What the fuck is up with these Progressives saying we should get involved with Libya

[bigdarryl]

I heard Kerry,Bill Press and others in the Progressive media talk about we should enforce a no-fly zone over Libya which is an ACT OF WAR are they NUTS!!!! no fly zones cost MONEY!!! which we are not supposed to have.This is not a good idea and if one of those planes is shot down Obama will get the blame for it I don't care if it is a supposed UN operation we all know how this shit works.We end up doing most of the work.

[jschurchin]

1. Spell Check is your friend brother, nt.

[LiberalFighter]

2. He doesn't well with spelling.

Also, spell check doesn't work in the subject line.

[Blue-Jay]

69. You don't well with grammar.

:D

[boppers]

70. Browser based spell check does.

Chrome catches errors just fine.

[golfguru]

31. stop nitpicking..pay attention to content n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. What's a Pregessive?

[jschurchin]

5. An Insurance Company.

Oh wait, thats Progressive. Never mind.

[leveymg]

18. A conservative who hasn't been laid-off yet.

:evilgrin: Couldn't resist.

[nxylas]

76. Duzy!

Are those still going?

[meow mix]

4. Unrec for the protestors and victims of genocide..

ghadafi thanks you however. go rebels

[still_one]

6. Since you feel so strongly would you commit yourself or encourage your children to join the military

who will surely be the ones involved in this operation? Also, do you find it puzzling that we aren't doing the same for Sudan or other countries who are exploiting their populations?

Perhaps it isn't really for the humanitarian aid that you believe, but oil

We went into Iraq based on humanitarian aid and WMDs, or did we?

[Kolesar]

9. "We" went into Iraq based on humanitarian aid and WMDs

speak for yourself

[still_one]

12. That is what WE were told, NOT what I said. Did you read my entire post? From that you should have

known where I was coming from, and it wasn't from approving going into Iraq

[meow mix]

10. as if they would take me... lol nice try though

id prefer other work either way, doesnt mean i cant support our president and the rest of the world on this.

[still_one]

14. Not nice try, why not Sudan or other countries, why only Libya? /nt

[meow mix]

29. because thats not where we are

if we are toppling a genocidal maniac there im not aware of it

[OnyxCollie]

66. Why only Libya?

OPEC member country! Collect them all!

[wisteria]

80. +1 n/t

[Lint Head]

7. Thank God FDR, a progressive Democrat was President when WWII broke out.

:patriot:

[still_one]

16. WWII and what is happening in Libya are not comparable. However, if you believe they are, then why

aren't we doing the same thing in Sudan?

[Armstead]

8. What does being "pregressive" have to do with it?

I think anyone with a conscience and a brain has to struggle with this one.

On one hand, basic human decency says it is immoral to knowingly sit on the sidelines and watch as people are slaughtered by a tyrant.

On the other hand, we also do not want to enmesh the US in war.

What do you do? The answer should be a matter of conscience, not political labels.

[still_one]

23. I think the assumption being that progressives are anti-violence. I do not think that is a valid

assumption by the way, and usually broad brush generalizations are not always valid

[Armstead]

24. Maybe so -- I see it as an issue with positions up to individual conscience, not ideological

..not ideological templates.

[still_one]

25. What you just pointed out is the key /nt

[Pharaoh]

11. Ghadaffi is slaughtering

his own people

Yes, we can at least keep his aircraft on the ground to help the rebels.

I don't think they are planning on anything else. But it would be easy to pick of his tanks etc from the air.

[vaberella]

15. We have absolutely no relationship with Libya---except for our citizens that were there.

We got them out and we're advocating sending in military. Sadam was doing the same thing for years. We go into Iraq and we're waging two wars now---I'm hearing. This would be what...no.3 or no.4.

I thought we were trying to learn from our mistakes in Iraq. Not to mention how problematic would it be we go into Libya when we didn't go into Tunisia, Iran, Egypt and so on when the leaders were also killing people.

[Tiggeroshii]

33. Oh was there an active revolt following a several week mounting, historical public demonstration

...that splintered the government resulting in the defection of top military officers, diplomats and cabinet members that was able to take over half of the country peacefully that were then besieged by government military encroachments in a gradual take over that will likely lead to an even larger mass murder over the ENTIRE country? Did Saddam do that? I was six when the Gulf War started, it's hard for me to remember.

[Eko]

75. Very Good

Summary.
Thanks.

[still_one]

17. Actually from what I understand, we can actually start to bomb certain areas based on this /nt

[Ozymanithrax]

13. What the fuck is up with Libyans wanting help to stop their governmlent from murdering them...

Why should we worry about dead Libyans. It is their own fucking fault for being progressive enough to want to expand their freedoms.

[still_one]

19. Why aren't we doing the same thing in Bahrain? /nt

[Ozymanithrax]

21. (1) Bahrain rebels have not asked the UN...

(2) The House of Saud is already there. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x679929) (http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article317215.ece?comments=all), though they are helping the government.

Should the people ask for help to stop their government from bombing them, we should also help Bahrain.

[still_one]

22. ok /nt

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

20. Because they are with the Libyan People. You can be with Gadhafi if you want.

[asphalt.jungle]

27. because they are with the Iraqi people. You can be with Saddam if you want.

damn that sounds so familiar to the nonsense we were hearing after 9/11. "saddam kills his own people." "he's used WMD on his people before." now today everyone one wants to act like they were one of the 20 or 30% that were against the iraq war from the start. i can see people acting the same way about libya in the future after it all goes wrong. "oh i was against that stupid war, i wasn't a cheerleader."

[jenmito]

42. There is no comparison between Iraq and Libya. Bush lied us into war with Iraq, claiming

they had WMD and we couldn't wait "for a smoking gun which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." He also said Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11-at least it was strongly implied. And we sent in ground troops.

That's a totally different scenario from Obama getting a UN resolution with the support of the Arab League to help the people of Libya who WANTED our help. Obama didn't lie to us to send our troops into Libya (the resolution specifically states there will be NO ground troops sent in).

[OhioBlue]

71. Exactly Jen!!!

Damn it!!! There is absolutely no comparison to Iraq and Libya. It boggles the mind.

[jenmito]

79. Thanks, OhioBlue!

Yup-it's unbelievable how some try to equate Obama to Bush when there is NO comparison between them and the actions taken by Bush in Iraq and what Obama's doing (with a UN resolution, the blessing of the Arab League, and no ground troops) in Libya.

[vaberella]

26. I'm supportive of the Libyan people, but to support this boggles my mind.

The Afghani people are also in need of protection. But people want us to pull out of that nation. Move into Libya? I say if we move out of one or two countries--let's get out of a few more.

[MatthewStLouis]

28. Hmmm. Isn't acting in the defense of democracy the right thing to do?

Sure, our policy is often in support of dictatorships, etc. and we don't always do the right thing, but in this instance we may have an opportunity to actually help. Let's just keep it under control and let the people of Libya decide how much "help" they need.

It would nice to have the luxury to be an isolationist nation, but that doesn't always work out so well. In the case of our own revolution, we might still be under British rule if not for the French.




"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

[lelgt60]

30. I support a UN enforced no fly zone. I do not support US involvement

I support the no fly zone for many of the reasons already mentioned here. But why does everyone assume the U.S. should be the ones to do it? We don't have a great record at solving other countries problems. Our motives will be questioned (and there are good reasons to do so). The actions will become about us, not the Libyan freedom fighters.

We need to start diminishing the widespread belief (both here and abroad) that we should (or even can) be the world's policeman.

[golfguru]

32. We are the unofficial policeman/cop of the world

But we are very selective where we get involved.
We ignored Rwanda where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered.
But Libya has oil...so we must be interested.

[Safetykitten]

35. Oil Security/Geological Resource Continuity Squad

[ClarkUSA]

41. What garbage. If that were true, we'd be trying to crush the rebels instead of defending them.

[Safetykitten]

34. This is so spectacularly fucked up, it's like the fucking cherry on the

crap sundae that we have been making with every screwed up thing in the last month.

This WILL NOT end well.

[forty6]

36. PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON OUR FACES, THE REASON:......

Libya has OIL !!!!!!


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/qaddafi-advance-poses-eni-expulsion-risk-from-libyan-oil-fields.html

"Muammar Qaddafi may expel western energy companies from Libya should he snuff out the month-old armed rebellion against his regime, draining money from the economy and hurting exporters such as Eni SpA (ENI) and Repsol YPF SA. (REP)

Qaddafi, 68, took control of Ras Lanuf and Brega oil facilities and moved near Benghazi, the center of the rebellion, as the United Nations Security Council voted to establish a no- fly zone over Libya."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Of course, that's the main thing motivating progressives.

Gadaffi's oppression of "his own" people and their desire to be rid of him has nothing to do with it.

I'm not convinced that military action against Libya is a good idea.

I *am* certain that the majority of those supporting it, especially on the left, do so for noble reasons.

[vaberella]

38. What you're suggesting is that the Liberals want to be involved for oil.

Obama seems to not want to be involved in this.

[golfguru]

39. You mean less involved than Egypt?

[ClarkUSA]

40. Yes, liberals should let Quadaffi slaughter hundreds of thousands of democratic-minded rebels...

... without lifting a finger.

:sarcasm:

[Dash87]

46. Yes, They can fight on their own. Why should we to send more American soldiers over

to help more people that call us evil, the scum of the earth, and don't like us? I don't want to see Iraq, part II. :(

[ClarkUSA]

47. No, they can't. Besides, the UN resolution has had the desired effect w/o any action being taken.

Quaddafi has agreed to a ceasefire and the US is spearheading more concessions in support of the burgeoning democratic movement in Libya. This is the right thing to do. It is NATO at its finest. We intervened during the Bosnian war to prevent further genocide. I always thought that Bill Clinton should have intervened during the Rwanda massacre/genocide, too.

Your fears are without basis. There were similar arguments against the US entering WWI and WWII, too.

[Recovered Repug]

67. Why not?

The US and the world didn't do much to stop 800,000 Rwandans from hacking each other to death.

[hardtravelin]

43. Speaking as someone who actually has to do the fighting...

They can fuck off. The military is tired, stretched thin, and tired of seeing our buddies killed for people who could give two blue fucks about us.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Quadaffi has already agreed to a ceasefire. And the UN resolution bars ground troops.

So "as someone who actually has to do the fighting" what chance do "your buddies" have of being killed?

[hardtravelin]

48. Are you serious?

First, a no-fly zone is not just a strongly worded letter. It is our planes over Libyan airspace, shooting down any Libyan aircraft that takes off. The first step in this are airstrikes to reduce the air defenses. Pilots and crews will be in harm's way at the outset.

Secondly, what will happen when the world's leaders who pushed for this discover that the no-fly zone has failed to achieve the objective: that Quaddafi is still slaughtering the rebels. What will happen next?

Hint: I have friends in Italy (paratroopers) who have had their leaves and passes cancelled. They are loading aircraft with equipment as we speak.

Are you being deliberately naive?

And as to your suspect of my bonafides, I have been deployed to Panama, Bosnia, OIF and OEF in my career. I am an Infantry NCO and have been in both Airborne and Special Operations units during my career...and this sounds like the same old shit again.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Yes, considering Quaddafi is backing down already; he knows what we're capable of. Remember Reagan?

Quaddafi's bravado against the US died along with his infant daughter.

I am not naive at all. I was against the drumbeat to Iraq from the beginning (DU archives bear me out).

As for your "friends in Italy" that's their job. Once you take the military oath, you follow the CIC's orders. Any venture carries risk, but do NATO flight crews really fear death at the hands of Libyan air defense?

[hardtravelin]

53. Oh, I remember Reagan.

I was a Private sitting in the Jordanian desert with the rest of my Ranger company waiting for a CSAR mission that never came as we bombed Libya. We didn't know shit until they started passing out live ammunition.

I also saw, first hand what Reagan's foreign policy did to Central America.

How is Quaddafi backing down, again?

"Misrata is on fire," according to an opposition member, who said tanks and vehicles with heavy artillery shot their way into the city Thursday night and the assault continued Friday. He said leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime announced a cease-fire to buy time for itself. "Please help us."


http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/index.html

Yes, we put our ass on the line when we swear the oath. We do it willingly. But American lives ARE precious. We rely on our leadership to make the right choices; both for the country and for us. We are not to serve the whims of our elected leaders and their goals of reelection and other, less obvious motivations. Do you have any skin in the game?

I wanted change, that is why I voted for Obama

[ClarkUSA]

54. I only mentioned Raygun because he ordered air strikes that killed Quaddafi's daughter.

Regarding reports of continued fighting by Libyan military forces:

Libyan officials have dismissed these as untrue and say international observers are being invited to Libya to verify the situation... Mr Obama said: "All attacks against civilians must stop. Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.

"Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

"Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. If Gaddafi does not comply, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12791910

We shall see, won't we? On the same page, here's what the BBC reporter had to say about Pres. Obama's words: "There was a recurring rhythm to President Barack Obama's speech... But it wasn't a drum beat of war - it was a chorus about consensus, an insistence on internationalism.”

[hardtravelin]

55. Believe me, I hope you're right. n/t.

[vaberella]

62. "it was a chorus about consensus, an insistence on internationalism.”

This is what I heard in his speech which has let me sort of relent on my initial reaction of hell no. I'm still against it. But I see this is as a international movement more so than what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as such I feel the President knows better than I would on what the best move is.

[phleshdef]

77. Yea, I remember the initial problem with Bush and Iraq, before we verified there were no WMDs...

...was the lack of international involvement and multilateralism. Thats not the approach here at all.

Look, the guy is using his military to slaughter his own people. At some point, the UN has to get involved. I've never been against "no fly zone" type involvement. Lets just not turn this into a ground war/occupation type deal.

[amandabeech]

86. Thanks for your hint. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. You don't get to decide. You get to follow orders.

You may want to back off that "they can fuck off" talk, since your Commander in Chief just told you and everyone else we'll be supporting the UN mission. If you don't like it, you can try for CO status, you can try AWOL, or you can do what you're ordered to do and grit your teeth. But if you want to play tough guy, I'd suggest you find a way out from under the UCMJ, because you're not afforded the same rights as the rest of us under the Constitution...but you already knew that.

[hardtravelin]

58. No shit.

Amazing how everyone's a hawk when their guy is in the White House.

"Not afforded the rights as the rest of us under the Constitution" Very telling, that little statement. Can you show me where in the Constitution it might say that?

It's obvious you hold the military in low regard, but you seem awfully eager to pull the trigger.

If you are so supportive of the CIC, I would be willing to point you to your nearest recruiter. I do my job, buddy. I have for years. I also have an opinion on it. I assure you, having an opinion, and expressing it, falls well within the guidelines set by the UCMJ.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

59. oh, this is going to be fun

I've already done military service, long ago, so you can STFU on that score. It's very telling that you've been in the military so long and that you don't have an understanding that you're not afforded the full protections of the US Constitution. If you think you're really able to express any opinion you have while in the military, and that it's protected under the UCMJ, I'll send you a list of "opinons" you can go express that will land your E3 ass in a brig in no time. Good day.

[hardtravelin]

63. That's not what you said.

You said "under the Constitution." UCMJ is the set of regs that governs our conduct. Two different things.

My opinion on an Internet forum is a far cry from the type of conduct that the UCMJ penalizes. As I said, which you so obviously ignored, I do my job. I obey lawful orders. I do not engage in any of the behavior that is unlawful under those applicable regulations.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that I have an opinion about the wars we fight. That is stunning.

Thank you for your service, btw. When I retire, I will be sure to treat Active Duty Service members with more respect than you've shown here. Thank you for this interaction. It has been most instructive.

[amandabeech]

85. Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates agree with you.

As do I.

This is a very hasty action, and I don't want you or your buddies involved in this fight in any way.

If the French, Brits and Canadians want to do it, let them.

[Dash87]

44. I cannot believe people are advocating a military intervention, or that we even have a no-fly zone.

1) It might cause another war that we have no business in and can't afford to break out.

2) The Libyan people aren't our problem and aren't worth American lives

3) Libya has oil, so that's why we're so concerned suddenly. It's like Iraq all over again.

4) We will end up doing most of the work. All of the European countries will sit on the sidelines and expect the US to do everything.

5) Libya's citizens will hate us even if we free them, and will probably attack us in the future. They don't like us. Why should we help them?

6) Our intervention makes it look like this is an act of imperialism.

7) We will start murdering Libyan civilians by accident, making us look even worse.

8) Libya is all of the way across the world and has nothing to do with the US (except for oil). Why do we even care (oil)? We should let it play out, and whatever happens happens.

[hardtravelin]

49. Holy Shit! That actually makes sense! n/t.

[craigmatic]

51. Exactly this is a no win situation. We should use the Egyptians and arm Libyan rebels but keep out.

[stevenleser]

65. Actually, some of what you wrote has merit, but a lot doesnt because you are generalizing

The first big mistake you made is that this is a UN action and you are not accounting for that. Iraq was not only not-sanctioned by the UN, it was clearly a violation of international law. Afghanistan was different than BOTH Libya and Iraq because while there were no UN resolutions specifically authorizing force, the UN Charter specifically provides for allowing a war in a situation of self defense or retaliation for an attack.

Those are three very unique circumstances, and various US progressives like you gloss right over them. People in the rest of the world do not gloss over things like that.

The one place where your points have merit is cost and that is what concerns me the most about this.

[vaberella]

74. Actually we don't get our oil from Libya. So no, we literally have nothing to do with it. n/t

[amandabeech]

87. Most of the Libyan oil goes to Europe.

That's why the French are so hot to trot, and got their planes off the ground even before the meeting had ended.

The Euros are going to have to pick up oil on the spot market. Germany will probably get oil from Russia--that's where they get their natgas--which may be one reason why they abstained with Russia.

The price of oil has gone up, and will stay up for at least awhile, but supply will not be the problem here or in Canada.

[craigmatic]

50. You're right we can't afford this. It also has the potential to ruin Obama's re-election prospects.

[vaberella]

61. It's a mess all around. n/t

[fascisthunter]

56. One Place: Darfur

this is all BULLSHIT and they know we know.

[vaberella]

60. The left knows you know. I don't think so.

People have forgotten Darfur, anyway. Or it seems they have.

[ReggieVeggie]

64. they're not progressives n/t

[ClarkUSA]

68. The French ambassador to Libya was just on PBS' Charlie Rose Show via phone

According to Rose, this ambassador was the person responsible for getting Sarkozy to push for the UN resolution. The ambassador said he was there when brave youths faced off with the "mercenary army". He said he witnessed a "bloodbath". He said the rebels "are not angels but they are good men" who are willing to die for a better, more democratic life. He said when they first found out that the UN resolution was passed, huge masses of rebels were walking through the streets repeatedly yelling at the top of their lungs:

"Thank you Sarkozy! Thank you France!"

"Thank you, Obama! Thank you America!"

This is why liberals like me who were against the Iraq war (DU archives back me up) support this move. Because this type of popular uprising against all odds is exactly how this country was founded. Without France then, the colonists would never have been able to defeat the English forces. They were right then and they are right now.

Libya's rebels deserve their chance at freedom. To not help them is to be merciless.

Required reading:

"Libya is not Iraq. The middle east is full of DIFFERENT countries in DIFFERENT situations":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=677461&mesg_id=677461

[OhioBlue]

72. +1

thank you.

[vaberella]

73. The French did their own damage to these nations. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

82. So? What has that got to do with what I reported? I doubt Libyan rebels give a shit.

France's colonial past is not at issue here.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[ItNerd4life]

81. Exactly. Why are they supporting this and not Iraq?

Libya can very easily turn into another Iraq.

[stevenleser]

84. Because we don't generalize. As soon as you stop making incorrect generalizations, the differences

become clear.

[robcon]

83. We should DEFINITELY get involved in Libya.

We should have gotten involved 2 weeks ago.