So we are killing people to keep Khaddafi from killing them?

[proud2BlibKansan]

Is that about how this works?

I guess the biggest difference between this and Iraq is we starved the Iraqis before we killed them.

[Critters2]

1. Apparently. nt

[liberal N proud]

2. When you put it that way n/t

[Pharaoh]

3. Oy...........

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Were helping the people that Gadaffi is killing by doing what the asked us to do in order to help

Them

[meow mix]

5. Leave ghadaffi and his hired killers/mutilators alooooone!!!

poor guy!!

[Arkana]

26. Yeah, I mean, it's not like he's hiring mercenaries from other African countries

to kill his own people.

Or sending his son out to spread propaganda about "Americans and their hallucinogenic drugs" that are making the Libyans dare to ask for a representative form of government. This is not crap the CIA and the FBI fed Colin Powell so he could go in front of the UN and lie to them--this is solid, verifiable fact.

We did NOT provoke this. Libya rose up against Gaddafi, and instead of listening to what his people wanted, he's ruthlessly murdering them. This is the main difference between Iraq and Libya--if you discount the fact that we have an actual international coalition, UN approval, and no ground troops in the fight at all.

Gaddafi started this fight, and since we have tried every other avenue to help the rebels we are sending in the cavalry.

Of course, I know that this will simply bounce off of deaf ears in the cries of "OBUMMER'S JUST LIKE BOOOOOOOOOOOSH".

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. You are going to have to show me where I said Obama was just like Bush

I was born in Missouri.

[Arkana]

37. And you're going to have to show me where I said that you said that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. "OBUMMER'S JUST LIKE BOOOOOOOOOOOSH".

[meow mix]

68. lol nt

[Arkana]

88. Again, I would have to ask you where I said that you specifically said that.

[KurtNYC]

91. the last sentence of your post #26

and now you say..... ?

[silver10]

100. Obama used the same speech as Bush...

Dictator who is killing his own people, WMD, yes this is the same.

What's a few innocent civilians when the big war machine and budget cuts are at stake.

[CJCRANE]

6. If you kill the soldiers then that stops them from killing the civilians.

After a while the soldiers might have second thoughts about what they're doing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. So how do we make sure we don't kill any civilians?

[Joe the Revelator]

13. You're right! Better to just turn our backs!

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. So you can't answer the question?

[David__77]

104. If you call letting people have self-determination "turning your back," then yes!

Libya is not part of the United States any more than was Vietnam! The same principle is at work.

[CJCRANE]

17. It's already too late for the towns that were attacked by Gaddafi's mercenaries.

This should have been done sooner, at least two weeks ago.

[joshcryer]

44. Gaddafi is targeting civilians, we're not. That automatically means less civilians die.

It's simple logic.

And before you say that Gaddafi isn't using heavy arms, you'd be wrong, he's using arty.

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. "less"?? Silly me, I'd prefer NONE

[ZombieHorde]

74. I do too, but how can we that? Seems like every solution offered will result in civilian deaths.

Which solution do you think will result in the fewest civilian deaths in Libya?

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. I don't know. I'd just rather we weren't the ones doing the killing.

[joshcryer]

81. So would I, but Gaddafi seems to disagree with us.

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. In his name or ours?

I choose his.

[TorchTheWitch]

71. it's simple idiocy not simple logic

Damn, even Rummy never said anything this moronic. You do realize that in Iraq and Afghanistan we didn't target civilians? How's that worked out for the civilians there?

[joshcryer]

79. Did anyone in Iraq and Afghanistan target civilians?

[TorchTheWitch]

101. that would be a war crime

We certainly haven't been targeting civilians as a matter of course or policy. Perhaps you need to look up what the word "target" means.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

11. And then you can get on to the important business of writing

oil contracts.

[CJCRANE]

15. The Big Oil companies are there already. nt

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

21. And thats why we respond, how nobel.

[TorchTheWitch]

70. yeah, because the Ghaddafi soldiers are all gathered together

in a big open field wearing identifying uniforms and carrying flags to denote who they are and they'll let us know where the field is so our missiles can get there and specifically target them.

Modern warfare doesn't allow for such simple distinguishing between bad guy and good guy or whether or not Mr./Ms. Civilian is in the way.

MANY more civilians will die. That's what HAPPENS in any modern war. Jeez, a decade of war in two countries and we suddenly forget all this stuff and start sounding just like Bush and Rummy?

[CJvR]

7. Hopefully...

...we are making sure the right people are the ones ending up getting killed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. How does dropping bombs do that?

Do we send out warnings first? 'Bad people - stand over here!'

[CJvR]

19. Pathetic!

We bomb the military bases and the troops trying to crush the revolt as well as Gaddafi if he presents a target.

Honestly a five year old could grasp that concept!

[LAGC]

22. And what happens when civilians form a "human shield" around those targets?

Collateral damage adds up quick.

[CJvR]

23. Simple.

From a strictly legal point of view the "Human shield" concept is irrelevant. If you place yourself in harms way to protect a military target you are no longer considered a civilian but a combatant and as such can be blasted to bits in a perfectly legal fashion. That isn't the problem the PR is the problem, particulary with Gaddafi and the world's media eagerly awaiting "civilian" casualties.

[SylviaD]

24. I do NOT support military action but...

...I am also NO friend of Gadhaffi.

I am willing to go along with this UN and Arab League approved action, for now.

[SpartanDem]

8. How dare we hurt the poor mercenaries

[malaise]

12. Yep and the last set killed more people

than Saddam but it was just brown people so they don't count.

And of course of they're on the wrong side they deserve to die anyway - that's how it works. :sarcasm:

[dkofos]

14. When we do it it's called collateral damage.

[Buzz Clik]

16. A lot of wise people feel we should have intervened in Iraq when Saddam gassed the Kurds.

But, seeing how that was our fault in the first place, it would have been hard to justify.

When Bush 43 invaded Iraq, it was an unprovoked attack. There is no comparison to what is happening in Libya.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. So this is a provoked attack?

We were provoked by Libya?

[Buzz Clik]

33. You're too smart to not know the differences.

What would you have us do? Send humanitarian aid to destroyed cities? Provide asylum to displaced people? Help bury the dead?

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. How about letting Libya solve its own problems?

Why must we be the super hero, swooping in to (supposedly) save the day?

When will we ever learn?

[Buzz Clik]

38. We kinda learned that lesson in WWII.

Avoiding violence at all costs simply because we don't like violence will not ensure that a local problem will not eventually be put on our doorstep.

Going through the UN, forming a coalition, and defining the goals is the best approach, and it was the one used here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. You aren't really comparing a civil war to WWII???

Good grief.

[Buzz Clik]

46. Only in the broadest terms. I asked you a question. Will you answer?

btw, I find your comparison to Bush43's invasion of Iraq far more appalling.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. I answered your question. Let Libya solve its own problems.

And my "comparison" makes Bush looks worse. And Clinton too I suppose, since he started the sanctions against Iraq. First we starved the Iraqi people, then we invaded their country and killed them. That's really worse than just dropping bombs on them, like Obama is doing to Libya.

[Buzz Clik]

56. Today, it became known that three of Obama's closest advisors swayed him;

http://www.americablog.com/2011/03/hillary-was-key-to-decision-to-take.html

Hillary was a big key, but Susan Rice's warning about the genocide in Rwanda resulting from a lack of action on our part was huge, too. So, you found my mention of WWII laughable; do you find Rice's comparison to Rwanda laughable?

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. I don't find anything about Rwanda very funny at all.

I'm also sure Bush (and every other president) had advisers telling him to go to war.

That still doesn't make this anything at all like WWII.

[Buzz Clik]

65. You're trying to change the subject. fI told you flatly I wasn't comparing this to WWII.

I made my point, and you're running from it.

You get the last word.

[Hosnon]

62. You can't be serious. How exactly is Libya going to fix this?

Apart from one side being the last man standing (hundred of thousands of deaths later)?

And this isn't just us, it's the international community.

[joshcryer]

45. Saddam invaded Kuwait, and there was a popular uprising against him. Bush I didn't use...

...the UN legitimacy he had then to finish it. He was a coward. And it resulted in over 100k casualties.

[Buzz Clik]

58. Bingo.

[BlueCheese]

107. I remember back during Desert Storm...

... I thought we made a big mistake in not knocking Saddam out.

However, given how badly things went in W's war, maybe Bush Sr. made the right call.

[DainBramaged]

18. Yeppers kill dem all let whomevers sorts them out

Brown peoples, can't kill us enough's to preserves the oils....

[L. Coyote]

20. Don't worry, we decided to kill only one side of the conflict.

Half-empty - half-full :sarcasm:

[Arkana]

25. Oh look, more false equivalency.

Just because Bush's war was illegal doesn't make all wars illegal.

We're never getting a "Department of Peace". Deal with it.

[jacquelope]

29. How about the Department of We're Not the World's Policemen? n/t

.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. +1

Thank you.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

35. psst. the US is playing second fiddle on this one, France is leading it, so france is the cop n/t

[grasswire]

43. "coalition of the willing"?

sigh

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. When did I say any of that?

FAIL

[former9thward]

34. We have to destroy villages in order to save them.

We learned that lesson in Vietnam and apparently have not forgotten it.

[DURHAM D]

39. Lybians were advised through social media not to be

in the areas around airport runways and the air defense systems. Last I heard U.S. ships have fired missiles into those specific locations and there has been no bombing unless the French Air Force has changed their mission in the past 20 minutes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. So they put a warning on Facebook and sent out tweets.

Well I feel better now! :sarcasm:

[DURHAM D]

47. whatever...

:thumbsdown:

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. Our military - IN OUR NAME - is killing people as I type this

I can think of a lot of things other than "whatever . . . " to say about now.

[DURHAM D]

50. Have we killed a single person?

Have the French? Have the Brits? Have the Canadians?

The rebels have. Omar has. Have we?

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Bombs don't kill people?

Who knew?

[DURHAM D]

54. What bombs?

[Starry Messenger]

57. Tomahawk missiles

http://www.twitvid.com/F2URC

[DURHAM D]

61. I wasn't talking to you and I am aware of the difference between bombs and missiles.

Clearly the OP is confused - just trying to get her on point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. Dude, it's a discussion group. Anyone can respond.

Now tell me missiles don't kill people and you've won the argument.

[DURHAM D]

69. You haven't answered my questions Dude. nt

Done

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. Well be sure and come back and spank me when no one is killed

with MISSILES, not bombs.

Phew. Glad I at least got the right weapon this time.

[Starry Messenger]

103. You're being a pedant.

How's that for "on point".

[Distant Observer]

53. American missiles NEVER KILL people, only destroy "TARGETS"

Just like in Iraq.

[SpartanDem]

82. Yeah and they're killing Gaddafi mercenaries

[Catherina]

93. Putting it out on social media is useless in a country with no internet access n/t

[Octafish]

48. And the sooner they're dead, the quicker we can get our oil flowing again.

They don't call them "collateral damage" for nothing.

When was the last time the USA did anything for anyone, besides the landed gentry? Peace Corps?

I'm with you, proud2BlibKansan. Kicking out Khaddafi should not require sending in cruise missiles and all the rest.

[SpartanDem]

55. It'd be be quicker to led rebel be crushed if we wanted oil

[DURHAM D]

59. I assume you are aware the US buys very very little Lybian oil.

It is mostly purchased by Italy, other European countries and China.

[Catherina]

94. Who would compete with us for the same supply if theirs gets cut off

It's not an unlimited resource.

[EFerrari]

60. Yep.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. We're killing them for their own good..just like we did in Vietnam and are doing in Afghanistan.

The ingrates just don't appreciate our humanitarian efforts of dropping missiles on them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. Well at least they were warned ahead of time on Facebook

There's something. :shrug:

LOL

[HEyHEY]

97. I'd say the street celebrations in Benghazi were showing great appreciation

[Waiting For Everyman]

75. Who have we killed? Oh, you mean hypothetically - mercenaries?

Do they equal actual dead civilians now?

Maybe to you. Not to most of the world. And not to me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. Yet another one who believes missiles don't kill people

Unbelievable.

[Iterate]

76. I am glad my teacher taught nuance and history.

But what I didn't learn, and don't understand, is how leftish American democrats could turn their backs on leftist democratic Muslims who had had an overwhelmingly popular uprising against an autocratic tyrant and stand by while a crime against humanity is committed. The US has been on the wrong side of the right and good more often than not, but not now, not this time.

[RegieRocker]

77. No the warriors need live target practice and testing

of equipment.

[HEyHEY]

78. So we should allow the murderous tyrant to live instead of the poor people?

Whatever.

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. It's. None. Of. Our. Business.

People die every day in the US because they don't have health care. And what do we do about that?

Children are starving every day in this country. 25% of our kids are hungry. And what do we do about that? Not enough.

The streets in this country are literally over run with homeless veterans. Most of us just drive on by and pretend they aren't even there.

Unemployment is way too high. Yet we do nothing to create jobs.

The banksters are literally stealing houses from people via shady foreclosures.

And now I am supposed to be up in arms over an asshole a half a world away who is killing his own people? I can think of a lot of things I am FAR more outraged over. And maybe if we weren't so hell bent on being a bigger asshole than the guy in Libya we could find the will and the resources to take care of our own problems first.

But, hey, whatever.

[HEyHEY]

95. I am from a developed nation with an advanced military.

During my lifetime I've never had to really undergo any adversity that is comparable to being bombarded by ordinance from a bazillionare who rules my nation with an iron fist. So, if I see that happening, and my nation has the power to stop it without putting any of our citizens lives at risk, then I say go for it.

No education?: Healthcare issues? That's a completely different problem. I'd say it's heartless to basically say, "Fuck, it they can be slaughtered because I don't have a dental plan."

[Synicus Maximus]

80. Sometimes you have to destory the village in order to save it.

[unkachuck]

85. "Is that about how this works?"

....when you make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs....I'm not happy about it, but that's how it works....

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[TheCanadianLiberal]

90. Sounds about right...

Thats the way it's always worked. Such as in WW2. Is there really any other option? He'll slaughter "his" people otherwise.

[HEyHEY]

96. So you would have been indifferent to the holocuast then?

[Wilms]

92. Good on you. Your post has made it past the unrecing censors and on to the Greatest page.

:toast:

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. Phew. I can go to bed a happy camper.

LOL

[Catherina]

98. 120 Tomahawk missiles were aim at targets inside Libya

Who knows exactly what they hit. Some reports stated that at least 48 civilians were killed and 150 wounded.

When Reagan did his pinpoint strikes on Gaddafi's compound in '86, hundreds of Libyans were killed and neighborhoods destroyed.

It's Shock and Awe II, another "cakewalk" in a country that rightfully mistrusts the imperial powers now pounding Libya.

But we're not killing people to keep Gaddafi from killing them.

...

Attempting to justify imperialist military intervention on humanitarian grounds, Obama said, “Innocent civilians were beaten, imprisoned, and in some cases killed. Peaceful protests were forcefully put down. Hospitals were attacked and patients disappeared. A campaign of intimidation and repression began.”

Gaddafi, who until a month ago enjoyed the warmest relations with the US and the European powers, is no doubt guilty of such crimes. But Obama’s words aptly describe the actions of other regimes in the region that retain US backing.

...

The aim of the US-backed intervention is precisely to abort any genuine revolution and install a regime even more subservient to Washington and the oil companies. Libya is then to become a base of military and political operations to suppress the revolutionary upsurge of the working class throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

...

Thus far, the only “Arab partners” who have signed on to directly participate in the air campaign are Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, both of which have joined with Saudi Arabia to intervene in Bahrain to crush the mass movement there against the monarchy.

...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/liby-m19.shtml

[jbnow]

106. "Some reports say...", yes, the Libyan government reports. You left out

that they were mostly women and children and what we bombed were hospitals, mosques, schools. That was the rest of their report. But per reporters there they did slip up some by letting a report on the air showing the injured, a few men in uniform.

Not that there wouldn't be casualties. Those who are at the missile defense sites and so on. Also France came in before us and bombed some ground troops moving in on the city where the protesters were.

These things Obama spoke of are not old crimes, they are things being reported during the past weeks, even since the 'truce' was declared
and Gaddafi has been saying he'd wipe out the town, no mercy and so on

I don't like this but I would have been horrified if the promised slaughter happened while the world watched on, ignoring their pleas for help.

The article's declaration of the aim of this invasion, even in bold, is opinion.
We have opinions.
“Arab partners” might not be joining in but they made the request for this a week before UN resolution

There was no right option here

[Catherina]

110. It would defy my reasoning & experience to believe no civilians were killed

Tomahawk missiles being launched from ships are a pretty big deal.

While I'm horrified over Gaddafi's actions in Libya and want him gone, I can't buy the argument that we're listening to anyone's pleas for help. I'm very aware of Gaddafi's crimes over the last month, in minute technicolor detail but in no way can I support this war over another country's internal civil war.

Chris Floyd has an excellent, thoughtful article you might be interested in.

A People Betrayed: West Launches New War for Oil in Libya
WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD
FRIDAY, 18 MARCH 2011 01:53

And so now, another war. Led by the United States and the religious extremists in Saudi Arabia, the UN Security Council voted to intervene on behalf of one side in the Libyan civil war. Having already armed and trained Moamar Gadafy's armies and security forces, the Western war-profiteers have now decided to do the same for his opponents.

...

Finally, it should be noted that the UN Resolution is not in any way restricted to establishing a "no-fly zone" to keep Gadafy from bombing Libyan cities. This has been the holy grail of our humanitarian interventionists who, despite the evidence of their own eyes over several decades, still seem to believe that military action -- the application of massive, violent force -- can be done without hurting anybody but the mean old bad guys whom we suddenly don't like anymore for whatever reason.

But this is no "light touch" intervention. The UN decree greenlights everything short of an outright land invasion of Libya. Indeed, within minutes of the resolution's passing, American officials were already talking about a "no-drive zone": direct attacks on Libyan tanks and artillery. What's more, US officials were already considering sending in "military personnel to advise and train the rebels."

...

But now that Gadafy is doing exactly what the United States government would do if an armed faction took over whole swathes of its territory -- respond with furious, murderous force -- he has suddenly become a monster again.

...

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2105-a-people-betrayed-west-launches-new-war-for-oil-in-libya.html

Another thoughtful article is by Michael Brull of Independent Australian Jewish Voices.

The West’s noble mission: stop worrying and love US power
MICHAEL BRULL

When asking what should the West do, it seems to skirt over what it can and ought to do. A no-fly zone in Libya is a drastic step, with dubious popular support at best, and little evidence has been presented that it would help anyone in Libya. On the other hand, there are places where we could more easily impose a no-fly zone. For example, Hamid Karzai has been begging us to stop bombing Afghanistan for years. We could impose a no-fly zone by ending our bombardment, which would also stop us from killing more civilians.

We could also stop bombing Yemen, which WikiLeaks reveals we’d been doing, and lying about. We could end the drone attacks on Pakistan. WikiLeaks shows that president Zardari thinks “Collateral damage worries you Americans. It doesn’t worry me”. Plainly, it doesn’t worry us either. Over a thousand people have been killed, primarily civilians. Yet again, in this case, the evil isn’t so bad that the West is called upon to intervene. The reason is straightforward: intervening would mean stopping our crimes, and it is considered far more morally courageous in the West to call for an end to their crimes. ....

The point of all this: we in the West should not be wringing our hands over what to do. There is plenty of good we can do. We could withdraw support for dictatorships in the Middle East, end support for repression in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, end our occupation of Afghanistan, stop drone attacks in Pakistan, and withdraw military support from Israel, which is used to brutalise and oppress the Palestinians.

...

Just be sure to avert your gaze from Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Honduras, Haiti and any other country where we are already intervening, but on the wrong side.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45190.html

Avert our gaze indeed. If we cared about pleas for help, there are plenty of really loud pleas that have been coming from "Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Honduras, Haiti and any other country where we are already intervening, but on the wrong side." How come we refuse to hear those pleas? Are we no less horrified by the slaughter there just because it's deliberately kept off our radar? Our country's first moral duty is to clean up our own dirty behavior instead of taking America to yet another war by presidential decree.

[Control-Z]

99. Noooo. Silly.

We're killing the people who deserve killing. See? Big difference.

[DainBramaged]

102. One word that throws a wrench in the machine calling for war on Qaddafi

Bahrain. It isn't a big enough revolution for them, and God forbid we piss off the King and his Saudi supporters....

[Waiting For Everyman]

108. This is why G's killing hardware is being taken out

and yes, a couple of his mercs and/or supporters might be taken out too if they don't get out of the way. It's for lots of people like this young man, who was murdered yesterday for showing the world for the past month what is going on there. This is the kind of person Gaddafi sees fit to murder... either Gaddafi and his henchmen will be killed or people like this man, one of the two will be living in the world with you after it's done - which do you choose? Because it WILL be one or the other...

http://feb17.info/general/in-loving-memory-of-mohammed-nabbous/

...

After capturing the world’s attention, Mo launched the first independent internet tv station in Libya: Libya Alhurra TV. Throughout his broadcasts this past month, he was able to show the world first hand of the crimes that the Gaddafi regime was committing against innocent people. He also successfully coordinated efforts with viewers from all around the world to get humanitarian aid to people and assisted the media’s efforts to getting information. From finding pilots and planes to fly out patients to hospitals in Egypt and to working with key UN officials — Mohammed used Libya Al Hurra TV as a platform to helping anyone he could.

In the last few hours of his life, Nabbous went out to investigate and report via video the sounds of Gaddafi forces firing missiles on Benghazi. He bravely took to the streets to get us the real story. Early this morning, he went around the town to survey the damage of the attacks by Gaddafi and the death of the youngest Gaddafi victims: 4 months-old and 5 year-old children killed, while sleeping in their bedroom by a missile in the morning of March 19. Nabbous was shot in the head by snipers soon after exposing the Gaddafi regime’s false reports related to the cease-fire declaration. Nabbous was in critical condition until he died around 3 p.m. CET. Nabbous’ wife announced his death. She said:

“I want to let know all of you know that Mohammed died for this cause and let’s hope that Libya will become free,” Nabbous’ wife said through tears. “Thank you everyone. And let’s not stop doing what we are doing until this is over. What he has started has got to go on, no matter what happens,” she added. “I need everyone to just do as much as they can for this cause. Please keep the channel going and move every authority you have. They are still bombing, they are still shooting and more people are going to die. Don’t let what Mo started go for nothing, people, make it worth it,” she urged everyone assisting the network and the Libya cause.” Mo was twenty-eight years old. He leaves behind a young wife and an unborn child, his first.

...

But we're against war to any degree as an ideological position, so too bad right? And we're cynical about possible hidden motives, so no help for people like Mo and those he reported on. Even though we already have the hardware anyway and the personnel on staff being paid... it's better to have them just sit around doing nothing than to actually do something good with it. That is just shameful. You really need to rethink your position.

[Hannah Bell]

109. kr.