Replies

Since when does the UN authorize the US to go to war?

Since one half of our fellow Americans believes in one world without borders and at least one half of the remainder do not care.

Do you remember how proud Bush Sr. was when he created a coalition that liberated Kuwait. It's been 20 years, a full generation, ago.

Everyone and his dog thinks nowadays in collectivist terms: as long as we sat down 'round table, shared our feelings, and came to a consensus --- all is well! Principles, our Constitution, the gradual submission of our courts to foreign ones --- all be d-mned 'cause we reached a consensus.

It is all about some delusional touchy-feely thing. Has someone, whether Europeans, UN, our government, even tried to tell us whom we are supporting in Libya or what kind of structure they see will emerge? The point is not whether to agree with their opinion but what is that opinion? Not a word of reasoning, but all governments are beating themselves in their populist chests, "We want to defend the pe-e-o-o-ple of Libya." Yep, all 50 tribes from each other.

I did see a point for us to be in Iraq, although I thought that Bush did a terrible job of communicating the reason for and progress in that war. But this is shear madness. I am still struggling to explain why conservatives, including Sarah Palin, would even think a second about supporting attacks on Libya. But they blame the President for not doing enough.

G-d help this country. I do think we are at the first stages of a thorough redefinition of the world, similar to the one that occurred after WW I. We may not even recognize our own country in a just a couple of years.

although I thought that Bush did a terrible job of communicating the reason for and progress in that war.

President Bush did not do a terrible job of communicating the reason for and progress in that war.
The enemedia did however do a terrible job of communicating the reason for and progress in that war...purposely and with malicious intent. Unfortunately, much of the info is not found in the archives.

I agree with your argument. The reason this is a war 0bama can love is simply that progressives need their enemies and will create them if necessary. The assumption is that one must by definition be morally righteous if one is opposing evil; the advantage to the argument is that it avoids an examination of one's own actions; the disadvantage is that it depends on the magic of inevitable historical progress in order to make things come out right.

0bama is perfectly clear who and what this is against. What it is in favor of, however, is conveniently vague. Who are we helping? What is their agenda? If we don't know this by the time the shooting starts we're already in too deeply. We saw a similar lack of deliberation when the progressives spent so much moral capital demonizing the Shah and simply assuming that anything that would follow after would inevitably be an improvement. It wasn't. We saw it with respect to Cuba, to Vietnam, to Bosnia, to Zimbabwe and Uganda. They don't learn because they aren't thinking, they're feeling their way through life.

We saw it in Bush Sr, whose need to maintain a coalition led us to cease fire in Iraq too soon. We saw it in his son, who wasted 14 months attempting to obtain UN approval for his own actions and paid when that proved enough time for Saddam to cover his tracks. It isn't restricted to party; it is restricted to internationalists whose allegiance is to something nobler and greater than nationalism but whose blind spots are commensurately expanded. The upshot is that people who are volubly in favor of peace and love and harmony are perfectly willing to kill other people who are insufficiently utopian.

Worst of all, we simply do not have a strategic objective in this thing: neither to eliminate an extant threat nor to advance any U.S. interests. We're doing it because it makes 0bama and his little coterie of internationalists look and feel good. And that simply is not an adequate reason to kill people.