CITYBLOGGER..PENAFIAN Laman ini tidak bertanggungjawab atas hasil penulisan yang dipetik dari sumbe

Wanna save $1,000,000,000 daily?

Cut the military pork.....Let us examine what Time would have the United States do:

(1) The President should consider imposing a no-fly zone. However, the Secretary of Defense, the man who should know, has said it would mean war with Libya.

(2) Time even admits that it would escalate the crisis, stoke Arab resentment, and make those trying to depose Gaddafi look like imperialist tools to their own people.

(3) Time admits a no-fly zone might not work.

(4) However, after admitting the above, they go on to propose that: Should Libyan continue to act with disregard for civilian life, foreign intervention would be justified under -- the U.N.'s "responsibility to protect" principle.

(5) What the hell is this so called “principal” and who established it? Is the United States bound by it? If fighting and killing breaks out anywhere in the world, must American soldiers and taxpayer’s dollars be sent there? Does this “responsibility to protect” require that the United States once again take on the role of world policeman -- if so at what cost?

(6) According to Time, the “Responsibility to Protect” principle: obligates the international community to protect people from mass slaughter when their own governments fail to do so.

(7) If this is true, who pays the price in blood and dollars to fulfill this obligation?

(8) Time also declares that: Washington can't claim to be a neutral actor in Libya's war. Having targeted Gaddafi's assets and endorsed regime change by calling for him to resign.

(9) I submit to you extrapolation from “targeting assets” and ‘endorsing” government change, to bombing military targets, shooting down airplanes, and launching a war with Libya is a long leap of logic.

(10) Especially when Time in the next breath states that, “The U.S. may not have. . .a vital stake in the outcome of Libya's civil war.”

(11) But, according to Time, the survival of Gaddafi's regime would represent a blow to the democratic aspirations of millions and a “triumph” for the forces of “Islamic radicalism”. Do they really believe that an armed attack on an Arab nation would represent a lesser blow?

(12) In closing Time attempts to dampen the war drums it has been pounding my adding, “None of this means we should send in the Marines to oust Gaddafi.”

(13) And what examples to they use to illustrate that we do not have to send in the Marines? They tell us there are “steps the U.S. and its allies can undertake…which would be both limited and achievable.”

(14) What are they? “Up to and including the imposition of a no-fly zone,” they answer. What constitutes “up to”? They don’t say.

(15) However, in the beginning of their report, they admitted that a no-fly zone would possibly start a shooting war, but in closing the story, it has become, according to them, “achievable”! At what cost?

(16) Time then concludes by telling the readers that, “The U.S. does not have a moral responsibility to deliver the Libyan people, or anyone else, from the clutches of tyranny.” Then goes on to imply, but it would be nice.

(17) Nice, yes, but at what price and to whom?