Majority of Americans Support Military Intervention

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism



It's official. Americans, by a 68% majority favor our nation acting irrationally and irresponsibly. The overwhelming support for our  unjustified and unethical interventionist military action against the sovereign state of Libya is most troubling. It puts us in a third theater of war and increases the likelihood of fostering ever greater hatred by the Arab world for the Untied States. Make no mistake, when Arabs die because of an errant bomb, or missile, or whatever, we will get all the blame the wackos in the Arab world can throw at us. History can be a great indicator of future possibilities.

First it would be advisable to consider what constitutes an ethical and moral justification for military action. The sort answer is... The only justification for the use of military force by one nation against another is in response to an unprovoked act of aggression. In considering the decision for our actions in Libya the foregoing obviously did not cross the minds of the misguided  U.S. decision makers. Ultimately that of course would be the President. Like Bush and Clinton before him Obama made his decision on bad advice and flim flam reasoning.

Further,  conditions in Libya at the time the decision was made to intervene militarily posed no threat to our national security or well being. It is unlikely that following Qaddafi's regaining full control of Libya that the country would have posed any national security risk for our country either.

Additionally, at a time of  great fiscal uncertainty, with an ever growing debt obligation that will, if not addressed, break this nation we can ill afford unnecessary, irrational, and unethical military interventions such as the one occurring in Libya today and those that occurred in prior years  like Iraq, Bosnia,or Yugoslavia. Regional unrest should be dealt with by the people of the region. Until such time as an act of aggression has been committed against our people and nation, or there is a clear and certain national security threat  present, it is best to pursue a non interventionist hands off policy.

But then again, there is no money to be made by the MIC if our nation isn't engages militarily somewhere, in some significant way, for some reason. Apparently the reason is of no real consequence to our leaders.

The argument that we have a responsibility to support and give aid to so called "rebels" in the name of liberty and or humanitarian considerations is bogus. Those claims are nothing more than a touchy feel good attempt to somehow allow us to feel as though we are "doing the right thing." Somehow making the world a better place. So, if this is the rationale then would it not make sense to expend our efforts making our nation financially solvent, building our infrastructure, improving the opportunities for millions of our own people, and making this nation the economic powerhouse it once was with the greatest middle class the world has ever seen.

You can read the article that ran with the above chart at CBS NEWS, POLITICAL HOTSHEET.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA

Via: Memorandum

2 comments:

  1. So what nation will intervene on our behalf against the Obama administration and his union friends?

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.