I'm for intervention, even if there are certain self-serving motives intermingled into the justification*, if it can be limited in scope and not remain a long-term drain on resources. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan is that we got into this business of nation-building, a massive, corrupt welfare program. The cost was astronomical. I celebrated when Hussein was overthrown, but did not appreciate the long-term commitment to Iraq that resulted. Afghanistan seems to just get worse. We are stuck in a situation where we bribe corrupt and evil leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Therefore, I am pleased that Obama is not planning to send ground troops to Libya. I think he performed in just the right manner, with finesse. Of course, Republicans are too stupid to realize that, discounting the importance of diplomacy.
Settling a score with an old dictator sounds to me positively peachy. Who cares about motives? Yes, Libya has oil. Yes, that's a big factor along with the proximity to Europe and the Middle East. Get over it. The rebels are not complaining. I like the idea of bombing Khadaffy's forces to Hell. In fact, I regret that I am not involved in the military. I'd drop a bomb on Khadaffy myself.
[*] I am not sure what planet certain individuals live upon, but is there a case in all of history where anyone or any government acts out of purely altruistic motives? First, it would be necessary to examine the person who answers in the affirmative without equivocation. I doubt many could withstand a thorough examination of their own motives. I never question a good deed. The motives are not as important as the outcome! It is perfectly alright for someone to do a good deed out of purely selfish motives.
To hear Russia and China talk about restraint and ethics is just a bad joke.
No comments:
Post a Comment