Foreign Policy in November

[Adam Griffin]

[quote author=Speaker Jbrase link=topic=157676.msg3389739#msg3389739
Obama gets 0 credit for Mubarak's fall. That is all the Egyptian people and their military.
Also, this isn't 2004, the debate is going to be on economic policy, not foreign.
[/quote]

The final debate is solely on foreign policy, and the second debate is supposedly going to be a mixture of domestic and foreign issues. Because foreign policy is the final debate - and therefore the final impression voters will have between the two candidates debating - it could end up mattering quite a bit.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

OK, I'll grant you the rising lives thing, but does it matter who Gaddafi was a threat to? He was murdering his own people! Would you just stand idly by and let those people die?

The money we spent on Libya alone (almost a billion dollars) could instead have been used to improve the quality of healthcare or pollution standards or a variety of other things that could save thousands of lives here in the US.

But wouldn't you - as a libertarian - oppose doing that, as well?

Congress signed away its short-term ability to stop military action with the War Powers Act (in the name of restricting Presidents' ability to go to war, ironically). Despite being controversial, it has never been ruled as unconstitutional. We toppled one of the worst dictators in the world with no American casualties and on less than 20% of one day's federal budget. But I guess Obama should have pulled a Ron Paul and handed out Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't believe any US troops died in Libya, and besides, don't we want to get rid of horrible dictators?

As you put it, he was "risking American lives". Do people have to die for their lives to be at risk? And was that 'horrible dictator' a threat to America?

OK, I'll grant you the rising lives thing, but does it matter who Gaddafi was a threat to? He was murdering his own people! Would you just stand idly by and let those people die?

The money we spent on Libya alone (almost a billion dollars) could instead have been used to improve the quality of healthcare or pollution standards or a variety of other things that could save thousands of lives here in the US.

But wouldn't you - as a libertarian - oppose doing that, as well?

Congress signed away its short-term ability to stop military action with the War Powers Act (in the name of restricting Presidents' ability to go to war, ironically). Despite being controversial, it has never been ruled as unconstitutional. We toppled one of the worst dictators in the world with no American casualties and on less than 20% of one day's federal budget. But I guess Obama should have pulled a Ron Paul and handed out Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

I support reforming Medicaid, not ending it.

President Obama ignored the War Powers Resolution (which he believes to be unconstitutional) during the Libya conflict. And we toppled an anti-US regime in order to potentially install one friendlier to US interests, not for some moral 'keeping people safe' or 'promoting democracy' or some other BS reason.

And what does reform entail? What are your thoughts on the EPA?

In regards to Libya, we held the reigns for 10 days before operational authority was transferred to NATO. Regardless of what you think of NATO, it is a treaty ratified by the U.S. Congress and in full compliance with the Constitution. At nearly every turn, constitutionality has been challenged on questionable laws. Why then has NATO not been challenged in a significant aspect? The MIC can't stop organic legal challenges to the constitutionalism of the organization in a court of law. If Congress and Americans are opposed to the workings of NATO, then there's two solutions: one through the judicial and the other through the legislative branch. I don't approve of many of the underlying functions of the organization, but I also realize that the blame falls at the feet of an inept legislative branch.