[Politics] The Heritage Foundation

Severian · Post by **Severian** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:13 am

If a corporation is a person, isn't owning stock in one slavery?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:34 am

Military intervention in Libya? There's no need for it--yet.

What to do about Libya? First of all, we need to be clear about our national interests. Since we have lived with the Muammar Qadhafi regime for years—and particularly because Libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction program—there is no immediate vital national interest requiring the use of force. That could change. Qadhafi could establish links with terrorist groups that threaten America. He could take Americans hostage or attack our citizens and assets or those of our allies. He could threaten the region’s oil supplies. Any one or a combination of these actions could warrant a military response of some kind. TRANSLATION: We're going to support bombing them but since Obama's a Democrat, we can't give him our backing the way we would a Republican.

Of course, the United States has other interests besides security in Libya and the region. In the long run, we would like to see Libya evolve into a more open, free, and democratic society. However, in the short run, especially with a civil war raging, that appears not to be a near-term prospect. Of course, any actions we take now may influence this outcome, but that is not the immediate question on the table. We should not automatically assume that any action we take, no matter how well intentioned, will lead to that outcome.

Instead, we are left with the urgent desire to give the appearance of “doing something.” On that list of tactical actions are whether to impose a no-fly zone or recognize the rebel council, whether to arm and supply the rebels, and whether and how to manage these actions through NATO or the United Nations Security Council.

Imposing a no-fly zone is military action. People would die at the hand of U.S. forces, and it implies a military and political commitment of the U.S. to a certain outcome. It is not a cost-free or easy measure with few risks. The tactical question is whether it would accomplish the advertised goal of concretely aiding the rebels and protecting the civilian population. The answer to that question is “probably not.” But the strategic question—the one that pertains to our vital interest—is whether such an action fits our vital interests.

Right now it does not, mainly because none of the vital interests listed above are directly and adversely affected. But there are too many open tactical questions as well. Is a no-fly zone a tacit recognition of the rebel’s new “Interim Transitional National Council,” which we have not officially recognized yet? If not, could we be giving military backing to a group that may not deserve our backing? Is it intended to signal a military commitment to come to the aid of the rebels and the civilian population if the no-fly zone fails and massacres or military setbacks occur? That is eventually what happened in Iraq and Bosnia. The U.S. and NATO launched massive air and, in the case of Iraq, ground campaigns partly because the no-fly zones were failures. At the very least, we must understand that trying to impose a no-fly zone over Libya could commit us to a similar course.

We should know soon whether the rebel council deserves our recognition. If it does, then we should consider providing supplies and even arms—but only under four conditions:
1. The target of our military support is limited to the Qaddafi regime;
2. The rebels are free of extremist elements and are fully cooperative with us;
3. We rule out supplying arms that could pose a potent threat if they end up in the hands of terrorists (“Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles, for example); and
4. We require the rebel chain of command to take precautions to ensure that the weapons we supplied to them are not sold or diverted to other groups.

TRANSLATION: We'll sell them arms, make a show about "supporting freedom," and act shocked when the weapons end up in the hands of rebel groups later. Or we'll fund terrorists now and watch as it comes back to haunt us in another two decades.

The United States is caught in the middle of a geopolitical storm in the Middle East. We are tugged in two opposition directions. One is to show leadership and support the rise of freedom. The other is to avoid the mistakes of the past and to prevent backlashes. You mean the mistakes of the Gipper? Ba-zing. True leadership is navigating between these poles and coming out with the right outcome in the end.

Leadership is not posturing or taking seemingly bold decisions that turn out to be failures. YOU MEAN LIKE FUNDING THE MUJAHIDEEN GOD THE HYPOCRISY IT BURNS The Obama Administration would appear to be exercising caution for the reasons I outline here, but they seem to be more confused than cautious. Torn between a Pentagon reluctant to use force and advisors and politicians counseling immediate action, the Administration looks paralyzed.

And the results are predictably mixed signals. The Administration claims that Qadhafi must go but does not provide the means to that end. It has raised expectations of greater U.S. action at the same time it has balked from that action.

This is the worst of all worlds. People in the Middle East (not to mention Americans) are rightly confused by the mismatch between the Administration’s rhetoric and actions. A wiser strategy would be to not let our condemnation of Qadhafi’s actions box us into specific military actions. But to fill the vacuum of inaction the President has created, he must be loud and clear on what the purpose of the caution is. Right now it looks like confusion, whereas it must be made clear that specific diplomatic and even military preparatory actions are part of a long-term strategy.

The only way to get ahead of this game is to state flatly and repeatedly that America’s primary military goal in Libya is to protect the security of its citizens and its interests in the region. At least they are admitting blatant realpolitik than "we're fighting for freedom." If Americans are harmed or taken hostage, or if terrorists take advantage, or oil supplies are endangered, then we must act. While we cannot rule out categorically that we would not use force for humanitarian purposes, we also need not make that decision now. There are other ways to provide humanitarian relief—such as relying on international organizations or regional NGOs—than rushing U.S. soldiers into no-win danger zones the way we did in Somalia in the 1990s. Instead of embarking on “feel good,” palliative, and possibly ineffective measures like no-fly zones, we should be working hard to find out whether the rebels are people we can work with and, if so, devising a strategy to aid them.

There is no doubt that the removal of Qadhafi and the emergence of a pro-Western regime would be good for America and the world. TRANSLATION: "...would be good for large multi-national corporations that we empower through the use of anti-labor tactics." But frankly, we have no idea at this point that any action we take will lead to that outcome. It’s too early to jump to military conclusions while events on the ground are so uncertain and fluid. If, after the picture becomes clearer and we learn that specific actions—including military ones—will lead to that outcome, then we should consider them.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:08 am

I think the really important thing about that statement is that the oil reserves are already threatened. It apparently does not count as a threatened oil reserve unless a Republican wants to invade over it.

-Username17

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:14 pm

I learned today that the Heritage Foundation apparently bawwed about CPAC having GOProud at it. So they're willing to make us slaves to big business but are concerned that there might be some queers in America.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:22 pm

I don't know why you feel the need to point that out, that's always been the conservative party line since the 80's.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:25 pm

I figured that an organization as amoral as the Heritage Foundation wouldn't really care about LGBT issues, since their primary focus seems to be on economics.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:30 pm

True, but the two party system has smashed a lot of independant issues together, and if you want one you have to accept all of the ones the party represents. the Republican party has smashed pro-business with anti-gay policies even though they aren't really related (and I can see several problems; money from gays spends just the same as money from straights after all).

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:31 am

Gay marriage would be a shot in the arm to the wedding businesses. Support the economy!

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:56 am

Draco_Argentum wrote:Gay marriage would be a shot in the arm to the wedding businesses. Support the economy!

And the benefits married couples get to their taxes would help pay less taxes and defund Big Guv'ment!

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:29 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:Gay marriage would be a shot in the arm to the wedding businesses. Support the economy!

The biggest winners (economically) for gay marriage would be divorce lawyers.

Although I think in my neck of the woods, the vineyards would definitely make a good profit as well. NO, really, catering your wedding at a vineyard is not only exceptionally cool it is, even for weddings, exceptionally expensive! Not only that, but they often go there to pop the question (while popping the cork on one of the vineyards bottles of wine).

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:36 pm

Need to completely remove Civil Marriages.
Allow for people to make Civil Unions in what ever configuration they want.
Let Churches do what ever they want with Marriage, it's a religious ceremony anyways. Move on.

Simplify the Tax Code. If you file jointly, you pool your resources, and your deductables, and call it a day. If there's 1 of you, or 5 of you.. who the hell cares. Health Insurance? My work charges you a different rate for: you, You+wife, you+wife+children, or you+children. You're telling me they can't figure out how to charge for you+husband2+wife1+wife2+wife3+kids? REALLY?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:25 pm

Something that I feel is vaguely related to the Heritage Foundation: there are a mind-boggling number of Republicans who believe that the Iran-Contra affair didn't happen.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:56 am

Like, at all?

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:06 am

Well, they didn't believe me when I said it happened. (It was "make belief.") Then I posted a link to Wikipedia about it. I was told that this was "lies" with nothing to back it up. I linked to various sources, and someone ranted about how kids are so dumb because nothing on the Internet can be proven because anyone can write anything. This person then went off on how she "dispised" everyone under age thirty for being an idiot, and how my generation was a disgrace to America. At some point, someone started yelling about how liberal hippie flower children are miseducating college students and brainwashing us to believe their lies. Then there was something about "Natzis" and "Facts News."

Someone admitted that Reagan funded death squads in South America, but he said that it was justified. I asked if funding murderers and terrorists was something that Jesus would do. He replied that he couldn't know what Jesus would do in that situation.

My head hurts.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:47 pm

PR wrote:I linked to various sources, and someone ranted about how kids are so dumb because nothing on the Internet can be proven because anyone can write anything.

What's with this mentality?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:45 pm

There are a lot of sources I don't trust on the internets. But while I instinctively reject any notion that hemp oil cures diabetes or whatever hippie bullshit is being peddled by Natural News today, I don't inherently reject all information on the internet.

"Where is that sourced from? That sounds sketchy to me and there are a lot of dubious news sources on the internet." is reasonable skepticism. Outright rejecting absolutely everything that doesn't fit your worldview is lunacy. Iran Contra is part of the congressional record. It's a historical fact.

-Username17

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:50 pm

Maj wrote:
PR wrote:I linked to various sources, and someone ranted about how kids are so dumb because nothing on the Internet can be proven because anyone can write anything.
What's with this mentality?

Typical elementary school bully behavior? Insulting others to feel better about yourselves? I think it's a healthy dose of that mixed with a large amount of confirmation bias.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:08 pm

Psychic Robot wrote: This person then went off on how she "dispised" everyone under age thirty for being an idiot, and how my generation was a disgrace to America.

The way I look at things, if your generation is a "disgrace" to the older generation, you are doing things correctly. Every generation has retarded things they do, and it's the duty of the next generation to not do that anymore. (I'm sure my dad would be extremely angry about my opinions about libertarianism. He already got mad because I said that Heinlein would be a teabagger if he was alive today.)

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:37 pm

Heinlein WOULD be a teabagger if he was alive today

Totally.