Wars Do Not Become Justified Just Because A Democrat Is President

Posted: March 20, 2011 in Current Events, Politics
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Yay!  A new war.  Just what this country needed!  So let me see if I have this straight.  We as a country do not have the money to fund NPR.  We as a country do not have the money to fund the IRS.  We as a country do not have the money to fund inspections by the FDA.  We as a country do not have the money to fix our bridges.  We as a country do not have the money to fund Pell Grants.  We as a country do not have the money to fund Head Start.  We as a country do not have the money for home heating for the poor.  But we as a country do have the money to not only fund two ongoing wars, but start a brand new one?

Obama has used up all the benefit of the doubt that I was giving him.  The one small nugget that I was holding onto was the fact that we hadn’t gotten into any new wars since Obama had gotten elected, and now that’s down the drain.  Heck, even when this was going through the U.N., I still thought that maybe just this once we would let the other countries handle it if they wanted to get involved.  I shouldn’t have been so naive, but I was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.  I was wrong.

Obama claims that this action is necessary because we must answer the calls of “threatened people”.  Um, there are “threatened people” all over the world.  If that’s the justification, you could use that to justify military action anywhere, including the Iraqi war that you, Obama, opposed.  Hell, let’s invade Detroit too.  Though it’s funny how we cherry pick which “threatened people” we choose against government force.  Apparently it’s ok for Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain to use its military to quash protests.  Guess which people have rights depends on who has the oil and whether or not they are supposedly our ally.

Further, while Gaddafi is no doubt a ruthless dictator, it’s not like he is responding unprovoked.  People have taken up arms against him.  Really it’s a civil war, which are rarely a pure battle between good and evil.  And while it would be good to get rid of an oppressive dictatorship, who’s to say that the rebel group won’t simply replace him with their own oppressive dictatorship?  There’s really not that much evidence that the rebels are any more “good guys” than Gaddafi loyalists.  In fact, it is very likely that some of the people fighting against Gaddafi HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN IRAQ.  WTF?

Oh, but Obama says we have a broad coalition conducting and supporting this effort.  Wow, that sounds familiar.  And guess what, it’s not any more true now as it was then.  The United States is doing all the work, like always in these supposed international military operations.  Oh, but this time we have support from the Arab League.  Well we did, for about 12 hours.  They have now condemned our attack on Libya, apparently because they were under the odd notion that military action did not involve blowing things up and killing people.

When it comes to our foreign/national defense policy, which was VERY important to me, it becomes harder and harder to tell what the difference between the decisions being made by the Obama administration and the decisions that would be made by the Bush administration (or McCain’s for that matter, had he won).  Obama takes longer before making the same wrong conclusion?  He doesn’t even make the pretense of getting Congressional approval before approving military operations?  Really, what’s the difference?

Ah, Cindy Sheehan has explained it!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s