Why Libya’s important
People across the Middle East and North Africa have taken to the streets to demand greater freedom and participation in their governments. Longtime rulers in Egypt and Tunisia have stepped down as a result. Other leaders appear on the precipice of relinquishing power.
In Libya, it has been a different story. After the people of Libya launched a major uprising against their dictator, Muammar Qadhafi, his forces counterattacked. The opposition was clearly outmatched – Qadhafi’s forces were able to retaliate with air power.
And, Qadhafi’s brutality is particularly heinous, as he vowed to “cleanse Libya house by house.”
As with its reaction to the Tunisian and Egyptian protests (when the Obama administration waited until it was clear the opposition would prevail) the administration has been indecisive in responding to the Libyan revolt. In this situation, however, the administration may have waited too long.
Instead of acting when the opposition forces had the momentum, the U.S. hesitated, waiting first for an international coalition to form and for permission from the United Nations and the Arab League. As a result, Qadhafi forces took back most of the country.
The U.S. response seemed confused and poorly coordinated. Officials in our government weren’t on the same page, with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen saying that “[t]his is not about going after Gaddafi,” and President Obama saying that the tyrant “needs to go.” (Recently, the President has seemed to even walk back from this basic position.)
I believe President Obama was correct that Qadhafi needs to go and he was correct to use military force to try to stop Qadhafi. But, the President should not have waited for over a week after the U.S. began military action to try to explain to the American people, and to the men and women engaged in our military mission, exactly what he was trying to accomplish. He has described international efforts as a humanitarian missionbut how are humanitarian ends achieved if Colonel Qadhafi is allowed to remain in power and possibly kill or imprison those who rose up against up? What message does that send not just to the Libyan people, but others in the region?
Indeed, if the leader of the free worldthe President of the United Statesdoesn’t follow up on his words and see that Qadhafi goes, the world would look upon President Obama as an ineffectual leader and the United States as a weak country, one that is unwilling to live up to its rhetoric.
The U.S. cannot intervene in every conflict; however, Qadhafi is an enemy of the U.S. and a clear example of a tyrant. He has enriched himself at the expense of his people and supported terrorism across the world. A former Libyan official recently said that Qadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988 – a terrorist act that resulted in 270 innocent deaths. His regime was also linked to a 1986 bombing of a club in Germany in which two American servicemen were killed and many others injured. If he stays in power, the U.S. will be blamed, an opportunity to remove an enemy from power will have been lost, and others around the world who aspire to have freedom will have reason to doubt they can count on us.
When an organic democratic uprising sprouts in a place that is not free, and the United States has the capacity to make a difference, we should stand firmly with the reformers. It’s regrettable in this case the President may have responded with too little too late. We can only hope not.
Sen. Jon Kyl | Senate Republican Whip | Senate Finance and Judiciary committees
www.kyl.senate.gov
Back
Shores of Tripoli
As Americans we have a short memory and apathy for learning from history. Our fight with Islamic terrorists dates to the 18th century. In 1801 President Thomas Jefferson was threatened by Tripoli's Yusuf Karamali demanding tribute and ransom or he would declare war on the U.S.; Thomas Jefferson sent in the Marines. Black Jack Pershing rid the Philippines of Islamic terrorists in 1911 by introducing them to U.S. military might. Ronald Reagan subdued Libya's belligerent Colonel Gadhafi for thirty years with one well placed airborne strike. George H.W. Bush swiftly halts Iraq's aggression against her neighbors with U.S. military action. His son, George W. responds with strength and determination in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11.
Somali pirates capture and murder four Americans on a world cruise to distribute bibles; Muammar Gadhafi slaughters his own country men in a desperate attempt to hold his dictatorial power, what does Barrack Hussein Obama do; shouts, 'Step Down," handicaps NCAA basketball and leaves on vacation. Only after being pressured by the international community does he make a limp-wristed response with the promise not to stay involved. This president is more likely to storm the beaches of Santa Monica to enforce Obamacare than the shores of Tripoli to advance freedom in the world.
Speak loudly and wave your little stick Barrack.
Randy Edwards | Cave Creek
Back
From the office of Senate President Russell Pearce
“Today the Arizona State Senate passed a balanced budget and sent it to the Governor. The Senate budget used no gimmicks, no new rollovers and no borrowing. This fulfills a commitment our leadership team made to the people of Arizona. I know our Members faced difficult decisions. The budget reductions they supported are reasonable. By balancing the budget now, we don’t pass the buck to future generations. For years, the Legislature has played games with the Arizona budget. Those games ended today, and our state has a brighter future because of the votes of our Republican caucus.
Russell Pearce | Arizona State Senate President
Back
Another brave new world
Perhaps one of the reductionism of the modern world is that man has ceased to have respect for the human being, considering it as a thing. It has lost some of the optimism and hope in the future, and enemies are everywhere: the different, the color or poverty, even children scary us, and hamper the life. In third world countries is easier to find a contraceptive pill or a landmine, that a plate of food.
Are expected of technical advances and science to solve the problems of the future, but science has very serious questions. Science and technology, that many times help men, also require significant easements. The field is wide and there is always the risk of crossing borders of ethical and legal standards to defend human life, which is no longer a hypothesis to become reality, there are already no barriers to curb excessive desire for those looking for a vein of gold in any activity, and we are seeing that "science" is big business.
The brave new world that Aldous Huxley's novel appears increasingly possible. Advances in genetic medicine are important and will be more elaborated further in the future, but it is clear that not everything that is technically feasible is ethically desirable.
Thus, it would be convenient to put some barrier for any mad genetic engineer. However, we have the experience of our politicians who always find arguments in favor of any proposal, no matter how silly it be, so they go ahead with the abortion, cloning, human fetuses for research, genetic manipulation, fertilization in vitro or proposals of euthanasia. The list can go on.
The human being is not a "gadget" to join in an assembly line: the person is generated, always unique and different. This is the scenario that must be developed in the battle for the defense of life from the moment of conception until the natural end of it.
Agustín Pérez | Independent Forum of Opinion
www.indeforum.wordpress.com
Back
Israel
Recently tragedy has struck in many places simultaneously: Egypt, Tunisia, Japan and Libya stand out in the reporting of events. Little is said by the media and government about attacks against citizens in Israel by Hamas terrorists. Why is this?
In less than 3 months, since 2011 started with our hopes of a peaceful year, Hamas terrorists have fired more than 124 mortars and rockets into Israeli villages and towns.
They say they are fighting an occupation! They are the ones that moved into the homeland of the ancient Israelis--Judea, Samaria. Israel, the present nation, gave up the area of Gaza in 2005 as part of a negotiation toward peace. Peace? This is not!
While the world focuses on natural tragedy, no one has spoken about a family murdered in their sleep -- even a baby of 3 months, murdered one week ago.
Instead of supporting the only democracy in the Middle East, our governments and the United Nations cry outrage when the Israeli government launches military operations to defend their lives and their nation. No one is perfect, including Israel. I ask, however, how can this bending over backwards of blaming the victim for their suffering promote peace and good will in our lives on earth?
Yes, civilians die in war, but usually they are not the intended target. When it comes to Hamas, citizens are the objective--to use as shields or as the chosen victims of their murders. Stop with the smoke screens and red herrings. Say it like it is. Terrorists targeting citizens--especially babies and children--are nothing more than murderers and should be treated as such.
Israel has tried to placate the world, showing the intention of peace is serious by giving in to the demands of Arabs in relinquishing land assigned in the Balfour Convention or won in war (few, if any, other country in history gave back land annexed through war). What do they get in return? More terrorism, more shelling, more murdering and more destruction. This has got to stop. Negotiations just aren't working. Instead of the terrorism stopping it escalates.
You can help stop this tide. Demand that Iran and other countries stop supporting the Hamas, stop smuggling arms to terrorists in Gaza and stop the rhetoric of genocide toward Israel, Jews world wide and Americans. They teach the children to hate, not love, their fellow human beings.
Our future--of the world and our society--is at stake.
Sincerely,
Gloria Richman | Sun City
Back
Middle East Allies
While our government struggles to not offend our "allies" in the Middle East by taking action with the situation in Libya our only true ally is being attacked daily by forces supported by these same "allies." Israel is the target of rocket and mortar attacks daily – over 120 attacks so far this year with 50 just last Saturday alone. Her people, entire families including infants, are murdered in their beds and the killers in Gaza celebrate and hand out candy!
Where has our sense of outrage gone? When did we lose track of what is right and what is wrong? Are we so afraid of offending someone that we are willing to abandon our true friends, and the only true democracy in the region, in hopes of a temporary appeasement of these terrorists? Do we not realize that these criminals would just as gladly slit the throats of American infants as well?
They don’t want peace; they want to destroy all non-believers. If you cannot be converted you will be forced to live as a second class citizen or killed outright. We must stop supporting people who want to destroy America and her true friends.
In a time when we are broke and American families are struggling to make ends meet we cannot afford to send billions in aid to people whose fondest dream is our extinction, nor can we continue to support politicians and diplomats who think we can buy our safety by supplying arms and training to these killers.
Sincerely,
Patrick Lee McClellan | Chandler
Back
Did you ever wonder where that person you voted for went?
When politicians are campaigning for an elected position they espouse their Principles. What they believe in and what they would do about those beliefs if they were elected. As voters, individuals, and independent thinkers we choose to support those who look to represent our own personal Principles. So, what happened when that person's elected and they represent themselves in an entirely different way? All of a sudden, with the realization that I've won, their Principles are exchanged for Interests. Why didn't you do this or that, or vote this way or that, becomes, "because." Their Principles have become their Interests.
Politicians and Governments don't have Principles, they only have Interests. Have you wondered why we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, and now Libya, when we ignored the ethnic cleansing in Darfer, Cambodia, or Rwanda. Millions were slaughtered there and we did nothing. Why? Interests!
The majority of people in this country have Principles. What we need is a Government that has Principles and NOT just Interests. If you examine either our Congressmen or Senators, and Executive Branch, that represent our Government, their decisions are not being made for what's good for the Country and its people. Earmarks, runaway spending, no national energy policy, no term limits, outrageous public sector pay and benefits, is all that good for you and me and our children, and our Country? No, but it is for that special Interest, whatever it might be at the moment.
In the most recent past there has only been one elected official to the Congress or Senate who has stood by his Principles. His decisions and efforts have all been with no personal interests. He was laughed at as a nut. Then was viewed as just far out. Then he was just out of touch. Now what he has been saying for the past 10 years is all coming true, and we're broke. And many still aren't listening today.
Congress created this financial downturn, and then appointed the same people who caused it, to cure it. All the time, continuing on their merry spending way." Their Interests continued to prevail.
If we truly are a "good" and "Principled" people, we had better get rid of those in Washington who have exchanged their Principles for their own personal Interests. We don't need them, shouldn't want them, and need to either give up our moral fiber or renew it. Our forefathers created this country entirely on Moral Principles. If we are not Principled, we'll surely perish, as history tells us we will. We're talking about our Country here!
Fred Schneider | Scottsdale
Back
March 16 article on Carefree Resort
Hello, I was disturbed by the above referenced article. I thought that it was unfocused and driven by a mixture of dubious objectives.
In my opinion, the article was a jumble of several stories: the 1 in 10 program and promotion; the changes taking place at the Carefree Resort; the mission of the Carefree Resort; and the business background of the investment organization.
I especially felt the inclusion of past business dealings was unnecessary. What do they have to do with the storyline (whatever it was)? Are entrepreneurs not expected to take risks?
I've recently been to the Carefree Resort and have observed the changes that have been made. It is a very attractive facility in a great location. My reading between the lines leads me to believe you are indifferent about the success of the resort and what it has to offer (and by inference what it means to the community, i.e. jobs, tax revenue and civic pride).
Last point. I'm not a fan of labeling things or people. It usually says more about the source than the subject. My wife, my friends and I will continue to patronize the Carefree Resort as we believe it is a valuable community asset with a history worth preserving.
Regards,
Ted Karr | E-mail
Back
Sustainability
It is estimated that if the whole world were consuming as much as the wealthy countries are consuming, we would have to use up 5 Earths.
To increase the world's sustainability, the wealthy need to shift to smaller more efficient homes, i.e. multi-family units.
Also we should make sure that range-fed meat isn't from animals over-grazing.
A.M. Sokolow | Santa Monica, California
Back
