Amskeptic wrote:hippiewannabe wrote:Innocents are being slaughtered right now in Sudan, Ivory Coast, Congo, etc., and we do nothing. We can't save them all. In the long run, fewer will die, and liberty will have a better chance of taking root, if the Libyans do this on their own.
Oil is the difference.
Dick Cheney
I have no trouble at all with the thought that the international community can pull together to launch a multi-pronged response to Quaddafi, freezing assets, hard parts trade, targeted military disablement, come on, we are not stupid, we can and must help people trying to get free of assholes!
I listened to the President's speech last night. I thought it was actually quite good. And without coming out and saying it directly, he basically said what this was about...oil. He said the word "interests" several times in the speech - put oil in front of that and it explains why we acted in Libya, and not in Darfur or any of the other areas where massacres are occuring, and have been for years.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
---
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all - even in limited ways - in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.
It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right.
---
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help
Until the Western world comes up with a viable alternative to Middle Eastern Oil, we will continue to "intervene" in these situations. I am all for helping out people who yearn for freedom, but I'd love to see us do it in a country that doesn't have oil. It's not really in our
interest to do so though, sadly.
