I gotta admit, I'm perplexed by the amount of support here for the Libyan intervention

[cali]

I've been thinking about it for a few days now, and I just don't understand it. I don't believe most of those here supporting it are great supporters of the U.S. war machine, of our grotesquely over sized military budget. I've read what DUers who support it say; that we needed to prevent genocide, but that seems a bit odd considering both the past and the present. And surely we can't intervene in every country where people are at risk of genocide- awful as it is. But I'm unconvinced that genocide was inevitable in Libya. (No, that is not a statement of support for the Khaddafi)

What I guess I want to know is if you can support this action 6 weeks from now if it's still ongoing, or 6 months from now, or a year from now. And does the expenditure of billions of dollars at a time when so many Americans are suffering, trouble you?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

2. Six weeks from now will anyone even be talking about it?

If this had been Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin there'd already be an antiwar response

Now? Not so much

[cali]

3. I think it'll still be talked about but

but you're right about there being virtually no antiwar response.

[Godhumor]

4. You asked it nicely enough, so I'll try to answer in kind

It actually surprises me at how little support the effort gets here. I never thought people would be not only so uncaring about what Gaddafi did to his people but that a number are actually going out of their way to demonize the rebels. It also infuriates me to see this "tit-for-tat" suggestion that because we're doing x in one country means we have to do y in another (Hopefully, I'll explain that in one sec).

When Bush went on Operation Cowboy he was rightly villified for it here, but one of the main points of contention was that he bypassed UN sanctioning of the actions. At that time, it was felt that he was not listening to the will of the rest of the world and his brusque attitude greatly weakened the US' standing with the rest of the world. In other words the war lacked legitimacy.

Obama did nothing of the kind. The UN security council voted unanimously to take action against Gaddafi for his aggressive and merciless move against his own people. The countries that abstained from the vote had the chance to say no and veto it--they lacked the conviction necessary to do so.

I feel, very strongly feel, that we have a responsibility to the UN and to ignore this resolution would be exactly the same, on a policy level (obviously not on a people level), as Bush ignoring the UN. We have a responsibility to be part of this.

Which is why I hate the whole you can't do x if you don't do y argument. One, this is the place the UN decided to get involved--if they decide to do so elsewhere then I would expect we would be aiding there, as well. Secondly, the argument boils down to not being able to get involved at all anywhere unless we get involved everywhere. It's a fallacy and a cheap debating tactic.

Like every single other person I reserve the right to change my mind on the success of the mission if the scope changes. But, right now, I not only support the intervention, but I am shocked at the number of people who are so willing to dismiss what is happening there.

[cali]

9. OK. Thanks.

Look, I resent being told I'm uncaring because I don't support it. And frankly, I think you're discarding the argument that there are situations that are worse than Libya is a bit disingenuous. I'd also like to point out that the U.N. decision was strongly influenced by U.S. support.

And you didn't answer my question about will you support it in 6 months? And what if Khaddafi is replaced and the new gov't turns around and starts killing his supporters en masse? What about all the potential disastrous ramifications? And what about the billions and billions we'll spend at a time of draconian cuts at home for the poor?

[Godhumor]

25. I was trying to use comparable language to your OP when you talked about

It doesn't seem like we supporting the war machine, etc. Sorry you resent it, but look at the replies--the responses are as silly as we support this because it is a democratic president to being unable to admit we're wrong. To me, it really is uncaring, and it is as surprising to me as what you see from supporters.

I did answer your question abuot 6 months or 12 months from now--if the scope changes I reserve the right to decide whether I still support it or not. Right now, I do. Hypothesizing that it will last 12 months doesn't change that, nor would I ask if it was over next month would you change your position and call it a success.

And "tit-for-tat" includes domestic and foreign expenditures being an either or situation.

[bluestate10]

29. I support removing Qaddafi by force.

If the rebels took over and it became clear that they were killing, raping and re-educating, I would support forceful action against them. Posters bring up the Sudan. But didn't international pressure just force an election where the southern part of that country chose to separate peacefully from the north? Is Qaddafi allowing the people of eastern Libya to peacefully decide whether they want to be part of a country that he leads?

[cali]

47. that didn't just happen out of the ether

the killing in Darfur went on for many years, resulting in hundreds of thousand of deaths.

[bluestate10]

74. I do not deny your point, it is truth. We were morally bankrupt not to

intervene militarily and end the killing. But under President Obama and a fresh cadre of world leaders, a different result happened.

[howard112211]

71. What cost, in terms of lives lost, would you deem reasonable to achieve this goal?

Let's say Ghaddafis army is firmly holed up in Tripoli. Would you support the complete destruction of the city, in order to get him?

"Removing Ghaddafi by force" sounds nice in theory. The point is that someone will actually have to do it. And this very well might end up escalating the whole thing to a point were many more innocents die than if one had tried to reconciliate.

[bluestate10]

75. I would not support destruction of Tripoli to get Qaddafi. And I never stated that

logic. But if needed, I would support US troops tracking down Qaddafi and making a targeted kill on him and his sons. In terms of lives lost, any troop that actively lift a weapon to support Qaddafi must either surrender or be eliminated, regardless of the number.

[howard112211]

100. Let's say, purely hypothetically

... 80% of the male population of Tripoli are part of Ghaddafi's army. 10% of them are doing the actual fighting, the rest are support troops. The rest of the city are civilians, who may or may not support Ghaddafi. Ghaddafi has agreed to halt agressions. Let's say he is in a bunker somewhere, in an unknown location, so targeted hit is not an option.

Attack the city or not attack the city?

I only raise this question because I want to convince you that things can be more complicated.

[sabrina 1]

136. Under what laws does the U.S. have the right to kill the leader

of a foreign, sovereign nation? And since many in the world felt that George Bush was the most dangerous terrorist on the planet, would you have supported a similar fate, carried out by those whose loved ones he had slaughtered, for our president carried out by foreign nations?

These kinds of rabid reactions from people in this country, regarding the business of other countries, is amazing. Who made us the moral arbiters, the Emperors of the world, who can decide which leaders should live and which ones should die?

Are you at all concerned that it is emerging that the 'rebels' may well be a minority in terms of removing Libya's government, especially by force? That Qaddafi has a lot of support among Libyans partially due to the the fact that they have pretty decent lives under his rule. Who are we to determine the fate of other peoples?

We were led to believe that the Libyan 'revolution' represented a majority of the people, but now we are learning that it may have been planned last year with the help of the French and that it was anything but a grass-roots uprising similar to Egypt's and Tunisia's.

What if innocent people who genuinely had no issues with their government, start being slaughtered and jailed by the new government we help install? Like what happened to the Suni population in Iraq?

Already, the rebels are responsible according to many, many credible organizations, of increased brutality against Somali and Ethiopian immigrants left behind by Multi National Corps and hated by factions involved with this 'revolution'? Women are missing, many have been beaten and tortured. Huge numbers are attempting to flee the country in fear, not of Qaddafi, but of these 'revolutionaries'. It is creating a huge humanitarian crisis for other nations.

Have those who continue to support our intervention kept up with the revelations which are showing that at the very least, we were misled and a lot more needs to be known now about this situation?

America needs to get over thinking that we are the boss of the world. We are hated and not wanted in other people's countries, especially after what we have done to Iraq and Afghanistan and now Pakistan and creeping into Yemen.

Maybe people need to relax, take a deep breath and learn a bit more about all of this, rather than talking of assassinations and more invasions, something we are a complete failure at before even knowing the dynamics of what is going on in Libya.

[Malikshah]

105. What is with the hypothetical questions; and the rhetorical "stamping of one's foot"

when they are not answered? This tiresome tactic really has no place here.

The person responded kindly to the question.

It is quite easy to go online and find numerous sage responses to your question from people who actually study the region; Juan Cole, for one, has done an admirable job on this score.

[MH1]

128. Thanks, I think you explained it pretty well.

The only point where I think I differ is in my lack of surprise at the negative reaction here. There are several factors about this forum that make it unsurprising to me. 1) There are a number of Obama haters here who would be just as against his actions if he had kept the US out of Libya (they would have been calling Obama and his supporters heartless and uncaring); 2) there are a number of absolutist pacifists here, who are pretty much 'no military action ever no matter what' (and I respect that position although I disagree); 3) there's a bunch of people here who just honestly don't know but feel uncomfortable about it, and in the absence of being sure of the rightness of it, would prefer we'd stayed out. I am inches from that last group. There's a lot of things to be uncomfortable about with this situation. But, for now at least I still come down on the side of supporting Obama and Clinton and the others in the administration who made the decision. They are privy to stuff we don't know, and they did go about it in a much better way than Bush ever did or would have.

I think I agree with everything else in your post though. :)

(I should also note that the 'groups' I listed above certainly don't encompass everyone on DU; it's just a few categories I see that are predictive.)

[zbdent]

5. What ... are you taking sides with Rush and his pro-Khaddafi

rhetoric? At least this time, we didn't wait 20 years and one Donald Rumsfeld handshake to take action on the attacks on "his own people" ...

[David__77]

11. Yep, better ask no questions, or you are definitely, a 1000% stooge of Gaddafi!

Just as guilty as the genocidal madman himself!

[Hannah Bell]

88. The PNAC crowd (of which rumsfeld is a member) pressed Obama for intervention

within 10 days of the start of the libyan uprising. They're all for US intervention, despite your attempt to suggest the opposite.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. There's one reason and one reason only for such support here.

And we all know what that is. Obama(D).

If this was Bush/Cheney(R)....we'd be protesting in DC.

[cali]

14. I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I don't see people saying that

although I'm sure it's a factor.

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Right.

They would never admit that though, IMCPO.

I've never witnessed DU support a war...except when they supported Hezbollah attacking Israel, that is.

[bluestate10]

33. The party of the President makes no difference in my support.

I supported and still support the Afghan war, President Bush launched it with my full support. I support any intervention to stop brutality when it is clear that one side is barbaric and/or have an overwhelming military edge and is killing indiscriminately.

[Arkana]

66. This is absolutely, patently untrue

and you're being disingenuous by saying it is.

If Bush had gone about this thing the EXACT SAME WAY Obama has, I would have at least not disapproved of it. Of course, since I didn't vote for Bush and I hated the people around him even more, I would have been more suspicious of his motives. Helps to give the guy in the Oval Office the benefit of the doubt at the outset.

But Dubya didn't do Iraq or Afghanistan the way Obama has acted on Libya, so it's a moot point to speculate on this type of thing. My point is that you have absolutely no proof of your assertion and it's irresponsible and insulting to imply that you do.

[Myrina]

7. Me too ... since when do we support US intervention in other countries' civil wars?

:shrug: That's not our business, IIRC, regardless of which party holds the White House.

[JoePhilly]

22. Bosnia?

[BOG PERSON]

72. that turned out beautifully didn't it

we carved out a sovereign territory and handed it over to a bunch of low-life pimps and gangsters. democracy prevailed!

[Upton]

8. Pretty simple..

with some folks it's:

Democratic wars-GOOD

Republican wars-BAD

[ItNerd4life]

12. Sad but true. nt

[qazplm]

10. that we can't intervene everywhere

does not mean we cannot intervene anywhere.

That's a foolish consistency.

[cali]

16. I agree with that. It still doesn't make Libya the right intervention

[bluestate10]

37. Qaddafi is a brutal murderer who is resistant to diplomatic efforts

or embargoes. Qaddafi understands one thing, the raw use of force. He must be driven out of Libya and if he does not go, killed there.

[cali]

48. he's one of several.

[bluestate10]

76. Name one other that does not respond to diplomatic pressure? nt

[cali]

80. kim jong il

and some murderous leaders we just don't pressure.

[bluestate10]

131. Weak example. Right in one regard, both are homicidal madmen. nt

[Duende azul]

98. There was a diplomatic effort, denied by the "revolutionaries" and Obama/Clinton

At a time when they thought they'd oust Gaddafi within days.

Can you substantiate your claim that there were diplomatic efforts by the "revolutionaries" or by the US?

[sabrina 1]

139. Thank you, it's amazing how little people know and yet have no

problem making absolute declarations as if they were facts. Diplomatic solutions may very well have been possible.

Now that we know this 'revolution' was planned last year, backed by the French, it seems they did not want a solution, they wanted a new, friendly government. Seems that the real protesters were used and as one of them said on NPR today, 'betrayed' by 'our commanders'.

[damntexdem]

13. It's simple: it is the right thing to do.

It's like Bosnia and Kosovo. It's what we should have done in Darfur.

[cali]

17. It's not simple. It's never simple.

[bluestate10]

78. The difference between right and wrong is clear, very clear. nt

[cali]

81. "the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity"

it's rarely very clear. Would that it were more often.

[walldude]

93. From a certain point of view.

From another there were much cheaper more effective and easier ways to get rid of Gadhafi...

But those ways are "illegal" and we would never do anything "illegal" :eyes:

[Forkboy]

106. If only. Your certainty is scary.

And easy to manipulate, to boot.

[bluestate10]

39. 1000000% agree. nt

[Egnever]

15. I will support it as long as Khadaffi continues to use tanks on his own people

and I dont find the argument that we didnt or dont intervene elsewhere to be compelling. Thats like saying you should never help a single homeless person cause you cant help them all.

And no the spending of money on this sort of venture does not bother me. Invading Iraq bothered me as it was a completely fabricated war. I have seen enough evidence that this is a true rebelion against a dictator that has shown absolutely no mercy when dealing with his own people to make me comfortable that this action is justified.

Quite honestly I would be more than willing to bankrupt america to try to save people from governments willing to slaughter their own people. I wish there was another way to stop them short of armed conflict but I just dont see any other way that is effective.

Yes people are sufffering in America as they do the world over. You cant solve everyones problems and I am more than willing to prioritize the people of the world that are being hacked to pieces and blown to bits over people that need food or shelter. I wish all could be solved and I do think the rest of the world needs to step up far more than they have to adress situations such as the one in lybia we certainly shouldnt shoulder all of the burden ourselves but if no one else in the world is willing to do so I am glad that at least we are.

[cali]

21. uh. I find that unconvincing

Saddam Hussein had a more brutal history of oppressing his own people than did Khaddafi.

But the statement of yours that really flabbergasts me is that you'd be more than willing to bankrupt this country to save people from other governments. That's ridiculous for so many reasons.

[Egnever]

26. You dont have to agree with me

in fact I dont care one bit if you do or dont. I am not trying to convince you. You asked why you were answered.

[bluestate10]

46. And Hussein did a last dance at the end of a noose.

If we don't make an effort to stop leaders from murdering their people using their military, then we are morally bankrupt, so pocket bankruptcy is irrelevant. I would rather be poor and have a full soul than have full pockets with an empty soul.

[Forkboy]

109. Without shades of gray your soul cannot be full.

One may think it is, however.

[Old and In the Way]

53. Actually, i think the no-fly zone was working pretty well in containing Hussein.

As far as I know, the Bush decision to go to war with Saddam had very little to do with any organized revolt of the Iraqi people that was being brutally suppressed. Bush wanted this war for his own socio-economic reasons. His proof (WMD) was refuted by UN inspectors on the ground and by peopple like Ambassador Wilson and many of us saw that this was simply a justification to divvy up the #2 oil reserves in the world. Cheney's secret energy meetings bore this out. AFAIK, Joe Biden hasn't had any secret energy meetings with Big Oil to privatize Libya's oil reserves.

I can understand the cynicism of any US military intervention, even one that was initiated by the UN with a humanitarian goal. I blame the last administration for destroying our collective trust in believing any action can be undertaken for a higher purpose other than private profit. But I cannot in any way equate Obama's actions and motives to fit what was done in Iraq.

As always I reserve the right to change my mind as circumstances dictate, but I support the limited US role of providing a no-fly zone that will give the people of Libya a chance to remove Gaddafi on their own terms.

[Runework]

41. huh???

"Invading Iraq bothered me as it was a completely fabricated war. I have seen enough evidence that this is a true rebelion against a dictator that has shown absolutely no mercy when dealing with his own people to make me comfortable that this action is justified. "

Iraqis didnt rise up against Saddam? Supposedly he killed 60,000 Shiites when they had their uprising.
So, do tell, what's the difference (other than how the war was sold). Actual people were killed, no? And if they ever attempted again, they would be killed again by him.

Hell, you should support intervention in Syria before Libya..didnt they kill 80,000 of their own citizens?

lol it's all political, give me a break. totally transparent. totally hypocritical

[cali]

54. yes, Syria did kill 80,000 of its own citizens. I believe that happened in the early 80s

[Egnever]

118. And we should have stepped in and stopped that as well

[Forkboy]

129. Why didn't we is the bigger question.

And it may also relate to why we are stepping in here.

[Egnever]

135. Only if your concern is the reasoning and not the life

I am not at all unaware of the fact that our country rarely acts purely out of charitable intentions. Having said that I don't care what underlying reasons get our government on board to stop a slaughter as long as they step in and try to stop it.

I wish that it were different and that we would try to help whenever things like this happen that does not mean I am going to dismiss this particular action as bad simply because there may be ulterior motives behind some of the people supporting this action.

I want the wholesale slaughter of his people stopped and if that happens cause Exxon mobile thinks it might get its hands on the oil after the fact I really don't care as my goal is accomplished. I wish we would step in more often and am ashamed that we allowed the slaughters in places like Rwanda and syria to happen.

[Forkboy]

138. And I have true respect for your reply here.

I'm not that far from your own thinking, trust me. I just question everything.

Thanks for your answer.

[Egnever]

107. I would support it

If we were going in now to prevent a genocide or wholesale slaughter of inocents in syria as i would have in darfur. Has nothing to do with politics. I believe in trying to protect human life. I Thought what we did in Iraq was abhorent with our wink and a nod that we would support a revolution and then refusal to do so. I would have supported going into Iraq had we done it when the people rose up.


I think your response is the political one its all about bashing the president for you and has nothing whatsoever to do with conditions on the ground in theses countries.

[Fla_Democrat]

18. It's not the what, it's the who

If it was GW, or McCain... do you really think there would be as much support? Here? :think:




:smoke:

[cali]

I'd like to think that people are supporting this for more.... altruistic reasons

misguided as I may think those reasons, but maybe not.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Godhumor]

27. If it was UN sanctioned, you bet your ass I would support it

Hell, I had an entire OP about how I wouldn't care who was president.

[Cascadian]

51. The funny thing about that is.....

if Obama did not do anything about Libya he would be criticized, and now that he is doing something, he gets criticized. Where do you draw the line? Can't win for losing I suppose but I really hope Obama is not considering sending an invasion force there. How can we afford it with the two other wars we have now?




John
(The Cascadian is back!)

[highplainsdem]

23. THIS is why many here support the intervention - the Responsibility to Protect (70% agree with):

See Josh Cryer's topics on how DUers feel about the Responsibility to Protect:

The first poll showed over 70% of those responding believe the Responsibility to Protect is a good idea:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x694407

In the second poll, Josh asked, "Did the UN err in invoking the Responsibility to Protect with regards to Libya?" Over 70% said No, indicating agreement with the UN intervention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x701030

Those polls lead me to believe that there's much more support for the intervention than you see from the many topics here criticizing it.

I don't always agree with the President, but I agree with him on this. I just didn't feel like posting multiple topics about it, as many critics of the intervention here have posted multiple topics (some posting multiple topics just on his speech).

I have posted about this, to quote the Human Rights Watch director's support of this intervention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x706216

And as I mentioned in a reply in one of Josh's topics, I posted about the Responsibiiity to Protect on February 21:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x474862

[Change Happens]

24. Cali, I am supportive because I know how truly EVIL Gaddafi is...

I roomed with a couple of Lybians in college for few years, they always told of horror stories of the suffering of the Lybian people, they did wish Reagan had killed him and his family during the one strike on him in 1980s...He is a brutal madman, crazy, he even changed the Koran once, to insert some of his own crap/propaganda about his own revolution...etc. Regular Moslim people everywhere hate him too.

Had Saudi Arabia and others in the GCC not had their own issues right now, they will all be on board with this operation, the Arab League voted in support for a good reason.

If not us, yes us, the United States, then who?

The poeple rose up and demanded and are fighting for their own freedom from an evil man, the least we can do is give them a no fly zone.

FYI...I am in support of ALL Arab people rising up to depose of their kings, princes, royal families...etc.

[cali]

34. thanks for your response.

But what if the interventions results in horrific ramifications? History teaches us that that can happen all too easily. As for Saudi Arabia, it's a horrendous little fiefdom itself. Their being on our side here, hardly makes the case for me.

[Harmony Blue]

69. Whatever you think of Saudi Arabia

currently they have actually sent troops into Bahrain to bring stability to that country. The countries of the world are actually taking the initiative of taking care of their own spheres of influence for once instead of calling Washington D.C. or Moscow as it has already been mentioned.

[cali]

83. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

they sent troops in to put down protests.

[Harmony Blue]

143. I already clarified that regardless of what you think of Saudi Arabia....

But that is correct what happened in Bahrain.

I am not defending Saudi Arabia, but I am pointing out countries of the world are influencing their spheres of influence instead of relying on Super powers to take care of them.

Cali

You must embrace the reality that this was an opportunity for the United States to avoid the mistakes of the past, but more importantly forge a future where other countries chip in for the sake of humanity.

[BOG PERSON]

to quote Proposition Joe...

"woe to those who call evil good and good evil"

[KamaAina]

38. What "issues"?

We've sold the Saudis (and Qatar, UAE, etc.) enough shiny high-tech toys that they should be able to take care of this with ease. Throw in France, which has its own aerospace industry, and you have more than enough firepower to take care of the tinpot dictator du jour.

And by leaving the U.S. out of it for once, you move the ideal of collective security a giant step forward, away from the Cold War-era notion that everyone, no matter where in the world, who needs intervention just picks up the phone and calls Washington. Moscow's analogous global war hotline has been turned off for years. It's time to croak ours, too.

edit: We've got a couple of issues, too, you know -- like Afghanistan and Iraq.

[BOG PERSON]

43. very good

ex-pats/exiles are notorious for their honesty. in fact, i never met an ex-pat/exile i couldn't trust.

[Change Happens]

85. They were college students, they graduated and they all went back home...

I fear for their safety now...Not sure whatever happened to them.

[ReggieVeggie]

103. evil schmeevil

I'm so tired of that word

Psychotic? Psychopathic? Malevolent? Fine. Evil? There's no such thing.

[DevonRex]

28. Question: are you happy with all the personal attacks this thread has generated?

[cali]

30. not terribly, but they weren't unexpected.

[Taverner]

31. You and me both, Cali

You and me both

[The Magistrate]

32. Much Of It, Ma'am, Owes To the Poor Quality Of The Most Vociferous Opposition

[cali]

36. Do you mean here at DU?

I agree that quite a bit of what I've seen here in opposition has been as you describe, but I can't believe people here would support the intervention because of that.

[The Magistrate]

67. Much Of the 'Support', Ma'am, Is Opposition To the Opposition

My own feelings on the matter are ambivalent, but the tone and style of much said in attacking the action is repugnant in the extreme. There are people who turn on a dime from denouncing Gaddahfi as a tool of the West to denouncing the rebels as tools of the West; people who have habitually opposed President Obama from a center-right line who now can be found opposing this acton from a hard left perspective; people trotting out yet again the standard 'May Day' style assaults on anything done by the United States. It is mostly reflexive as the twitch of a knee under a doctor's mallet....

[cali]

84. yes, that is so.

and it always disgusts me.

[joshcryer]

140. Exactly. I Would Not Spend 100s Of Hours A Week On This If The Previous Supporters Didn't Do A 180

It is entirely due to the fact that so many people basically have, and continue to malign the initial Feb 17 uprising. I only wish that I could be ambivalent, I wish I didn't have this desire to waste my life combating the dishonesty aimed at the rebellion. It was the same way in the primaries. I hardly cared who was our nominee, but I defended that "other person" because it was just out of hand and cruel.

There's something about my personality that forces me to defend the weak, so to speak.

[highplainsdem]

144. And the Responsibility to Protect is a factor, too, as your polls showed. See my reply, #23,

which is being ignored so far.

I think those polls you did are extremely important, since they showed 70% support here for this intervention on the basis of the Responsibility to Protect.

[joshcryer]

148. Yeah, it's just a charged political atmosphere where people want to score points.

Once you look past that you get real answers, imo.

[Forkboy]

42. Which in it's own way is kind of sad, in an abstract way.

To me that statement speaks to our need for someone to show us the way, on this issue or any other. Not so much speaking about my own views on the actions in Libya (which are pretty mixed), but on our need for that guidance in life in general. Are we incapable of deciding for ourselves if something is right or wrong, or do we need validation from outside before we settle on a side?

Sadly, I think I already know this answer. :)

[bluestate10]

59. Sorry pal. I have a clear understanding of right and wrong.

I lived Bosnia daily in my heart and was long the first among my circle to ask why the USA did not stop the killing, years before the US and NATO finally took action. Bill Clinton allowed genocide to happen, with 800,000 dead. Clinton's last moment on earth will likely have him consumed by that, his public statements already imply that he is tortured by that moral failure.
When might is applied righteously, I have no concerns about the violence that results, as long as evil people are stopped.

[Old and In the Way]

65. I agree that Ruwanda was an intervention that should have occurred.

It should have had a strong UN support, too.

Back in 2003, in various posts on the rush to war in Iraq, I made a point that this action would hamstring future Presidents from using our military as a force for good because the public trust would be broken. I think this is absolutely the case with Libya.

I can't justify another dollar or life spent in Afghanistan, but I fully support this action.

[bluestate10]

79. Iraq was a war started on a lie. Libya is different. Libya is a just war. nt

[Duende azul]

102. Hell, this time really they won't lie to you. Really.

Go enlist, if you find this war so just.

[Egnever]

110. .

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

70. If I had a nickel for every time "righteousness" has been invoked throughout history....

Right wingers tell us they have the same "clear understanding of right and wrong" that you're telling me. No room for doubt, soldier! Meh, you can have the posturing tough guy talk if it makes you feel good.

[bluestate10]

86. The rightwing are hypocrites. BTW, I am not a tough guy.

The difference between right and wrong is not a shade of gray. The right does a dis-service to civilization by mouthing that they understand the difference. Force applied in the pursuit of good is righteous, I say this in a philosophical, non-religious tone.

[Forkboy]

92. I do understand what you're saying here, but it still echoes the surety of the Right to me.

You claim that they don't understand the difference, they claim the same about about us. Yeah, I think we're correct over the Right, but the argument tactic is EXACTLY the same as the one they use. That alone should give us pause.

Forget Libya, choose any conflict throughout history, be it political, regional, etc, and in every single instance you will find people who were sure of the righteousness of their actions, be they philosophical or religious. In light of this I can't have your surety.

There's other factors at play for me too beyond this that deal with manipulation of certain emotions and desires, but that's more esoteric that we need to get for the moment.

[Duende azul]

116. Oh my god, the "good". At least try not to act hypocritical pursuing the "good"

Then equally take on the Saudis. And the guys who are murdering Pakistani and Afghan civilians via remote control from some place in the good ol'USA.
According to you there is no shade of gray.

There is no moral high ground for America to judge others. None.
The call to determine who's good and whose bad is not America's to make.

All moral justifications for this and the other ongoing wars go down the drain.

Let's talk about imperial/corporate interests. Now the contradictory positions regarding Libya and Bahrain start making sense.

[Forkboy]

35. I'm not at all.

First of all, I think a lot of people genuinely want to help people, and this has been presented as such a chance. I have mixed feelings on it myself for just this reason, despite what I know about our history in the Middle East, the vultures circling Libya's resources, and our own disregard for past humanitarian chances in the past. It's a hard reflex to let go of.

Secondly, it's a war/police action/romp/whateveryouwanttocallit with a "D" in front of it, and our party has a percentage of people who care about team over issues just as much as the Republicans do (or any other party/team).

[cali]

40. yes, I agree that a lot of folks genuinely want to help people.

but what I guess I'm wondering about is whether they've thought about the things you mention and the things I mention in the OP.

[Forkboy]

52. That's a tough one to answer.

How deeply one has pondered this is kind of subjective, I guess, but I suspect many have thought about it. They may not care, they may think the good outweighs the bad, I don't know. We are a hair-trigger society, no doubt, and I do feel that many haven't thought this through entirely, but I probably haven't either. :)

[bluestate10]

60. Yes. I have thought about the issues that you mentioned. I still favor

forceful action, even up to sending in ground troops with well defined objectives and a time-frame to their involvement.

[Forkboy]

130. How have these time frames gone for us so far?

[Egnever]

111. Of course I have thought about it.

I dont buy into the idea that because we did something poorly once every action thereafter is done poorly.

[Runework]

45. another thing

If the mission was to protect Benghazi, why did the US perform bombings for the rebels as they advanced west?

It's taking sides in a civil war, so Obama is being dishonest selling this, just as Bush was a liar.

[Forkboy]

56. These are valid questions, and I don't mean to dodge them.

But I'm coming at this from a more philosophical mind set right now, where as you're talking real politik. I'm still not sure where I fall on this, so I can't really give you an answer those questions deserve right now.

[Cascadian]

44. I am actually mixed about the whole thing.

I am no fan of Gadaffi. I think he's a psychotic murderous bastard and he probably deserves to be bombed along with his friends. That being said, would the U.S. and NATO be there if all Libya had to export was Hummus instead of oil? I don't think so and my big concern is now they are talking about boots on the ground there. The Libyan rebels have stated over and over again that they do not want foreign armies on their soil. So what's about to happen? We might be sending armies to the shores of Tripoli. If that happens then they've lost me.





John
(The Cascadian is back!)

[Waiting For Everyman]

49. When reports start coming out of the west of Libya, this "debate" will be over.

Gadaffi has decimated the towns in the west, just as he would've done in Benghazi. Then we'll get to see what that looks like.

I don't think too many people will want to keep defending the "do nothing" position then.

[bluestate10]

64. When the story of the unseen dead are finally told, I want to see the

response of the morally unsure. When faced with evil, one can never be unsure. I for one would rather apologize for being too violent toward Qaddafi than the opposite. Any person that will blow innocent people out of the sky, with many dying slowly as they fell to earth, gets zero sympathy or concern from me.

[Harmony Blue]

50. Your concerns are very real, and I share them

You are correct, that for my case, I am not a supporter of the U.S. war machine or the military budget which requires trimming. The biggest reason I back the no fly zone over Libya is because it has garnered a lot of support over seas from other countries which CNN or Fox News simply do not show.

Allowing other countries to show concern about what happens on their door step is a huge step in the right direction for the United States and the world community. With increased responsibility being thrust on other nations of the world, this will allow the U.S. to decrease is justification, and need to have bases all over the world or its very large expensive, and outdated carrier fleet (in my opinion). For example, there is swift action taking place by the world community with the Ivory Coast led by the French government, as we type, while with Rwanda it was at a snails pace in comparison.

Air craft carriers are expensive to not only maintain, but also protect because of how vulnerable they are. It is not exaggeration when someone speaks of just one missile landing its marks that renders a carrier in a state of uselessness. Furthermore, the environmental damage these vessels can generate in a concentrated area is unequaled by any other man made craft at sea arguably.

The need for the United States to have to project power will dwindle as we delegate (as we should) for other nations of the world to step up to take care of regional conflicts in their vicinity. They have a stake in this world just like us U.S. citizens. It is our world we live in together, so we should share the burden of it. Sharing for the good of all is what is to be a liberal, and a socialist.

The United States military needs to become an efficient, mobile force to be used when necessary, not a lethargic behemoth that it currently is because of the bloat fueled by the MIC.

[phleshdef]

55. I've not heard 1 credible middle eastern expert not say that imminent genocide was likely.

When I hear someone like Richard Engle say that they were within hours of sacking Benghazi after we already KNEW that they had just murdered over a thousand people in one day, then there is no reason to believe that the threat of a genocidal action here was very, very real.

And no, we can't invervene in every situation, the President and many supporters of the actions in Libya have been very clear on this. But when the international community wants to come together with a consensus to do something like operate a no-fly zone in order to lessen the chances of a very likely massacre from being successful, then yea, I can get behind that.

And no, if its still going on 6 months from now, I am not going to be angry over the money being spent on it. I'm much angrier over the money that isn't being collected in taxes from wealthy corporations. If we did that, then we'd have the money to support strong domestic policy and to intervene in dire situations if needed. Thats not to say that military and defense spending doesn't need to be cut. It most certainly does and by an enormous margin. But we can cut wasteful defense spending and still respond to situations like this.

[dipsydoodle]

77. The expression originated

with the Libyan Envoy to the UN back in February and unfortunately many latched on to it.

[TorchTheWitch]

115. look up the word genocide

How many people one kills doesn't determine whether or not genocide exists. What's going on in Libya is not genocide and never will be genocide regardless of how many Gaddafi kills. Richard Engle needs to look up the meaning of the word, too.

Words have specific meanings. The word genocide has a very specific definition both generally and legally.

"... in order to lessen the chances of a very likely massacre from being successful, then yea, I can get behind that."

Except that isn't the REAL reason. It is NEVER the real reason. Historically it's NEVER the real reason no matter how many centuries one goes back. It's merely the EXCUSE in order to get public backing.

[phleshdef]

149. What was going on here fits the definition of genocide 100%.

And I don't think you have the credibility to be telling Richard Engle that he needs to be doing anything.

Aside from that, genocide applies to "national" groups. Ghaddafi was threatening to kill everyone in his country that opposed him. These people are, for all intents and purposes, a national group. This would have been genocide, unquestionably.

[Raine]

57. Well not everyone here is a pacifist

it's not a requirement for being a Democrat.

[bluestate10]

68. I get the sense that some here would have opposed going to war

against Hitler. While I can see their opposition to war, sometime violence is the only choice available.

[Runework]

90. come on

we already had enough Hitler comparisons when sold the Iraq war. Put it to bed. It's absurd

[Egnever]

120. No more absurd than pretending

people only support this because Obama did it.

[Left coast liberal]

58. It is, indeed, a turd sandwich...

[DemocratAholic]

61. nothing to be surprised about

USA has decided to use its military power to prevent the imminent slaughter of innocent people, who were literally pleading on their hands and knees for assistance. Frankly, I'm not surprised at all about Democrats supporting this humanitarian mission. I'm much more surprised at those who didn't. Honestly, it has given me pause, and made me think about who exactly are these people who are arguing against this. Where is their humanity?

I'm not sure I would compare American "suffering" with a entire city in Libya that was about to be extinguished by a madman. I am not one who believes that the life of one human being is more important because of the country they live in.

[Davis_X_Machina]

62. I suggest...

...intervention only in oil-less countries frequently visited by Bono. That way we know it's really humanitarian, and not a nasty capitalist-imperialist intervention.

[Egnever]

112. Sorry

Not buying it human life is human life and if oil helps save those lives so be it.

[Gregorian]

63. I have hopes. But it is a dilemma. And more than likely not going to be productive.

I am consistently against all war. Despite historical actions, I had hoped this was purely humanitarian, and aimed at quickly establishing a new government that reflects the will of the majority of Libyans.

Hitting the country with missiles is probably not necessary. That probably gives away our intentions, unless all we have is a hammer for every job.

I honestly don't know. I've been back and forth on the issue. It looks like a duck. It's walking like a duck. I'm afraid it's not humanitarian. And looking back at our history, it most likely isn't humanitarian. I don't know.

Also more than likely, many countries have commercial interests that hinge on the stability of Libya. In that case, I also doubt that this is a humanitarian effort.

[opihimoimoi]

73. Damned if you do and damned if ya don't...Obama went for Whats BEST

He is for the big picture....

[Snoutport]

82. If you look at it as a support of the Libyan PEOPLE does that help?

Just wondering. It helps me to look at it that way.

[Waiting For Everyman]

87. If we always presume that anything we do is going to be screwed up or

has bad motives, then we will always do nothing. And that is effectively being the same as the do-nothing Republicans. (It's the "government is bad" philosophy.)

Isn't that interesting? Things that make you go "hmmm".

It's the same position. From both the left and the right.

And then people talk about coalition supporters being on the same side as certain neocons who happen to agree with it, well how about being on the same side as Gaddafi? That's not a problem? (It's an irrelevant and fallacious argument anyway to begin with.)

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modern_Matthew]

89. There's a lot of moderates here, unfortunately. The FAR left would never support it. nt

[cali]

96. I'm not much into labels but I don't think I'm the far left

and many here would indeed (and have) called me a moderate.

[stevedeshazer]

94. I'm not.

Many posters here, you included, went after me for saying war is wrong.

The whole thing troubles me a great deal, cali.

[cali]

97. yeah, because you made a blanket statement that all war is wrong

as people pointed out to you, sometimes it's the best of the bad choices. I still think you're wrong.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vattel]

101. I believe that resort to military force is almost always unjustified,

but if Obama prevented a massacre, and our use of military force is nearly over, then even I am not going to complain.

I think the support is based on trusting Obama to make this a reasonably short, reasonably low-cost, effort to prevent a massacre. Whether that trust is warranted remains to be seen.

[Runework]

122. the problem with that

"I think the support is based on trusting Obama to make this a reasonably short, reasonably low-cost, effort to prevent a massacre"

well , qadaffis troops retreated west. the rebels went on the offensive


if it was soley to "prevent a massacre", Obama could have used channels to make it clear that the US would NOT bomb in support of aggressive movement on the part of the rebels. that isnt what happened.

[Aerows]

104. This war is PNAC BS

Feel free to disagree all that you like, but this was PLANNED. Britain had MI6 operatives in the country that got caught red handed stirring up rebels and arming them. I do not support this war because it is a PLANNED, deliberate action.

I have little love for Ghaddafi, but lets call a spade a spade. This is entirely motivated by the fact that Libya sits on a pile of oil, and Ghaddafi threatened to nationalize the oil companies.

Even Obama stated that this was a war to protect US interests. What the hell else do you want to hear? Do you have to have it spelled out for you that it is about oil?

[cali]

108. sigh. I'm asking questions of people here who support it

or do you think they're all part of this PNAC plot too? And no, I don't think it's nearly as simple as you do. but then I'm not simplistic.

[Runework]

113. some people are incredibly naive

in their world, intelligence agencies never foment revolts

in their world, oil companies never encourage military action for their own purposes

in their world, the pretext is the truth

[Egnever]

119. Does it matter how the uprising started?

regardless of what was the catalyst it has begun and Khadafis response has been brutal and unyeilding. I dont care what started this mess it needs to stop.

[Runework]

121. saddam killed his citizens

so, by that logic, why didnt you support the Iraq war? or did you?

saddam killed more of his countrymen than qadaffi has, you can't dispute that

so why not support what bush did, despite the lies?

see where all this leads?

[Egnever]

123. Had we gone ion when the uprising happened

I would have supported it. I did support the no fly zone that we had on him which is what we have now with khadafi. Lacking an uprising In Iraq at the time we went to war with them I did not think nor do I think the situations are even remotely similar. In fact I find the comparison intelectually lazy.

I blame a lot of the blood on Sadams hands on us or more apropriately poppy bush for encouraging the people to revolt and then letting them be slaughtered.

[Runework]

124. lol ok so once the killing is done, forget about it?

and if the blood on saddam's hands was "our" fault, wouldnt that be all the more reason to depose him?

seems entirely abitrary (other than the fact of who is Pres)


btw the US is bombing troops...how is that a "no fly zone"?

[Egnever]

127. Again I find your arguments

intellectually lazy. And again had we gone in when the slaughter was going on I would have been in full support so I don't see the comparison you are trying to make as being valid whatsoever.

Yes once the slaughter is over it is too late. Going in after the fact only ensures more Innocent deaths.

Also the NO fly zone in Iraq which I also supported was a reaction to the slaughter Saddam was carrying out on his people.

The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors

So I think my position is entirely consistent.

[Bluerthanblue]

134. so, is your view of the world that nothing that the US does is

ever done with anything other than evil self-serving agendas?

:shrug:

[elocs]

114. I hope you learn to live with perplexion.

I'm also perplexed when people do not agree with my point of view. How is that possible? :shrug:

[cali]

117. yes, it's just that simple. or you could try reading the op and actually thinking

or not. I'm guessing you're rather big on the not.

[elocs]

142. Yes, absolutely right. Very, very big on the not. Glad you get it.

Guess I didn't find the OP worth reading. I hope you are not perplexed by that.

[David__77]

125. Well, there's the cynical answer.

And that is the (D) next to Obama's name. I firmly believe that such "multilaterialism" would be rejected were it a Republican president in power. Obama's arguments over how this is different than Iraq seemed quite tortured. I am not sure he himself is comfortable with all this.

Genocide was not inevitable in Libya. More lives will be lost due to the intervention and ensuing events than if the Benghazi has been pacified. I do not mean that I support Gaddafi - that is not true. But that does not change facts regarding human life. If we, the US, are deciding that imposition of a democratic social system on Libya is worth the violence and mayhem, then the honest thing is to admit that.

[LWolf]

126. I don't support it at all. nt

[killbotfactory]

132. I support all popular uprisings against brutal tyrants like Gaddafi

Maybe I'm just weird like that.

[Davis_X_Machina]

133. I support all popular uprisings against brutal tyrants like Gaddafi...

...provided no US money is spent, no outside forces are involved, and someone other than the US, UN, NATO or the EU leads it.

In other words, I don't actually support them. It's more like I admire them.

DU has its cake, eats it too, and it has no calories, so DU never puts on weight.

[joshcryer]

145. I support the Arab Spring.

[alarimer]

137. It's okay if a Democrat does it.

That's the only explanation I can come up with. I can already see the mission creep happening. We are no involved in THREE wars. A giant clusterfuck we cannot afford.

[QC]

141. There's nothing perplexing about it.

It's the politics of personality.

[Bluerthanblue]

146. to be honest Cali I'm not

sure how I'd feel about it if this goes on for several months or longer. I don't think a prolonged presence would be in anyones best interest. The Libyan people are fighting to be free- they don't want or need outside countries controlling them.

I don't see Gaddafi as a 'sub-human monster' but he is a dangerous man who doesn't seem to have a problem killing whoever gets in his way, I don't have any doubt that he would act on his threat to go "house to house, room by room" killing those who oppose him and anyone else unlucky enough to be around.

It's true we can't intervene -militarily- in every country where people are at risk. But in this instance- and with a limited agenda (no ground troops, UN/NATO led, brief duration) I believe the choice to act was the best of two bad options.

That it was Pres. Obama and not Bush making this decision does factor into my own willingness to support this action to some extent. NOT because I'm an 'apologist', believe he can do no wrong, or "idolize" him. I don't believe he is a "warmonger", or that he has chosen this path happily or easily. I can't say the same for Bush. He was making plans to oust Saddam months after becoming president. The action in Kosovo is the only other US military intervention (in my lifetime) which I've supported.

I don't believe staying out of the situation in Libya would make any difference in the piss-poor way we treat those suffering and struggling here in America. Even given our current situation we are still one of the richest nations in the world. Our people go hungry and homeless because we choose to let them- we could take very good care of all of us, if we wanted.

As for the "what if" - well, we can what if all we like but it's kind of pointless. I'm not a fatalist. We make our decisions in the present tense. No matter what we choose, there is no way we'll ever know what "would have happened if" because "we" aren't omnipotent. It's possible that Libya could end up in a worse situation- it's also possible that it won't. If we refuse to do something because we're afraid it will go badly, then we will never do anything. Which IS, in fact making a choice and does impact others for good or ill.

I've rambled on too long as usual.

[Harmony Blue]

147. They could have not intervened in Libya

The Chinese rely heavily on Libyan oil, and the Russians were exploring the idea of building naval bases in Libya. Saudi Arabia is giving the United States a cold shoulder for its intervention in enforcing the NO FLy zone. So, there are lot of risks that the President is taking, but if he genuinely believed it was the best way to slow down the killing of civilians I will not doubt him if he has information we are not privy too. But Al Jazeerea was showing all of this going down in live time, so I question if many Americans realize how much American news coverage is lacking. For example, the American media portrays as if the United States launched the initial strikes in enforcing the no fly zone, but that wasn't the case.

But I think there is some merit to what President Obama said when it would destabilize the fragile countries Egypt, and Tunisia which probably was the main catalyst as to why the international community acted so swiftly IMVHO.