But no, it's us. We're bankrupt from our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can still afford to go into Libya - another Muslim country that will never accept us.
According to WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabia asked the US to "get rid of" Khadaffi a long time ago. Which begs the question, why didn't Saudi Arabia do the job themselves - why ask us?
Rush was mocking the old cliche that if women were in power, the world would be at peace. Well, Rush, if every country was led by women, that might be true. But because most countries are led by men, and because Muslim countries degrade their women, well, once diplomatic attempts have failed, what are you going to do?
One could hope that we'd go into these fundamentalist Islamic countries to better the lot of women - women in Afghanistan are in great danger as Karzai wants to get rid of private shelters for abused women, and have them turned over to the government - who will turn them back over to their husbands.
Any secular Islamic country that goes fundamentalist soon sees a rise in the suicide of women, as all their freedoms disappear, as they have to stop thinking of themselves as worthy individuals and have to start thinking of themselves as dirt, which is how the men in the country see them...
Anyway, here's a bit of what Rush had to say on the subject of why we're in Libya.
...Samantha Power. She is an ideologue who believes in military intervention for humanitarian purposes. "The future president reads a book by a passionately ideological humanitarian interventionist and quickly hires her as his key foreign policy advisor. Yet the obvious ideological implications of this are left entirely unexplored. Instead we are quickly reassured that Obama is nothing but a pragmatist." He knows what he's doing and he's so smart you couldn't keep up. You don't have -- none of us have -- the ability to understand what Obama's doing.
You're just gonna have to accept it: He sees a vision unlike any of us, and he is such a pragmatist. So don't explore any of these ideologue relationships he's got. Don't explore the relationship with Reverend Wright, for example. "There is a germ of truth to the pragmatism claim. Obama doesn’t seem to have a single overarching strategic perspective. Instead he 'pragmatically' juggles competing sensibilities on foreign policy..." I would disagree with Kurtz there but I don't have time to get into that. "Most of the commentary on Libya has focused on the tension between Obama’s apparent desire to displace Qaddafi and his reluctance to admit to it.
"But the chief reason for this intervention is the one that's staring us in the face. Obama dithered when it was simply a matter of replacing Qaddafi, yet quickly acted when slaughter in Benghazi became the issue. What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of 'responsibility to protect' in international law. ... Yet Obama has so far been reluctant to fully explain any of this to either Congress or the American public, perhaps because he realizes that the ideological basis of his actions would not be popular if openly admitted.
"If Obama were a different sort of president, we would have all heard about 'responsibility to protect' long ago." Not establish freedom, not do any of that. No. We're there to protect the downtrodden. Well, as I say, folks, if that's what we're doing -- if that's the primary motivation -- why aren't we in Darfur, why aren't we in North Korea, why aren't we in Zimbabwe? In fact, somebody ought to tell the innocent civilians in Arizona that we send in the military to protect innocent civilians; because they're under assault in Arizona, and this regime is doing nothing. So there's an ideological tie here. It's "intervention," military Meals on Wheels.
______
In the interests of Order and Method: My Schedule of Regular Posts
*Monday through Friday morning - schedules of President, VP and Secretary of State and her diplomats
*Monday through Friday afternoon - List of topics Limbaugh discussed on his program that day
*Monday through Friday througout the day - My posts on anything that I feel like talking about. At least one or two a day, sometimes more.
*Saturday through Sunday morning - An addition to my booklist of political books - covering Democrats, Republicans and other interested parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment