Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
-Thomas Jefferson

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
-George Washington


These unholy alliances with people who brutally "lead" their people has already bitten us in the ass. Each and every freaking president has followed suit, no matter what their leanings, and it hurts us, the US people.
It is because we cannot possibly fathom the long term consequences of our alliances that we should stop associating with any other nation as an ally. Equal trade, fair treatment for all, and leave it at that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_on_re_af/af_libya


Oh, so now Obama decides who is and isn't a legitimate ruler? So why didn't he say this 2 years ago? Our freaking political leaders are the most spineless piles of crap on the planet. That goes for left and right, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.
I get you have to be willing to adapt but this is nuts. So what, should we start saying the same things about North Korea? Some of the sub-Saharan African nations? If I were Gadhafi, I would buy 30 minutes of US TV air time and demand that Obama show his birth certificate or be considered "illegitimate" just to stir up the pot and tell him to mind his own business.

GPFontaine wrote:

Izzy wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_on_re_af/af_libya Oh, so now Obama decides who is and isn't a legitimate ruler? So why didn't he say this 2 years ago? Our freaking political leaders are the most spineless piles of crap on the planet. That goes for left and right, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. I get you have to be willing to adapt but this is nuts. So what, should we start saying the same things about North Korea? Some of the sub-Saharan African nations? If I were Gadhafi, I would buy 30 minutes of US TV air time and demand that Obama show his birth certificate or be considered "illegitimate" just to stir up the pot and tell him to mind his own business. Lets get a few things straight. 1. Slaughtering innocent civilians is a war crime. Murder is not the same as killing. One army or faction attacking another is killing. Killing those who have no means or desire to fight back with violence is murder. 2. The United States, Britain and the U.N. Security Council all slapped sanctions on Libya this weekend. (quoted from the article) 3. The Chinese government voted in favor of the UN sanctions. If it is fucked up enough that China votes in favor of sanctions, it is about as fucked up as it can be. They rarely if ever vote in favor of these types of actions. Personally I think the only military forces that should enter Libya should be those from the UN, not direct US or UK. However, if the UN is leading and requests US and UK support, then by all means, it should be given. But to directly react to your statement, this isn't about Gadhafi being capable or not, it is about Gadhafi requesting that tanks and airplanes destroy large groups of people in mass genocidal ways . Yes if 70,000 people are gathered and someone suggests that the best and only way to stop them is to bomb them and run them over, that person does not belong in power anymore... and in fact they aren't other than their control of weapons.

So because Kim Jong-Il can kill his people secretively or at least spread them out over a long enough period of time its ok for him to make people disappear? By the logic you're using here, Lincoln was illegitimate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shut you up or anything because I appreciate the counter point, I just know that this picking and choosing about when to speak up on such and such a dictator is a piece of the problem with our foreign policy. It's the same screwed up alliances and truces that lead to WWI amplified 100 times over. Eventually we'll side on enough of the losers to get enough of the winners pissed at us and decide to take action. Well, except that's been happening since the 70's.

GPFontaine wrote:

Izzy wrote: GPFontaine wrote: Izzy wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_on_re_af/af_libya Oh, so now Obama decides who is and isn't a legitimate ruler? So why didn't he say this 2 years ago? Our freaking political leaders are the most spineless piles of crap on the planet. That goes for left and right, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. I get you have to be willing to adapt but this is nuts. So what, should we start saying the same things about North Korea? Some of the sub-Saharan African nations? If I were Gadhafi, I would buy 30 minutes of US TV air time and demand that Obama show his birth certificate or be considered "illegitimate" just to stir up the pot and tell him to mind his own business. Lets get a few things straight. 1. Slaughtering innocent civilians is a war crime. Murder is not the same as killing. One army or faction attacking another is killing. Killing those who have no means or desire to fight back with violence is murder. 2. The United States, Britain and the U.N. Security Council all slapped sanctions on Libya this weekend. (quoted from the article) 3. The Chinese government voted in favor of the UN sanctions. If it is fucked up enough that China votes in favor of sanctions, it is about as fucked up as it can be. They rarely if ever vote in favor of these types of actions. Personally I think the only military forces that should enter Libya should be those from the UN, not direct US or UK. However, if the UN is leading and requests US and UK support, then by all means, it should be given. But to directly react to your statement, this isn't about Gadhafi being capable or not, it is about Gadhafi requesting that tanks and airplanes destroy large groups of people in mass genocidal ways . Yes if 70,000 people are gathered and someone suggests that the best and only way to stop them is to bomb them and run them over, that person does not belong in power anymore... and in fact they aren't other than their control of weapons. So because Kim Jong-Il can kill his people secretively or at least spread them out over a long enough period of time its ok for him to make people disappear? By the logic you're using here, Lincoln was illegitimate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shut you up or anything because I appreciate the counter point, I just know that this picking and choosing about when to speak up on such and such a dictator is a piece of the problem with our foreign policy. It's the same screwed up alliances and truces that lead to WWI amplified 100 times over. Eventually we'll side on enough of the losers to get enough of the winners pissed at us and decide to take action. Well, except that's been happening since the 70's. I don't understand the point you are making. You think we should intervene more often and more quickly? We are currently having some domestic monetary issues that are threatening our way of life... sorry to those elsewhere, but we need to fix shit here before we can fix their shit. Also, should we be fixing other people's shit? You think we should be dealing with North Korea? If you don't understand why we are avoiding it like the plague, open a history book. Or skip that and just realize that China is scary to our government and they have blocked us from fixing it. We might be the strongest country based on the most well funded military in the world, but we have finite resources and they aren't being used very well.

I think you are misunderstanding me.
My stance on this issue is along the lines of Syd, from what I've read here.
I am trying to point out how ridiculous it is to call such and such a leader bad/unworthy/etc. when there are many others who are worse. It was the same way with Bush and Saddam. The Saudi's fund terrorists more then Iraq did, but we hit Iraq anyway under the guise of national security.

So if we are going to interject ourselves into Libya's affairs, why stop there? N Korea is worse, there is still genocide happening across Africa. Personally I think we have a more vested interest in cleaning up Mexico then worrying about what's going on in middle east politics from a national security stand point. That being said, I still don't think it's our job to be removing dictators and replacing them with friendlier dictators.

I am not for isolationism, economically, it can't be done. But in terms of this spider web of allies, enemies, treaties, and truces, we're effing ourselves over. We should trade fairly with all but leave it at that.

Just to use Libya as an example: Leading up to, and after the Iraq War, Gadhafi was becoming friendlier with the west and the US in general. In a region where allies are scarce, we found one in what was once an enemy. Well let's say Gadhafi keeps power, all of that is thrown in the gutter and now he's probably even more anti-US then before. All because the president felt compelled to put in his two cents.

If we had stayed out of their affairs, all of this would be moot.

Syd Lexia wrote:

I'd like to know where you buy your Kool-Aid. We owe TRILLIONS to foreign lenders.

Amen. And anyone who doesn't understand what that means to our "free" political process is being naive.

They would still see it as US influence on their leadership. Odds are it either unites them against us or creates a civil war.
This is the reason we have been attacked by them. Without any real reason, we go into their country and put our stamp on things. Bin Laden would just use this as another example of American Imperialism.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/25/defense-secretary-gates-warns-against-more-land-wars-in-asia/

Quote:

"We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more -- we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged," he said.