Friday, April 1, 2011

Why Wouldn’t Kaddafi Cling to Power?

(* Note: I am posting this entry on behalf of John. -- Paul)

Why Wouldn’t Kaddafi Cling to Power?
by John
Let’s be honest and ask ourselves why we’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars to blast Kaddafi into behaving. Beyond the fact that warfare is a horrible thing for anyone to be subjected to, and it’s sad where ever it happens, what is our interest? President Obama recently said that it was to ensure that, “people aren’t butchered because of a dictator who wants to cling to power.”
Why is it our problem? We didn’t stop Stalin. We didn’t stop Pol Pot or Chairman Mao. Why should we be concerned which group of nut buckets runs Libya? Surely whoever takes control in Libya is not suddenly going to be our buddy. Grow up! Almost every American, whether he will admit it aloud or not, resents this war. Forget the hypocrisy of the politicians, the waste of our taxes alone has Americans unhappy about this North African adventure. At $1.2 million a copy, the first night of cruise missile launches alone set us back over $120 million. There is no gain for us, and the virtue of pulverizing one group of people who hates us to benefit another group of people who hate us is lost on me.
It is the administrations’ position that the Libyan president does not have the right to put down a rebellion. Whether it is a right or not those in power always do their best to cling to power. Let’s face a fact;
Rarely if ever does a monarch or any government willingly abandon territory or a source of income.
Charles III in France only ceded Normandy to the Vikings when he could no longer protect it, and giving it up seemed less costly than defending it. Hitler, Napoleon, even the Apache Indians hung on tooth and nail to every inch of their world. Territory is and has always been taken by force … or conceded by a weaker belligerent as a result of a political “cost-benefit analysis” decision.
We have only to look at our own history to see what a government will do to cling to its territory or sources of revenue.
The Mexican-American War was fought between April of 1846 and February of 1848. The primary motivation for the conflict was the idea of “Manifest Destiny,” meaning we believed that we were entitled to everything between the Atlantic and the Pacific. When gold was discovered at Sutters Mill less than two weeks before the end of the war, California was fast tracked to statehood in 1850… This is lightning speed for that process when you consider that Arizona and New Mexico weren’t granted statehood until 1912. A state was firmly U.S. territory!
When the South decided that its rights were being trampled by the federal government they elected to go it alone. At that time, there was nothing binding any individual state to the union. But Abraham Lincoln was not going to let the South, along with its huge tax income from agricultural exports do anything of the sort. The result was a federal invasion of the South and the killing of a quarter of the male population of the Confederate States. Clearly, slavery was always an onerous institution but the abolition of it was not imperative until the money from Southern agricultural exports was no longer coming into Washington.
I have heard justifiers of the current Libya actions claim that we have to intervene and at the least establish a “no fly zone” because Kaddafi must not be allowed to use military aircraft against people who do not have an air force and primitive air defenses.
I’m sorry, but have we forgotten what we’re doing in Afghanistan? Maybe we’re supposed to just accept that infantile logic, but unless I am sadly mistaken (and I’m not) the Taliban has never had any air force, air defense, or any other advanced weaponry which is why most of our casualties come from Improvised Explosive Devices (IED)… IMPROVISED!
We do not shy away from using superior weapons and we never have, not when there is something to gain or power to keep a hold of. We didn’t against the American Indians, Confederates, Japanese, Vietnamese, or the Taliban. It seems we are using our treasure and power to justify President Obama’s Nobel Peace prize by bombing the government of Libya into dust.
Am I the only one who noticed these discrepancies? Or maybe I am just an insensitive bigmouth by pointing it out so bluntly.

No comments:

Post a Comment