Thoughts on the whole Libya thing.

[RedArmy300]

I’m going to put this as bluntly as I possibly can: we aren’t the only country on Earth with the means to intervene in other countries.

We have no reason to nor do we have the financial stability to (though you’ve heard that argument before) and the only reason, the ONLY reason we’re getting involved in Libya and not Japan or any other country that’s citizens are totally incapable of efficiently fighting their probably US or former USSR backed dictators.

If you give me that ‘oh but it’s a racial thing and you don’t just want to help them based on their skin’ bullshit, you’re equally ignorant for assuming someone is being racist simply because he doesn’t agree with your annoyingly high-and-mighty views of America being the world police. To the one about us being selfish, granted caring only about one’s country I suppose can get a bit extreme but NATO – the front for capitalist interests – does not have to get involved in every ‘important’ conflict.

There’s Russia and its bustling arms industry of which it could easily arm the rebels with its surplus of Soviet era equipment, there’s China who could act as a peacekeeping force a hell of a lot better than the US or any of its allies can due to its sheer size, hell even bloody South Africa could set up some sort of arms smuggling op in Libya like Heckler & Koch did with the terrorists (Surprise: they’re still not out of business.)

Now why don’t any of the great non-NATO powers intervene? It’s because our government and corporations would throw a big ass hissyfit if anyone but us gets hold of the resources, if we aren’t one up on everything we’ll throw an international tantrum through our media and politicians giving one big dumb-as-hell ‘BAAAAAAAWWW’ over Uncle Sam having to give up one thing of oil.

Don’t believe me? Our old ‘buddy’ Bush threatened Russia when they retaliated against the Georgians.

In a nutshell: you ‘we have to save the Libyans’ people sicken me, take at least a little care of your own countrymen first, and even then there are other countries that actually have the decency to drop the heroic-BS and admit they’re intervening just to get a share of the resources. But you know why they don’t? Because of us, because of America, because we get red in the face and call them aggressive monsters and dirty pinkos and what not, because we enjoy putting embargos on other countries and propping up tin-pot dictators but completely distance ourselves from them the moment they get ready to go down in the name of ‘Freedom’.

I may have gone off topic but god damn it do you people honestly believe we’re the only power capable of armed intervention?

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Checkbook pacifism...

...we're against interventions that we can't pay for. 'If we had the scratch, we'd so be there.'

[RedArmy300]

3. Agreed.

But honestly we can go in for our own interests but why do we shackle the other non-NATO countries from getting involved? It's just stupid, the world would run a lot more efficiently without America's 'white knight who steals candy from babies' way of interacting with the world.

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. You *could* have a standing international force...

...to conduct such interventions. It would be cheaper all around, and pre-empt many of the objections to the UN/NATO actions in Libya, for example.

But a coalition of the isolationist, the frugal, and the sovereignty-obsessed will keep such a thing from ever coming to pass.

And DU would hate it.

If it were 1920, DU would be against US entry into the League of Nations, but not aggressively opposed, because the League was toothless.
If it were 1945, DU would be against US entry into the United Nations, more aggressively opposed this time, because the UN is only mostly toothless.
And it would have endorsed Sen. Robert Taft against both Eisenhower and Truman, because of his adamant insistence that US forces should never be used abroad, and that the US should not belong to any organization, even NATO, that would bring such use about.

[RedArmy300]

6. Sadly good ideas are not part of NATO policy.

As it stands I think we'll continue to see NATO lie and expand its influence just like it did by absorbing parts of the former Soviet Union despite promising Russia that it wouldn't do that, China may be oppressive but at least they had the brains to form the SCO to combat the expansionist international corporate-sponsored military alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Sadly the Shanghai Cooperation Organization appear to be almost as toothless as the UN...

[jaxx]

2. do you people honestly believe we’re the only power capable of armed intervention?

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies -– nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey –- all of whom have fought by our sides for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya

No we are not and no we didn't.

[RedArmy300]

4. You're proving my point.

The majority of those countries are NATO powers acting in capitalist interests or local powers looking to get a little piece of the pie, plus I'm inclined to be skeptical about the source you've sighted considering it is a government site.

[jaxx]

7. Nope, I'm not.

I'm saying we're not going it alone. NATO is doing it's job. Using the capitalist interests meme isn't paying attention to the facts, it's just the normal response that is expected.

LOL at the source stuff. Remember, this is the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, home of the DEMOCRATIC Presidents supporters.

[RedArmy300]

8. So essentially I should shut up and agree with everything Obama says?

Not buying it, especially since most of the threads I've read people are extremely critical of Barack and his supporters are a minority.

[jaxx]

9. Read it as you wish.

Many people here use DU to criticize, of course they have no answers.

[RedArmy300]

10. Neither do you.

That's the point of discussion, until something is proven 100% to be true there will be discussion on it, assuming your stance is completely infallible is a sign of egotism. This applies to me AND you but it is the other people I enjoy hearing from, not people whose stances are set in stone with no ability to compromise - again, like you and me.

[jaxx]

11. People can discuss at will.

Using facts is preferred.

[malaise]

12. K & R

Watch the unrec posse.