Opinion: The Death of Internationalism

xmacro

Vulchor

laker1963

I promised to stay out of political discussions and will not vary from that. I will say on this point however that it is NOT the responsibilty of the US alone to do something about this situation. I don't blame Obama one bit for his position. Where the hell is the rest of the world on this issue, including Canada? The Brits and French want to go in but until these pencil pushers have wasted more time then they are worth nothing is going to happen. People dying at the hands of their "Leader" just isn't enough to cause an international reaction. The discussion should not be about who does or does not lead this operation, the discussion should be about the killing of people who thought the world would support them in their fight for freedom. As usual talk and perception win out over reality everytime in our society. We talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Shame on all of us.

xmacro

xmacro

beatnic

lilwing88

The Sniper

DSWarmack

fla-gypsy

xmacro

The Sniper

lilwing88

Amos Umwhat

The Sniper

DSWarmack

PuroFreak

lilwing88

Vulchor

Vulchor

Vulchor

THERE WE GO GYPSY!!!...You and I have agreed on a few things here lately. I may be thought of as the "bleeding heart", but I am really not. We get involved in toooooo much. If poltiicals was a big high school, the US would be threatened with getting its as$ kicked everyday for butting into everyones business...instead of just focusing on what effects us.

laker1963

stephen_hannibal

phobicsquirrel

xmacro

xmacro

Vulchor

Very good questions Macro, and I dont have a blanket answer (though I wish I did, as it would make life much easier). I think its a situation by situation decision, and with the info we have (reliable that is) and the numbers of people in the rebellion vs the state we are talking about----I just dont see (and I am not claiming to be the most well versed here) enough here for us to be involved. And to go even further as Gypsy stated, I dont see our interest here. I know there is the human factor, I understand----but these are tough questions and any decision will be criticised by some.

Vulchor

And Puro---I am aware of that, and its no problem. I was just referring to the kind of "image is everything" world we live in now---and those photos of Bush (father) and Rumsfeld shaking hands with him in the 80's just shows, in some way, its about our interest in most cases------dictator but helpful to the U.S. is USUALLY accepted by our govt.

Amos Umwhat

DSWarmack

So it’s not about the US? How many of you think that the French would have bombed Libya if we weren't willing to stand behind them. Who says countries can’t change their posture in the world? Bombing is a far different posture than surrender!

Amos Umwhat

xmacro:

I agree with you that we spend too much and are overstretched - but the problem is, who else is going to do anything? Is it morally right to let people be killed by a dictator because our Congress refuses to do anything about it's addiction to spending? Do we let dictators run free because Repubs/Dems are too cowardly to cut into entitlements? I'm just wondering where the line is - how much killing can we as a nation tolerate?

This really is the point, isn't it. Ideally, I'd like to see an Arab country step in and do what needs to be done, but there is nothing realistic about that idea. As DSWarmack points out, the French aren't likely candidates either, at least not without us behind them. In the aftermath, the question becomes; "Who will guard the guardians?", who will help us?