Where has extreme patriotism entered this discussion?
bcglorf wrote:By basing nearly your entire argument on your interpretation of a single quote from a founder of the nation.
Okay, that's what I thought you meant. I have merely been keeping my source material simple. I can quote other sources in the same vein, some from my country's past and others not. We are having a conversation, not writing books to each other.
In any event, have I deified my country's Constitution? Or Mr. Adams by quoting something he wrote and basing my argument on one, inconsistently applied, principle that has guided my country for scores of years?
Regardless, I don't think I agree with your definition of extreme patriotism.
Write what off? Which explanation? Reject what application today?
bcglorf wrote:Your quoting of John Adams as it applies to slavery. Where did the liberty of slaves fall, the liberty of others or our own?
1. If it was the liberty of others, then Adams was consistent and supported their liberty, but wasn't obliged to defend(fight for) it. I don't think I'm out of place then to point out that if American slaves didn't count as 'protected', the idea seems pretty weak and your mileage with the principle will be a lot better if your born a white male.
2. If it was our own liberty, then Adams failed to follow through on his own quote. Not a lot of weight there...
I did not apply Mr. Adams' quotation to slavery, that is your work. As I wrote in a previous post, Mr. Adams' quote can apply to any group we choose. Or any individual or group who chooses to take it up.
Mr. Adams wrote at a time when U.S. power was
insignificant on the world stage and only of note because of the successful revolution. Unfortunately for them, the power of the slaves to enforce their liberty was even less.
I don't see the application of your slavery arguments against what Mr. Adams wrote about liberty. Were the founders of the United States of America human beings and therefore full of contradiction and folly? Of course they were! So am I. What of it?
Why did President Obama not attempt to build U.S. public support and Congressional support before ordering the taking of lives?
bcglorf wrote:Quite simply because the Libyan people would've already been dead by then.
Perhaps. Again, he didn't even try to tie the survival of the Libyan rebels, or the properity of their revolution to American interests. And because of that failure, President Obama will probably never be able to muster public support for what must be done: invade Libya to remove its dictator.
Finally, I've offered a candidate funding mechanism and potential military forces who can remove Mr. Gaddafi, any comments about those?bcglorf wrote:I'm not much of a fan of mercenaries.
We need not be fans of mercenaries to employ their services. Unfortunately (perhaps), we have many mercenary companies capable of doing that which we desire. No nation has commited necessary ground forces to remove Mr. Gaddafi. Do you expect any nation, at this time or in the near future, to do so?
bcglorf wrote:Soldiers loyal to a nation, particularly a true democracy, have something holding them in check beyond the ethics of the guy with the deepest pockets.
True, what do the ethics of a mercenary soldier have to do with achieving the result we desire?
What is your suggestion for effectively removing Mr. Gaddafi from power? Continued stalemate?
bcglorf wrote:You also asked if I cared to try and convince you that the action in Libya is in America's best interests. Given that you doubt participation in WWII was even in America's interest I'm gonna answer with a no, I don't see much hope of persuading you on that front.
I must point out a potential misunderstanding.
If I was living back then, a complete counter-factual, I
might have thought Isolationism was in America's best interest at the time.
In fact, I have the luxury of looking back at the middle of the Twentieth Century and recognizing FDR's wisdom in preparing to fight the original Axis of Evil. FDR's actions were completely in agreement with the quotation I am using from John Adams. Other writers have examined what might have happened if the U.S. had stood aside from WWII, but those writers are also examining counter-factuals more as justification for what FDR and the U.S. really did.
Back to the original question: Is it possible to convince me intervention in Libya is in the best interest of the U.S.? Yes, hard, but possible.
Let's make it easier, then. How is Canadian intervention in Libya in Canada's best interest?
bcglorf wrote:If there is one point I wish to get across, it is simply that Obama's decision to deploy force in Libya was a good one. Quite possibly the first decent thing he's done as President.
Message received.
bcglorf wrote:Given his comments on Israel lately, it might also be the last. I insist that a genocide has been averted thus far by his actions, and that trumps the bypassing of Congressional approval in my book.
Message received.
I must warn you, you are in danger of desiring a result (Mr. Gaddafi's removal) and being not willing to use the means necessary (mercenary forces or something else) to achieve that result. Other than the completely ineffective rebels, no military ground force seems to be coming the aid of the Libyan people.
I'll repeat an earlier question: What is your suggestion for effectively removing Mr. Gaddafi from power?
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters