Libya is not Iraq. The middle east is full of DIFFERENT countries in DIFFERENT situations

[HEyHEY]

This isn't going to be some land invasion eight year war. It will be a barrage of air strikes on airbases and artillery against one side of a 50,000 man army that's been split in two and their gang of mercenaries. The rebels were winning until Gaddafi's troops got the airforce going and heavy artillery firing. After they are destroyed the rebels will overrun tripoli.


That's if it even comes to that. Gaddafi is already talking ceasefire. Six Canadian CF-18s are going in to help stop this massacre and I'm glad. This is one thing I don't mind my taxes paying for.

[NoTimeToulouse]

1. Sauce for the goose.

[HEyHEY]

4. Beats genocide

[meow mix]

10. "those protestors are breaking the law and making insurgency!"

wtf, see those kind of statements ya gotta wonder what thier motive is.

[PurityOfEssence]

92. What genocide?

That word is bandied around far too much at the moment. Qaddafi is a sterling asshole and the world won't miss him, but that's a highly charged word that simply doesn't apply. He is not targeting an ethnic group or a religious group, PERIOD.

Call him any number of accurate things, but this simply is not genocide, and calling it such is just granting oneself the right to amp things up to any degree one sees fit in the face of things one doesn't like. Words mean something, and they shouldn't be cheapened.

As for Saddam, he, too came to power in a Coup D'Etat, but at least he stood for elections--albeit bullshit ones--so that puts him in slightly more moral light than Qaddafi, yet the selfsame people who shriek at Hussein being attacked have no problem with violating Libya's sovereignty. I was one of those who was adamantly opposed to attacking Iraq the last time specifically on the grounds of national sovereignty and his not having threatened us, and I stick to that; it's the same thing here.

As for the argument that this is "easier" than taking on Iraq, that's a bully's argument, and hasn't a shred of morality to it.

[Puregonzo1188]

97. Genocide? Really. Can you give me a definition of genocide that would apply to Gaddadfi, but not the

US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc or Israel in Palestine?


Seriously, Gaddafi is committing crimes against humanity, but genocide has an actual meaning and I don't see how this qualifies.

[readmoreoften]

2. I don't give a shit about my taxes. I don't believe we care about the rebels, that's all.

I don't think we're there to help and I don't believe that there will not be boots on the ground. If we do simply have airstrikes to take out Gaddafi, that'd be wonderful. But I don't believe it.

[27inCali]

48. normally I'd be as skeptical as you

but I don't see how trying to get boots on the ground is politically feasible in any way.

[readmoreoften]

54. I don't think we'd even try if it was.

We could very easily arm the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia--even give them tanks and aircraft. But we'd never do that. I didn't support the invasion of Iraq when Hussein was "throwing babies off incubators" and I don't support this action. I support the rebels and I hope this works out in their favor regardless. And if there are US/UN boots on the ground I'm going to lose it.

[sad sally]

95. Even if it's a coordinated effort with allies like the UK and France,

do you really think we can blow the beegeeses out of a country and then not have to send in troops to "restore the peace and rebuild the infrastructure" we've blown up? Sure, President Obama isn't trying to sell it as nation building, but have yet to see a military action that doesn't require boots on the ground at some point, and once we're there you can bet we'll have to sell and impose American democracy on them. Liz Chaney and the whole Bush cabal are clapping their hands - their wishes are coming true!

[Quixote1818]

3. I agree and I am for this but I think gas prices were what got us involved

and not the people dying. I am for it for the people and I think Gadafi will probably fold now based of how he reacted after we invaded Iraq. He was our best buddy after that. He is kind of a wimp unless he knows he can win.

[agentS]

5. I am not thrilled with the prospect of fighting Gaddafi

Sure he's a scumbag who supported terrorists in the past, but we've got our own problems here. And in Af-Pak.
If the Arab League (Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi) and the French want to take action then that's fine and if they want AWACS or Satcom support (or a MOAB strike on a bunker) then we should involve ourselves only to that level and food aid for civillians.

Will the rebels be better than Gaddafi? Yeah, that's pretty much a given- even if they go full Taliban and USA flag-burning they're still better than Gaddafi.

[Codeine]

6. Don't bring nuance into this.

We like our black-or-white dichotomies, thank you. ;)

[elleng]

7. Right.

'While U.S. officials pushed to intervene in Libya, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns echoed Clinton in taking a soft, vague line on the unrest in Bahrain, calling only for “productive dialogue between governments and opposition leaders.”

The seeming double standard on democracy -- good for opponents of Gaddafi, not so much for the Iranian-friendly Shiite minority challenging the government that gives safe harbor to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet -- illustrates the delicate dance being done by policymakers.

“Like many other aspects of foreign policy, there are always particularities and ambiguities” in why the United States might speak out forcefully for pro-democracy rebels in Libya and stand on the sidelines as Saudi tanks help put down like-minded protesters in Bahrain, said retired Army General Wesley Clark.

“One size doesn’t fit all,” Clark added. “You may get to the same place but at different rates in different ways in different places.”

The former commander of NATO forces during the 1999 Kosovo War, Clark wrote this week that based on past U.S. interventions, Libya doesn’t meet the test for military involvement.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/obama-libya-erase-egypt-gains_n_837374.html

[HEyHEY]

11. I agree, there is a hypocrisy in it. However, that doesn't mean we just

Tell Libyans "tough shit, you're all gonna die"

[JVS]

12. They're not all going to die.

[HEyHEY]

14. I reckon thousands and thousands would

Given Gaddafi's flare for violent retribution and Libya's tribal nature I'd say if Colonel coconuts wins there will be a whole lot of firing squads put to work in Chavez's stadium.

[JVS]

24. Do you call Tienanmen Square a genocide?

[HEyHEY]

30. I call that a massacre. I call the cultural revolution a genocide.

[JVS]

36. Why do you ratchet up the nomenclature in the case of Libya.

It seems like you're being very loose with the truth.

[HEyHEY]

47. Different countries, different situations

If China began a massive purge of people. The UN getting involved would be world war three. Much different situation than Libya. I know it's a bitch, but sometimes we can help, sometimes we can. In this case, we can help.

[JVS]

50. So the definition of genocide is locally dependent?

Ghaddafi is doing exactly what most rulers in the world would do in his position, quashing an insurrection.

[HEyHEY]

61. Tiananmen was a couple nights of bloodshed

Gaddafi's revenge could end up being against people of a particular culture for a sustained period of time. That's genocide.

[JVS]

68. So Ghaddafi is guilty of genocide because he has not been effective at killing opponents quickly?

3,000 unarmed protestors in 2 nights is a massacre?
Between 1,500 and 6,000 armed insurgents is genocide?

The particular culture part of genocide doesn't quite apply to within the same culture, anyway. For example, the Spanish civil war was not a war of genocide against the Spanish people.

[HEyHEY]

75. The genocide, of which I refer is what happens AFTER the war.

That's what worries me

[readmoreoften]

55. Thousands of people dying isn't a genocide. It's a bloody civil war.

[Hugabear]

16. So, then, do we intervene in every country where people are being killed?

There are several countries in sub-Saharan Africa that could probably use help. Or is it only when that country has oil and a leader who's easy to vilify that we get involved?

[HEyHEY]

28. Yes. Instead of invading places like Iraq.

[readmoreoften]

56. People were being killed in Iraq, remember?

Babies thrown off incubators, Kurds gassed. You must have supported the invasion of Iraq, then.

[27inCali]

58. there are thousands of innocent people who will live if we do this

there are thousands that will die if we don't. I can note the hypocrisy, see the wisdom in being conscious of it and the nobility of being outraged that we don't do more in other situations. Burma or Tibet would be great examples. But the lives are enough for me to override the hypocrisy. At least THIS time, American might will be flexed on the side of rebels and not dictators. This action gives life to the Arab Spring and to hopes that it will spread -even if our leaders are cowards and hypocrites for not taking the same exact stance with the Saud family.

[readmoreoften]

18. But we can say "tough shit" to Bahrainis because it supports our interests.

You're not instilling confidence in me about our goals in Libya.

[Hugabear]

25. Ah, but we LIKE Bahrain - and Saudi Arabia for that matter

We all know there's no way in hell we would ever lift a finger against Saudi Arabia if they were to start slaughtering their citizens. Sure, we'd scold them a good deal, we'd tell them how bad they are, but we wouldn't do anything. Because they're our friends. Gaddhafi, not so much.

[HEyHEY]

33. So, your stance is if we can't or won't help all, we help none?

PRetty simple.

[Hugabear]

37. It's pretty clear what our stance is - if you have oil and a bad man, we'll intervene

IRAQ
Oil - yes
Bad man - yes
INTERVENE

LIBYA
Oil - yes
Bad man - yes
INTERVENE

BAHRAIN
Oil - yes
Bad man - no
DO NOT INTERVENE

Sierra Leone
Oil - no
Bad man - no
DO NOT INTERVENE

[readmoreoften]

39. +1

And let's be clear: bad man means unceasing ally in lining our pockets.

[BlueCheese]

67. A few more:

Bosnia:
Oil - no
Bad man - yes
Intervened

Kosovo:
Oil - no
Bad man - yes
Intervened

[readmoreoften]

80. And that went so well.

Especially the whole UN peacekeepers raping locals and stuff.

[BlueCheese]

88. Which ones?

Nonetheless, both of those interventions ended mass murders.

My point was simply to say that the US intervenes if and only if oil is involved is false.

[Puregonzo1188]

99. We didn't intervene in Kosovo for humanitarian purposes and have public stated so

From Strobe Talbot lead US Negotiator in Kosovo:

As nations throughout the region sought to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course. It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians—that best explains NATO’s war.

Also, the vast majority of Serbian atrocities came after the NATO bombing, which was exactly what Wesley Clark briefed Madame Albright would happen, and when it did Clark told the media that Washington had anticipated it and were not concerned.

Not to mention that the NATO was condemned for committing war crimes by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UNHRC.

Kofi Annan condemned the fact that NATO went in without UN approval, something we were all angry at Bush for doing.

Plus there's the whole unconstitutionality issue--Congress voted on both a declaration of war and authorization for airstrikes and both measures failed to act, but Clinton kept bombing away. I don't think any other President did anything even remotely similar.

[elleng]

32. Hypocricy?

'particularities and ambiguities'

“One size doesn’t fit all,” Clark added. “You may get to the same place but at different rates in different ways in different places.”

[joshcryer]

100. This is a bullshit meme that ignores that Libya underwent their own massacres 3 weeks ago.

:puke:

Anything for hits on a website.

[elleng]

102. ...

:thumbsdown:

[Raksha]

8. +1000

I just hope it's over quickly, and I think it will be. The morale is all on ONE side after all. Gaddafi doesn't really have anyone loyal to him, only people he's either bought or terrorized. Neither of which is an adequate substitute for the promise of freedom.

[meow mix]

9. k&r

[Rage for Order]

13. Our jets will be greeted with candy and flower petals!

In fact, I'm sure the no fly zone will pay for itself!

If you're so fucking gung ho about it then how about Canada taking care of the entire operation by itself? Would you support that?

[meow mix]

15. Unrec for the libyan protestors and victims of genocide

ghadafi lovers can fo

[Rage for Order]

17. It's not genocide, and I'm not a Ghadafi lover

I think he's a dick and a murderer. I also think it's none of our business.

[meow mix]

20. glad your wrong, and that the world is more sane than you.

thank goodness for that!

[HEyHEY]

23. In a global economy, anything that we see or hear is our business.

[Hugabear]

19. See #16

Would you advocate military action in Sierra Leone? Or how about any number of other countries where civilians are being killed, where genocide may be occurring?

[meow mix]

27. why bring up other nations instead of the issue at hand.

nice try

[Hugabear]

35. Why should we be the world's policeman?

And it's a valid point. If we're going to take military action in Libya, then why not in these other countries that could probably use it?

I've already answered the question at hand. I don't believe we should be the world's policeman. It's quite disingenuous to say that we're concerned about the rebels. That's complete horseshit. If Libya weren't a major oil producer, if it were just another sub-Saharan country, we wouldn't be getting militarily involved.

[readmoreoften]

22. You still haven't provided one example of "gaddafi-loving".

Grow up or shut up and stop slandering people who support the rebels--probably more than you.

[HEyHEY]

21. Yes I would

And if finances and free decorations are the only things that keep you from supporting a mission to stop genocide I'd say you need to reevaluate your priorities.

[Rage for Order]

26. So you've pressured your government to invade Darfur then?

And Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Bahrain...and countless others, right?

[meow mix]

31. wow deflect much? im just glad the world is more sane than you people.

[readmoreoften]

34. I'm glad some people are less emotional and irrational and offensive than you are.

[meow mix]

40. that may be but i wouldnt support a genocidal maniac over the rebels.

whoever does is beyond redemption imo.

[Hugabear]

43. Straw man - who in the hell is "supporting" Gadhaffi?

I assume by your logic, that those of us who opposed military action in Iraq were "supporting" Saddam Hussein. Is that correct?

[meow mix]

45. lots of people right here. fucking sad ones too

[Rage for Order]

51. So many that you can't even provde one concrete example

Please link to, or copy & paste, one post in this thread that is supportive of Ghadafi

[Hugabear]

52. Show me one post where someone is "supporting" Gaddhafi

FYI, opposing military action does NOT mean that we are supporting Gadhaffi. That's like saying that opposing the Iraq war meant that we supported Saddam.

Show me ONE post where someone is saying "Go, Gadhaffi" or words to that effect. Show me ONE post where someone is offering direct support for Gadhaffi's actions.

[readmoreoften]

59. She won't. She just keeps slandering people she disagrees with.

[readmoreoften]

60. Not a single piece of evidence. Your just an Iraq war apologist.

If you're going to go down the slippery slope and produce straw men with no evidence, I'll do the same.

[Rage for Order]

38. I'm not deflecting, I'm asking a serious question

Why should we intervene in Libya, where the government is killing its own people, but not intervene in the other countries I listed, where the government is killing its own people? What makes Libya different?

[readmoreoften]

42. Oil, strategic location. It's between the Tunisian and Egyptian rebels.

Let's get a foot in there and make sure we control their new democracies!

[Hugabear]

41. How many of those countries produce OIL and have easily demonized leaders?

None of them. They might have one or the other, but since they don't have both, we just don't give a shit about them. They can suffer and die in silence.

[HEyHEY]

44. I wouldn't be against it.

[Rage for Order]

46. Well, at least you're consistent. But let me ask you one thing:

By all accounts, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Did you support the US-led invasion to remove him from power? If not, why not?

[readmoreoften]

49. +1

[Raksha]

53. For one thing, the people of Iraq weren't begging us to remove Saddam from power.

Especially not the way we went about it. Yeah, Shock and Awe...just what the Iraqis always wanted! :sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

57. Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds. We were told they were begging for us to remove him from

power.

Short memory.

[Rage for Order]

62. Some of Iraq's people wanted our help. The Kurds, to be specific

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurds#Massacre_of_Iraqi_Kurdish_People_by_PMOI

On July 13, 2003, the New York Times published an article saying that in 1991 when Saddam Hussein used the People's Mujahedin of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, PMOI or MEK or MKO) and its tanks as advance forces to crush the Iraqi Kurdish people in the north and the Iraqi Shi'a people in the south, Maryam Rajavi as then leader of PMOI's army forces commanded: "Take the Kurds under your tanks, and save your bullets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." On December 14, 2006, Time Magazine published an article about PMOI and reported: "By the mid-1980s, the group (PMOI) had cozied up to Saddam Hussein, who provided them with funds and a compound, Camp Ashraf, north of Baghdad. The US government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down Iraqi Kurdish people in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran

Regional autonomy had originally been established in 1970 with the creation of the Kurdish Autonomous Region following the agreement of an Autonomy Accord between the government of Iraq and leaders of the Iraqi Kurdish community. A Legislative Assembly was established and Arbil became the capital of the new entity which lay in Northern Iraq, encompassing the Kurdish authorities of Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah. The one-party rule which had dominated Iraq however meant that the new assembly was an overall component of Baghdad's central government; the Kurdish authority was installed by Baghdad and no multi-party system had been inaugurated in Iraqi Kurdistan, and as such the local population enjoyed no particular democratic freedom denied to the rest of the country. Things began to change after the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein following the end of the Persian Gulf War. United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 gave birth to a safe haven following international concern for the safety of Kurdish refugees. The US and British government established a No Fly Zone over a large part of northern Iraq<19> (see Operation Provide Comfort), however, it left out Sulaymaniyah, Kirkuk and other important Kurdish populated regions. Bloody clashes between Iraqi forces and Kurdish troops continued and, after an uneasy and shaky balance of power was reached, the Iraqi government fully withdrew its military and other personnel from the region in October 1991 allowing Iraqi Kurdistan to function de facto independently. The region was to be ruled by the two principal Kurdish parties; the KDP and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The region also has its own flag and national anthem.

At the same time, Iraq imposed an economic blockade over the region, reducing its oil and food supplies. Elections held in June 1992 produced an inconclusive outcome, with the assembly divided almost equally between the two main parties and their allies. During this period, the Kurds were subjected to a double embargo: one imposed by the United Nations on Iraq and one imposed by Saddam Hussein on their region. The severe economic hardships caused by the embargoes, fueled tensions between the two dominant political parties; the KDP the PUK over control of trade routes and resources. Relations between the PUK and the KDP started to become dangerously strained from September 1993 after rounds of amalgamations occurred between parties. This led to internecine and intra-Kurdish conflict and warfare between 1994 and 1996. After 1996, 13% of the Iraqi oil sales were allocated for Iraqi Kurdistan and this led to a relative prosperity in the region. Saddam had established an oil smuggling route through territory controlled by the KDP, with the active involvement of senior Barzani family members. The taxation of this trade at the crossing point between Saddam’s territory and Kurdish controlled territory and then into Turkey, along with associated service revenue, meant that who ever controlled Dohuk and Zakho had the potential to earn several million dollars a week. Direct United States mediation led the two parties to a formal ceasefire in Washington Agreement in September 1998. It is also argued that the Oil for Food Program from 1997 onward had an important effect on cessation of hostilities.

[HEyHEY]

64. I didn't support it because.....

Though he was a brutal dictator, he wasn't actively bombing and strafing his people on a rate that thousands a week were being killed. If Iraqis had risen up and he, again, gassed them or something I'd have supported it.

[Hugabear]

66. No, he just used chemical weapons against his own people

Oh wait...that was back when he was on OUR side. Sorry, I keep getting these dictators confused...

[HEyHEY]

71. So, the mistakes of the past dictate our future actions?

Considering we CAN stop Gaddafi, right now, in 2011, I don't see why making some moral stand based on all these other situations is relevant. People are dying NOW. This is a less complicated situation than many others before it. We can stop it, we should. Deal with the others as they come.

[JVS]

72. Yes the mistakes of the past dictate future actions. It's called learning.

[HEyHEY]

83. Then, in that case we should have taken Hussein out then instead of helping and ignoring him

"Yes the mistakes of the past dictate future actions. It's called learning."

smartass :P

[Hugabear]

85. So, you would have supported it as long as it was Clinton who ordered it, not Bush?

Okay

[HEyHEY]

86. This is not Iraq in 1984, it's libya in 2011

[Hugabear]

84. Did you support going to war to remove Saddam Hussein?

The Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north were practically begging for our assistance. Saddam was a very brutal dictator, engaging in the systematic slaughter of his own people. Did you support military force to remove him?

[Rage for Order]

69. So slow & steady killing and oppression is okay, but doing it all at once is bad?

Where is the tipping point?

[JVS]

70. No, it's the other way around. Look upthread.

[HEyHEY]

73. No, he got it.

I don't think slow and steady or all at once is okay. But, if it's slow and steady the chance of a people taking care of it themselves is much greater

[JVS]

29. LOL

[JVS]

63. The country changes but the beating of the drums for war sounds the same.

[HEyHEY]

65. This is the beating of the drums of intervention and peace.

We're not invading a country that isn't at war, we're dropping strategic bombs on weapons a mass murdering nutjob is using to kill a LOT of people.

[readmoreoften]

78. Sure.

[HEyHEY]

79. I refer you to this thread's title

[readmoreoften]

81. So the Middle East is complex. What does that have to do with our intentions?

Just because ME struggle is complex doesn't mean we aren't simple as pie.

[HEyHEY]

82. Because the comparisons to Iraq don't hold up

[DuaneBidoux]

74. Like the OP I have real desires and hopes for these people.

Unlike the OP I claim to know virtually nothing that can actually be of use.

All I think I know is that the Arabs have to be able to take a lead in their own region. And that the Europeans, including especially France (who has always been intimately tied to N. Africa) must take a lead and show some political and strategic courage.

I do not feel the US can take the lead on this. We have neither the domestic political capital nor domestic will to lead--I don't like turning inward but we must, at least a bit more than usual.

[daleo]

76. I think Libya has lighter oil

But Iraq's overall reserves are thought to be greater.

[HEyHEY]

77. If it were that simple, do you think Obama would have dithered so much?

[daleo]

89. It might have taken some time to persuade him

The status quo isn't a machine or a computer program. Some negotiating and arm-twisting goes into these decisions. There are multiple power centers and actors involved. But where oil is involved they generally arrive at a consensus that has the effect of securing that resource as its main priority.

[Iterate]

87. Agree, and I can't imagine anyone who has studied Libyan history

of the past 100 years wouldn't at least acknowledge that they deserve cooperation in their request for help. I also admit anyone who has paid attention to US history should be cautious.

In 1911, they were handed to Italy as spoils of war and made a colony. They finally got independence in 1951. Forty years of fighting. Gaddafi's coup has lasted forty-two. What I don't understand is why that population hasn't been driven to the point of complete insanity.

[daleo]

90. If the west chooses a side in their civil war and supports it militarily

And that side prevails, they are back to being a colony. The new government will be beholden to us and will know it. Furthermore, they will know that what our jets and missiles give, our jets and missiles can take away.

Look at how powerless Karzai is in Afghanistan to stop western killings of civilians if you want to see an example of this in action.

[Iterate]

94. I don't see it as a civil war,

as that suggests some struggle over claims of legitimacy. To me, the deeper nature and characteristics of the conflict are more similar to that of an anti-colonial war for independence, or perhaps a popular uprising against an occupational force where Gadaffi has no legitimate claim. Even seeing this as similar to an anti-monarchical revolution makes sense on some levels.

Either way, if (when) the revolutionaries win, they have stated already that the nation's resources will be used for the common good, rather than the expropriation practiced by the Gadaffi family.

So perhaps it's the way we see the nature of the conflict that leads to a difference of opinion. FWIW, this is about the only war I've supported since I don't know when, including Afghanistan. As I see it, this is a life-death issue not only for untold Libyans, but the Arab spring itself, something which I'm sure we both want to succeed.

[laundry_queen]

101. +1 nt

[daleo]

103. Maybe you are younger than I am

Or at least less cynical.

I see it as another struggle for power and oil by all sides. There are probably some idealists in the struggle, who will be used and cast aside by the victors. The west and the oil companies will support whichever side they think will give them the most access to oil, at the cheapest price.

If western troops and planes stay out of it, I might be able to see it as an internal struggle for rights and political power among Libyans, but once we get involved that interpretation doesn't work for me. I am just applying common sense and experience as I see it.

[Rex]

91. No way dude!

Dude! :rofl:

[ItNerd4life]

93. The no-fly zone is worthless

It wouldn't have helped 2 weeks ago either. Let's see Iraq was going to be over quickly, Afghanistan would be quick, yeah right.

[Puregonzo1188]

96. No, but the US is still the US.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

98. I intensely hope your predictions are correct. -nt

[ClarkUSA]

104. Thank you for the injection of sanity and facts.