When no WMDs were found in Iraq and Saddam’s links with Al-Qaeda could not be proven, they came up with another, even more absurd argument. The same argument is being used for attack and intervention in Libya. The argument was that we went there to liberate poor Iraqis from a very cruel, oppressive and murderous ruler and government. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard in my life. The purpose of it is to justify the violation of sovereignty of a country. I am not saying this because of my subjective feelings or anything else like that, the way most arguments were made by Bush administration and now are being made by Obama administration. I have absolutely definitive reasons for what I have just said. These are my reasons:
1) First of all we are not the police of this world. It is absolutely not our business what is going on in other countries.
2) My other reason is that there are at least eight major armed conflicts going on in the world, right now (Ref. Wikipedia article: <a title=”List of ongoing armed conflicts” href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts” target=”_self”>List of ongoing military conflicts).</a>
The article mentions that there are eight major armed conflicts going on in the world, right now. It also lists twenty other smaller conflicts.
We were already involved in two of those major armed conflicts and now we got involved in the third one. That means we are an active party in three out of eight major armed conflicts in the world. Is this what we want to be or we are supposed to be? An active party in three out of eight major armed conflicts in the world? And even if we are the de facto police of the world then, why only three? We should be dropping bombs and getting our soldiers killed in all eight places? Isn’t that the job of assumed world police? As a matter of fact, why only eight major conflicts. As the world police we should be policing the twenty smaller conflicts, too, going on in the world, right now.
This is ridiculous. We are not the world police. We cannot even afford to be. Can you imagine the cost if we were policing all twenty eight conflicts going on in the world, right now. How many of our brave men and women would have to risk and sacrifice their lives? How many American families will have to suffer? But, why to stop here? There are at least forty dictatorships in the world, including China? (Ref. Foreignpolicy.com article: <a title=”The worst of the worst” href=”http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/the_worst_of_the_worst” target=”_self”>The Worst of the Worst</a>
“A continent away from Kyrgyzstan, Africans like myself cheered this spring as a coalition of opposition groups ousted the country’s dictator, President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. Millions of lives have been lost, economies have collapsed, and whole states have failed under brutal repression. And what has made it worse is that the world is in denial. Although all dictators are bad in their own way, there’s one insidious aspect of despotism that is most infuriating and galling to me: the disturbing frequency with which many despots, as in Kyrgyzstan, began their careers as erstwhile “freedom fighters” who were supposed to have liberated their people.
I call these revolutionaries-turned-tyrants “crocodile liberators,” joining the ranks of other fine specimens: the Swiss bank socialists who force the people to pay for economic losses while stashing personal gains abroad, the quack revolutionaries who betray the ideals that brought them to power, and the briefcase bandits who simply pillage and steal.
” Why don’t we declare war with China and all these forty dictatorships? That will be a lot better and harder effort to spread democracy in the world and to rescue the suffering people around the world. Nonsense! We cannot fight with all the dictatorships in this world. It is not even our job. We cannot afford in terms of money, as well as in the terms of military power. We are there to salvage Iraqi people or Libyan people, is just the crepe that governments give us, so that they can justify this fooling around, with tax payers money.
If you give it a better look, there is “one thing common” between Iraq and Libya? And that is almighty oil! Yeah, that is right. It is oil. We cannot compromise the supply of oil to us. We must control as much oil production in the world, as possible, even if it means killings, wars, bombings, debt, deficit. We must protect the interests of big oil companies. We must make sure that, instead of finding and building alternate energy sources, the oil supply is kept intact, so that we may keep ruining our planet and it’s environment, with even more efficiency.
Beside all this, the war is reaching an staggering cost in terms of money, in the midst of serious financial crisis here at home and mounting national debt, mostly paid by borrowing money from China. AFP is reporting in an article, <a title=”Libya war costs $4 million” href=”http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzoQmo4zdFztUx5u0PMu8wgJ8cjg?docId=CNG.bdcc466199b06633a4adfe1136197b8b.371″ target=”_self”>Libya war costs $4 million a day: US Air Force,</a> published on Google.com that up to $500 millions are already spent on Libyan war.
There is another article published on dailybail.com It is titled, Debt & Deficits. Bailout News. Federal Reserve Corruption. These some of the interesting excerpts from this article:
Military campaign in Libya could wipe out GOP’s spending cuts
U.S. military operations in Libya could wipe out a significant chunk of the budget cuts won by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, defense analysts say.
GOP leaders have trumpeted enacted spending reductions that amount to more than $285 million per day since the beginning of March.
A Senate Appropriations Committee aide reported on Monday: “No word from [Defense] as of today.”
“We are working on cost estimates,” Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in a Monday e-mail.
Sen. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for “a full congressional debate on the objectives and costs” of the operations President Obama ordered.
“Congress has been squabbling for months over a budget to run the federal government for a fiscal year that is almost half over,” Lugar said in a statement Monday.
“We argue over where to cut $100 million here and there from programs many people like,” Lugar said.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a chief liberal critic of the mission, suggested in television appearances on Monday that the military campaign could cost “half a billion dollars in the first week.”
Great job President Obama and Secretary Clinton.