Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paving the Road to Hell in Libya and Beyond
David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | March 22, 2011 | Walter Hudson

Posted on 03/25/2011 7:47:46 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson

As the world's focus shifts from the natural disaster in Japan to the man-made one in Libya, a fascinating controversy has developed within the foreign policy establishment. Many, including NewsReal Blog's Joseph Klein and our colleagues at FrontPage Magazine, have argued that America should intervene militarily in Libya. Those arguments have evoked a "'responsibility to protect' civilian populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." The United Nations has since passed a resolution to establish a no-fly zone, citing this "responsibility to protect." This has led some to wonder whether the "R2P" principle will be turned against the United States and her allies, particularly Israel. The concern is well-informed.

It is easy to express righteous indignation in the face of Qaddafi's campaign of terror against his own people. However, when we start to talk about a "responsibility to protect," we are legitimizing a flawed strain of moral reasoning which could undo both national sovereignty and individual liberty.

The stakes of the issue cannot be overstated. If we are truly responsible to protect others, then the Left is right and we ought to become socialists.

Consider the ongoing debate over government administered health care. How often have we heard it said that there is a moral obligation to ensure the sick are cared for? Conservatives reject that argument. One person is not obligated to provide for another. In fact, it is immoral to mandate such provision.

That's health care, you say. We're talking about intervening to stop a massacre. That has no effect upon the underlying principle...

(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: libya; sovereignty; unitednations

1 posted on 03/25/2011 7:47:53 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

Someone tell Mrs. Palin.


2 posted on 03/25/2011 7:55:57 AM PDT by Huck (Fools make feasts and wise men eat them - Poor Richard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

If you missed Glenn Beck’s TV program yesterday afternoon on FOX, try to get it, very scary. Samantha Powers/Cass Sunstein/Qaddafi fits in to this article!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-O5XxXm8wPE#at=25


3 posted on 03/25/2011 8:04:36 AM PDT by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

Personally I still don’t know why we should have become involved in this mess in the first place. We don’t have a national interest at stake here, yet that Bozo in the White House stuck his nose were it didn’t belong, and spent untold millions of our tax dollars on Tomahawks and for what? So the Muslime Brotherhood could overthrow Quacky the Duck? They will be trading one dictator for another.

I can think of another dictator who needs to be overthrown as well, and 2012 can’t come soon enough.


4 posted on 03/25/2011 8:06:47 AM PDT by NWFLConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson
Under the Just War Doctrine, one of the "just causes" for entering a war is to come to the aid of the victim of an unjust attack. However, two points must be noted.

First, "just cause" is only one of the criteria. Others, such as "comparative justice," "probability of success," and "competent authority" must also be met. (Parenthetically, it's questionable whether the Libyan intervention met the third of these.) Just cause alone is not sufficient justification for going to war.

Second, the alleged "responsibility to protect" goes well beyond the Just War Doctrine. The Doctrine implies that going to the aid of the victim of unjust attack is optional. The R2P asserts that it is mandatory. As William O'Brien, one of the greatest Just War scholars of the 20th century put it, freeing the people of the Soviet Union from their tyrannical government would be one of the greatest just causes of history. However, trying to do so, with the almost inevitable consequence of a nuclear war, would violate almost every other criterion of the Just War Doctrine. It's too much to say that we have a "responsibility" to go to the aid of the victim of an unjust attack. We need to look at the other Just War criteria as well.

5 posted on 03/25/2011 8:51:03 AM PDT by JoeFromSidney (New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. A primer on armed revolt. Available form Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson