Ya know, the American flag has been used as such a patriotic supremacy weapon by the right wing, so much so that many people on the left used to feel that it was a symbol of bullying nationalism.
But today, for this leftist, the American flag symbolizes those Americans who want to bring equity to our nation. Those Americans who realize we need a revolution to restore prosperity to our communities and culture. Those Americans who put American lives before money. Those Americans who think American companies should pay American taxes.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Dissecting the babble around Libya
Obama has said all along that he and NATO want to remove Gadafi, there’s no hiding that. Both Clinton and Obama, and the military, have admitted that this isn’t just humanitarian, it’s in NATO’s interest and our interest for Middle East stability. We failed in Somalia, so we avoid ground wars in the Ivory Coast, et al. Yes, we are making a difference when we CAN. The other option is isolationism and not making a difference at all.
Destroying Gadafi’s military is both practical and moral when he was about to kill thousands of people with the machines NATO sold him!!! Other dictators are working with us to find enemies of our country, so we’re not bombing them (and anyway, do we really want to bomb every leader that sucks?)
I think the hard left imagined a dove and ignored (or never supported) the hawk that is Obama (and Clinton, by G-d). And they are pissed, rightfully, at our bloated military spending compared to our social spending. Yeah, that sucks, but it doesn’t make our actions in Libya unjust, and I’m actually relieved that the military had a slush fund to join NATO to bring justice to some Muslims. That’s very important, I think, to strengthen peace within the Muslim world.
So I find it hard to stomach people on the left advocating that we shouldn’t have intervened here because we aren’t intervening in the Ivory Coast, and that we can’t afford any of it. This is exactly the same position as people on the right who don’t give a flop about humanitarian issues. How can they all ignore a chance to stop a massacre?
So the right (and left) are rightfully complaining that Obama should have had a debate in the House, yet every House member is untied to this action and is willing to take whatever position in the winds on this issue. But only the left really consistently demands this Constitutional process. Many on the right want and would defend the commander in chief acting unilaterally whenever he f-ing wants to bomb somebody–just not when the CIC is a Democrat. During the campaign, Obama and Clinton joined all the right wing candidates reassuring America that each had the ability to start bombing on a moment’s notice! MOST Americans wanted that comfort and now act angry that he used the power they want! COME ON!
Obama is making good decisions (except for violating the Constitutional process–but that’s arguable too) and he’s using our military wisely, and NO ONE can predict or plan for all the “WHAT IFS.” That’s a hollow criticism. The other argument on the right is that we should not be a contributing member of NATO. They code this in comments like, "This is what England and France wanted, are we their lap dog?" sort of thing. They really think we don’t need allies and we’ll still have influence in the world?? Illogical, irrational, unobservant, frustrating nonsense!
Destroying Gadafi’s military is both practical and moral when he was about to kill thousands of people with the machines NATO sold him!!! Other dictators are working with us to find enemies of our country, so we’re not bombing them (and anyway, do we really want to bomb every leader that sucks?)
I think the hard left imagined a dove and ignored (or never supported) the hawk that is Obama (and Clinton, by G-d). And they are pissed, rightfully, at our bloated military spending compared to our social spending. Yeah, that sucks, but it doesn’t make our actions in Libya unjust, and I’m actually relieved that the military had a slush fund to join NATO to bring justice to some Muslims. That’s very important, I think, to strengthen peace within the Muslim world.
So I find it hard to stomach people on the left advocating that we shouldn’t have intervened here because we aren’t intervening in the Ivory Coast, and that we can’t afford any of it. This is exactly the same position as people on the right who don’t give a flop about humanitarian issues. How can they all ignore a chance to stop a massacre?
So the right (and left) are rightfully complaining that Obama should have had a debate in the House, yet every House member is untied to this action and is willing to take whatever position in the winds on this issue. But only the left really consistently demands this Constitutional process. Many on the right want and would defend the commander in chief acting unilaterally whenever he f-ing wants to bomb somebody–just not when the CIC is a Democrat. During the campaign, Obama and Clinton joined all the right wing candidates reassuring America that each had the ability to start bombing on a moment’s notice! MOST Americans wanted that comfort and now act angry that he used the power they want! COME ON!
Obama is making good decisions (except for violating the Constitutional process–but that’s arguable too) and he’s using our military wisely, and NO ONE can predict or plan for all the “WHAT IFS.” That’s a hollow criticism. The other argument on the right is that we should not be a contributing member of NATO. They code this in comments like, "This is what England and France wanted, are we their lap dog?" sort of thing. They really think we don’t need allies and we’ll still have influence in the world?? Illogical, irrational, unobservant, frustrating nonsense!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)