Having Faith In The International Community

... and no faith in America.

I've spent a little more time perusing the web for analyses on what we're doing in Libya and why we're there in the first place. The best explanation is that the "International Community" told us to go. They're the ones he consults, not the American Congress. Obama is more interested in what the UN has to say than his own country.

From the Telegraph:

Obama accepts the notion that an American imprimatur on military action is distasteful – running the risk of fuelling anti-Americanism. He seems reluctant to try to persuade nations that America is a force for good, perhaps because he is unsure of this himself ... Obama really does believe in the “international community” and the intrinsic goodness of the UN.

From Slate:

(A) regime's level of violence against its citizens obviously doesn't drive our military decisions. Nor does the use of air power to slaughter civilians. What has drawn us into Libya but not Syria is the last thing Clinton mentioned: "The world has not come together" to call for action in Syria or the Ivory Coast. Fatalities and air power don't matter unless they produce international support for intervention.

"Each of these situations is different," said Clinton. "But in Libya, when a leader says, 'Spare nothing, show no mercy,' and calls out air force attacks on his own people, that crosses a line that people in the world had decided they could not tolerate."

The key phrase isn't no mercy or air force. It's they could not tolerate. Not we, but they. We're outsourcing our standards for intervention.

In short, Obama doesn't trust you. Your motives are impure and left to your own devices, you Americans would do bad, possibly imperialist things. If he wants to make a moral decision, he must turn to the UN and the "international community."

Can we please make the dude the head of the UN and get him out of here? Maybe if he was offered the job, he'd leave.

The Chuck Wagon

It would be difficult to cover Old West Cooking with out giving an introduction to the chuck wagon.  Probably more than anything else the chuck wagon symbolizes what culinary trends were like in the old west.  Below is a brief history I borrowed from my website.

In the early days of the great trail drives the cowhand had to make do with what he could carry with him.  This caused some rather hungry, uncomfortable times on the trail.  Texas rancher Charles Goodnight saw an opportunity to fill this basic need and in 1866 created the prototype for the chuck wagon. 

Goodnight rebuilt an army surplus Studebaker wagon for his creation. The Studebaker was a sturdy wagon with steel axles that could withstand trail drives that could last up to 5 months. Goodnight designed and added a chuck box and boot to the rear of his wagon and this became the prototype for all the chuck wagons that followed. The chuck box was comprised of a number of shelves and drawers to hold what the cook would need over the course of the day. Once the hinged lid was dropped down to serve as a work surface the cook had everything he needed within easy reach. The boot carried the Dutch ovens and other cooking utensils the cook would need to provide hot meals for ten or more cowboys on long trail drives. A water barrel large enough to hold two days' water supply was attached to the side of the wagon along with an assortment of tool and catch-all boxes, hooks, brackets and the vital coffee grinder. Naturally, wood for cook fires is scarce on the prairie. By suspending a canvas beneath the wagon in hammock fashion the cook had a convenient container for any fuel he collected during each day's move. The wagon box was used to carry the cowboys' bedrolls and personal effects as well as bulk food supplies, feed for the horses and what ever else the crew felt was needed. In some cases a second "hoodlum" wagon was used to carry the gear and supplies of large crews. It was not uncommon to hear a cowboy say that he worked for a "wagon" as opposed to a particular ranch.

A well supplied chuck wagon contained an amazing assortment of goods and possibles needed for a long trail drive.  Not only did the wagon have to carry food supplies and cooking utensils, it had to carry the cowboy bed rolls and personal effects as well.  Considering the average wagon box was around 10 feet long and only 38-40 inches wide packing and unpacking must have been a science in itself.  It's no wonder cousies had a reputation for being a little on edge most of the time.

What Are We Afraid Of?

As the rebels advance back across Libya, taking towns from Gaddafi's forces with active support from NATO airpower, it's become obvious that the President's stated goals of protecting civilians was just a bunch of baloney. NATO is out to depose Gaddafi and that's that.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to depose Gaddafi. The guy is a nut and a tyrant and a genuinely bad dude. The problem with the whole affair is the lack of clarity in the stated purpose of the operation. A quick and dirty perusal of Wikipedia shows that the three primary members of the anti-Gaddafi alliance have a military consisting of more than 2,010,000 people and 7,290 aircraft of all types, not counting the aircraft in the US Army and US Navy.

Gaddafi has almost no chance of shooting back at us in any meaningful way, so long as we stay up in the air. We have overwhelming power that can act with impunity and we're clearly using it to depose the guy. So why are we talking about no-fly zones? Why are we talking about saving civilians? Why have we come up with dozens of contradictory explanations as to just what this is - taking sides in a revolution against a tyrant? There's no fig leaf here at all. We look like cowards, saying one thing and doing the opposite and it's obvious to everyone.

Tonight President Obama is going to give us a speech telling us what we're doing in Libya. If he says anything other than, "We're getting rid of Gaddafi," then it's nonsense.

The reporters are stating the situation clearly. Why hasn't the Administration done the same?

Turkey Blogger Ban Getting Really Annoying

I was in London this weekend and when I got back late last night, I was really hoping that things might have resolved themselves.

But I was wrong.

 I tried to put up a post today and this time the photos won't download properly and since in a cooking blog, photos are of the essence, I deleted it. But it is all so dismaying. Last week the photos were fine, I just couldn't preview my own blog and  I couldn't comment. Well, I still can't comment on either my own blog or anybody else's.

The only thing I seem able to do at this moment is read other people's blogs through anonymouse.org and even then I can't comment. But if you are outside Turkey, everything is as normal so if you comment, I CAN read it and it's great!

I will try again later and see if the situation has changed.

Otherwise it's back to my sister - yes, Ali??

Springing into Spring

April is an exciting month; spring will hopefully come here in southern Ohio! My sister Sarah over at Sarah's Heart's Home is going to be hosting a blog theme for the month of April called Springing into Spring. She is going to be having lots of guest posts (one of which is me!) on different topics such as home organization, recipes, spring cleaning and even hosting her first giveaways! I know it is going to be a fun month on her blog so I encourage you to head over there and follow her so you can keep up with the fun!

Enjoy what you read here on Golden Reflections? Please vote daily over at Picket Fence Blogs, just click on the button below! Thanks!