Libya, yeah?

Yesterday President Obama got around to addressing our Libya conundrum. While I would have loved to cover this yesterday when it happened I couldn't have gotten around to it. After looking at all of this and having thoroughly read and thought about what had gone on with Libya there are some finer points that I don't agree with, but other than that I believe most of the actions taken were taken with care and consideration.

Muammar Gaddafi was the biggest concern with this issue. The man ran around in luxury, and seemed fairly proud to have a plethora of virgin battlemaidens to protect him. Clearly insane, and even more so oppressive to his people living under his reign. Immediately following his come to power he essentially expelled all Italians from his country. Even stated by our own leader, Obama,

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny.  For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi.  He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

I honestly don't find that all hard to believe. Obama himself stated that if not our duty as a country to protect these citizens that it should be our duty as humans to protect each other from atrocities such as those caused by Gaddafi. In short, Gaddafi needed to be removed from power, and clearly negotiation was out of the question with this man. Which in my case always comes first; there seems to be no negotiation with someone such as Gaddafi though. If everyone just sits, watches, and waits for something to get done then there's no hope in the situation ever being taken care of. Helping also lends us more allies in the long run when it comes time that America needs a shoulder to lean on.

What I can't so much agree with though is the need for the US and other coalition powers to stay within the country to help build some sort of democracy within the country. Perhaps watch from afar and offer a helping hand, but I believe that instead of a hand we've shoved our entire arm into the process. If one builds off of a pre-existing technology or ideal then you're building along the path set for you by the creator. While we as humans should watch out for each other we should also come to full realization of our individualistic senses. I would say allow the Libyan people to decide their fate. We helped remove the thorn, and that's as much as I believe we should do. The mouse didn't stick around and tell the lion how to be a lion last I checked, but rather gained a friend. This is how I believe such a thing should work. We saw our kin in need, helped, and gained a friend in the future. There's no need to push for anything more than that, yeah?

The Tri-War Conundrum

Brad Reed's post concerning the recent war with Libya attacks fellow blogger William Kristol and President Obama. A reach out to those already against the constant warring with other nations is blatantly apparent, but he also manages to touch up on subjects that most don't see. Such as the costing cuts affecting simple things we tend not to take note of.

"In case Bill hasn't noticed, we're facing massive cuts to public education, to social safety net programs and even to services as basic as public street lights."

 In an authoritative sense I can't really see Reed as making an argument using his own experience in the subject or using any other information to strengthen his own argument in any kind of ethos manner. Weak credibility, but there's not much you can say for the credibility of those who argue against or for war. The men and women who serve in these wars could add light to the situation, but as it stands I don't believe Reed is a war veteran. We'll just leave it at that and move on to his pathos. The article is absolutely riddled with snippets of sarcasm and humor intended to keep the readers attention, but at the same time it addresses the issues he has with having started this war with Libya

"It's hard for most of us to comprehend the sort of vile vampiric scumbag who relishes the thought of having his country go to war in three different countries at the same time, but that's pretty much how Bill Kristol rolls. I wonder what would happen if America successfully invaded the entire world -- whatever would Kristol do to pleasure himself? Perhaps he'd recommend sending our entire army into the depths of the Pacific Ocean to launch a long-overdue war against the lost city of Atlantis."

Strong and harsh words draw the readers attention, bring forward the main idea (the three wars we're in simultaneously), and then in a pallet cleanser sort of way throws in a taste of snark to keep the reader's attention held longer. The logos was pointed out earlier as he argues that we're losing simple things like our public street lights.

I personally find that the two extremes that exist, those who oppose, and those who embrace war will not change their opinions because of this blog. Those less extreme who see war as a necessary evil may be swayed. A preference for diplomacy and trade is my outlook, and while the article is strongly written with many emotional touch ups that may seem a bit extreme at times. I wholeheartedly agree with Brad Reed on this one. War should be the alternative, and never the solution. What happened to the pen being mightier than the sword?

Proposition 8 (Critique)

Too Long to Wait is written to bring to light the current issues faced by same-sex couples and the hardships that they're currently facing in California due to proposition 8 which would make only marriages between a man and a woman recognizable in the state of California. The author intends to reach out to those with a strong sense of family (who see the familial bond as something less governed by traditional views), and those who can understand what kind of oppressions one might face under governmental decisions. The authors him or herself is somewhat lacking but he gives the article some face value by quoting one of the lawyers working on the case who had stated the difficulties faced within the families of same-sex couples. The author backs his claims with as previously stated, the lawyers in opposition to proposition 8, stating that the fight for such a thing has gone on for far too long, that there would be no real damage if these couples were allowed to wed, and that the proposition is an 'injustice' to those couples who wish to wed, or are currently wed and are having their recognition taken away by the state. The author makes many Pathos arguments, and they're strong; full of emotion. Logos is somewhat weak and could be strengthened, and his Ethos is almost non-existant in the text and could be improved if he had more credibility to what he was saying.

I myself disagree (agree with the author) with the passing of proposition 8 and while the focus may only be on California. The issue of same-sex marriage is a national issue and makes a huge step forward or back depending on the ruling for those wishing to wed under the conditions that they are both of the same gender. While the editorial would not have me change my opinion if I were for the proposition. I believe that marriage is based on a lifelong bond between two people, and that denying people the right to marry is generally based on religious views that the bond in marriage is sacred and should only be between a man and woman. This I believe violates the separation between church and state, and seeing that we still are unable to get ourselves through this is roadblock I believe state is still fairly influenced by church matters.