Trolling Not Allowed

Trolling Not Allowed! Comments from anonymous trolls are not permitted and are deleted if posted by the offending pest.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Why the USA is fighting in Libya.

Nice title, eh?

So, the question is: Why are we (the United States of America) intervening with military action in yet another foreign country's domestic matters, i.e. Libya?

You tell me, because I'll be darned if I know.

Our country's founding was based on the premise that the people of the country have the right of self-determination in the matter of their own form of government, and if the people did not like that government, then the people of the country have the right to change or abolish that government. Poorly worded, but I think you get my drift in paraphrasing our Declaration of Independence.

Okay, I understand that some Libyans are unhappy with their government and want change. And, the Libyan people as a group have the right to do so. That is the Libyans have that right, not America. It seems to me that the United States of America has injected itself into the internal affairs of many countries over the past 50 years. It does not matter to me whether I agree with the form of government in another country; it is not my country; it is up to the people of the other country to have whatever form of government they want.

Oh, wait. I seem to remember something about a country called Viet Nam. Now, what is it? Oh, yes, now I remember, We lost our military intervention into that country's civil war, as did France before us, and we (the U.S.A.) got our asses kicked. Now, the very same government that we opposed in Viet Nam apparently has full trade with the USA as I see many products on American retail shelves with the label "Made in Viet Nam." Lesson learned: Why is the United States of America fighting in the civil war (if that is what it is) of Libya?


CWMartin said...

While I'm not convinced on the vietnam reference, I'm totally with you on questioning this involvement. I see more similarities to the way the "drive-by media" painted the Iraq war after the fact. A "search for cheap oil" and "a way to boost sagging ratings". And Obama is not even doing a decent job of tapping into patriotism on it. It reminds me of a half-assed attempt to do what they perceive GW bush to have done. Without Rahm Emmanuel, they don't even get that right. And Hillary's announcement the other night just looked to me as if she was working from a "boy, I'm getting sick of having to go out and defend this little twerp" attitude. Maybe she's just sick of the job, IDK, but something was off in her manner.

That's why I would never have been a good salesman. I can't fake belief in what I don't believe in.

Timothy W Higgins said...


You are correct in quoting the inalienable right of any nation's citizens to self-determination (and not all that poorly). This alone should imply that no other nation has the right, let alone the obligation, to interfere in such self-determination.

If however, by some twisted form of reasoning and logic, we concede that one nation has such a right or obligation; surely we can agree that the US government has done a rather poor job of choosing its partners and battles. Anyone with the horrendous track record of failure in supporting winners and losers in the game of dictatorship should remain on the sidelines from fear of creating a worse problem than that which originally existed.