Reply #36: That's an extremely isolationist stance [View All]

[JackintheGreen]

I'm not suggesting your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect, neither the SCOTUS position in Reid, but it seems to me that it is possible to keep national and international matters more separate. That is, he can act as a member of the "world community" not merely as POTUS (and as I write that I have Phil Ochs lyrics going through my head).

Nor am I suggesting that what he did was right and proper. But how I imagine it *should* have gone down is something like the following: each signatory tasks a specified number of troops to the UN security forces, correct? The blue helmets. As far as I am concerned, these troops act under the aegis of the UN for as long as they are tasked to it. They are an international peace-keeping force rather than an agglomeration of French soldiers, Dutch soldiers, Ghanaian soldiers, US soldiers, etc. It is my understanding (an understanding always accepting of correction) that this kind of work is what this force was meant to do. I have no problem with this kind of force acting in the interests of the world community if said community can agree what its interests are. Which is what the UN is supposed to do. However, it is also my understanding that the blue helmets do not have ASMs or SSMs. These come instead from each contributing force. Or, as of yesterday, some 200 from the US and like 3 from everybody else. It is this to me that is unacceptable.

Assuming of course that action in Libya is justified, which I am not saying. Only that if such action is justified somewhere then...