Should the G.O.P. Presidential Contenders Support Military Intervention in Libya?

Bookmark and Share As President Obama leads America into military action against Moamar Quadaffi, this week White House 2012 asks readers if it wise for any of the potential Republican presidential candidates to support American involvement in the enforcement of the No-fly Zone over parts of Libya?

With ongoing intervention in Iraq and war in Afghanistan that are both based on a policy of preemption, the question is an important one. In recent years, the ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have given rise to bi-partisan yearning for a non-interventionist foreign policy, that would allow the United States to avoid being the worlds policeman. The issue is one which drives the loyal support of such potential candidate as Ron Paul, whose followers will play an important role in determining the Republican presidential nominee.

So in this particular situation, what would be the wisest and most beneficial position for a Republican presidential candidate to take on Libya?

Click here to take the poll.

Bookmark and Share

2 Responses

  1. […] while we are on the topic be sure to click here and take this week’s White House 2012 which asks whether it is wise or not for a potential […]

  2. Whenever Ron Paul speaks, Americans in general have a feeling that we are listening to an honest man of integrity whose actions and votes match his rhetoric whether they agree with him or not. Most Americans are cynical of Congress. He is one of the few they respect at least for his commitment to his values. I happen to know him personally and these people are correct. More often than not, I do agree with him and am buoyed by his candor.

    However, for many reasons, at times, his comments and positions do not leave room for exceptions and foreign policy contradictions and complexities that prove to immediately preserve or harm the United States. Antibiotics are poison but immediate preservation demand their use at times. And, at times, we understand that our national conscience requires action even at our expense. I don’t believe the question really is, at this point, whether we should or should not support, militarily, a “no-fly” zone over Libya.

    The first question, and most important, is whether, as a nation, we will continue to demand that Congress is the only entity to decide if the United States goes to war. Beyond the obvious reasons, and more basic even than the constitutional claims, is the world view one has. We either continue to support our sovereignty and believe, even though we may see ourselves as connected to the people of the world and other nations, we do all things in light of the impact on the United States. Or, we support the world view that “imagine there are no nations. . .no religions,” we hope and look forward to the day when we are just one big wonderful world.

    Well, my sarcasm gave me away; I held it back as long as I could. But, some would read this and say, “yes, we are one big world and it doesn’t matter the country from which you come. Why can’t we all just get along? No country is better than the other. We are all God’s people.”

    Perhaps in God’s sight, we are equal, but He nor I believe all philosophies and belief systems are equal or the same. Whether or not He agrees with me I can not always say; I do know that I am not Him nor would He agree with me all the time. But, back to earthbound decision-making limitations, I say the United States Constitution, the intended way of life through self-determination, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our law are the best approach to governance achieved so far.

    In this sense, I do believe we are better than other nations. And, even if I did not, I should be, as a citizen, bound to her preservation above all others. Therefore, I believe that before we can have a discussion about “no-fly zones,” we must determine the relevance of Congress

    Maybe I can be cynical too but, unlike most/many politicians I will not just pontificate but will actually give my opinion-now. I would like to see the United States stand up for freedom-loving people around the world. For instance,I wish we would have done much much more in Sudan a long time ago. If I was in Congress, all things being equal AND having a greater access to intelligence, I would likely vote to join the endeavor with considerations; such as the assurance we were not playing into the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan.

    We can not police the world but we can make choices when it is clear innocent people are in danger and we have the ability to engage without risking our principals.. Because, my friends, otherwise we make the same mistakes we have made before such as in Hitler’s Europe. We knew about and allowed millions of Jews, Gypsies and Christian to be gassed, mutilated and to suffer unspeakable acts of terror. We knew and did have opportunities to save many lives that we refused, in most cases, to take. This is a blot against our national character.

    When do we act and how?

    This demands much thought, prayer and knowledge.

    But before an act of war, Congress must vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: