I believe you can support the military action in Libya and not be a war monger

[cali]

I believe you can oppose it and that doesn't make you a Gaddafi enthusiast.

I hate the accusations being hurled that those on one side of the fence or the other are all kinds of evil or dupes or misguided.

It wasn't an easy decision for me to come down on the side of being against the military action against Libya. And perhaps some of those who are supporting it have some discomfort about supporting it.

People can support it or oppose it and have honorable reasons for doing either.

[leftstreet]

1. Apparently the talking points are still evolving

Hell, the M$M can't even figure out how to characterize the "rebels"

This time around the propaganda is all very messy

:-(

[cali]

3. it is all kinds of messy

and it's so sad that we're divided over yet another military action.

[joshcryer]

6. We weren't divided over Iraq 2003.

There were niggling factors over the legality and whatnot, but overall we were all against it. (I was one who played devils advocate and argued that it wasn't illegal, the act of war, but rather that Bush lying to congress was treasonous.)

[leftstreet]

8. The propaganda was cleaner

This is just a clusterfuck in terms of message management

[joshcryer]

11. Nah, if you follow it it's really simple, imho.

Gaddafi killed thousands of protesters (this is not including "armed rebels"). Protesters and their council asked for intervention from the international community for a week straight. Three cities were razed in 24 hours, hundreds more killed. Benghazi, a city of about 800k was about to come under attack. The UNSC acted under R2P, the first time it was ever invoked since it became law. (Actually, that's not true, it was invoked for Burma, which many DUers are ignorant of, but Russia and China vetoed it.)

[Posteritatis]

94. Whoa, it was?

I'm somewhat annoyed at missing that, as I was trying to follow R2P doctrine as it developed the last few years. When was this?

[cali]

10. I was firmly against it

[joshcryer]

13. I was too, mind you, I just had to "argue to argue."

But generally I think DU as a whole was against it and those who were for it were silenced very quickly.

[bobbolink]

101. As those with a minority view are beig silenced now.

I am proud of the fact that with all I have to deal with, and the work I am trying to do, that I have paid pretty close attention to the Libyan revolution, as I did the Egyptian one before that.

I've had all kinds of mixed feelings, BUT... I have been listening to the Libyan people, and their opinions and needs and requests trump all the DU judgments against what *I* have come to think. I admire these people tremendously, and since they are the ones in the middle of it and are intimately aware of the US involvment in the Middle East, I must give their views much more weight than the views of the majority of DU (who mostly weren't participating in listening to the Libyans as this was unfolding.)

You are right, joshcryer..... this wasn't a view I came to easily. Having protested wars since Vietnam, this is difficult for me.

Then I remember that we are always fighting the last war, and that what makes this different is that the Libyans themselves ASKED for the No Fly Zone. The Vietnamese, the Iraqies, etc DID NOT.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. That's because it wasn't the work of the adored leader

I'm sure more of the reactionaries who denounce this elsewhere would be jumping with glee if it had been done by a Republican President.

[joshcryer]

19. I assure you that I am not a huge Obama defender.

Ask anyone, I am not a massively adoring Obama defender. The lack of criticism is not the same as endorsement.

[cali]

21. you seem to have missed the point of my thread

I don't think attributing shit motives to people on DU who support this military action is either fair or helpful.

[Adsos Letter]

23. To be honest, it isn't a matter of President Obama's support

that brings me to the side of intervention (with many qualms). I am purely hoping less non-combatant casualties will result from our intervention than in a Gaddafi victory. Their is no guarantee that the regime which replaces Gaddafi (should the rebels win) will adopt policies we agree with.

I wish we would have acted in Rwanda; I wish we would act in Darfur; real genocides, not the civil war Libya has become.

I'm still listening to all arguments, hoping to clarify my own thoughts.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Le Taz Hot]

55. Self delete

[Nevernose]

57. I have a totally different recollection of DU in 2003

There were a lot of people arguing pretty vehemently, just like now. Most of the pro-war people would say "No I'm no fan of *, but Saddam has got to go." Eventually they either left DU or their minds were changed.

[Le Taz Hot]

60. I do too.

I removed my own post above yours because it was a little less genteel than yours. I nearly spit my coffee out when I read the "I played devil's advocate" thing. You just gotta love revisionist history.

[Bluerthanblue]

96. I do too- but then

I tend to remember the more controversial discussions.

[Adsos Letter]

14. We don't really even know who the rebels are.

I'm sure there are conflicting factions/ideals within the rebel movement, now united by opposition to Gaddafi, and further united by fear of the repercussions should Gaddafi win this civil war.

Should they succeed in driving Gaddafi out, their ensuing stance toward the member states of the intervention force is in no way certain.

I haven't heard any MSM; only AJE, and they have not had much reporting in the way of analysis of the political/ideological makeup of the rebels (that I have seen, anyway).

EDIT TO ADD: (for what it's worth) I supported the intervention, but with some of the discomfort cali spoke of. I believe Gaddafi has probably killed thousands up to this point, many of them most likely non-combatants.
He has publicly stated that the repecussions against the holdout cities, such as Misurata and Benghazi, will be severe.

I have no argument with those who point to our lack of action in other areas where real genocides have, and are, occuring.

I know we have failed horribly in places like Rwanda and Darfur. I believe we are selective in our choices to intervene. We have the support of several other nations, including Arab nations, for this intervention and I believe that many less non-combatants will die if we intervene than if we don't.

I am praying that I will not be wrong in this.

[leftstreet]

17. Yep. The M$M doesn't know what to do if it's not AL QAEDA !!!!111

What to do, what to do

[Adsos Letter]

20. Just for kindness sake, please read my edited post.

it makes my qualms on the issue a bit clearer, I hope. Not that my thoughts particularly matter.

[CJCRANE]

32. They are the political opposition to a One Man State

(it's not even a One Party State).

It doesn't matter if they're Teabaggers or Socialists (or anything in between) they have a right to express their opinions freely.

My guess is that, just as in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and elsewhere the protesters aren't a monolithic group, they're just people asking for their democratic rights.

[bvar22]

33. So you supported the invasion of Iraq?

That was a "One man State".

There are plenty of "One Man States" in our World.
Who is next?

You are willing to support Military Intervention on the supposition (guess) that
"the protesters aren't a monolithic group, they're just people asking for their democratic rights" ?

In Afghanistan, the "rebels" were the Taliban precursors (Mujahideen).
In Lebanon, they were Hezbollah.

I would ask you to examine the modern history of US Military Intervention in the Middle East,
and then answer the question.
"OK. So we take him (Gaddifi) out. What next?
What is our Exit Strategy?"

If we SHOULD have LEARNED ANYTHING since Viet Nam, it is:
Never Go In unless you have a Way Out.

[CJCRANE]

91. No, because there were no mass protests or requests for intervention.

Baghdad was fairly peaceful at the time. There were no major requests from groups inside Iraq for help to topple Saddam.

The justification for the invasion was based on the testimony of one Iraqi exile : Curveball.

[dkf]

104. That's because their earlier uprising was brutally quashed.

So you just don't agree with the timing and would have been okay had we done it ages ago?

[CJCRANE]

106. Not just the timing - the whole WMD farce, "shock and awe"

installing an American "Governor", disbanding the Iraqi military and police, the corruption, the deliberate incompetence, the torture etc etc.

The Iraq invasion was wrong in timing, conception, justification and implementation.

[Nevernose]

64. But they're not "peacefully protesting"

They're an armed opposition in open rebellion. Now we're just picking sides in a civil war, and hoping that the generals leading the rebels -- and have been doing Gadaffi's dirty work for 40 years -- will somehow be better than Gadaffi. And we're going to do the same thing crazy-ass Gadaffi is doing: launch ten million pounds of ordinance into heavily populated civilian neighborhoods and hope for the best.

And then we'll claim that when we accidentally murder women and children it's okay, because we had to save them.

[CJCRANE]

90. They started peacefully. They were attacked by Gaddafi's mercenaries

so they confiscated weapons to defend themselves.

[Nevernose]

97. And that is how it started

But that's not how things were when we started bombing. By then it was a full blown civil war, with the tribe in the east fighting their long-standing enemy tribe in Tripoli (who happens to have an asshole named Kadaffi in charge). All we've done is take sides in someone else's civil war.

And the good ol' USA has been known to kill a few of its own protestors, too, including in my lifetime.

[bobbolink]

114. It is NOT a "civil war". That is FAUX News messaging, and I won't accept that here.

[bobbolink]

113. If you have been watching Faux News, you don't know who they are. If you have been following their

tweets, daily posted here, you have a very clear idea who they are.

And, no... they aren't "split".

[RZM]

2. Agreed, you can do either and have a clean conscience

But opposing outside intervention is still in effect endorsing the crushing of the rebels. Because that is what will happen without outside help. Endorsing intervention comes with all of the baggage that military intervention entails -- that includes all of the unseemliness of military actions. But I firmly believe that more innocent lives will be lost without intervention, because without Western help, Ghaddafi will run roughshod over anybody supporting the rebels, including many civilians.

[cali]

5. no, it's not. anymore than supporting it is endorsing innocents being blown to smithereens

by our not so smart bombs.

I believe more innocent lives will be lost because of the intervention. And there is no guarantee that by the end of the day, Ghaddafi will be out.

[joshcryer]

9. More innocent lives would be lost because of the intervention, absolutely.

Do you believe that more innocent lives would have died than would not have died were it not for intervention?

Because that seems a stretch given the state of Benghazi and Gaddafi's threat to show no mercy.

[RZM]

12. Not interventing is ENDORSING INNOCENTS BEING BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS

Those innocents being anti-Ghaddafi people. Not intervening is making a choice to acquiesce on the status quo, which is Ghaddafi maintaining power through brute force. I'd prefer the alternative, especially since other nations agree.

[silver10]

51. The US intervening means ENDORSING INNOCENTS BEING BLOWN UP INTO SMITHEREENS

Hasn't history taught any of you people yet? You keep buying the same shit, only repackaged.

[Adsos Letter]

4. Thankyou for posting this cali. I agree

"I hate the accusations being hurled that those one side of the fence or the other are all kinds of evil or dupes or misguided." So do I.


"I believe you can oppose it and that doesn't make you a Gaddafi enthusiast." I'm certain of it.


"And perhaps some of those who are supporting it have some discomfort about supporting it."

I'm certain of it.


Thanks for posting this cali; the further we can get beyond the name-calling, the further we can move toward some fruitful discussion on the issue.

[cali]

7. thanks, AL

I kind of despair of fruitful discussion, but it's worth a shot. I find myself terribly sad about Libya.

[Adsos Letter]

15. I'm sad about the state of the world (as most of us probably are, to some degree or another)...

I find myself being listening to other arguments, and questioning my own support for the intervention (I realize you are firmly against it, and I totally respect that).

I hope for more real, rational discussion. I'm still trying to sort it out, come to terms with my own real reasons for support (with the qualms you noted in your OP). :hug:

EDIT TO ADD: K&R.

[corpseratemedia]

27. i hate how this is dividing this board

We, progressive democrats & socialists & liberals, HAVE REAL ENEMIES who are attacking our income and our poorer ones even the ability to carry more than $20...and they use conquer and divide propaganda to push the most recent ("see those public pension people what hogs and boy are they costing us!")

We should respect differences of opinion and not miscatigorize them.

I am anti-war esp. as i see us propping up and installing anti-democratic tyrants in this half of the globe. We could be doing the right thing but there are overwhelmingly too many times we haven't and for the wrong reasons.

And I, like a lot of people, do not feel like I have enough information. I know there are massacres going on in the other Arab states, are we going there too?

Just while you're passionate, maybe first think about how most on this site feel about Wisconsin, unions,"free" trade, republicans and their policies, slashing ss and medicare, don't let one thing wipe the rest out or make your ignore list grow. Or get ts'd. Or turn you off on your new "enemy" about the domestic battle against us.

At least DUers are capable of holding an argument but when a person gives an explanation for one reason or another we should respect that because we right now, all of us are being attacked in several states, ...there is a silent class war going on so have your differences but recognize that we, if we become bitterly divided, cannot accomplish fighting back this concerted effort that is also going on.




LOL dontcha hate those moralizing "can't we just get along" posts i do and I just wrote one!!

[Telly Savalas]

98. The division isn't being driven by the issue of Libya

rather the chasm is between people who are propagating Bullshit and the people who want an honest discussion.

Opponents of the military action are not Ghadafi-sympathizers and Obama isn't Bush. People pushing either of those ideas are disingenuous fucknozzles who actively promote the destruction of useful dialogue. There are a handful of people here making interesting points about the role of the US and the UN in the world, and the appropriateness of interventions in places like Libya vs. Darfur vs.Bahrain, etc., but their thoughts are getting drowned out by the noise of people trying to rack up points in the childish "Obama is Hitler" vs. "Obama Shits Ice Cream" contest that's been going on here since January 2009. And I'm sure one of you dildos will start shrieking "false equivalence" because your side is so much purer than the other -- tell ya what, take your "false equivalence" and shove it up your ass.

[Raine]

16. THANK YOU for such a nice post

I wish there was more here who were as understanding about differing points of view. :thumbsup: :hi:

edit: removed one word for clarity.

[Rex]

22. So you are saying we have multiple opinions on the subject.

And not just two?

[cali]

24. no. I'm suggesting that demonization of those who hold an opposing opinion

is not a good thing

[Rex]

110. Yeah that is kinda common sense.

But that is what you get on an anonymous forum with thousands of posters imo.

[RandySF]

25. How many here would have complained

If we at least had lifted a finger to prevent the genocides in Central Africa?

[joshcryer]

26. Ironically the genocides in Africa were the precursor to the R2P which the UN invoked here.

It's ironic because people decrying the genocides in Africa are the same people who are now decrying the fact that the UN adapted a resolution that prevents that sort of shit and implemented it for the first time in Libya (there were attempts in Burma but those fell short thanks to China and Russia, they didn't want to intervene and they certainly didn't want the west hanging around in an Asian country).

[Posteritatis]

81. Enough that the US had a "let genocides happen" policy since 1994

This is actually the first outright military intervention in a humanitarian issue since then by any country that the US didn't veto; it actually had a policy to forbid even other nations from trying to assist in those sorts of situations. Power's and Dallaire's books on that whole situation are enlightening, though they aren't good for helping people sleep well afterwards.

[Bluerthanblue]

92. what about Kosovo?

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

93. Power singled that out as one of the only exceptions

I thought Kosovo was the right thing to do, myself. (On a cynical level, the fact that it was in Europe probably helped. You know, the whole "we have ethnic groups, they only have tribes" schtick.)

If you're curious, the two books in question I alluded to are Power's "A Problem from Hell:" America and the Age of Genocide and Dallaire's Shake Hands with the Devil: the Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. The former in particular, because its author is someone who has at least some say in the State Department right now and probably influenced the US going on board with this operation. They're both pretty harrowing reads at times, but worthwhile, especially when everyone's discussing situations like this.

[Modern_Matthew]

28. I don't. You're either for war or against it. There's no gray areas. nt

[cali]

30. of course. for black/white, good/evil simplistic "thinkers"ther

there are never gray areas.

[Ikonoklast]

79. Sadly, there are so many shades of gray that black/white thinking

makes one blind to them.

If you are always against war in any form you must also be willing to give up every essential freedom you have, or are willing to let those that cannot defend themselves from tyranny be ground under the heel of an oppressor.

The truth is that the very freedoms we enjoy as a nation, no matter how limited they have become, came about because there were those that so believed in the concept they were willing to die for it in war against an oppressive monarchy.

I believe that we should support those in Libya who wish to form a new government with whatever they ask for, but then again, we should also take the side of the protesters in Bahrain who have just as much a claim for freedom as the Libyans do.

And the Saudis who also chafe under a dictatorship hidden beneath the guise of a monarchy should be given a voice...it is only a metter of time before the corrupt House of Saud falls. Without our support, they are nothing, and if wasn't for their friends in the CIA and Texas they would have been gone years ago.

[JBoy]

103. Well, can't argue with that. Literally, you can't argue with that.

[NutmegYankee]

31. Thank You for a fair OP

I'm in between on this action, and I haven't made a decision yet.

[mmonk]

34. True.

Given recent history though of creating failed states for exploitation, its easy to become distrustful and jaded, especially given the dual nature of US foreign policy when it comes to civilian populations.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[TBF]

36. People can rationalize anything. nt

[DainBramaged]

37. what a fucked up thread

[cali]

really? why?

please do elucidate.

[silver10]

73. Because you seem to be intellectualizing a truly horrible thing - another war for America

get involved in and exacerbate. Legitimizing even more dead people - more hatred - more ruined lives - by our involvement and by our superior war machine. Like people STILL didn't learn from all the other horrible, messy conflicts we've gotten involved in. AND we couldn't win.

Each time one is thrown at us, each time there's people from afar like you treating it as this time, it may be different, we may be right to bomb innocent people, invade another country, spend money we don't have, and cut good domestic programs. Nice academic exercise. More bullshit from the elite corporatists and oil industry.

Shame on President Obama. I think someone already wrote, our involvement is morally indefensible.

[DainBramaged]

95. Cheering the use of military force overseas while children starve here is unconscionable

But as we see, acceptable. Sad.

[Bluerthanblue]

100. pretending children wouldn't starve here if this action wasn't

taken, is pretty unconscionable imo- or as naive as you claim that those who feel this isn't ALL to do with oil to be.

One one thing we agree- it IS Sad.

very sad.

[bobbolink]

111. EXACTLY! That false equation has been cynically used by "peace" people, and it is time it STOP!

I'm sick and tired of being used for their purposes.

BASTA!

[old mark]

38. K&R-Thank you...name calling seems quite popular lately, all across the political spectrum...

thank you for a little fresh air.

mark

[LoZoccolo]

39. There's an easy solution to that.

It is against the rules to ascribe motives to someone's post. You can alert on it an possibly eventually get them tombstoned.

[cali]

40. I don't think that rule's endorsed. don't think it necessarily should be

and I don't see how that advances any real dialogue.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[cali]

50. hey, you call other DUers "flies". You clearly get joy form causing others pain.

there can be no other reason.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

[Posteritatis]

82. Of course doing that at this point would basically depopulate DU. (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

85. I don't think that it necessarily would.

Maybe at some point people would see the consenquences of breaking the rules and stop breaking them. Also, if you plug in random numbers to the user profile URL, you'll see that a large number of people here have less than one hundred posts. Of course I can't know for sure, but I wonder how many of those people would stay if there was more civility.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[cali]

48. who's doing the bullying? That would be you..

what you're doing is classic.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Codeine]

46. This is why I'm just not going to get into an argument about this one.

there are valid points on both sides which I find nearly equally compelling. That others come down on the other side than I do is something I can totally understand and respect.

[silver10]

49. I don't see the difference in us getting involved in Libya vs. Iraq, Iran, Vietnam

Same song and dance. Innocent casualties of war will die - the civilians - they will view the West as illegal occupants, and they will try to defend their country from invaders. In the end, it will be the Libyans vs. the West, just like in Iraq. The Iraqis were supposedly begging for America to help overthrow Saddam, who killed thousands of them too. How'd that work out?

[Le Taz Hot]

52. Conducting three wars while your nation

is in desperate need in so many areas is indefensible. Period.

[silver10]

53. +1

[silver10]

58. Aren't you sick of the wars? the blood, the murder?

The god-damned war machine must stop! All pseudo-intellectual pontificating aside, please.

Justify and legitimize, certain industries are addicted to war, and the best PR can't overcome history if you study it. We were involved in how many "police actions" and "humanitarian efforts" we couldn't win. You should build your next vacation home in lovely Iraq, I hear their democracy is kick'n.

[cali]

54. I think there's a lot more ambiguity involved than you recognize.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. There's no ambuguity here.

I recognize that we have people here who are homeless, hungry, scrounging around for the merest of existences and we have a "Democratic" president who can always find money for weapons but can't seem to find money for jobs programs or to feed people or to house people or to provide them with medical care. But there's always money for objects to kill people. Though I realize I do not possess the ability to put the blinders on anytime the action is undertaken by someone with a "D" behind his/her name I do recognize the reality for what it is, sans the pathetic, indefensible spin.

[cali]

61. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

and I'm not spinning anything. As I said in the OP, I oppose this attack on Libya. Btw, I believe that even if we weren't conducting military action anywhere, the same cuts would be being proposed and carried out.

[silver10]

63. And at the same time the domestic spending cuts were being made

if not this war, some other war, because the war machine needs to continue. Especially in a country rich in oil or minerals.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Bluerthanblue]

86. very good point Cali-

I agree with you that the cuts would be proposed and carried out as well.

And, personally, opposition to this issue based on money really twists my knickers. This country has more than enough money to take care of it's citizens well- even now. We just don't have the method to make sure that happens- The fantasy that if we didn't get involved militarily would mean we'd deal with our own issues more responsibly, or humanly is ludicrous imo.

I'm very conflicted about this situation.

[Aerows]

62. These "protesters" have planes and artillery

They actually shot down one of their own planes yesterday. These aren't protesters like the ones in Egypt or Tunisia. WHO is equipping them, and for what purpose? Is it going to be possible to avoid escalation if they are well enough armed to not only have their own planes but anti-aircraft missiles to shoot them down (not to mention, shooting their OWN planes down).

There is more going on here than meets the eye, and I think it is worth asking more questions.

There are too many things coming out now for me to be anything less than skeptical of what we have been told.

[somone]

65. Exactly. And where is the evidence for the 'genocide'?

Estimates on the 'massacres'? Satellite photographs of 'razed cities'?
Not just Twitter messages from characters in the shadows.

[Aerows]

71. And we already know...

...the military is manipulating social networks. They can't just direct Twitter at certain countries, because it reaches world wide.

When "protesters" have planes and anti-aircraft guns, they don't really fit the description of "peaceful" and "unable to defend themselves".

This is WHY people are skeptical of any reason we go to war - because we never get told the truth and NEVER get the whole truth, either.

There are also way too much of the "you are anti-American if you don't support this" talk, which makes me extremely leery. I remember Iraq, and while I supported it based upon what I thought I knew then, I clearly remember anyone asking questions getting ridiculed, called a traitor and anti-American.

[riverwalker]

72. Google is your friend

but only if you use it.

http://feb17.info/audio-video/

[somone]

74. Let the Libyans take care of their crazy colonel

Libya is no Rwanda or Cambodia

[silver10]

75. Everything on Google is true? OMG, I wish I realized sooner!!!!

[Aerows]

76. Again...

..they have planes and anti-aircraft artillery. WHO is supplying them with this weaponry? How can you call these "peaceful protesters" if they are able to shoot their own plane down, and clearly have anti-aircraft artillery?

That doesn't sound "peaceful" to me. I'm not saying that they aren't justified in ousting Qaddafi, but I'm also skeptical because we aren't being told the whole truth, just this version that this is a "protective" mission. If they have artillery, arms and planes, they are hardly "defenseless".

[silver10]

77. Agreed!

And if we invade a country to "liberate" them - what are that country's citizens being told about us? What is our government not telling us to get us in another war?

[Aerows]

78. That's what worries me...

...it's always the things that we find out after the fact that come back to haunt us.

[Posteritatis]

84. If you were actually reading the news before yesterday, you'd know the answer to that

They seized weapons depots and a number of military bases in the east in the early days of the fighting after getting pushed to the wall by government forces' responses to the original protests after Egypt's government fell. The reversals in the last week and a half were because Qadaffi's air force bombed, among other things, those same depots, depriving the rebels of the majority of their equipment.

Everyone in countries armed to Warsaw Pact specifications is going to have AAA. It's only slightly more common than small arms, and nowhere near as a big a game changer as you seem to think. As for aircraft, that plane you saw going down over Benghazi yesterday was literally fifty percent of the rebels' air force, which means their aircraft are (or until yesterday, were) outnumbered about three hundred to one.

But let's spin it as a war between two opponents who are morally identical and equally equipped because they each have at least one of various types of equipment.

[Adsos Letter]

107. +1

[TorchTheWitch]

118. genocide is a very specific term and has nothing to do with #'s dead

Genocide is the attempted extermination of a group of people because of who they are not what they do, and that attempt is almost always accompanied by other methods besides killing so as to further success in wiping out further generations. The term was coined in 1944 by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin the purpose of which was to describe the Nazi policies of systematic murder and destruction of Jews. He formed the word "genocide" by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe, with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. In proposing this new term, Lemkin had in mind "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves." A few years later the term was adopted as a legal term by the UN and making it a crime.

The attempted extermination of European Jews by the Nazis was genocide. The attempted extermination by the US of Native Americans was genocide. The attempted extermination of the Tutsi in Rwanda was genocide. What Gaddafi is doing to the people of Libya is not genocide.

[silver10]

67. excellent point

But some self-righteous people see some articles and some media coverage about people dying, and automatically the US needs to jump in with our bombs.

Same crap being slung at us about Iraq and Vietnam and the rest, (but really, who's good, who's bad, who's being told that America is not invading them but trying to "help" and not bomb the living daylights out of their country) - just a different day.

[seabeyond]

68. talking to my son about it..... i went in complete circles of the why, and shoulds and shouldnts

never came to a conclusion

but with every reason why there are stand up reasons why not.

[Bluerthanblue]

87. me too-

this is one of those difficult moral dilemmas. Where some of my own absolutes are sorely challenged.

:grouphug:

[seabeyond]

88. ha....

you understand. agreed.

[Shagbark Hickory]

69. At some point, the media will have to tell us which side of the issue the dems are on and which side

the pigs are on.

[Upton]

70. Defintion of warmonger..

–noun
a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warmonger

Those who support the intervention in Libya may not be warmongers in general, but they certainly fit the definition on this one issue..

[Bluerthanblue]

89. sometimes definitions

are meaningless.

Many people (who were hardly "warmongers") gave given their own lives trying to stop others from having theirs taken from them.

[TheKentuckian]

80. Some folks seem unable to differentiate between different types of actions.

It is a very simplistic yes or no question. No difference between launching a cruise missile and a full scale ground invasion. No difference between the US acting unilaterally to prosecute a was and not vetoing in the UN Security Council.

Personally, I am not automatically Pro or Anti military action. I believe it is and must be circumstantial and be reflexively anti-war is nearly as dangerous as being gung-ho by default as many folks appear to be, needing only political leaders to say someone or some faction is teh evul with a few cycles of supporting press coverage to be ready for any level of intervention.

Also, some folks cannot process that a person might support one action and not another according to circumstances and that tends to indicate looking at this in absolutist terms anyway.

Also, I think this time one is logically required to pick a side. I don't think someone can say they are staying out of it because to stop it would not require inaction but rather proactively using our Security Council veto to stop any intervention (a level of intervention that seems at least arguably reasonable, even if one must in the disagree with moving forward on).

I think a no fly zone encourages an atmosphere were it is plausible that the rebels will win but one in which the actors on the ground in Libya will determine the outcome.

Supporting this action does not mean I would support additional actions nor does logic dictate that I might be against even a similar action in different circumstances.

I don't know, I'm not exactly eager here at all but I'm probably closer to there than I am to affirmatively demanding we use our veto to squash the entire idea. I also tend to think of this as reasonable level of force, that actually went through proper channels. Certainly to declare it illegal is inaccurate.

I also am curious where the demands to use our veto were before we got here which makes wonder if some are still fighting the last war using the current situation.

[Bluerthanblue]

83. thank you for reminding us

that just because we see things from different perspectives, we aren't the enemy.

We shouldn't need to be reminded of this, but then a lot of things shouldn't be-

[bobbolink]

99. For once we agree.

[cbayer]

102. K & R

[MikeW]

105. the arab coalition is already blaming the West for strike kills, How long do you think it is before

they paint this as Western colonialism?

What then?

Its going to happen, we stepped in shit again.

[silver10]

108. How can no one see this, and keep believing that this bombing is better than any of the others?

I'd give money to a million freeloaders than give another dollar to another war.

[sibelian]

109. We cannot assume that the West's intervention in Libya is benign. n/t

[JVS]

112. In order not to be a warmonger one would have to refrain from mongering war.

[roamer65]

115. This is all in Qadhafi's hands.

Stop slaughtering civilians and honor his declared ceasefires and it will stop.

[Taverner]

116. Sure you can - but my question is not that, but what good will it do?

Let's just say, OK, No fly zone. No one takes off or flies planes over Libya. Fine.

That will stop the tanks from rolling in and crushing protesters. That will teach Quadaffi a 'lesson.' And to quote the sage Wayne "...and monkeys might fly out my butt!!"

I've seen this movie before - it was called Iraq's no fly zone, and with it we heaped sanctions upon sanctions against our former ally, Sadaam. And it did no fucking good. What it did, however, is made sure the Iraqis suffered and starved for years, at times with no access to medicine. Things got so bad that Iraq had a bunch of side deals with other UN nations and departments.

Then years later, we rolled in the tanks and cried 'Mission Accomplished.'

[Maru Kitteh]

117. I couldn't agree any more.