Considering that Africa is a continent and not a country I'm rather puzzled as to what country is being referred to. If we refer to nations with humanitarian issues it relates to most of the countries in the world and we should first and foremost be concerned with the humanitarian issues in the United States. We can't even afford to take care of the American People much less most of the world population. We have a current deficit of about $1.5 trillion and I can't believe that anyone, Republican, Democrat or independent would be calling on the Obama adminstration to spend more money we don't have on matters which are not a responsibility of the US government under the Constitution. Republicans especially don't have a dog in this hunt with their Congressional demands for deficit reductions and a balanced budget as such a position would be absolute hypocracy. The issues with Syria need to be addressed by the United Nations and not the United States and, in fact, this entire matter is being addressed by the United Nations. That's where the report originated and the United Nations is the treaty organization delegated with the responsibility to deal with this and similiar matters, not the United States. We could, if we choose to do so, address all of the world humanitarian issues that were ignored by the former Bush Adminstration such as Darfur! As I've noted there are no fundamental differences in foreign policy under the Obama adminstration and the former Bush adminstration as both resort to selective interventionism. This goes back even further as we've never addressed the violations of the Rights of the non-Jewish population of Palestine since 1948 because of our "selective" interventionism. Why are we not addressing the nuclear threat to all mankind presented by India, Pakistan and Israel which all have nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT? Why did we not address the humanitarian issues in literally hundreds of countries for decades?
syria is an oil producing nation and it seems as liberal as the UN is they are rational and know their countries are becoming more dependent on oil. these stories bring national interests in support of war and that helps government goals of securing the oil market
Is this also a demand for an increase in taxes? First, of course, we would need to endorse an increase in taxes of over $1 trillion a year to pay for current expendatures and then an additional increase in taxes to pay for the cost for the military operation. This is apparently also a demand that the Obama adminstration violate the US Constitution as it did with military interventionism in Libya. Is this a reinteration of the alleged statement by former President Bush that the US Constitution is "just another god-(*)(*)(*)(*)ed piece of paper" that should be ignored whenever it doesn't suit someone's agenda? Bottom line is that the US government has no Constitutional authority to intervene and the United States can't afford to intervene.
Come on Shiva, I don't think you keep responding to me if you think I can't understand the difference between a continent and individual countries.... You should understand that we actually have a very large African policy, mostly set by the last administration, and picked up and expanded by the current administration. That also includes the difference between North Africa, Saharan Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. We have our noses in places it doesn't belong, thanks to Obama. The Lords Resistance Army is no threat to us, yet we have troops on the ground to stop them? I don't know how much or often you check out the mainstream media, but just last week there were about 6 articles on rapes in Congo, in truth, a very lame attempt to garner support for it, but there is no other interest for the US, simply Obama's moral proagative... which does not follow the pattern of US foreign policy for centuries, that clown is way too dangerous to have another term...
Then you are not aware of how Obamas administration is driving the whole eastern world to disaster. He didnt refrain from attacking Libia under more that suspicius circumstances, the official press keeps pointing out to any movement in Syria or Irn when we know there are people working for the CIA in every muslim country to cause mayhem, And worst of all, he has made with OTAN dangerous advance against Russia with the missile shield or whatever is its name. And he is not telling you of the problem that represents, denounced here by the same Russian Prime Minister: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBf0I-rB0m0&feature=BFp&list=PL127F47E8C6F38580"]ÐаÑвление о ÑиÑÑаÑии вокÑÑг евÑопейÑкой ÐÐ Ð - YouTube[/ame] Still think that Obama is not driving us to a 3rd.World War? ..well, then he is a dangerous puppet.
So the argument is that the Obama administration has continued and expanded the foreign policies of the former Bush adminstration and that he should continue this expansion of US military interventionism even though the US Constitution doesn't authorize it nor can the American taxpayers afford it? I would agree that Obama should not be re-elected just as former President Bush who violated our treaty obligations as a member of the United Nations with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq shouldn't have been re-elected in 2004. I have no argument with this. I didn't vote for Bush, I didn't vote for Obama (or McCain who was worse than even Obama) but I don't see a viable candidate I would support in the current batch of Republican candidates. There are only two possible Republican candidates I'd support and that might be Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (who's been excluded from the Republican debates) as both support a change in US foreign policy to remove the US military from foreign bases and ending US interventionism in the sovereign affairs of other nations. Neither of these two candidates appear likely to be nominated by Republicans. As I've noted there isn't much of a difference between Obama's selective foreign policy and that of former President Bush and neither should ever have been elected as president. About the only change in foreign policy has been the elimination of torture that occured under the Bush adminstration (a crime against humanity that the former president should be prosecuted for by the International Court of Justice) but this actually stopped under Bush once it was exposed to the American People.
Shiva please, if we are going to talk about people that shouldn't have been re-elected because of treaty violations you have to go back to Clinton. That was beyond blatant in regards to Rwanda... We simply are no longer a nation of laws. Haven't been been since Clinton. Obama's selective policy is based on 'morality' without the necessary US interests that past executives have always had. The Bush program in Africa was always centered on international threats, the Obama program now extends to merely inter-Africa threats, without any threat to the US interests, it stupid, its what will drag us into things like Syria, and then Darfur, and then where???? What's even more f'd up is the very same people that support Obama rejected the concept of the US being 'global police' force, and now they favor it...
The violations of treaty obligations, which carry the same weight as US law, and violations of the US Constitution were going on long before Clinton. No nation in Africa directly threatens the United States and, in fact, today no nation presents a creditable threat to the United States. Even during the Cold War there was never a threat of an invasion of the United States by the USSR. Let is simply refer to the US Constitution where the only authority related to the US military is Article I Section 8 where it delegate the responsibility of the US government to provide for the "common Defence... of the United States." US military interventionism in nations that have no intention of attacking the United States is unconstitutional, period. Lacking an actual attack on the United States by a foreign nation any military action without a joint Declaration of War by Congress is unconstitutional. We haven't had a "Constitutional" war since WW II. I oppose any violation of the US Constitution in the actions of our government. I don't see how any American can support the violation of the US Constitution by any adminstration. Isn't it about time we start demanding that the US government comply with the Constitution as opposed to always seeking ways to circumvent it? If we want to change the roles and responsibilities of the US government then get an Amendment to authorize it as provided for in Article V.
Not really, Clinton was the first purely post-Cold War president, as it ended under GHW Bush. In the bi-polar Cold War, UN treaties and such were a joke, the ability to veto any action by one side or the other created that situation. Clinton had the ability to end a genocide, but didn't, and fought over semantics to get himself out of it. The treaty is pretty clear, but I would applaud Clinton for the decision, as there was NO US interest in going into Rwanda. Obama on the other hand is sending our troops into places where we have zero interests, it makes no sense...
The CIA has been creating mayhem in countries around the world since WW II. We can go back to Iran in the 1950's under Ike or support for the Contras under Reagan in the 1980's. We can document CIA created mayhem by every adminstration since WW II. While Obama and the NATO forces exceeded the authority granted the UN Security Council authorizes limited military interventionism in Libya. The UN Security Council did not authorize the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq under Bush. Of note Obama also violated the US Constitution by authorizing the use of the US military in Libya without a joint declaration of war by Congress as did Bush in both Afghanistan and Iraq as Congress cannot delegate the authority to declare war to the President which it did in both cases and the Congress cannot violate UN treaty obligations of the United States. It can withdraw the US from a treaty but Congress never withdrew the US from the United Nations. Once again I'll repeat. We should not be endorsing any actions by the US government which violate the US Constitution, period. Why do some continue to support the violations of the Constitution by any adminstration? The problem is CIA and US military interventionism and has been since WW II. It is the reason behind the terrorist threat against the United States which resulted in the terrorist attacks against the WTC in 1993, the US African embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and the attacks on 9/11. All of this has been documented by the NIE which is the combined report of all US intelligence agencies. Why do we allow our government to create threats against us that result in infringements on our Consitutional Rights such as the Patriot Act?
There is no US interest in going into Syria (or Libya or Iraq or being involved in the Gulf War) either so why is there a lack of consistancy in opinion?
Great post! Most Americans only look at actions done by others. They ignore what we have done in the past. I guess they still want to believe in the GI Joe like reality were we can do no wrong. Go Joe!
I believe this is merely a reflection of the fact that partisanship has polarized much of America today. For a Republican anything that President Obama does, even if it's virtually identical to what former Bush did, then it's wrong and leading to the destruction of the United States. For Democrats if President Obama does something, even if it's grossly wrong and a violation of the Consitution, then it's acceptable and everything wrong today is Bush's fault. I have lots of things that I can condemn both President Obama for as well as former President Bush. The Bush adminstration authorize torture which resulted in at least two cases of murder which is considered both a War Crime and a Crime Against Humanity under internation law, a violation of Title 18 under US statutory law and a violation of the Constitution. President Obama authorized the extra-judicial murder of a US citizen which is also a violation of internation law, a violation of US statutory law and a violation of the Constitution. Both deserved to be impeached, removed from office and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I believe we should all be first and foremost Americans dedicated to the ideals upon which America was founded. We should demand absolute complaince with the US Constitution by every adminstration regardless of party affiliation. Many seem to have forgotten that they're Americans first and aligned with political parties second. They now assume that the political party is more important than the ideals of America. That is really sad and we see it in this thread where consistancy of beliefs is corrupted by partisan agenda.
Do you live in an alternate version of reality? We have had one president who put our troops in danger on what they said were moral grounds alone!! Remember? We invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy, and because Saddam was a really big meanie!! Obama on the other hand hasn't put a single new troop in danger in any country we weren't already involved in before his presidency started!! Obama's failure is in continuing many of Bush's policies, which proved themselves to be extreme failures!! Not in radically changing foreign policy, where only moral grounds are considered!! PS. If you actually believe Libya was about moral issues, you are naive beyond imagination. Though similarly Iraq was not about moral grounds either, that is just what the liars in the Bush administration said. The difference is we put 0 troops into Libya.
Actually the US put 4 US troops on the ground in Libya. Only a minor technical error though. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/us-boots-on-ground-in-libya-pentagon-confirms/ The only important question is how many Libyans were killed because of US military actions?
Thats Leftys for ya.... I thought for sure Obama would bomb them to keep them safe from their government....
Of course I would because I don't think either of them is our business. His inconsistency is Obama placing a target on this own backside, just right for kicking!
I don't think so, because the alternative argument could be made that more would have died without our(UN) intervention. The question is over whether or not it is our business!! There is a very popular assumption in America, that we can intervene wherever we like if it is in our interests, or even the interests of others. That assumption seems to lie on the conclusion that we own the world, and are therefore justified in intervening wherever we choose!! People who reject that conclusion have a hard time justifying our decisions to intervene militarily in whatever countries we see fit!!
My lord, the world really is turning upside down!! So when a Democratic president intervenes to "support democracy, freedom, and human rights" in Libya, it is none of our business? Would you like me to go into your posting history to find you saying the very opposite about Iraq? Or is it even necessary at this point!! The blatant hypocrisy of partisan hacks of all stripes would be funny, if it wasn't so eerily Orwellian!!
This is an invalid argument because UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was not complied with by either NATO or the rebel forces. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution The rebel forces at no time stopped their attacks on the Libyan military forces in compliance with the UNSC requirement for a cease-fire. Resolution 1973 did not authorize military actions in support of rebel forces and the fact that from the very first day of military operations NATO took side with the rebels resulted in the continuation of hostilities which lead to more deaths than if the Resolution had been followed. The NATO actions in support of the rebels increased their attacks on the Libyan military forces which lead to an escallation of the conflict and prevented a diplomatic resolution that would have saved lives. I would argue that it might be an assumption held by some that the US has the right to invervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations but that it not a popular assumption held by most people of the world and cannot be justified based upon the US Constitution.
All the Syria matter is a fake, See this: http://rt.com/news/syria-lies-interview/ and this for a broader perspective: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gqq-FFgJM"]lies about syria - more than 11 million all over syria supporting our presidant - YouTube[/ame]
You believe Syrian state propaganda?? The reality is far more complex Than you are making it seem. While it is true Assad has strong support among alawites, as well as among people in Damascus and Allepo, he is widely hated outside those places. There are popular uprisings against his rule in Places likes Homs, and the government IS repressing them violently. You need to complicate your view of the situation!!
US is the biggest consumer of oil for the next 100 years, any oil producing region is vital to operations if it becomes unstable or against our interests we have to keep longer term gas prices lower by invading countries like Syria, stories about how they treat children only help public opinion towards war
If we address both the direct and indirect death toll that resulted from US involvement in the Gulf War and subsequent US actions that originated from the Gulf War there were over 10,000 Americans killed and perhaps as many as 2 million others. This doesn't even include the many tens of thousands of American casualties that didn't die but will suffer physical and mental disabilities for the rest of their lives. As a veteran I wouldn't exchange a single US soldier's life for a million barrels of oil and would condemn anyone that would even make a suggestion that we should do so. I certainly can't condone the murdering of others so that we can take the natural resources from their country. We don't own foreign oil, period. We can purchase it if the nation that owns it wants to sell it to us but if not then it doesn't belong to us. If the entire world turned off the oil supply to America today we would overcome that problem. We need to face the fact that oil is going to become more and more expensive over time as the world's supply is depleted. Whether it happens today or in 100 years makes no difference. America can and will survive without foreign oil. Killing and dying for it makes no sense whatsoever. BTW former President George GW Bush did not involve the US in the Gulf War for oil. He involved the US because the royal families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were personal friends and former business associates. It didn't have anything to do with opposing tyranny as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were more tyrannical than Iraq and it didn't have to do with oil because the US could have purchased all of the oil it wanted from Iraq after Iraq took over the Kuwaiti oil fields. The Gulf War actually reduced the available oil supplies at the time and increased prices.
