Comments on: Neocons Banished To The Backseat

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:46:47 +0000

I listened to the Michael Medved show yesterday and he was upset that the UN is going to lead the way on the no fly zone. He says that without US leadership this could lead into World War III. Typical neo-con language.

By: Graham Strouse

Graham Strouse — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:20:10 +0000

All that said, I am not & will likely never be a fan of the UN. Until last week, I believe. Libya sat on the Human Rights Committee. The UN is dominated by The Tyranny of the Majority. Thomas Paine warned us about this (using Bucks County, PA as an example, no less) a couple hundred years ago. He was right.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:15:19 +0000

Here it is:

I am somewhat fascinated with the Huggins’ phrase “no problem with the US going where it wants and doing what it wants if the action is to our national advantage.”

Comments:

(1) Barack Obama is the President but he is not “the United States”. In the field of deciding on war, Congress is “the United States” – and certainly NOT
the United Nations or the Arab League.

(2) In terms of collective action, the US is only allowed to act for the common defense. That is not to stop a citizen from volunteering to fight overseas for cause or for pay (assuming there are not violation of American laws or fighting against America). William Kristol can pick up an Ak-47 and head over to Benghazi. However, the US as a collective “we” has no authority to fight for a foreign cause.

(3) As for “national advantage” – most wars have been to our considerable DISADVANTAGE although actually taking over Saudi Arabia might be profitable.

(4) If the (Lockean-Jeffersonian) purpose of government is to SECURE OUR RIGHTS, it is very difficult to find any justification for most wars of recent times (apprehending “9/11 enemies” ish’t a blank check)

By: Graham Strouse

Graham Strouse — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:02:24 +0000

Also, the Uk & France DO have quite sufficient air power & more directly vested interests in Libya then the US. It would be better if they took the throttle here, along with the Arab League (and, in my fantasies, the IAF). Better that the US lend logistics support to this operation if at all possible.

By: Graham Strouse

Graham Strouse — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:52:02 +0000

Frankly, I think that Obama’s decision to push for a unilateral movement for a no-fly zone was probably the best call. I’m angry it took so long & that the Arab League was one of the biggest foot-draggers. The USN & Egypt are in the best position to clear out Ghaddafi’s air & armor. Also, Israel, btw. Let’s be honest, the IAF is one of the top air forces in the world at this game & probably has the fastest mission turn-around anywhwere. They also have a couple good reasons to WANT to assist. First, it’s good politics–making a few more friends in the region can’t hurt. Second, it’s the right thing to do.

By: NJ_Patriot

NJ_Patriot — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:21:01 +0000

I’m sure “Huggs” is real teddy bear. In the meantime, I don’t want my beloved Son to expend his precious life for the “national advantage” crowd – like this lovable, misguided jerk.

[He’s improving.]

By: NJ_Patriot

NJ_Patriot — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:16:11 +0000

…one cannot adequately compensate for a diminished intellect, morality, nor manhood with a blustering nationalistic bloodlust…

By: NJ_Patriot

NJ_Patriot — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:54:22 +0000

I suspect it was a preponderance of useful idiots such as Mr. Huggins who facilitated the “actions” of Lincoln’s leviathan state as they pursued their monstrous “national advantage” against the southern states. Shove it indeed.

[Huggs is a discerning reader; he’s been mine for going on a decade. One of his funniest quips when he began to come around about the war in Iraq: “I’d rather encounter the Revolutionary Guard than Mercer.” Or something.]

By: NJ_Patriot

NJ_Patriot — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:37:50 +0000

These United States have no legal or moral “national advantage” to action for outside of those purposes specified in the Constitution. A history of usurpation doesn’t change that fact; neither does any one individual’s lust for nationalistic enterprise.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:02:37 +0000

Anybody who regularly visits BAB knows, from my assorted rants, I have no problem with the US going where it wants and doing what it wants if the action is to our national advantage. Detractors, foreign and domestic, can shove it. BUT, the fools running this country, and I include most of the voters, not only don’t know when this projection of force is appropriate they don’t know to do it. I don’t know what we should do about Libya but I guarantee military action led by our Little Bo Peep of a president is probably not the answer. As Fred Sanford once said: “Tell me when and tell me where. I already know how.” Alas the Bamster is no Fred Sanford.