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans. Obama's wrong execution of the right idea is a marked improvement from the slaughter that would have ensued if NATO forces didn't intervene. We're talking about human life here and as a Catholic, I have to rise above politics and applaud the protection of life. I know this action was started sloppily and the end game is uncertain. But timely intervention was called for and it was delivered.

Life is precious.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Also posted on Bible-Discussion.com

It's Obama's own fault that the message he's trying to get through, that our actions prevented a massacre, is drowned out by the illegal method he used to intervene. But it needs to be said that Gaddafi's forces including tanks and aircraft were surrounding civilian protesters and Gaddafi promised there would be no mercy. I strongly criticized Bill Clinton when he didn't do enough to prevent the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans. Obama's wrong execution of the right idea is a marked improvement from the slaughter that would have ensued if NATO forces didn't intervene. We're talking about human life here and as a Catholic, I have to rise above politics and applaud the protection of life. I know this action was started sloppily and the end game is uncertain. But timely intervention was called for and it was delivered.

Life is precious.

Massacres are horrible and something should be done, but this worries me above all else. Power vacuums are extremely risky.

Edited April 3, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Massacres are horrible and something should be done, but this worries me above all else. Power vacuums are extremely risky.

Well I don't think it's the worst thing in the world if one dictatorship gets replaced by another. The general worry is that it will get replaced by something worse...something worse than a government that uses tanks and planes against civilians. I don't think this is realistic especially if we stick to our guns. The new Lybian leadership I think will be very cautious about stepping over certain lines.

[mightynancy]

Regime change is a rotten business to go into right now. I hear the market is just saturated. I mean, you go in, bust some chops, but after that it's nothing but work, work, work.

I kid. I agree that it's right to protect the defenseless against the powerful who would harm them. That said, the President did beautifully coordinating and team-building with our allies, but he didn't do so well at following our internal procedures.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Regime change is a rotten business to go into right now. I hear the market is just saturated. I mean, you go in, bust some chops, but after that it's nothing but work, work, work.

I kid. I agree that it's right to protect the defenseless against the powerful who would harm them. That said, the President did beautifully coordinating and team-building with our allies, but he didn't do so well at following our internal procedures.

There's a sort of "pick on someone your own size" justice here. Gaddafi was poised to unleash superior weaponry upon civilians and is now having those forces decimated by NATO forces far superior to his.

[Saldrin]

I myself would have preferred the power of Europe acted with out us.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Well I don't think it's the worst thing in the world if one dictatorship gets replaced by another. The general worry is that it will get replaced by something worse...something worse than a government that uses tanks and planes against civilians. I don't think this is realistic especially if we stick to our guns. The new Lybian leadership I think will be very cautious about stepping over certain lines.

Let's hope you're right.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I myself would have preferred the power of Europe acted with out us.

That's not quite how it works. Whether you're talking about the U.N. or NATO, America plays a key leadership role in any coalition. These are boots that are just too big for anyone else to fill.

[PrinceofLight2000]

That's not quite how it works. Whether you're talking about the U.N. or NATO, America plays a key leadership role in any coalition. These are boots that are just too big for anyone else to fill.

lol ordinarily you'd be right but Sarkozy beat Obama in that race.

Not to mention we're apparently only taking a "supportive role", whatever that means. I say it means nothing because this has all the trappings of a war except for the affirmative press conference and authorization from congress. Us establishing a no-fly zone is an act of war because we're imposing our military power against another sovereign nation.

Regardless, we don't need to be Team America: World Police*. We don't need to "play a key leadership role in any coalition", only in ones that defend our interests. NOT Europe's.

*Before anyone brings up Iraq now that I've let this genie out of the bottle, please be reminded that Saddam Hussein continuously fired at our planes for years and years without provocation.

Edited April 3, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Saldrin]

That's not quite how it works. Whether you're talking about the U.N. or NATO, America plays a key leadership role in any coalition. These are boots that are just too big for anyone else to fill.

The UN or NATO should never trump US sovereignty, if the coalition doesn't work with out the US then so be it. I need to add the reason why they are taking this action is to protect European oil, and that's why i think they should act with out the US.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Saldrin
typos

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

The UN or NATO should never trump US sovereignty, if the coalition doesn't work with out the US then so be it. I need to add the reason why they are taking this action is to protect European oil, and that's why i think they should act with out the US.

You're right. 90% of Lybian oil is sold to Europe. It's just odd to have other countries accused of "blood for oil."

Regardless, we don't need to be Team America: World Police*.

Yeah, I saw that dirty, sick, twisted, yet uproariously funny movie too.

(I own it)

[PrinceofLight2000]

Yeah, I saw that dirty, sick, twisted, yet uproariously funny movie too.

(I own it)

Such a vile movie. I haven't seen it, I just thought the reference would be funny.

[MrBallroom]

All these countries whine and caterwaul of America interfering…about America being the ‘world’s policeman’; and when something goes wrong, guess who goes screaming for a cop?

I find the hypocrisy ironic…don’t you?

[prophetofdoom]

Why does the Western media keep telling us that "protestors" were being killed. Do innocent protestors have AK-47s, drive tanks, take over military arms depots, and anti aircraft batteries mounted on the back of trucks?

The Rebels are not innocent protestors. They are staging a coup using military force and Gaddafi is fighting back.

The Rebels also have Al Qaeda elements within their ranks.. please read (Al Qaeda and West on Same Side).

The reason I am suspicious of "humanitarian" reasons is because of my lack of trust of the government. WMDs in Iraq anyone?

[FunkyTown]

Why does the Western media keep telling us that "protestors" were being killed. Do innocent protestors have AK-47s, drive tanks, take over military arms depots, and anti aircraft batteries mounted on the back of trucks?

The Rebels are not innocent protestors. They are staging a coup using military force and Gaddafi is fighting back.

The Rebels also have Al Qaeda elements within their ranks.. please read (Al Qaeda and West on Same Side).

The reason I am suspicious of "humanitarian" reasons is because of my lack of trust of the government. WMDs in Iraq anyone?

Innocent protestors were killed. That's a given, since high explosives are being used.

Even the US's incredible smart-missile technology causes civilian casualties.

Granted, that wasn't the sole purpose of the explosives, but that doesn't make good news. Kudos to you for noticing that it couldn't be just innocent people, though. :)

[Sean1427]

If we wanted to protect civilians from dying in Africa, there is always Congo, where up to 4 million have died over the years. There is also Ivory Coast, were at least a couple of hundred thousand have died. We know that for a fact in both cases. Yet to this day no one knows how many civilians have been killed by Gaddafi or the rebels. Living and working in the ME, I've come to know that Arabs love to talk, talk big, but threats usually end as threats. The US State Department should know this. So what Gaddafi says is immaterial. In any event, before running to the rescue, we should have had some kind of fact-finding mission. We still don't know how many were killed and we don't know who the rebels even are. One thing that is certain is that Gaddafi has a lot of support from the Libyan people. In any event, I tend to agree with Pat Buchanan on this one that while we in the US consider it evil for Gaddafi to us violence to put down a rebellion in Libya, Lincoln used violence to put down what he saw as a rebellion in our own country and Lincoln is at the top of the American pantheon of presidents. Yet at the time Lincoln declared war on the South, after the latter fired on Fort Sumter, no one had yet been killed. Nor did the South ever try to overthrow the government, which is the nature of a civil war and which has been the goal of the Libyan rebels. The South simply wanted to leave the Union. But the North wouldn’t allow a repeat of what the founders had done during the Revolution. Result? About 620,000 Americans died over the next four years.

In the current situation some of the ways that have been used to demonize Gaddafi are as follows. Gaddafi has been accused of using mercs. But we use mercs all the time. We just call them "private contractors." Fallujah was leveled because of the deaths of 4 mercs. He has been accused of not fighting fairly and it was said here in one post that our coming to the rebels aid can be seen as a picking-on-someone-your-own-size sort of justice. But the US hasn't picked on anyone its own size for long time. We've been using far superior force to go after smaller, weaker nations for decades. As with WW I, which we entered late, we entered WW II late, well after the USSR had basically bled Germany dry. (We like to boast how we saved Europe from the Nazis but the truth is that Europeans give as much credit to the USSR. Worse, we forget that we gave the USSR all of Eastern Europe.) Post WW II there’s been North Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. (I might have missed a few.) All of them have been third world nations with third world militaries. None of these are our own size. They’re not even close. Few of them even had anything close to a navy or anything resembling a decent air force. In Iraq and Afghanistan they fight us in sandals and loose flowing robes; we have helmets and body armor. They don't have any of the hi-tech weapons we have. Remember, for Iraq, there was first the Gulf War, followed by 11 years of bombing in the no-fly zones and sanctions for a country 90% dependent on imports, followed by our invasion of 2003. Of course, all of that was on the heals of a destructive war between Iraq and Iran, with our helping Iraq. By 2003, Iraq was on its back. It was in ruins. As for Gaddafi's using planes to bomb people, we also use planes to bomb from miles above. (Note that in such an asymmetrical war, car bombs are essentially a poor country's air force.) They certainly don’t have anything close to just one of our carriers, much less the two and their respective strike groups just off Libya’s coast. We fire cruise missiles from up to 900 miles out to sea. And we launch drones from nice comfortable offices on America’s eastern seaboard. The truth is that since the end of WW II, Washington has had a very clear preference for picking on small nations that are nowhere near our own size. And we do so using our superior technology which they don’t even come close to matching. Such is the case now, with our deciding to go after Gaddafi. Moreover, up until recently we were selling Gaddafi weapons, just as we do neighboring Egypt. And we know full well that neither Libya nor Egypt have any neighboring countries they need to fear. Hence, we sell them weapons knowing full well that these weapons will most likely be used against these countries’ own respective citizens.

The US certainly does play a key role in the UN and NATO. But it’s more than just a key role. The UN and NATO can do nothing of this sort without the US. The UN General Assembly is powerless. Only the UN Security Council has is any power and is lodged in its five permanent members, i.e., the US, the UK, France, China and Russia. These five are the only countries with veto power and any one of them could have stopped Resolution 1973 from passing. While China and Russia abstained during the vote, the US, the UK and France approved. As for NATO, it should have died with the collapse of the USSR 20 years ago. But it was conveniently kept alive and has become the de facto military branch of the UN, which is under US control. We simply use the UN and NATO as a convenient cover. When Obama says it's been passed to NATO that's just a game of words. We're still in charge. The commanding general of NATO is American. We’re simply passing the prosecution of this war from ourselves to ourselves. The UN and NATO are simply masks we hide behind when it’s convenient.

Then there are those pesky dictators. However, the one thing that should have been made clear in the past two months is the fact that while the USSR for years had their bloc of satellite nations, we also had our bloc of satellite nations. The Soviet bloc was Eastern Europe, which, of course, we gave them at the conclusion of WWII, in accordance with our Yalta agreement. The American bloc of satellite nations stretches from Morocco in NW Africa through the Middle East. Those dictators who won't bow to us and do our bidding are labeled evil, perpetually demonized by us, and often compared to Hitler. Currently, these are Iran, Libya, and Syria, the latter perhaps being next after Libya. Those who obey us are allies, our friends, those with whom we have a “special relationship,” as Gates and Mullen recently pointed out. On much smaller scale, Bahrainis were crushed by our allies and friends in the Gulf at the same time we decided to get rid of Gaddafi. The timing was perfect. Too perfect, actually. In fact, diplomats from other nations have stated that such was part of a deal between the White House and Riyadh. If Riyadh would get the GCC, all of whom are our dictators, to pressure the Arab League to request help from the UN in Libya, a well-known enemy to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the US would give them the green light to crush the demonstrators in Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia. Saudi is top dog in the GCC, none of whom want any change in their fiefdoms. All Saudi needed was three other votes to get everything going rolling--Khalifa of Bahrain was already on board and less than half of the Arab League was even present for the vote. And while the US media diverted our attention to US ships sailing through the read sea to rescue Libyan rebels, of whom we know nothing, American supplied Saudi tanks and American trained Saudi troops moved across the King Fahd Causeway into Bahrain.

Interestingly, something that is completely missed in the US is that fact that in the Gulf and the greater region, Saudi Arabia is considered a de facto US colony. Gaddafi of Libya and King Abdullah of Saudi hate each other. Abdullah wants Gaddafi gone as does the US since Libya, besides having oil and lots of scarce water, estimated at about 200 years of the current Nile flow, was also one of five African nations that refused to participate in AFRICOM, part of our military doctrine of full spectrum dominance in which we've carved up the world into different American military commands. AFRICOM is the US African Command. Of the five African nations that refused to participate in AFRICOM, there is Western military intervention in four, and American military intervention in at least three that we know of. Additionally, in the Mediterranean the US Navy is denied access to the ports of only two nations, Libya and Syria. On thing certain is that our war with Libya is not for humanitarian reasons, and war it is since the mere act of attempting to establish a no-fly zone on a sovereign nation is an act of war under international law. The White House can call it "kinetic military action" and claim it’s for humanitarian reason, but no matter how we dress it up, it’s still a war and it’s for anything but humanitarian reasons.

One thing that going after Libya has accomplished has been to kill mostly peaceful demonstrations and calls for reforms elsewhere in the ME. While our attention was intentionally shifted to Libya, everything supposedly gained by the departure of Mubarak in Egypt was lost this past week as Mubarak's fellow officers banned further demonstrations and street gatherings. (Egypt’s dictator was never just one man but a military junta of high-ranking officers of whom Mubarak was simply the face we knew.) Also, our little dictators in the Gulf can now sleep easier, as can we, knowing that nothing is really going to change. In essence, the Arab Awakening is being crushed, which is precisely what is wanted by the various rulers of the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and members of the GCC and our other friends in the region.

Please note that I am not attempting to defend Gaddafi or any dictator, even our own. But the stench that comes from our hypocrisy as a nation in all this is almost overpowering. If we had stayed with what the founders had set up, we wouldn't have all these problems. But the more we meddle, the more problems we create for ourselves and the more freedom we give up. The truth is that the US has become far worse than the British empire America's founding father's rebelled against in during the Revolution. We have, using an appropriate phrase from the Bible, been as a dog turned to its vomit. We have become what the founders feared and abhorred. I agree with President Benson who basically said that we have apostatized from the founding gospel of this nation, which can be seen in part in the Constitution and the Declaration.. J. Reuben Clark, in general conference, after the conclusion of WWII, warned that if we did not change our nation's foreign policies we would become hated justly by other nations. Lord Acton stated that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The US, of all countries, comes closest to having absolute power, and we are addicted to it. And it has corrupted us. As Spencer W. Kimball said, we are a warlike people. And as with Rome, the Republic is dead and has been for some time. We are living in a time of America's world empire, yet so many of us don't, or won’t, see it. And lest anyone think that we are the good guys on the block, it was Joseph Fielding Smith who said the following:

“The United States is not the kingdom of God, . . . Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments [of the world] as far as the Lord will permit him. . . One master mind is governing the nations . . . it is Satan himself.”

Edited April 10, 2011 by Sean1427

[Sean1427]

ProphetofDoom,

Reading of your frustration with the Western media reminded me of a the description of the American media by the Israeli thinker, Uri Avnery. He perfectly describes the American media as "mixture of propaganda, news and entertainment." Once I began working in the ME in a non-government capacity I began to realize very clearly that all we see is what is framed by the lens of the camera, so to speak. I've got to where I actually prefer Al-Jazeera to American news outlets even though I realize that it, too, has its bias. And as bad as things are in the Western media, at least in Europe one can actually watch foreign news channels, which, of course, doesn't help most Americans if they don't know the foreign language. A DVD you might appreciate is Control Room, which was produced by Al-Jazeera and deals with the invasion of Iraq. At the end of the DVD, one of the producers states that the war was just like a Hollywood movie--you knew who the bad guys were, who the good guys were, you new the plot, you knew how it would end with the deaths of the bad guys, but you had to hang in there because you were so curious as to how the bad guys would meet their end. She made a good point that applies to much of our news. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the partial quote.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Sean1427

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Yet at the time Lincoln declared war on the South, after the latter fired on Fort Sumter, no one had yet been killed. Nor did the South ever try to overthrow the government, which is the nature of a civil war and which has been the goal of the Libyan rebels. The South simply wanted to leave the Union. But the North wouldn’t allow a repeat of what the founders had done during the Revolution. Result? About 620,000 Americans died over the next four years.

How refreshing to hear the correct accounting of this war! The 11 seceding states had every right to leave the Union, and Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to stop them. Somehow it's lost on today's generation that the federal government was created by the states.

Gaddafi has been accused of using mercs. But we use mercs all the time. We just call them "private contractors."

I hardly agree with this comparison. Right now, loosely marshalled bands of militia are killing civilians arbitrarily acting on Gaddafi's orders. Any security contractors we hire are still subject to the same rules of engagement as our military and abide by the Geneva Convention. Moreover, these security companies largely consist of military veterans and have, with rare exception, conducted their duties with the utmost professionalism. It's unfair to compare them to murderous thugs.

. As with WW I, which we entered late, we entered WW II late, well after the USSR had basically bled Germany dry. (We like to boast how we saved Europe from the Nazis but the truth is that Europeans give as much credit to the USSR. Worse, we forget that we gave the USSR all of Eastern Europe.)

This assessment is also false. Far from being late in the game, our contribution far preceded that of the Soviets who were rebounding after being invaded. By the time Soviet forces began liberating eastern territories, the German army had been routed by allied forces and were in a state of disorganized retreat.

Post WW II there’s been North Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. (I might have missed a few.) All of them have been third world nations with third world militaries. None of these are our own size. They’re not even close.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world when it decided to seize Kuwait. Regardless, force disparity is the least consideration when going to war, in this case, responding to naked aggression. Are we supposed to reduce our advantages to make it "fair"? It's actually the swift decimation by superior forces that saves lives in the long run by avoiding a costly war of attrition.

The truth is that since the end of WW II, Washington has had a very clear preference for picking on small nations that are nowhere near our own size. And we do so using our superior technology which they don’t even come close to matching.

This is also incorrect. We took down the Soviet Empire through strategic deployments that caused them to bankrupt themselves into a deafening implosion. Would you rather we entered into a more direct confrontation that involved a possible full scale nuclear war? In fact, its our display of strength that has a chilling effect on acts of aggression. We would be living in a very different world, one arift with bloody wars, if the United States didn't walk softly and carry a big stick.

When Obama says it's been passed to NATO that's just a game of words.

Careful there, friend. As much as I'd like to join your criticisms of Obama, he's now officially a candidate and by the rules of LDS.NET cannot be assailed.

Then there are those pesky dictators. However, the one thing that should have been made clear in the past two months is the fact that while the USSR for years had their bloc of satellite nations, we also had our bloc of satellite nations. The Soviet bloc was Eastern Europe, which, of course, we gave them at the conclusion of WWII, in accordance with our Yalta agreement. The American bloc of satellite nations stretches from Morocco in NW Africa through the Middle East.

The indictment of American imperialism is overrehearsed and undersubstantiated. Having allies is not the same as having direct government control over surrounding states. If the United States wanted to be an empire in the historical sense, as the Soviets were, there is little that could stop us. In light of our dominating forces, our restraint from conquering and annexing other nations is unprecidented in all of world history.

Interestingly, something that is completely missed in the US is that fact that in the Gulf and the greater region, Saudi Arabia is considered a de facto US colony.

Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation that determines its own alliances and economic reciprocities. To call Saudi Arabia a colony is to redefine colonialism from the context of direct military and political control of subaltern states to a definition that illatively considers any smaller nation allied to the United States to be de facto odalisques to the same.

Please note that I am not attempting to defend Gaddafi or any dictator, even our own.

President Obama the dictator? Now I'm getting a better picture of your mindset. Your arguments are now waxing absurd.

The US, of all countries, comes closest to having absolute power, and we are addicted to it. And it has corrupted us. As Spencer W. Kimball said, we are a warlike people. And as with Rome, the Republic is dead and has been for some time. We are living in a time of America's world empire, yet so many of us don't, or won’t, see it.

You threw me off by offering an insightful context to the Civil War that escapes most leftists and that seems to put you in the libertarian camp which features a stout isolationist platform. Your contemptuous language in speaking about America makes you sound like another moveon.org dunderhead. You have a skewed understanding of America's contribution to a better world, having been spoonfed a queered version of America's actions that turns hero into villian. The girth of your posts seems intended to dupe people into believing you an intellectual and intimidate them into silence, but I have no problem taking apart your arguments piece by piece.

[jdf135]

This is probably a well-beaten dead horse (I am new to the .net) but I hear no discussion about the morality of violent reaction to violence. The older I get, the more I could see myself as a consciencious objector (I'm too old to serve now). The Anti-Nephi-Lehi's are still my favorite Book of Mormon heroes. Bury the swords (fighter jets etc.) and let the heavens sort out the justice.

[pam]

I'm too old to serve now

Hopefully the 135 in your username isn't indicative of your actual age.

[zippy_do46]

Oh, dear, she has done it again. Run Pam Run!!! lololololol She mentioned age......

[Sean1427]

Saintmichaeldefendthem1 ,

While we obviously disagree on most of what I wrote, I do retract something you pointed out, i.e., my writing "any dictator, even our own." That was poor wording on my part. I was not referring to Obama, but to our dictators in the ME, as the context should have suggested. As for criticizing Obama, I was not criticiziing him per se. I was referring to the word games all politicians play, regardless of party. The political manipulation of language is, as Orwell taught quite well, always part of the game played. And it's played by politicians and media alike.

Your assumption that I'm one of those nasty isolationists doesn't quite fit my background given that my entire career has involved my working and living in the Far East, Latin America, and the Middle East. Hence, I'm far more international than the typical citizen. Of course, the term isolationist as used in America today was first used as a term of opprobrium that was used specifically to label Americans of an earlier generation who did not approve of our initial attempts to use the military to do abroad what America's founders warned us against doing. Hence, if J. Reuben Clark, an ambassador to Mexico, were alive today and saying or writing what he did after WWII, he would be branded an isolationist. Of course, so would David O. McKay. Politically, I've been a registered Republican and, much to my regret, voted the party-line my entire adult life. I'm actually an old-school Republican, or what some have called a Burkean conservative. Regardless of how I mihgt be labelled, I'm one who believes very strongly that the reason we are in such a mess as a nation is partly because we. as a nation, have, in religious terms, apostatized from our founding gospel, as I referenced in my first post to this thread. Please note that before I'm accused of being anti-American, I make a distinction between the America the Founders gave us and the America we are now living in; between America my homeland and America as the federal government; and between American values, ideals, and principles as opposed to what we actually do. And while I do believe in America's earlier dictum that America should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, I am very much in favor of Americans as Americans having dealings all over the world. In fact, I believe that one of the problems Americans have in dealing with and understading situations abroad is precisely because few of us have any real experience abroad. Of course, even then it can be confusing, perhaps even more so. The "girth" of my article, as you described it, is rooted simply in the way I write. I find it difficult to explain complex issues in a few lines. But to go from that to accusing me of an intent to portray myself as an intellectual and to intimidate people into silence is quite a stretch. No one needs to read what I post. I don't really expect anyone to given the length of what I post. All I've done is to post other ways of looking at a complex and confusing situation. I simply posted some of my thoughts, but I did so knowing that people are free to do what they choose. They can read or not read, agree or disagree. They can also ignore you and me and can and should do their own research, their own thinking and come to their own conclusions. As for what I wrote, I stand by it. But since this is not a place to debate with others on the forum in detail, and since doing so certainly requires more"girth," I see no point in attempting to counter your comments point by point. In any event, it's not as though I've come up with the ideas I've expressed on my own. But given my experience living in the ME, I do have views that obviously differ from those of many Americans who have never lived there in a non-government related capacity or otherwise. And because of my experiences I tend to agree with writers from all over the political map whose writings and insights come closest to explaining what I've learned by living in the ME and elsewhere.

By the way, one thing I do find interesting about your accusation that I have used the "girth" of my article to intimidate people into silence is that while you suggest in a public forum that I am likely an isolationist, the real irony is that the term you used, i.e., isolationist, has been used pejoratively in America for over a hundred years to intimidate into silence Americans who oppose or even criticize any departure from America's founding principles as they relate to our foreign policy. This term along with its cousin "isolationism" have consistently been used not only to silence such Americans but to marginalize them so that no one else pays any heed to what they might contribute to a debate in a true marketplace of ideas.

But for those following this thread who might be interested in reading more, let me share the following sources that simply share different takes on the situation. The writers who follow are among those who I tend to agree with based on my background. First, let me say that I tend to agree with Craig Murray on the reason for our getting involved in Libya. Craig Murray, worked for about 20 years in the British diplomatic corps and was the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan until about 2005. You can read about his background at his blog. In any event, he believes, and I concur, that our involvement in Libya is most likely an attempt to crush what has become known as the Arab Spring/Awakening of these past few months. If such is true, then everything else--oil, water, ports, Gaddafi's refusal to participate in AFRICAM--is simply icing on the cake. When Murray writes about the legality of our involvement in Libya, we need to remember that he is writing as a British citizen. For Americans, there is a constitutional issue, which, naturally, is of no concern for Murray. Paul Craig Roberts, as many here know, is a Republican and was a Reagan appointee to the Treasury. Lew Rockwell is a libertarian. Pat Buchanan, a Republican, is the first one I've seen who clearly pointed out that Gaddafi and Lincoln have something in common. Of course, Buchanan is also labeled an isolationist. I've provided the pertinent quote and a link. I've provided a link to an article by Eric Margolis, a respected columnist/author who has extensive experience covering the Middle East and the greater region. His articles and books on the region provide insights that are often missing in the US debates, but the specific one I've provided a link for addresses SaintMichaelDefender1 disagreement with respect to my assertion that by the time we had effectively entered WW II, Germany had already been bled dry by the Soviet Red Army. I do not expect anyone to simply accept Margolis' views. But it does provide information and food for thought that anyone can independently verify and come to their own conclusions on. Pepe Escobar, is, if I remember correctly, Brazilian but has vast experience covering the ME. While I agree with most of what he writes, I disagree on his statements describing life inside Saudi Arabia. I disagree based on my experience living there. His article "Rage Against the House of Saud" is what I'm specifically referring to where he describes what it's like to live in Saudi. For instance, his descriptions of Wahhabiism in Saudi and how expat workers live in "perpetual fear" in Saudi are way off the mark. But his descriptions of the way things work between the US, the KSA, and Bahrain are quite accurate. (By the way, NYTEKTCHR, who posted a greeting here from Saudi, e-mailed me telling me that she loves living in Buraydah, which is in the Qur'an Belt, the most conservative part of the country. She's a doctor from Las Vegas who's the first Western woman to tell me that she really enjoys wearing the veil! Of course, she lives in a part of the country where all women wear veils which is not the case outside the Qur'an Belt.) Ok, pardon my "girth" in all this but the articles I share below are for anyone who's interested in reading more.

1. CRAIG MURRAY’S BLOG

Craig Murray Blog Archive Cameron and Sarkozy’s Libyan Debacle

Craig Murray Blog Archive The Invasion of Bahrain

His blogs on the ME: Craig Murray Middle East

2. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The New Colonialism by Paul Craig Roberts

Libya – The DC/NATO Agenda and the Next Great War by Paul Craig Roberts

3. PAT BUCHANAN:

“Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"

“Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans – a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

“Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

“The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America.”

A Foolish and Unconstitutional War by Patrick J. Buchanan

4. LEW ROCKWELL

The Other Captive Nations by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Another Obama War by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

5. Eric Margolis (whose book "American Raj" I highly recommend) describes in the article linked below how Germany had the USSR was in trouble in 1941 when Germany invaded. But even though the US Congress declared war in Dec. 1941, it took almost all of 1942 to get us ready to enter the conflict. We used 1942 to mobilize which included getting production going, troop strength up, arming, and developing a wartime management organization such as had been used in WWI. By 1943 we were ready. D-Day took place June 1944. But the war began for Europe in 1939. Moreover, as to my assertion that we entered WWI late, we entered in April 1917 in a war that begin in 1914 and ended in 1918. By the time we entered, European powers were badly warn down, but by our entrance, a valid argument can be made that the war was prolonged. Incidentally, Margaret Thatcher's defense aide Alan Clark stated that the war could have ended in 1940 had it not been for Churchill's "obsession" with Hitler that prevented Churchill from accepting Germany's offer to end the war. One can say that something similar seems to be playing out in Libya. Read Craig Murray's most recent blog ("Cameron and Sarkozy's Libyan Debacle," April 11, 2011) on how NATO/the rebels, by rejecting the ceasefire, are now in violation of Resolution 1973, the same resolution we used to justify our involvement in Libya in the first place.

Feldgrau.net • View topic - Did Russia Win D-Day? Eric Margolis

5. PEPE ESCOBAR

Escobar’s articles on the Arab Spring/Awakening, which include articles on Libya and the KSA can be found here. This page provides the links to each of his articles. :

Asia Times Online :: the best of Pepe Escobar

Edited April 14, 2011 by Sean1427

[Sean1427]

More “girth” for those who might be interested. But almost all the “girth” comes from J. Reuben Clark, not me. For those who don’t know who J. Reuben Clark was, after whom BYU’s law school was named, I’ve provided a bit of background.

Clark was appointed assistant solicitor to the US State Department in 1906, which began his career in government. During WWI, he worked in the Attorney General’s office. In 1928, as Under Secretary of State, he wrote the Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, which repudiated the idea that the US could arbitrarily use military force in Latin America. He was US ambassador to Mexico from 1930-1933. In 1933, Clark was called to be a member of the LDS First Presidency to replace Charles W. Nibley. This call was unusual on two counts, one count being that previously counselors in the First Presidency were generally selected from within the general authorities of the LDS church, and Clark had never even been a bishop or stake president. Until his death in 1961, Clark served in the presidencies of Heber J. Grant, George A. Smith, & David O. McKay.

What follows was written in 1947:

“Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the [America’s Founding] Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we had peace. When we forsook it, two global wars engulfed us.

“It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: ‘Everybody’s business is our business.’ Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path.

“In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,--a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all that others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live. (i.e., the Golden Rule)

“Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace.

“What has our apostasy from peace cost us? . . .

“. . . America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left. . . .

“Our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now—and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually—and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation . . . , the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount, There is no other way.”

Interestingly, Clark freely admitted to being an isolationist when it came to how US foreign policy was even then being used. He admitted to fully believing in “the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen”; that “American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes”; that “ America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century”; and that “moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations” but that “we [America as clearly seen in the context--my insert] now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.” These are his words, not mine. He also stated that he was not shaken in his “convictions or frightened by the assertion” that “the doctrine of the Fathers is outmoded, and that we are now in a new world. All the age old forces are still peering out at us, -- greed, avarice, ambition, selfishness, the passon to rule, the desire to enslave for the sordid advantage of the enslaver. Not a single wanton face is missing and the visages of some are more hideous than ever.” Despite the technological advances, which would now include the internet, “we are just as we were . . We can and should mind our own business . . .”

Again, Clark’s words above are from 1947, just two years after the conclusion of WWII. He was speaking not just as member of the LDS Church but also as a statesman who had a wealth of experience in and knowledge of our international dealings.

[Sean1427]

J. REUBEN CLARK, Excerpts, 1947, US foreign policy

More “girth” for those who might be interested. But almost all the “girth” here comes from J. Reuben Clark, after whom BYU's law school was named. For those who don’t know who J. Reuben Clark was, I’ve provided a short background on him in the following paragraph before sharing his words.

Clark was appointed assistant solicitor to the US State Department in 1906, which began his career in government. During WWI, he worked in the Attorney General’s office. In 1928, as Under Secretary of State, he wrote the Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, which repudiated the idea that the US could arbitrarily use military force in Latin America. He was US ambassador to Mexico from 1930-1933. In 1933, Clark was called to be a member of the LDS First Presidency to replace Charles W. Nibley. This call was unusual on two counts, one count being that while counselors in the First Presidency previously had generally been selected from within the general authorities of the LDS church, Clark had never even been a bishop or stake president. Until his death in 1961, Clark served in the presidencies of Heber J. Grant, George A. Smith, & David O. McKay.

What follows after this paragraph was written by J. Reuben Clark in 1947. Please note that everything I quote comes from the same article. My inserts for clarification are in brackets.:

“Until the last quarter of a century, this gospel of the [America’s Founding] Fathers was the polar star by which we set our international course. In the first hundred thirty years of our constitutional existence, we had three foreign wars, the first merely the final effort of our Revolution, which made good our independence. During the century that followed we had two foreign wars, neither of considerable magnitude. During the next twenty-three years, we had two global wars. While the gospel of the Fathers guided us we had peace. When we forsook it, two global wars engulfed us.

“It is not clear when we began our wandering, nor is it necessary to determine the time. President Theodore Roosevelt was hinting our straying when he uttered the dictum ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ We were to force others to do our bidding. President Wilson had the full departure in mind when he declared: ‘Everybody’s business is our business.’ Since then we have leaped ahead along the anciently forbidden path.

“In our course under the new gospel of interference with everything we do not like, we have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,--a concept born of the grossest national egotism. In human affairs no nation can say that all it practices and believes is right, and that all that others have that differs from what it has is wrong. Men inflict an unholy tragedy when they proceed on that basis. No man, no society, no people no nation is wholly right in human affairs; and none is wholly wrong. A fundamental principle of the operation of human society is to live and let live.

“Yet, to repeat, we have entered into new fields to impose our will and concepts on others. This means we must use force, and force means war, not peace.

“What has our apostasy from peace cost us? . . .

“. . . America should again turn to the promotion of the peaceful adjustment of international disputes, which will help us regain the measureless moral force we once possessed, to the regeneration and salvation of the world. We now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left. . . .

“Our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now—and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually—and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation . . . , the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount, There is no other way.”

Interestingly, elsewhere in the same article Clark freely admitted to being an isolationist in terms of how US foreign policy was even then being used. He admitted to fully believing in “the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen”; that “American manhood is too valuable to be sacrificed on foreign soil for foreign issues and causes”; that “ America’s role in the world is not one of force, but is of that same peaceful intent and act that has characterized the history of the country from its birth till the last third of a century”; & that “moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations” but that “we [i.e., America as clearly seen in the context] now speak with the strong arm of physical force only; we have no moral force left.” These are his words, not mine. He also stated that he was not shaken in his “convictions or frightened by the assertion” that “the doctrine of the Fathers is outmoded, and that we are now in a new world. All the age old forces are still peering out at us, -- greed, avarice, ambition, selfishness, the passon to rule, the desire to enslave for the sordid advantage of the enslaver. Not a single wanton face is missing and the visages of some are more hideous than ever.” Despite the technological advances, which would now include the internet, “we are just as we were . . We can and should mind our own business . . .”

Again, Clark’s words above are from 1947, after the conclusion of WWII. This was a time when Americans were feeling pretty good about themselves. It's not a stretch to say that victory-celebration spirit was still strong. Yet Clark's words are not quite victory-celebration words that flatter us by telling us how good we are as a nation. Saintmichaeldefendthem1 suggested I was an isolationist and accused me in a public forum of using “contemptuous language in speaking about America” that makes me “sound like another moveon.org dunderhead." Yet one could make the same accusation of Clark and the words he used. But it becomes far more difficult to dismiss Clark when we realize he was speaking as member of the LDS Church First Presidency and as a statesman who had a wealth of experience in and knowledge of America's international dealings. Regardless of whether one agrees with Clark, one still has to wonder what he knew that we don't know that caused him to write what he did.

Everyone may now relax. No more "girthiness" from me. At least not on this topic. I'm going to relax also.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Sean1427

[jdf135]

Amen