Posted on 03/24/2011 8:59:28 AM PDT by Clyde5445
VAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well. All right, Governor, 20/20 hindsight -- should we have led this, participated in these air strikes over Libya?
PALIN: Well, I think the point is that we're not leading with the air strikes, and I think this is turning into much more than just allowing a no-fly zone to be enacted. I think there's a lot of confusion as it pertains to our foreign policy in Libya right now, and that's a frustrating for Americans, certainly frustrating thing for our troops. Our troops deserve better.
We've received different messages from our president and from his advisers as to what it is that we are doing there and what the mission is. And I think Americans are ready to hear, really, what's the mission. And are we really going to turn over command and control to the Arab League and to the British and to the French? And when do we reclaim our command and our control over our troops? So that's just one of the big questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Amazingly, even a noob like yourself can hit the internet. No kidding? They have different world views? Dudette a good portion of arab countries would still be rubbing sticks together to make fire if they didn't import Bics.
Correct. Plus, this is compounded by the fact that they have two cultural components that both are completely devoid of democratic philosophy; One is their religion, and their other is their (respective) national identity. To this point, neither the Arab or Persian philosophers of the ancient world spoke to what we call democracy. Democracy is a concept created by Greeks, and there's a direct (ideological) linkage between those Greek philosophers, and the men that were responsible for the explosion of democracy on the European and North American continents. That doesn't exist anywhere in the middle east, or the Hindu Kush.
The other oft-forgotten problem that ails the Middle East, and the Arab world in particular, is the element of tribal alliance. The countries that we recognize as Middle Eastern countries aren't very old. In fact, they're largely a creation of 19th & 20th century British Imperialism. So, when you look at many North African or Arabian Peninsula countries, they don't have much national cohesion because while they may all live within the confines of these imaginary national boundaries, they're part of their tribe first and foremost.
These tribal forces are what are mainly responsible for the problems in Tunisia and Libya, and to a lessor degree in Iraq. What we have learned (painfully) is that these tribal alliances cannot be undone, at least not fully and not without a tremendous amount of blood & treasure.
Thinking that you're going to replace one strong-man, and sprinkle some democracy powder, and the tree of democracy will magically root and flourish, is beyond idealistic and actually very dangerous.
Indeed, that is why the US isn't a democracy.....it is a Constitutional Republic. But you, being a lawyer, already knew that.
Let’s see. I have no idea what me being a lawyer, or the US not being a Democracy has to do with our misguided intervention that is Libya or even what any of it has to do with the post you were responding to. But, if it means something to you, terrific.
Apparently, your debating skills are lacking. Aren't you the same idiot that posted this..... "If you think that rambling diatribe is reflective of “sounding pretty clued in”, then I don’t know what to say. She says nothing about the complexities of the tribal relationships in the South & East. She says nothing about the significant presence of Al-Quada, and their material support of some of these tribal rebels. She says nothing about the need to get Congressional approval, and she says nothing about how she would accomplish the one goal she outlined - the removal of Quaddafi. But yeah, other than all that - “she sounds pretty clued in”.
Apparently Mrs. Palin.....in your view is not qualified to be president because....she agrees with the president, congress and the senate.
Hey, who am I to disagree with our resident expert in idiocy?
"Apparently Mrs. Palin.....in your view is not qualified to be president because....she agrees with the president, congress and the senate."
Sure, that ABSOLUTELY works for me. Whomever becomes our next President, the last thing I want from them to do, is agree with Barack Obama and the US Congress.
It's taken a while, but you're finally getting it.
No, no no. You aren't getting out that easy. You said Palin is a moron because she hasn't addressed the "complexities of the tribal relationships in the South & East." Among other things. So enlighten us. Who has addressed the "complexities of the tribal relationships in the South & East."? The President? Congress? The Senate? Why are you holding Palin to a higher standard than Obama? You have an agenda. Try being honest instead of a lawyer......(lol, like that will happen)
Interesting employment of a fallacious argument. Not credible, but interesting.
No, I never called "Palin a moron". I said she, in that interview with Greta, gave a "rambling diatribe" when answering Greta's question about what to do next. I'll stand by that statement. And, it wasn't rambling because she failed to discuss "complexities of the tribal relationships in the South & East". It was rambling because it was rambling.
"Who has addressed the "complexities of the tribal relationships in the South & East."? The President? Congress? The Senate?"
Absolutely no one that you have mentioned (or that has called for an no-fly zone to be implemented, or who as gone as far as Palin has in calling for Qaddafi's ouster) has spoken to the things I've touched-on. That isn't a defense of Palin's statement, or at least it shouldn't be. They're irresponsibility shouldn't be a prophylactic for Palin's irresponsibility on this subject, even though it would entirely convenient for you to do so.
If you want to start a thread about Barack Obama's incompetence, or the failing of Congress to reign in the overreach by Barack Obama, don't let me stop you. I'll be happy to participate. But, this thread is about what Palin has (or hasn't) said on the topic, and that is what I've limited my comments to - Palin's interview.
"Why are you holding Palin to a higher standard than Obama?
I'm not holding Palin to a higher standard, I'm holding him to the same standard. Obama is wrong, and Palin is wrong - which shouldn't be surprising but they apparently have the same position.
Fair enough. Believe it or not, you tend to be my “goto guy” (what did ODH say?) when matters of law come up on FR. Frankly, I don’t like nor want to throw down with you. But, I thought you were wrong on this one.
You resort to using fictional quotes, and now you're preaching about compelling arguments? That's rich. Tell us again how Palin "utterly fails as an electable Presidential candidate" because of the use of cross hairs and the AZ killings. You have proven that you are a water carrier of the MSM/DNC.
Cult of Personality that worships Sarah Palin
Cult? Worshiping? You PDS trolls need to find some new insults. These ones are getting stale.
You are right ... you have no idea, and, apparently, no sense of humor.
ODH, I appreciate your perspective and would love to make a full response, but I don’t have time for a protracted response, so here’s what I’ve got in short form. I never said there was a formal canon for candidate non-interference in ongoing military actions. That does not, however, preclude the use of such a principle informally, and I have, over many decades of observation, seen in some thoughtful individuals what looked to me like an unwillingness to second-guess the current Commander in Chief. You can say that dog don’t hunt, but I’ve seen it track pretty well. You, of course, are welcome to your opinion.
The other reason for some deliberate ambiguity is a lack of detailed intel that only the CIC and the inner circle would have access to. I saw Bachmann doing some careful sidestepping for precisely that reason in a Hannity interview in the last day or so, only she was more explicit that Palin that lack of intel deprived her of the ability to be definite.
As for your interpretation of Palin’s model for Libyan action, I heard the interview thought I heard a lot more uncertainty on some key elements than what the unadorned text reflects. And here I’m going to cop out and tell you I don’t have time to go back and verify my theory. I only remember that her FB post seemed a lot more clear. She connects well with voters as a speaker, but she’s a better writer than a speaker. I’m not letting her off the hook for it, but knowing how she communicates, I’m inclined to take her written position as a much better representation of her policy model. Anyway, outta time.
Except one more thing. I don’t have any problem with taking out Gadhalfi. He is a remorseless killer of Americans. Regime change isn’t about retributive justice, so while it does change the regime to take him out, that is merely the unfortunate side effect of his debt to us coming due. It is not regime change for its own sake, which I am sure Palin does not support, as she has repeatedly disavowed the notion of nation-building. She respects the nation-state and the mutual sovereignties that entails. Anyway, really outta time.
Fun talking with you.
Peace,
SR
I like Palin, she is still my favourite possible replacement for the bamster, but I am troubled by her position on Libya. I see no advancement of American interests in the Libyan attack, only a reluctant ally tossed under the bus and made an enemy forever. For her to try to make lemonade out of this disaster is short sighted of both her and her advisers.
She’s not perfect, but she does have quite a while to hone her skills in these matters. She has the brains and the determination to do it, and I believe that she will accomplish most of what she needs to complete The Palin Doctrine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.