Local SoHum (Southern Humboldt County) blogger/lawyer, Eric Kirk posted his thoughts in: The Obama Doctrine: “Interests and Values” - What he calls "[A] very liberal doctrine of interventionism."
"Intervention" - That's his nice word for going to War on baseless threats and lying, false accusations. Whatever justification he wants to tag this anarchy, it's all based upon American "interests" and/or "values," depending upon the need to trump or ignore the sovereignty of all peoples on this Earth on what amounts to a President's whim.
How to you call someone "crazy" then use what they say as the absolute truth to justify attacking that same person, his country and his people? Then turn around and call it "humanitarian"? It is obscene.
If you take the time to read Kirk's article you'll probably be struck by the same overarching assumptions that caught my eye - you'd think he was sitting at Obama's right hand with an inner-insight right into his mind and heart. He's almost godlike in his understanding and explanations - The Absolute Authority. What's most revealing, however, is how Kirk is conflicted and contradicts himself. There is more, but the following statement is extremely revealing:
"I am assuming that Obama, who doesn’t move an inch without overkill in planning, has a sense of the potential and decided this was a good gamble.""Assuming" ("to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit") is NOT what he says or defines next: "who doesn’t move an inch without overkill in planning," but somehow GETS a "sense" which, by definition, is not any kind of a result originating from "overkill in planning." This statement alone defines the inner conflict within Eric Kirk and everyone else that tries to justify their support for "the Obama Doctrine." "Longing," is that anything like "HOPING"?
[UPDATE :: Tuesday, March 29, 2010]
The fact remains that declaring yourself special, superior and/or exceptional -- and believing that to be true, and, especially, acting on that belief -- has serious consequences. It can (and usually does) mean that the same standards of judgment aren't applied to your acts as are applied to everyone else's (when you do X, it's justified, but when they do, it isn't). It means that you're entitled (or obligated) to do things that nobody else is entitled or obligated to do (does anyone doubt that the self-perceived superiority and self-arrogated entitlements of Wall Street tycoons is what lead them to believe they can act without constraints?). It means that no matter how many bad things you do in the world, it doesn't ever reflect on who you are, because you're inherently exceptional and thus driven by good motives. And it probably means -- at least as it expresses itself in the American form -- that you'll find yourself in a posture of endless war, because your "unique power, responsibilities, and moral obligations" will always find causes and justifications for new conflicts. [Emphasis added]Another good example of this self-righteous hypocrisy shrouded arrogant exceptionalism is contained right here on this blog.
It's been my experience in life that this belief motivated attitude is the root cause of all forms of hatred and war. It flies in the face of what Jesus Christ said was the second most important commandment that would follow him and be a Christian: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Notice, Jesus DID NOT say, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" ONLY when you find an "opportunity" that serves your best "interests" and "values."