Libya... Where do I begin? For years Quddafi was regarded as a good example for dictators around the world. He was becoming friendly with the leaders of the western world; he was supposedly not funding terrorism anymore etc. But then his people started protesting and he couldn't handle it. So he came up with a brilliant idea lets BOMB THEM!!! I am sure that will shut them up. Ohh wait... The entire world is now angry at me. Cue civil war...
Quddafi's actions have been condemned internationally and yet the nations of the world have been reluctant to formally state that Quddafi should be removed from power. I for one do not understand it. The entire world has ganged up against Quddafi and we are currently flying over Libya, bombing Quddafi's tanks but in spite of all this, we aren't officially "at war" against Quddafi.
Somehow NATO and the U.N. have convinced themselves they can bomb Quddafi's forces and STILL claim to be impartial. The most ironic thing is that France and Italy are the first nations to formally state that Quddafi must go. FRANCE AND ITALY? When was the last time that France and Italy took the lead role in any foreign policy issues? Meanwhile, the United States has waffled on the issue.
President Obama has stated that we must protect Human Rights in Libya but he unfortunately seems to be ignoring the logical conclusion of this goal. The only way to TRULY uphold Human Rights is to ensure that Quddafi is brought to justice in a court setting reminiscent of the Nuremberg trials. If the United States wants to be able to claim that they are still the leader of the free world, then we have a duty not to make non-committal statement. We have a duty to protect the Human Rights of the people of Libya, no matter the cost or the commitment.
Will this be hard to implement practically? Yes. It will cost money and American lives, but it is the only way for the United States to live up to the goal that President Obama has set out for us.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Healthcare Reform? "We are reforming a reform by repealing a reform." WHAT?!?!?
I will be honest, as a fiscal conservative I am not a fan of so called "obamacare". I think it is spending alot of money we don't have while simultaneously forcing people into care they don't want. So one would think I would be ecstatic about the republican plan to repeal healthcare reform! Right? WRONG! I admire the principle of ridding the United States of Obamacare but I have a two issues with the Rebublicans' tactic:
1: I think that the 2010 election showed quite clearly that Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. One of the things many people are not pleased with is healthcare "reform". Thus the republicans claim that they have a clear mandate to repeal healthcare reform. But is this really the case? I think Republicans should not mistake hatred for support. Just because people hate the democrats' healthcare plan doesn't mean they automatically support the republicans' views on the topic. Republicans need to be very careful moving forward that they indeed come up with a plan Americans want. Which brings us to issue two: do republicans even have a plan?
2: "WE SHALL REFORM HEALTHCARE BY REPEALING THE REFORM OF HEALTHCARE!" Does this make sense to you? Healthcare reform was started because it was widely considered that the current system was broken. So perhaps we don't like Obamacare as a plan to fix the current system, but we cannot allow the current system to continue on either. So far, I have seen alot of republicans decrying the evils of obamacare but not alot of them offer any other alternative. It is not enough to repeal obama care, you must have an alternate plan to fix the current system.
So should obamacare be repealed? I think that yes it should. But the solution is two fold. As republicans repeal obamacare they must replace it with an alternate reform. In addition to all this, people seem to forget that the republicans are not in control of the senate and it is doubtful that Harry Reid will allow any bill that aims to kill Obamacare to pass through the Senate. So it is doubtful any real reform will come out of this situation.
~The Extemp Guy
1: I think that the 2010 election showed quite clearly that Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. One of the things many people are not pleased with is healthcare "reform". Thus the republicans claim that they have a clear mandate to repeal healthcare reform. But is this really the case? I think Republicans should not mistake hatred for support. Just because people hate the democrats' healthcare plan doesn't mean they automatically support the republicans' views on the topic. Republicans need to be very careful moving forward that they indeed come up with a plan Americans want. Which brings us to issue two: do republicans even have a plan?
2: "WE SHALL REFORM HEALTHCARE BY REPEALING THE REFORM OF HEALTHCARE!" Does this make sense to you? Healthcare reform was started because it was widely considered that the current system was broken. So perhaps we don't like Obamacare as a plan to fix the current system, but we cannot allow the current system to continue on either. So far, I have seen alot of republicans decrying the evils of obamacare but not alot of them offer any other alternative. It is not enough to repeal obama care, you must have an alternate plan to fix the current system.
So should obamacare be repealed? I think that yes it should. But the solution is two fold. As republicans repeal obamacare they must replace it with an alternate reform. In addition to all this, people seem to forget that the republicans are not in control of the senate and it is doubtful that Harry Reid will allow any bill that aims to kill Obamacare to pass through the Senate. So it is doubtful any real reform will come out of this situation.
~The Extemp Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)