My, how DU has changed. Yay War!

[Ripley]

When I signed up here 9 years ago the majority of members were not just against Bush but also against his policies which led to his ugly illegal wars based upon lies that made obvious profits for his Halliburton VP.

Instead of ending either of the damned wars Obama is getting us involved in another one.

More very expensive tax-payer funded weapons are fired. No doubt killing civilians as well as bad guys.

While the federal government cuts social programs left and right for tax-payers who need help.

There should be a noticeable difference, somewhere.

[treestar]

1. So if Obama did nothing and there was a slaughter in Libya

You would not be blaming him?

[MrMickeysMom]

5. Funny how sometimes you don't care about slaughter...

... and then you decide to care.

Fickle Finger of Fate? Check the rally on Wall Street and then decide which lives we care about.

Did we care about Sadaam? These little bastards are all our little bastards until it becomes profitable to pretend you care.

Yay us! :puke:

[elocs]

8. So how does your attitude help Libyans. Do they deserve to die because their country has oil?

Do they deserve to be massacred because we have been inconsistent in our outrage?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Reality check: People die in revolutions all the time

but our government cares only about revolutionaries who die in countries that are rich in oil.

Save the fake humanitarianism. The situations in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Congo were far worse.

[ingac70]

28. +1

[Hugabear]

32. The pro-war crowd doesn't want to hear that

After all, the people being slaughtered in those other places haven't asked for a no-fly-zone, so they can fend for themselves.

[Mimosa]

70. Robert Mugabe is among the worst tyrants on the globe but has been left alone

Libya has a lot of oil, as did Iraq.

[Dave From Canada]

164. Actually, Libya doesn't have very much oil.

[go west young man]

180. From the CIA Factbook.

The Libyan economy depends primarily upon revenues from the oil sector, which contribute about 95% of export earnings, 25% of GDP, and 80% of government revenue. The weakness in world hydrocarbon prices in 2009 reduced Libyan government tax income and constrained economic growth. Substantial revenues from the energy sector coupled with a small population give Libya one of the highest per capita GDPs in Africa, but little of this income flows down to the lower orders of society. Libyan officials in the past five years have made progress on economic reforms as part of a broader campaign to reintegrate the country into the international fold. This effort picked up steam after UN sanctions were lifted in September 2003 and as Libya announced in December 2003 that it would abandon programs to build weapons of mass destruction. The process of lifting US unilateral sanctions began in the spring of 2004; all sanctions were removed by June 2006, helping Libya attract greater foreign direct investment, especially in the energy sector. Libyan oil and gas licensing rounds continue to draw high international interest; the National Oil Corporation (NOC) set a goal of nearly doubling oil production to 3 million bbl/day by 2012.

They are essentially doing a "Saddam" on Gaddafi. They built him up and gave him confidence he was their guy and now they are removing him using his killing of innocent protesters as an excuse. It is always about the oil. Just another chess move in "The Great Game".

Libya is considered 9th in the world when it comes to oil reserves. http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-oil-reserves-countries-map.html

I think they're are a lot of DU'ers here (myself included) who would wish to see Gaddafi gone. To me the real hero is Bradley Manning. His alleged act of disclosing all this nepotism and corruption amongst these royal dictators is what has sparked these revolutions. The U.S. has had to take a side at this point and obviously it was easy as all the ducks were put in a row for them by others including Gaddafi himself.
The hypocrisy is always there with the U.S.'s actions. They let protesters get snipered in Bahrain and continue to do business with that dictator. The Saudi's could eat babies on the White House lawn and get away with it. At least these days the emperor has no clothes. All the world knows were full of shit and that we have our best soldier in jail. One soldier who has helped overthrow two Middle eastern countries
in 3 months. Meanwhile the entire US military spends 10 years and pisses 2 trillion dollars down a hole a desert trying to overtake Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all about making the rich richer. Sorry about the ranting.

[Hestia]

262. Excellent post - bookmarking thread just for your elucidation of current events.

[howaboutme]

287. Fxxx all the warm mongers even if the name is Obxxx and he has a D after his name

Trying to defend any US President that creates another war obligation that inevitably will kill innocents and waste our treasury. There is a root cause of why the USA constantly has its nose in all Islamic countries and it has nothing to do with what the President says. It is because our government is being led around by the nose by outside influences that blatantly despise all Muslims.

[Critters2]

174. Yep. The only oil in Zimbabwe is corn oil, and we make that ourselves.

So, he can just go on starving and slaughtering his people to his little heart's delight.


The stuff about protecting people from a dictator is bullshit, pure and simple.

[The Doctor.]

213. The justification may be bullshit, but it is just nonetheless.

The US is obviously an 'Hypocracy' (Hypocritical Plutocracy), but if our actions, whatever our motives, give the people of Libya a fighting chance, then I'll see the cup half full.

Still, we should either have a consistent policy one way or the other. I side with 'spend the money here and stop cutting the throat of the middle class'.

[treestar]

306. But my point was and is

Oil or not, if Gadaffi started to slaughter people, there would be demands that Obama do something. Just like there was on Egypt, or even Libya, before this. Then it wouldn't be about oil.

Are you sure you'd shrug at the slaughter and support Obama for keeping us out of it?

[rpannier]

272. The actions in Libya have the support of Arab States

South Africa, Angola and the majority of the African states oppose actions against Mugabe.

[sabrina 1]

355. The African Union opposes this. The Arab League, filled

with despots backed by us and currently slaughering their own people elsewhere, has been persuaded to support it. They withdrew their support when the saw the bombing stating it was gone way beyond what they supported.

I have a feeling the Arab League nations are nervous, they know how the U.S. can change its mind about its dictators should they get out of line. So, the Arab League got back in line quickly.

However the African Union is not on board with this war.

[leftstreet]

78. +1

[Dutch]

80. Yeah, Gaddafi slaughtering his own people would just be same old, same old

Clearly the progressive thing to do would be to just sit back and enjoy, knwoing that by letting it happen we are truly standing firm in our principles. Not being 'fake humanitarians'.

You know, despite being repulsively, viciously wrong, in a sense the OP is right. This place has changed. Not DU, the left in general, that is.

[Chef Eric]

123. Sit back and "enjoy"? I don't know anybody that's enjoying this mess.

Maybe you can provide some links that demonstrate progressives' "enjoyment"?

:shrug:

[lark]

225. Just like we saved the Iraquis from themselves?

War is death, us being over there just increases the chance that Libyans are dying and ensures that some of our people will die too. Whether it's us or Khaddafy, it's still death for the people of Libya. Some people here just have to approve anything Obama does, no matter the impact. Sad.

[treestar]

307. Are you sure you don't automatically disapprove what Obama does?

Are you completely sure you would have supported Obama had we done nothing about Libya, and been able to stand strong that whatever happened there was not our concern? You would not have been bashing Obama for letting Libyan opposition be killed, right? That would just be on them.

[rhett o rick]

324. Why dont you provide an argument for your stand instead of the "are you sure..." bs?

Are you sure you arent on the DLC/Koch Brothers payroll?

[treestar]

327. Would you support Obama if he stayed out of Libya, no matter

what happened there?

Our government would not be to blame if there indeed was a massacre and you would give it no criticism for doing nothing.

I see you don't want to answer that question.

[rhett o rick]

332. I am glad to answer honest questions. I would support Pres Obama in either case if he had gone to

Congress like the Constitution requires. Why do you only ask questions and never provide statements?

Do you think Pres Obama was correct in bombing Libya, spending over $100 million dollars, without asking Congress? Your turn to answer?

[rhett o rick]

334. Why do you only ask questions and never answer? nm

[FedUp_Queer]

259. Civil Wars

Seems to me that the people within a country are the best ones to fight a civil war. But, from an "on the ground" perspective, what exactly is the purpose here? How long do we anticipate this non-intervention intervention be? How many millions and billions can we throw away when people are losing homes, drowning in debt and can't feed their families? When is enough violence enough?

[PVnRT]

87. If it were about oil, we'd support Qadaffi

He kept the spigots open to Europe (we only got about 2% of that oil). Why support a revolution that might not make sure the West gets all of that oil instead of India and China? If it were about oil, why did the West spend 2-3 weeks discussing things before going in with air strikes?

Furthermore, are you arguing that because we failed to act in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo (and countless others), we shouldn't bother anywhere?

I always thought this was the kind of multilateral action that the left had little problem with. Should the UN just issue finger-wagging resolutions and hope people listen, or what?

[JackRiddler]

112. "We" had supported Qadaffi for 10 years. The current operation is to rescue...

Libya for continued dealings with the West, since the situation has made it difficult to allow business with Qadaffi. They see it as making lemonade from lemons.

[nxylas]

154. Yep, if we allowed a real revolution, Gaddafi might be replaced with someone not approved by Big Oil

This intervention is all about taking control of the revolution and making sure that one puppet ruler gets replaced with another.

[reggie the dog]

178. that may be their motive

but that wont go over too well with the local population. I hope the libyans get true free elections. if not then this whole thing is a sham.

[rtassi]

268. You mean like ours? N/T

[Geoffrey_Lebowski]

194. I'm not entirely sure that's true ...

For one thing where the oil actually goes is pretty irrelevant. They are net exporters, therefore they supply oil to big pool of world oil that's available to other countries. If their oil went offline, then the countries they do sell to would go looking to some of our supplier's oil. So even if we physically get very little of their oil, Libya is still an important producer as far as world prices go.

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure this about 'regime change' per se, but rather the operation is geared at attempting to control the situation, to restoring 'peace' in some form or another so that the export supplies don't end up offline. Perhaps they're mostly concerned with rebels sabotaging a significant portion of the oil production gear or something.

I dunno, I'm very ambivalent about the whole thing, mainly due to past US duplicities in matters such as these. I haven't really figured out what to make of it all, but the fact that PNAC folks are 'all for' this engagement definitely makes me suspicious.

[CrossChris]

211. Maybe we're trying to keep the spigots off?

It would help the speculators who are invested in the price of oil, wouldn't it?

[hulka38]

239. With this operation the French Brits and U.S. are reminding everyone

who's oil that is. At least the French and Brits are being honest when they say they're going to take Gaddafi out.

[deaniac21]

109. Not to mention Sudan.

[Raster]

130. +10

Oh how true..."but our government cares only about revolutionaries who die in countries that are rich in oil."

[LWolf]

140. + 1,000,000

[DeSwiss]

147. Very. Well. Put.

K&R

[Plucketeer]

149. +5

I don't think I have enough fingers to tally up all the incidents of persecution by tyrants that have transpired in the past decade. Incidents where the USA took the total recourse of issuing a statement of condemnation. Of course, the civilians that lost their lives were potential competition for barrels of oil on the open market. Consequently, a thinning of them here and there is a good thing from an oil-addicted giant's point of view. See - you can find a silver lining in just about anything!

[Stinky The Clown]

163. That's conveniently forgotten by the neo humanitarians.

You're not supposed to mention that.

When Democrats do stuff, its all a-okay, dontcha know?

[Wait Wut]

168. So...

...you want us to do this with every country that has a revolution, protest, etc. or just the ones that ask for our help? We might be stretched a bit thin, either way. Unless you and everyone else that agrees with you signs up.

Whenever I get a little extra cash I have a moral dilemma. Which one of the hundreds of charities do I send a donation to? All of them are worthy. All of them could use my meager leftovers. But, I can only give to one. It doesn't stop the flood of emails that I receive each day asking me for money. I read the majority of them and the stories they tell make me feel horrible.

But, when I send that payment to the one charity that I've chosen, I've made a difference. A tiny, little, insignificant difference. But, I hope that over time that difference will change to progress. I can't save the world, but if someone asks for my help I'll do my best.

Libya has asked for our help. So maybe you should reexamine your own claims of humanitarianism and instead of asking why not Liberia, Sierra Leone or the Congo you should ask, "Why not Libya?". I don't support the claim that this is about oil, but if it is...do we care less about the people? Are the citizens to blame for the greed of America? Should we tell them we can't help because our Liberals don't want to protect civilians in oil rich countries?

[AKDavy]

201. "Save the fake humanitarianism" -- In a nutshell

We've been going to war for "vital national interest" instead of defense.

If 5% of the world's population were doing 50% of the worlds military spending for defense, then we really need to look at our people skills.

This is geopolitics, not humanitarianism.

The the key to turning U.S. moral outrage into U.S. moral action seems to be the financial element.

Killing babies is bad, but it the killing babies that increases the cost of a tank of gas that really gets our moral senses tingling.

[MrMickeysMom]

253. Abso-fucking-lutely, LL

You said it best.

[erodriguez]

275. Bingo!

[cottonseed]

356. Ok cool. So DU's now down with the slaughter of revolutionaries. Bookmarked.

I'll need to remember this/

[JackRiddler]

107. How does you attitude help Saudis, Yemenis, Sudanese, Koreans, Colombians?

Did you care about Libyans last month?

[MrMickeysMom]

119. Answer: Nobody does...

Lesson: Don't install little dictators who run a puppet government and do business for oil unless you consider all the human rights issues UP FRONT, MOTHERFUCKER!

[jeff47]

153. That's lovely. I'm sure when we invent a time machine, that will be helpful.

But he's shooting his people now. What would you like done about it?

[MrMickeysMom]

216. If you stop changes tenses, you'd get the point

That's a red herring... you focus on what's happening now to make an argument for what I say we should have bothered to do (or NOT to do) in the past.

There IS nothing to avoid what we have in front of us with this "temporary" action, so file that logical fallacy away.

There WAS plenty of time to avoid these cozy little partnerships as long as the partner plays by our foreign diplomacy rules.

[jeff47]

314. Yes, that's a lovely "I told you so".

Unfortunately, I wasn't dictator when Gaddafi came to power. So I couldn't make the "right" decision to bomb him back when he seized power.

So what would you like to do about him now?

[PVnRT]

158. Uh, we didn't install Qadaffi

He seized power when the king was away in 1969 with a few other officers and a handful of ammunition.

It actually sounds like it would make a good movie, but anyway...

[Bucky]

247. True. However a lot of neocons gave him a "clean slate" the day he came out against al-Qaeda

[Taverner]

171. So how does your attitude help Iraqis.

So how does your attitude help Afghanis.
So how does your attitude help Bosnians.
So how does your attitude help Panamanians.
So how does your attitude help Nicaraguans.
So how does your attitude help the Vietnamese.

so it goes....so it goes

[reggie the dog]

183. you really think the un did no good in bosnia?

the usa has really fucked up iraq and afghanistan and i dont think they should have gone there. the usa should have supported ho chi mihn, he asked for our help, but our allies from WWII, the French were the colonizing power. At that point i could have seen not taking either side but pressuring france to let their colonies be free.

panama, one one hand we paid for the canal, and we provided security for a long time there, then turned the canal over to the panmanians eventually.

nicaragua we should have supported the peoples movement but no, we supported the right wing insurgency.

i dont really see us supporting the right wing in libya like we did in vietnam or nicaragua.

[Taverner]

192. By the time we got there, the killings had already taken place

By the time we got there, there were no 'good guys' left, just two paramilitary forces fighting each other

Then the bombing, we fricken love love love to bomb people - and we did kill about 1-5k innocent civilians there.

I could see giving aid and weapons to the Libyan rebels, but bombing the shit out of the country will do no good.

[provis99]

333. the UN and US royally screwed up in Bosnia and Kosovo.

slaughter went unchecked in Bosnia, until the warring parties agreed to a ceasefire, while the US's meddling in Kosovo resulted in the extermination or expulsion of the Serb population from their historical homeland.

[Hestia]

261. Isn't that the same damned argument thrown at us about Iraq? Not everyone has a short memory

I talked Peace - Back By Popular Demand till I was blue in the face, but I was told it was about the Iraqi children and their puppy dogs. Yeah, we really gave a shit about them didn't we? And now here you are whispering with the same worm-tongue - but but but it's for the people and children and puppy dog tails. I thought we were broke, but evidently not, also seem to find loose change in the couch cushions when it comes to launching missile's and killing people, in fact, the very one's we are suppose to be saving.

[rtassi]

269. Truth ... Nothing wrong with my memory either ...

[reggie the dog]

176. many of us called for action in sudan before the killings started

and nothing was done (due largely to the lack of exploitable natural resources in my opinion). the same can be said for rwanda.

on the other hand it is good for the people wanting to get rid of a leader they have had for 35 or 40 years and under whom unemployment is in the 30 to 35% range http://www.indexmundi.com/libya/unemployment_rate.html

they protested and were repressed, ghadaffi called for getting rid of rats. They were labled as terrorists and they began to defend themselves with the help of some members and leaders of the armed forces.

perhaps this will just end with 2 countries being formed?

perhaps ghadaffi will leave

perhaps he will win i really dont know

but this war is helping people just across the sea from us in Europe who began by peacefully demanding liberty and justice and their tyrant of a leader wanted to kill them. is he the only asshole in the world who is slaughtering people who want and are trying to get justice? no, of course not.

oil is part of the motivation in my opinion but the oil there was already open to the international oil companies who were there pumping it. elf total fina i believe was one of them.

do we both agree that help should have arrived long ago in sudan? is it nice that the protesing population in libya has help? I will be really pissed off if this turns into a ground occuptation taht is for certain. They, like their neighbors, should hopefully be able to work things out on their own as is happening in eqypt, tunisia, and yemen.

what is curious is that no one is talking about bahrain where the saudi army came in and shot the hell out of protesters. why is that not news? why are neither the leage of arab nations nor the UN talking about the slaughter there?

[ingac70]

No.

Because it is none of our damn business. Quit using the same BS tack Bushies used to invade Iraq.

[Orrex]

31. I have a question about that, and it's been bugging me

When is US intervention justified? Perhaps not in every case, but certainly not in no case, either?

I admit that I can't come up with a clear and consistent way to think about it.

[ingac70]

37. Intervention is never justified.

Our military is strictly for the defense of our Constitution.

[Orrex]

38. Not even in Bosnia?

The Constitution being a necessarily fallible and incomplete document, I simply can't accept that it trumps all moral considerations in all cases.

Can we really justify standing by while atrocities are committed, simply because our document doesn't grant permission to step in?

[ingac70]

39. Not even Bosnia.

Funny how people get worked up about one set of atrocities and could give a damn about another.

[Orrex]

41. So we should help none simply because we can't help all?

I appreciate your answers, but I'm afraid that I simply can't agree with you.

[ingac70]

48. Yep.... and it isn't about "helping" anyone....

every action the US involves itself in is on behalf of some corporate interest.

[Orrex]

49. All right, but can no good come of it?

Is it wrong to intervene in an atrocity simply because corporate interests will benefit?

I'm not talking about US-caused atrocities like Falujah or Iraq in general, but is it morally justifiable to say "we can't step in because Lockheed Martin will profit from it?"

[ingac70]

51. Iraq and this situation are no different....

but if it helps you sleep better at night keep telling yourself that.

[Orrex]

52. No reason to be patronizing or hostile, friend

And you didn't answer the question.

[ingac70]

54. No good will come of it. n/t

[PVnRT]

88. How is a unilateral, preemptive, illegal invasion of Iraq

exactly the same as a UN resolution specifically authorizing a limited use of force to protect civilians? They seem diametrically opposed, frankly.

If this were all about maintaining corporate profits, then answer these:

1) Why support revolutionaries who might decide to sell oil on the open market to China and India rather than to the West?

2) Why did it take so long to start military action? Why bother with diplomacy?

[swilton]

103. I don't think that dropping weapons on any country and its

people - weapons that contain depleted uranium - should be defined as help...Cluster bombs are used as well. The debris from these weapons last for years if not generations.

[Recursion]

136. Depleted Uranium

:eyes:

Yes, cruise missiles and bombs are just full of that

[swilton]

298. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles

Carry conventional or nuclear payloads - check out the US Navy's web page for yourself. The cruise missiles can carry a variety of explosives. And this is what the Navy is releasing.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2

[Recursion]

305. What does that have to do with Depleted Uranium?

It's toxic, not radiological.

[DutchLiberal]

113. Wow... I'm just glad you weren't in power in World War II...

If you had anything to say about it, we'd be speaking German now and there wouldn't be a jew left.

[ingac70]

120. In case you forgot, we didn't enter that until the Japanese bombed us....

Until then we stayed out of it, as we should have.

[jeff47]

146. You might want to go back to history class

We were up to our elbows in WWII before the Pearl Harbor. We were "lending" a whole lot of weapons to the allies. It was never made clear how we would get back the bullets we "lent" them.

[ingac70]

187. Material support is alot different than actually dropping the bombs yourself.

Of course, arming rebels in Libya would probably just have created the next Osama Bin Laden, so that wouldn't be a good idea.

[Hestia]

271. A little more history - We didn't lend the Allies anything. If you remember there was a huge

protest about Churchill putting England in massive debt by buying our arms. The debt England was so large, there was still food rationing in the 1970s there. You ought to talk to ex-pat Brit's & Scot's in Canada about it. It was why they immigrated in the 1950s to NA. American's were active in the war before the US entered, but they entered through Canada or Britain's military.

[Matilda]

283. I have to take issue with your statement about rationing.

I lived in England during the late 1960s, and there was no rationing.

It had all ended, as it did in Australia, by 1954.

[Hestia]

319. I did find this link from BBC re: rationing ended in 1954, I was told by 2 Scotsmen

and 2 English in Canada about 10 years ago they went through rationing later on. Localized maybe?

[Matilda]

335. I certainly didn't see any evidence of it anywhere.

Food was cheap, petrol (gas) was expensive, but you could buy as much of either as you wanted.

As a child, I remember the ration cards my mother had in Australia, so I know how it operated, and it simply wasn't
happening in Britain in the 1960s.

[Javaman]

342. You might want to go back to history class yourself..

FDR enacted an embargo on oil being shipped to Japan, after Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria.

His rational was that he wasn't going to sponsor a military dictatorships expansionism.

The Japanese looked upon this act as an act of war.

They attacked us because we didn't want to trade them the oil the desperately needed. That's the reality.

While Japan was part of the axis, they looked upon America's involvement in the lend lease act as an issue for Germany not them.

By the time the US entered the war in the Pacific, the Brits were just hanging on.

If given time and not bombing Pearl Harbor, the Brits would have been effectively driven from the Pacific theater as a fighting force by the Japanese.

However, since the Philippians were a huge prize on many levels for the Japanese, it was only inevitable that US involvement would become an issue. Because the Philippians was a US possession.

The Japanese having virtually no natural resources of their own, needed both the oil and rubber production of southeast asia to keep their military running.

So, using the false concept of the Lend Lease act as the predication for the Japanese to attack us, is weak.

The Japanese of the '20's, '30's and '40's were an expansionist military power.

They wouldn't have been happy until all of asia was theirs.

They looked upon the US, Britain and France as small obstacles to their overall goal.

[DutchLiberal]

170. Really? You think the US "should have" let Auschwitz continue?

Wow.

Just wow.

:puke:

[Orrex]

185. That was kind of my thought

Regardless of what the Constitution might have to say about it, an absolute policy of non-intervention seems morally unjustifiable to me.

Of course, the inconsistency ith which we intervene is another matter worthy of discussion, but it doesn't automatically follow that "staying out of it" is always the only appropriate policy.

[ingac70]

190. You really think any of our politicians at the time cared?n/t

[DutchLiberal]

202. Yes, I do, Especially FDR. I'm glad the Americans intervened.

Thanks to them, I'm speaking Dutch and not German. Thank you, America! :patriot:

[ingac70]

236. We didn't intervene. We entered AFTER we got bombed.

I don't know what else I can do short of sending you a high school history book to make this clear.

http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/United-States.html


in·ter·vene: a. To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development

b. To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.

Intervention didn't happen! ;)

[hulka38]

244. Japan didn't bomb the U.S.out of the clear blue.

The oil embargo placed on Japan set the stage for conflict in the Pacific. It's well known that FDR was looking for a way to enter the War long before Pearl Harbor happened. FDR understood the threat posed by the Axis powers. But isolationism was the dominant political sentiment at the time. FDR reassured Americans that he would keep their boys out of foreign conflicts while he worked behind the scenes to aid the Allies, crank up the MIC and build public support for the war.

[Hestia]

273. Nonsense - Germany was banned from making mutions and they signed

a treaty with Japan, who built their aircraft and ships. The oil embargo was after this ramp up of arms.

[hulka38]

277. I don't know where you're coming from.

Can you clarify?

[Javaman]

344. The US had more than enough reason for entering the war prior to the

Bombing of Pearl.

Our Merchant ships were being torpedoed almost daily on their way to England.

Yet, we still didn't declare war.

Various laypersons love to use the canard of "FDR knew that Pearl was going to happen and let it happen so we could get into the war".

1) we had more than enough reasons prior to Pearl to get into the war.

2) of course he knew. Anyone with an ounce of brains, when looking at the Pacific as a military landscape, knew at some point the Japanese would strike. However, while the FDR admin knew that the Japanese would strike, they didn't know where. Did you know on the same day that Pearl was hit, that the Philippians, the Aleutian Islands, Wake island and Indochina were also hit? 3 of those were US possession. So using the very ridiculous phrase of "he knew" falls completely flat.

[hulka38]

359. "FDR knew

that Pearl was going to happen and let it happen so we could get into the war"

I didn't say, imply or even hint that he did.
You are arguing against a phantom poster.

[Javaman]

367. Sorry, I put it in the wrong spot.

no worries. :)

Cheers.

[ingac70]

290. An oil embargo isn't military intervention....

and it certainly wasn't saving the Jews.

[hulka38]

292. FDR's intentions

and actions were to intervene non-militarily at first in order to bring the U.S. into WWII. It was successful and imo it was the right call. Your "saving the Jews" comment isn't relevant to my post.

[ingac70]

300. Follow the original comments....

I was responding to someone from the Netherlands who claimed the US entered WW2 to save the Jews. Perhaps then you won't be so lost.

[hulka38]

301. On post 236 you said

"We didn't intervene." My subsequent posts argue that the U.S. was intervening heavily in the affairs of Japan and lead to the attack that was the bombing of Pearl Harbor. FDR intervened big time before Pearl Harbor to his credit, imo. I'm not concerned with what you said up thread of post 236. Knowing history is to not be lost.

[Hestia]

318. I was responding to your post here - though it is a thread drift of major proportions

[bighart]

145. We have stood by while atrocities were committed time and time again.

There is no consistency to our decisions to get involved or stay out.

[Orrex]

189. But is that lack of consistency sufficient justificaton to stay out of any particular atrocity?

[bighart]

212. We are not the police force for the world.

I believe we should get involved when genocide is taking place regardless of "what's in it for us". This was not a case of genocide it is a case of civil war. I believe that the Arab League should have been the parties charged to go in and keep him from killing his own. This is not our fight and we have no real reason to be there. Deaths happen in a civil war and that is a tragedy, but tragic circumstances do not justify military action, and if they did then why not get involved in more of the internal strife going on in the region as this is not the only place people are getting killed for protesting their governments.

[pokerfan]

42. If we minded our own business on any kind of consistent basis

then we wouldn't have to ask ourselves that question. If we stayed out of others' civil wars, we wouldn't have to ask ourselves if we need to get involved in the next one and risk putting our hypocrisy on display. The reason we're in Libya and not say, Bahrain is that the Bahrain monarchy, while very unpopular with its subjects, is friendly to us where Gaddafi is not. Our middle east policy has always favored stability and "friends" over principle or even human rights and the rest of the world knows we're just flapping our gums when we speak of freedom and democracy for all because they know we don't really mean it.

[Orrex]

44. That's a good answer

More nuanced, I would say than "never under any circumstances" or "revolutions kill people anyway."

[Dokkie]

56. +1000

[unapatriciated]

139. I don't know the answer but in regards to Libya, I agree with this article.

I have read the rebuttal to this article and still find myself agreeing with Josh Marshall.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/at_the_end_of_last.php

My thinking on this is humanitarian intervention should never include bombs.

[reggie the dog]

184. we are saying that ghadaffi has WMD's and lying to the un about it?

really? i thought the UN came to us along with the league of arab nations and asked us for help.

[eilen]

291. Word, it is like some bizarre shit deja vu around here. nt

[PufPuf23]

35. Have you considered nuance and other unstable Nations?

I give POTUS Obama credit when deserved.

Actions regards to Libya are in extreme flux.

Quadaffi is dangerous and unpredictable and has allies.

Libya is strategic and has oil especiallly important to Western Europe.

I can easily see an outcome that has more collateral damage from Westren interference than Quadaffi suppressing the internal rebellion.

This scenario is likely if the actions are not brief and Quadaffi disposed; but regime change is not part of what is already questionable UN mandate.

I perceive POTUS Clinton and other more the hawk than POTUS Obama; but Obama as POTUS versus candidate has surprised me regards to military.

[DutchLiberal]

111. According to them, we shouldn't do anything in Libya, because we didn't do anything in Rwanda.

And what a success that turned out to be. I'm sure Clinton is still proud of that.

[Ramulux]

191. Why would Obama be blamed for killings in Libya?

Why are we responsible for the well being of every human being on the planet?

[treestar]

308. Are you serious?

If Obama did nothing and these killings happened, you'd support him then. Right?

Or would you be saying he wasn't doing enough to stand up for the Libyan protestors.

What SHOULD we do, then? Sit back and watch if Gadaffi does kill people?

[Ramulux]

325. What?

Why is it our responsibility to save the Libyan people? Why is Libya so important and not any of the other dictatorships on this planet?

By sit back and watch, you mean like we have been doing with dozens of other horrible countries all over the world forever? Dictators kill people and America is not in a position to save everyone and we have to stop pretending like Libya is special or that the suffering of the Libyan people is more important that the suffering of people in other dictatorships.

[treestar]

328. Fine.

As long as you do not start criticizing the government for doing nothing. Which I presume you were never doing, before this happened (claiming Obama was not supporting the protestors, etc., that must have been others).

[rhett o rick]

215. I notice you dropped your turd and moved on. Didnt stick around to debate. nm

[treestar]

310. How is this a response?

So you would support Obama for keeping us out of there no matter what Gaddafi did to his people, am I correct?

[rhett o rick]

323. Of course you are not correct. Why dont you ever give your opinion instead of criticizing others?

All I ask of Pres Obama is to follow the fucking Constitution and ask Congress for permission. We would get a debate in Congress and be able to tell which of our representatives are truly representing us.

[Cameron27]

331. Exactly.

Maybe one of them could even get him to spit out a coherent exit strategy while they're at it.

“The exit strategy will be executed this week,” President Obama said, “in the sense that we will be pulling back from our much more active efforts to shape the environment. We will still be in a support role. We will be supplying jamming, intelligence and other assets unique to us."

"Planes in the air? Ships in the Mediterranean? Intelligence being provided? Doesn’t sound like an exit strategy at all.

What it does recall is Lewis Carroll.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/president-obama-redefines-the-term-exit-strategy.html

[rhett o rick]

337. I am not giving up, but we are fucked. nm

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

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

[lark]

224. NO - we are not the worlds police

When we can't "afford" to pay teachers, firefighters, police, repair our roads or buy computers for class rooms, we certainly can not affordd the bombs and missiles and and and everything else involved in making war.

What's the difference between Khaddafy killing his people with guns or us killing them with our bombs? Dead is still dead. Besides, I've heard the killing in Bahrain and Yemen is worse and we are doing nothing there. This is not humanitarian, it's us doing Israel's dirty work once more, just keeping the military industrial complex humming along.

To this I say, for shame, Obama and do blame him for once again lying to us. Yeah, we aren't taking a lead role, but it's all our equipment and sailors and pilots that are doing the job, not France, not England, not Saudi Arabia - US. For this I say - for shame, OBama.

[treestar]

309. OK, so you'd support Obama if we stayed out

No matter what Gadaffi did to the people, am I right?

Sorry, I just picture DU saying the same things they were saying before this started.

the thing about criticizing is you can always do it without having to say just what should be done. Then when anything is done, you can criticize it as too much or too little without having to define any position that is allegedly right.

[Joe Fields]

249. I wouldn't be blaming him. Fuck Libya...

I sincerely mean it. WE are not the world's fucking police.

[WVRICK13]

258. No I Would Not Be Blaming

him for staying out of a situation that is none of our business. If we cared about people being abused by their governments we would be in 50 or more countries right now fighting abuse.

[joentokyo]

263. So right! Much better for us to slaughter them than let them slaughter each other.

[bowens43]

270. No. Not our problem

We should NEVER attack a country that has not attacked us first

[ProudDad]

351. Sure, I'd blame him for continuing the bullshit republicrat/democan "policy"

of arming dictators...

[EFerrari]

2. You'd think. n/t

[stevenleser]

3. My how some progressives have changed. They've stopped thinking and started generalizing

When I started out as a progressive, all of my fellow progressives were thinkers that examined each policy decision on its merits. They used the best logic to agree with or disagree with things the government did or proposed.

Now, some progressives don't think and instead simply say "This is the same as what was done eight years ago!" Even though there is no comparison and everything about it is demonstrably different.

I hope someday all my progressive friends start thinking again.

[Hissyspit]

11. And there is PLENTY of reason to question this particular policy decision.

And there are plenty of comparisons to be made.

My how some progressives forget that laws of unintended consequences and how much war costs.

[stevenleser]

27. There are few if any comparisons to be made, that said, the two issues you raised I agree with

and have said so previously. but that is not what most who object are saying.

[Bluerthanblue]

25. +1

some people have offered reasoned explanations as to why they don't support Pres. O's decision on Libya, but for many others, there seems to be little but "it's just like bush"-

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[pampango]

94. If Bush intervened unilaterally (his usual cowboy diplomacy), we should want his head. If Obama

had done this unilaterally (no matter how much Gaddafi's opposition may have asked for it), I would have opposed it.

The US (along with the UK and France) tried to get the UN Security Council to intervene in Burma in 2007 to protect civilians there. The resolution was vetoed by Russia and China leaving Burmese civilians where they are today.

If the UN approves of the intervention, invoking its responsibility to protect civilians, I expect any American president to either support it, publicly renounce any UN resolutions that value civilians over national sovereignty (so there is no effort to invoke R2P in the future) or seek US withdrawal from the UN (a rightwing wet dream).

[emulatorloo]

245. Thanks for the history. nt////////////////////

[EFerrari]

53. A generalization is a product of thinking.

And while this current bs is not identical to Iraq, those whose memories extend farther than a mere decade recognize the rhethoric and the justifications and the double standard when it's shoved down their throats.

In general, this action is like all the other military actions of choice that benefit the MIC and get people dead and wind up as a bill in our mailbox.

[stevenleser]

61. There is no rhetoric or justifications to recognize. For some facts with links

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=635282&mesg_id=635412

[EFerrari]

96. Of course there is, beginning with the fictitious no fly zone

which has turned into bombing Gaddafi's residence.

[KurtNYC]

116. Inviting the US to create a "no fly zone" is like inviting Entenmanns to a pie fight

It's like if your house was on fire and you called the fire department but a bunch of pyromaniacs showed up instead.

[stevenleser]

135. The US wasn't invited to show up, UN member statements were compelled to create one. Nice spin n/t

[KurtNYC]

196. sure. fine. Enjoy your war. n/t

[stevenleser]

198. Oh I am not enjoying it. I am appalled at the low quality of the arguments against it here n/t

[druidity33]

84. read Juan Coles piece...

it's here:

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

It's called The "Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is not Iraq 2003"

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

95. I don't recall claiming Libya is Iraq.

[apocalypsehow]

58. Spot-on post. +1. n/t.

[liberation]

203. Ah, yes. I love how you complain about a generalization by generalizing

For being such a "progressive" (LOL) you certainly have a hard time wrapping your head around the concept of being opposed to war. You know, one of the main tenets of the progressive ethos.

[ProudDad]

353. You are guilty of generalizing about "some Progressives"

Way to go...

War doesn't fucking WORK!

On no level does war "work"!

No war has EVER fucking "worked"...

That's history talking...

Idiots like Obama are just perpetuating the same bullshit that's never worked -- doing the same fucking thing all over again expecting a different result...

How about we STOP ARMING THESE ASSHOLES IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! If you wanna' fucking bomb something, bomb all arms plants everywhere. Get a Security Council resolution that says, "war toys are civilian casualties waiting to happen. Bomb the fuck out of them!"

Then you won't have to worry about "dictators killing their own people"...

[hlthe2b]

4. Seems to me it was when Bush* stepped away from the No-FLY zone

and other UN-sanctions to force a non-sanctioned unilateral invasion of a country that did not request our intervention and justified based on perpetuated lies, that most of us erupted in outrage that continues today. Now, I can play devils' advocate with the best of us in terms of whether our actions in Libya will turn out to be a good decision or a disaster and I am intentionally NOT taking a side here, but the situations are quite different.

SO, YES.. there is a noticeable difference.

[shanti]

6. i've noticed and mentioned it myself

it's really an eye-opener, and not in a good way.

[arcane1]

7. It's not the difference of opinion that I've noticed

I expect and encourage that. What has me bummed out for the last couple of days is all the damned name-calling, and efforts on both sides to stifle discussion instead of cultivate it :(

[elocs]

13. Isn't that what this thread is doing? Tarring those as Bush-like who support helping the Libyans.

Evidently we're all supposed to sing together in one robotic choir.

[Vanje]

9. The Nobel WHAT prize?

nt

[Ripley]

30. The Nobel PEACE Prize of 2009

was given to President Barack Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".

Bombs = Peace

[pacalo]

10. My husband & I were discussing the U.S.'s involvement in Libya tonight.

I was against Bush's invasion in Iraq & I'm flabbergasted at our involvement in a third war. This country has been told we're in such dire financial straits that the most necessary programs will have to be cut -- but the super wealthy can have their tax cuts & now we're blasting $500k missles in Libya like M&M's.

The fact is, we don't trust the intentions or the word of our government. And this extravagant focus on countries that have oil only emphasizes the need for developing an alternative form of energy.

[ProSense]

12. Tell it to

Senator Sanders and Human Rights Watch.

[rpannier]

265. Thank you ProSense nt

[David__77]

14. I know.

Back after 9/11, people were proud here to call themselves the "six percenters," or those who opposed Bush at the peak of his popularity. Many opposed the bombing of Afghanistan too, even in the feverishness after 9/11. I've not seen such a pro-war outpouring. But I knew if there was a (D) next to the president's name, everything would change for some.

"You don't care about slaughter! Caw!" There's a lot of parroting going on...

[PVnRT]

89. "It's all about oil! Caw!"

Works both ways.

[reggie the dog]

206. some of us still want the un to function

and despised bush for invading with ground troops in defiance of the un after having lied to them about wmd's in an effort to get the un to condone the war.

today obama was called by the un and the league of arab nations to help create a un sanctioned no fly zone.

that is a huge difference.


as for afghanistan there is also a difference, the usa wanted to control heroin and hash in my opinion so after 911 they went there "because they harbored bin laden" which was bullshit, the taliban had a hot war against 5 other factions and a cold war detent with al quida. they lied to the un and got the un to follow them there too


2 instances in which the usa lied to the un to get wars started, one worked and one did not, in both cases they were wrong because they were based on a lie.

what lie is the un no fly zone demand in libya based on? has obama invaded with ground troops despite the un saying that a no fly zone is all that is needed?

[NYC Liberal]

15. When did Obama start "ugly illegal wars based upon lies"?

I missed that.

Not everyone here is a pacifist who opposes all military conflict. Obama certainly never claimed to be such.

[Tx4obama]

47. I agree. Obama said: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." n/t

[StarburstClock]

65. Actually, invading a country that isn't a threat to us is illegal, plus the No Fly Zone

wasn't supposed to be used as a cover for missile launches so it was therefore a "lie" or at least misleading. The reason the criminal bushies invented WMD lies was to make Iraq appear as if it were a threat to the U.S., therefore legalizing a presidential authorization for military force.

[NYC Liberal]

67. Wrong.

It was authorized by the UN, the charter for which was ratified by the Senate. The reason the WMD excuse was used was because there was no other legitimate reason to use military action against Iraq. There is legitimate reason in this case.

[StarburstClock]

68. I'm not "WRONG". The U.S. military action will escalate and provoke war.

The UN charter re: Libya allows for military intervention to protect civilians, not to start a war. The POTUS needs Congressional approval to declare war, regardless of what the UN votes on and that war can only be against a country that is a threat to the U.S.. Don't confuse UN resolutions with longstanding and clearly printed U.S. laws.

[PVnRT]

90. Might want to check Article VI again

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

That's actually the longest-standing printed U.S. law.

[StarburstClock]

228. I've got to laugh, you might want to read the UN charter

It's long but I'm sure you really want to know what's real and what isn't right?

http://www.un.org/en/index.shtml

[rpannier]

266. The Senate approved the No Fly Zone

Just saying

[reggie the dog]

207. missle launches were to take out

radar and anti aircraft sites that were know thanks to satalite recon.

[StarburstClock]

229. And the missile launches killed civilians, in direct violation of the UN charter

and therefore a "treaty" violation by the U.S..

I wish people would actually read the UN Charter, it only allows aggression to save lives, not to kill people.

http://www.un.org/en/index.shtml

[reggie the dog]

242. how can you have agression with zero deaths?

how many people have our recent bombings killed? how many lives have been potentially saved? if the un charter allows for such action to establish a no fly zone and the un security council appoves it and esteems that it would save more lives than it will take then it seems to be legal.

[Amonester]

16. Look, Ripley, the kkkoch godafi-like mercenaries are coming to get ...

peaceful senior citizens HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x565664

AND HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x565627

What will you do: comply? Or resist (and be courageous)?

[Bigmack]

17. I dunno what's up, either...

I've posted Gen. Shoup's quote a Brazillion times, and all I ever got was agreement, but I'll post it again. Isn't the General talking about situations like this?

`I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.' –
Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant Medal of Honor recipient. 2 Purple Hearts (Gen Shoup was my commandant during the first part of my time in.)

[timtom]

85. That was my Commandant who said that.

There was honor then.

[Bigmack]

155. Mine, too... later M-3-7 .... you?

[timtom]

195. While I was at boot camp.

A year or two later, we got Wallace Greene.
Me: 1962-1966

[Bigmack]

18. I agree with this guy....

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation...
“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States, In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

[stevenleser]

62. Here is why that argument doesnt make sense

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=635282&mesg_id=635412

[Bigmack]

117. All that argument is interesting... but...

The author of the quote I posted is Pres. Obama.... 2007.

I'm not saying anything he didn't.

[hughee99]

340. What the hell does he know about it anyway,

it's not like he's a constitutional scholar with experience in both the legislative AND executive branches. It's just one person's opinion. :sarcasm:

[stevedeshazer]

19. Fucking A

Pro Third Or Fourth War advocates (depends on whether you include Pakistan with Afghanistan and Iraq) openly support this new front in the Oil Wars.

It's ridiculous.

+1.

[Mimosa]

74. Steve, I suspect honest historians will name these 'The OIL WARS'

That's what it is all about. Honest people who've been following the issue since the late 70s through today know it. The OIL WARS were predicted at least by the middle to late 1980s.

[reggie the dog]

321. dont forget the drug wars, the real ones

the ones that involve the cia and mi6 running drugs, the reason we went to afghanistan has nothing to do with re establishing heroin production.... the taliban were anti drug when the usa paid them to eradicate and they eradicated well, production basically zero hash and zero heroin but the usa came in and bam, lots of heroin and hash again....

black money to fund who knows what.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Did you do a poll 9 years ago about the then-recent intervention by Clinton in fmr. Yugoslavia?

just curious.

[Bluerthanblue]

33. not in my recollection.

:hi:

One thing I do recollect though, was that there WERE people who supported the invasion of Afghanistan- more than just a few.

I did not support it- and it surprised me that other Dems, did. IMO it was all about revenge, and not about saving lives.

[ReggieVeggie]

45. Now you're arguing that Clinton should have been impeached?

Democrats are really suckin' tonight.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. How do you get that from what I posted?

My point is, not all military actions are created or considered equal, even among "liberals".

[JackRiddler]

114. Actually, the old order should have been glasnosted out of existence in the 1960s.

Four decades since the US genocide of millions of people in Southeast Asia, we still elect a single clown to play emperor of the world, let him pretend to direct the dead bureaucratic hand of the Pentagon beast with its nukes and bombers everywhere in the world, and allow him to pick which idiotic trillion-dollar massacre should be his very own "legacy." It is a great failure of the people that we have yet to establish a democracy in this country, and settle for this sham.

[whoneedstickets]

21. UN Sanctioned, Arab League Supported, NATO Allies engaged - Even France

I understand and respect complete pacifist principles even if I don't share them. If we don't recognize the difference between legal and illegal use of force we risk losing the lever of legitimacy to reduce conflict.

[stevenleser]

63. And thats what some of these folks dont understand. When you put forth nonsensical arguments against

war, you are not doing yourself and your cause any favors.

[StarburstClock]

69. Explain where UN resolutions override the POTUS's adherance to U.S. law

Here's a good article explaining how the UN resolution will directly lead to war, a war that is illegal according to U.S. law, albeit "law" in the U.S. means very little now.

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/51-phyllis/608-un-declares-war-on-libya

[whoneedstickets]

126. Educate yourself. Ignorance is ugly

http://www.slate.com/id/2288869

[StarburstClock]

234. Right, and invading Iraq based on WMD lies was "legal" too

Your ignorance is astounding as well as "ugly", not to mention insulting. I'd post a link to the actual UN charter but I'm sure you could care less about learning a thing.

[jeff47]

317. It's the lies that were the illegal part, not the invasion. (nt)

[jeff47]

151. When we ratified the treaty creating the UN

The constitution says that treaties become the supreme law of the land.

Which means if you'd like to get rid of the 2nd amendment, for example, get the senate to ratify a treaty banning personally-owned guns.

[reggie the dog]

208. treaties only exist between the usa and other countries

you would have to find another country willing to ban the same but the elections just afterwords would be a real pain to win because of public backlash.

[jeff47]

315. The next election doesn't matter.

Because the ratified treaty is already the "supreme law of the land". The Constitution doesn't provide any repeal mechanism.

And it would be very, very easy to find some other country that wanted to ban personally-owned weapons, since there are already a ton of countries that ban them.

[reggie the dog]

320. the next election matters to politicians

do you think that the people in power would want to give up their power by voting in a treaty which has no where near majority support in the usa? that would be political suicide

[jeff47]

322. And the new congress could do.......

what exactly? Yes, it isn't a recipe for an easy re-election.

However, this is an extreme hypothetical used to demonstrate how the Constitution handles treaties.

[reggie the dog]

326. you are right this is an extreme hypothetical

and would not work, look at how the un one world treaty against drugs makes weed, coke, heroin illegal all over in every country that signed on. we are criminalized all over the world by the fucking un for weed yet the whole world together cannot stop drug trade


there is no way that the whole world could stop arms trade either unfortunately


if tons of cocaine can arrive in planes and go undetected so can any kind of weapon imaginable


imagine how many different kinds of weapons are circulating on the black market, land mines, chemical or even biological agents, perhaps nukes.

think of the tunnels under the border with mexico for the smuggling 18 wheelers


i am all for having the right to have guns legally so as the cops can focus on other things like rockets being smuggled

[StarburstClock]

235. Here's the UN Charter, I suggest you actually read it

http://www.un.org/en/index.shtml

[jeff47]

316. Did you?

'Cause this situation is explicitly covered in articles 42 and 43.

[PVnRT]

160. POTUS is complying with U.S. law

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x635737

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[H2O Man]

23. Recommended.

In my opinion, in the "early days," most DU inhabitants were progressives or liberals. These days, there are more moderate-to-conservative democrats here.

[reggie the dog]

210. i am far left

i vote communist and socialist here in france, i support the idea of a un no fly zone to protect people in libya who are doing no more than protest. the same help should have been offered in ivory coast, zimbabwe, democratic republic of the congo, bahrain, rwanda, sudan, myanmar, and other countries.

that the un is concerned because there is oil there is possible

it is also possible that the un and the league of arab nations do not want general instability with violent repression and "ridding of rats" to reign in libya out of fear that it would spread to other nations having protests.

[LiberalAndProud]

26. Yup. Gungho.

One more conflict. We have to justify our ludicrous military budget. It's nice when we can cite humanitarian concerns, in't it?



Edit site cite sight

sigh

[Keith Bee]

29. Being a Dem doesn't automatically mean "pacifism in ALL SITUATIONS"

Pointedly unrecced

[Dappleganger]

34. The reasons why I disagree with this Libya action are...

1) Our track record SUCKS.

2) We cannot afford it. Our country is broke, we still are involved with two other wars with no feasible end in sight (the goalposts keep being moved).

3) We are not the world police.

4) The people in this country who regularly GET OFF on war don't know how to stop. The War Machine is as big as or even greater than, Big Oil.. Better still, they are mixed up together and dependent upon the other.

There are other reasons as well, but those are my big ones. If they want to call superman, fine--call him--BUT WE AIN'T SUPERMAN ANYMORE.

[Mimosa]

75. Eisenhower's departing warning originally was the Military Industrial Congressional Complex

Does anybody here dare say the old general didn't know what he was talking about?

[slipslidingaway]

40. knr nt

[MedleyMisty]

43. Okay, you know what?

I am so freaking sick of this, of having my motives and my feelings and my ideas and my character insulted just because I think for a minute before going into full outrage mode.

I was so completely against Afghanistan and Iraq. I knew they were both wrong and stupid and immoral and evil. I knew that, beyond a shadow of a doubt. And it didn't matter what stupid sports team the president played for. It was wrong. It was so freaking wrong. I didn't even have to think about it, because I am human. Therefore I know that randomly deciding to go and kill other living beings for fun and profit is the most wrong and evil thing you can do. You cannot imagine the depths of my emotions against both of those invasions and occupations.

LIBYA IS DIFFERENT!!!!

I started following the story weeks ago, when Catherina was posting her threads. I started following Libyans on Twitter. I kept up with Anonymous and their OpLibya. I learned things. I informed myself. I haven't watched TV in a decade, so I have not been getting any of my information from the American state media. My sources for news have mostly been actual Libyans, who are actually there on the ground. I trust them a hell of a lot more than I do any American source.

BTW - the Libyans I follow have all said that Gaddafi's forces have been collecting the bodies of people that they killed, to put them at the UN target sites and claim that they are victims of the UN strikes, that when they show the bodies on the Libyan state TV (which sounds a hell of a lot like Fox) you can see the gunshot wounds and that it's obvious they did not die from a bomb. They have also been begging for someone to take out the Libyan state TV's broadcasting abilities because the propaganda is really hurting the revolution.

I also saw them sending out warnings and getting the word out about staying away from military targets once the NFZ was approved. I haven't heard about any civilian deaths from the UN strikes yet.

I don't give a shit what sports team the president plays for. I vote for Democrats because they're slightly less evil than Republicans, and that's as far as my party loyalty goes. I don't do personality cults. That does not play into my feelings about this at all.

What does is listening to actual Libyans. Who wanted a NFZ. Who asked for a NFZ. Who sent the link for the petition for the NFZ around Twitter - I retweeted it myself. I hear it got two million signatures.

If you are so against any military action, you could have been writing to Obama and to our UN representatives and asking them to veto the resolution. You could have spread your own petition against a NFZ. Or did you even know that the UN was considering a resolution before "Target: Libya" splashed up in real pretty colors on Fox?

I KNOW that our government of, by, and for the corporations is pretty much the most evil thing on this planet. Believe me, I don't trust them either. But I have listened to the Libyans. I have cried with the Libyans. I have grieved with them. And they wanted this. And they know the dangers. They know about Iraq and Afghanistan. They know the risks. But they are willing to take them.

So I am not for or against it. I am watching and waiting and hoping that it turns out for the best, that the Libyans win their freedom. While keeping an eye out for any nasty imperialist corporatist tricks. Which I assure you the Libyans are also doing.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get the same visceral wrong evil feeling here that I did with Iraq and Afghanistan. If that makes me some horrible war mongering bloodthirsty monster in your eyes, so be it. At least I've learned something from DU this week - that I should tone down my own rhetoric with those who did support Iraq and Afghanistan and give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume things about their motivations and thoughts and emotions.

[Amonester]

50. Some people are heartless and cold (to different degrees), no matter...

how long or not they've been on DU, and there's nothing you and I can do about changing that.

Don't take their insults personnally. Good peoples' lives fighting against tyranny are more important than any message board.

I am supporting them too.

[EFerrari]

55. I've been listening to actual Libyans, too. We've probably read the same tweets.

The visceral evil feeling here isn't about them. It's about what will happen to them when the military machine is ramped up. As it always is, whenever that process is started.

And, btw, neither you nor I can speak for the rebels or describe what they think or want. They aren't even in agreement among themselves. As you know from reading twitter.

[Mimosa]

81. How do you know Tweets come from Libya and not Langley VA?

Or get bounced to software which makes it seem as if the 'tweets *rolling eyes* originated in Libya? If the Libyans are so poor and oppressed...

[CrawlingChaos]

86. +1000

[EFerrari]

98. You can't know at every point.

But the most active people tend to be in networks and some part of that network winds up on Al Jazeera. That's what happened in Egypt, anyway. I was following about 20 core people and half of them wound up being interviewed on camera.

[Catherina]

165. Al Jazeera joined the counter revolution weeks ago. Qatar made deals with Saudi Arabia

The whole thing is getting really sick.

They barely make mention, even passing, of the atrocities going on in Bahrain and Morocco right now.

When protests started in Qatar, Al Jazeera immediately changed its tune.

2011-02-28 #Qatar protest postponed, now rumours of attempted coup and more #Mar16
Submitted by GeorgieBC on Mon, 02/28/2011 - 05:46

As reported previously on WL Central, a facebook group appeared calling for a protest "against corruption" in Qatar. "Support the revolution, Qatar February 27 against corruption."

As we reported then, Neither the posted info nor the comments have issued more specific demands, than to "topple this corrupt regime" but 500 people have liked the page which has been up since around February 8. The current Emir of Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa took control from his father in 1995. He has been criticized in the Arab world for meeting with Israeli minister Tzipi Livni, and for supporting the Al Jazeera news network which is critical of other Arab governments and frequently airs western and Israeli views.

...

"Facebook Page of #16March Revolt in Qatar Was Blocked inside #Qatar"

The new Facebook page has 35,266 followers, so some momentum is being built somewhere, whether within or without the country. PressTV and Middle East Online have both reported the page today, so probably extra media attention has helped.

Meanwhile, Ennahar Online has announced a failed coup d'état against the Emir by "thirty senior Qatari army", and they assert that some are now under house arrest. They also report a declaration, signed by 66 political opponents as well as Qatari personalities and ruling families, including 16 figures from the ruling family, in which they announced the non-recognition of the legitimacy of the Emir Hamed Ben Khalifa, and sought to replace him by his brother Abdelaziz Ben Khalifa ben Hamed in France. The statement, which Ennahar provides no source for, they say contains serious accusations against the current Emir of Qatar, among others, relations with Israel and the United States of America. He is accused of working for the United States and creating discord among Arab countries in addition to his involvement with the family of his wife in corruption and social injustice against thousands of Qatari citizens. The signatories of the statement have mentioned the wife of the Emir, known as "Sheikha Mouza Bint Nacer El Mesned ", whose appearances in various media, clothed contrary to the customs of Qatar which they considered "indecent". His children, they add, have monopolized power and property of Qatari through use of power.

...

http://wlcentral.org/node/1404

Al-Jazeera covers Bahrain
You may have noticed that Aljazeera, which shows phone video footage from Syria, has not shown video footage or even pictures from Bahrain. But yesterday, they did cover Bahrain in video. They showed a very low quality video allegedly showing protesters beating a police man, although I was only able to recognize a human being and a tree.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 6:27 PM

Aljazeera's deception (and its Muslim Brotherhood sympathies)
Aljazeera has barely covered the massive demonstrations in Morocco today, although it has aggressively and extensively covered much smaller demonstrations in Syria. It is quite noticeable.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 9:32 AM

Aljazeera and the Counter-Revolution
Comrade Joseph has reminded me of the unprecedented praise by Hillary of Aljazeera weeks ago. It now should be better understood. IT was an early indication that the station has joined the US/Saudi/Israeli counter-revolution.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 9:20 AM

[EFerrari]

172. Al Jazeera has its own concerns. I was addressing the issue

of how we know who is who on twitter.

Their reporting on Morocco and Bahrain and Yemen isn't up to their usual standards but I don't see that problem in Libya. Their reporting on Egypt is more mixed than it was in January and February, imo.

[Catherina]

186. Mostly agreed. I started getting qualms when I noticed more and more

Qatar oil commercials popping up. Or maybe they were there the whole time and I never noticed. Still I mostly agree with you.

[EFerrari]

227. The only outlet I trust as far as I can throw is Amy.

Everybody else, they have to show me. :)

[Turborama]

369. Al Jazeera English have been doing a lot of reporting on Bahrain and Yemen

Here are some excellent short documentaries I thoroughly recommend...

The death of fear (Tunisia) (Parts 1 & 2)
Special program Last Modified: 10 Mar 2011 08:46 GMT
Rageh Omaar examines how the death of a street vendor led to a wave of uprisings across Arab world.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/ragehomaarreport/2011/03/20113993920597144.html

Egypt: Seeds of change
People & Power reveals the story behind the unprecedented political protests in Egypt.
Last Modified: 09 Feb 2011 10:56 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/ragehomaarreport/2011/03/20113993920597144.html

Building Egypt's future
What happens next for those who dreamt of a free and democratic Egypt?
Last Modified: 02 Mar 2011 13:29 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/02/201128145549829916.html

Bahrain: Fighting for change
As unrest sweeps through the Middle East, People & Power looks at the mounting pressure for reform in Bahrain.
Last Modified: 09 Mar 2011 09:29
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/03/201138153916892448.html

Yemen: A tale of two protests
As demonstrations advance across Yemen, People & Power follows activist Tawakkol Karman.
Last Modified: 16 Mar 2011 13:56
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/03/201131683916701492.html

And most recently Syria: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/syria/

And as can be seen in the clips they upload to YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AlJazeeraEnglish?feature=chclk#g/u

Ongoing coverage of the uprisings on the special sections listed here: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/

"Al Jazeera have joined the counter revolutions"? What a joke. (I'm not saying that to you specifically, BTW. Just needed to be said)

[joshcryer]

313. Libya Alhurra is the center of everything, there's a cell phone network throughout Libya revo's.

Several of the tweeters are really just regurgitating the same info that they get from others. But some do have real connections from within Libya.

The internet has been down in Libya for quite some time, the only way to get a connection is via a sat feed. A bit harder to take out cell networks I guess.

[WilliamPitt]

97. +1

[PVnRT]

129. +1

[Catherina]

161. MM, you know the main reason I stopped doing those is because they were from expats

with perfect english. They were all in the UK or the US. Unlike the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions where we were getting information from the ground, these were all expats and things started adding up in an unsettling way. Then I found the recent neocon letters about Libya, about arming rebels and partitioning it, read the wikileaks, considered the input of people I respect like Chomsky and Galloway among many others, watched Obama circumvent the constitution to team up with Cameron and Sarkozy who are 2 of the biggest war hawks on this planet and I realized I'd been blindsighted.

Most Libyans don't even speak English. Who's tweeting? Unlike the original Egyptians or the Tunisian revolutionaries, who btw distanced themselves from the Libyan uprising, the people in Benghazi have no social agenda for reform. Please keep your mind open because this is going to cost the US a bundle in cash and goodwill throughout the Arab world. We're being had.

If this was a true revolution, which I no longer think it is, people would have risen up from everywhere, not just Bengazhi and the surrounding cities. The neocons are pulling at our heartstrings to support a regime changed the planned in the original PNAC documents over 15 years ago.

While our empires cry over loss of life in Libya, they're arming the same Arab League monarchies who are brutally slaughtering people in places like Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria... Bahrain has brought in mercenaries from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to slaughter their protesters but our media and government only pump up the volume on Libya. It's a real bloody mess where innocent people are being used to support an intervention.

My words probably won't sway you but I hope you'll consider them. I didn't stay up for hard sleepless weeks because I was against them. But I've realized since that they're being used and so are we.

[joshcryer]

312. They did rise up from everywhere! Don't listen to this!

I don't know why someone would falsely claim that there were no uprisings, or what their agenda would be for doing so, but it's patently false that they did not rise up from everywhere! They most certainly did!

The vast majority of the Libyan population is in Tripoli, Misrata, and Benghazi. In all three cities there were major anti-Gaddafi protests. In Tripoli the protesters roamed the streets of outlying subdivisons for weeks. Misrata, to this day, is being shelled by Gaddafi's forces.

Yes it is a true uprising it is a true revolution.

Al Bayda, Derna, Tobruk, Misurata, Az Zawiyah, Benghazi, Brega, Ra's Lanuf, Bin Jawad, the list goes on and on.

Don't be misled.

[reggie the dog]

221. dont tone down your rhetoric

iraq and afghanistan were morally wrong, it was proper of us to have opposed those wars

[QC]

46. It's all a matter of loyalty to the team, sadly.

I never would have imagined seeing people cheering a war here either, when I joined in 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4dHkSAciJs

[Celeborn Skywalker]

134. Not all of us are pacifists.

Nor is this all about "team loyalty". I supported Bosnia, Afghanistan, and this Libyan action. I would also support action in Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone, and Zimbabwe, if it was UN approved, and coalition led. I would be against ground troops in all those places.

My main concern is the fact that we don't have money to be throwing around, but morally I certainly think military action can be justified in all the areas listed above.

Oh and there were a fair number of people here who supported the war in Afghanistan.

[H2O Man]

179. Nor are all

of those opposed to the US becoming involved in this war pacifists. I'm confident, for example, that I've engaged in more physical fights than anyone on this forum. I'd guess I've been in more than the ten next-highest combined.

A reasonable case can be made that forces within Afghanistan attacked the USA on 9/11. No rationale person can make a similar case about Libya posing any threat whatsoever to this country.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

220. You're right.

They are no threat to this country. But I am, in theory, not opposed to UN intervention in countries that are blatantly slaughtering their own people. Again, my main thing is that we don't have funds to be throwing around everywhere and those we do have should be used to primarily help our own citizens. This is why I am for airstrikes only and our quick (within a few weeks) exit from Libya.

[lonestarnot]

57. Kick and recofuckingmend!

[3lyford]

64. This is similar to Iraq

Iraq started with a no fly zone too. When that doesn't work what will be next? Obviously a ground invasion is going to fix the problem. Then what? This is a civil war and I appreciate that one side wants our help. However simply being the enemy of our enemy isn't enough to justify it.

Can we at least agree the president should go to congress? Shouldn't their be some limitation on one person's ability to take us into war?

[HEyHEY]

72. Oh a "no fly zone" yeah, you're right it's all gonna go down now

What about Kosovo? Don't recall a ground invasion there. ....

[3lyford]

260. US troops are currently in Kosovo

If you mean we should bomb then on such a large scale that cities are ruined and the government is forced to surrender. That would be great. What could possibly help the Libyan people more than a massive bombing campaign in their country?

[neverforget]

299. Not quite an invasion but we have troops there

http://www.nato.int/kfor/

[Runework]

66. Oil Companies Want Qadafi Out

"But with energy companies operating under “very high” tax terms in Libya, Marathon will only get about 2% of its estimated cash flow of $6.8 billion from Libya, since it pays a 93% tax rate on oil extracted there"

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Newsfeed/Article/127181609/201102231623/Oil-majors-jump-despite-Libya-uncertainty.aspx


93%

[HEyHEY]

71. He already sold them oil

He could easily be bought. The last thing oil companies want is an unsable libya with uncertain leadership.

[Mimosa]

73. Runework, that explains the whole deal. Thanks...

Dissent and 'popular uprisings' have long been engineered by the CIA. That is part of what they do to make situations more amenable to American business. Some people should read up on the history of CIA. You might learn something.

[Faux pas]

76. i believe in clean up your own backyard first, war is a 'luxury'

we can't afford.

[pampango]

77. Not more of the "warmonger" vs "Gaddafi-lover" oversimplification.

I doubt that many DUers are pro-war or pro-dictator. It serves little good to caricature either side.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[democrank]

82. Get with the program

Just because you detested certain policies under George W. Bush, doesn`t mean you have to be against those same policies under President Obama. It`s called "winning" at all costs and not getting bogged down with principles.

[Vinca]

83. The truly bizarro thing is how Obama going to war seems to be turning

Republicans into peaceniks. Not all, of course. Grandpa McCain likes to drop bombs just for the hell of it, but a whole lot of them are suddenly - and surprisingly - opposed to war. I wonder if they've ever heard of George W. Bush.

[PhillySane]

91. Silly Rabbit

War is fine, if you voted for the guy who promotes them!

[CJCRANE]

92. You forget that many DUers supported General Wesley Clark.

DU has never been entirely pacifist.

[BlueIris]

93. It is sad, isn't it?

Very sad.

[Shagbark Hickory]

99. I always thought toe-ing the party line was disgraceful when you believe what they stand for is wron

wrong.

According to the poll I and others launched on here in the past week, lots of people will support the president no matter what. Even if it doesn't make sense and even if it seems very detrimental to the country. More than anything, this is what bothered me about the people that supported bush from around 2004 onward.

We're supposed to be the party that asks the questions.

[pampango]

106. "lots of people will support the president no matter what". Does supporting this UN action equate

with "lots of people will support the president no matter what"?

Is it possible to support this without being labeled a "blind supporter" of Obama? Likewise I hope it is possible to oppose this UN action and not be labeled a "Gaddafi-lover" or an "Obama-hater".

Why is it "very detrimental to the country" to support the implementation of the UN's responsibility to protect civilians? If R2P is a bad policy since it purports to value people over national sovereignty, we should have vetoed it in 2005.

Since we didn't veto it, we could at least publicly renounce our willingness to support R2P now, so that the UN will not try to implement the policy in the future. That way all countries would know that we will veto invocations of R2P in the future so that the policy can be relegated to the dustbin of history as a nice idea that is not worth the price.

[Shagbark Hickory]

115. It seems like you want to debate the new war rather than my comment.

I'll point out that the rebels are armed and fighting. They refuse to go home. Once they made the decision to do this, they said goodbye to being a civilian.

Thus these actions are not to protect civilians.

[bullwinkle428]

100. John Negroponte was cheering on our military actions in Libya

this morning on NPR, so at least we've got that going for us! :eyes:

[EFerrari]

110. Awesome! Here's Gene Robinson's column today.

In the Mideast, U.S. policy is still driven by realism

By Eugene Robinson, Monday, March 21, 7:33 PM

Anyone looking for principle and logic in the attack on Moammar Gaddafi’s tyrannical regime will be disappointed. President Obama and his advisers should acknowledge the obvious truth: They are reacting to the revolutionary fervor in the Arab world with the arbitrary “realism” that is a superpower’s prerogative.

Faced with an armed uprising by democracy-seeking rebels, Gaddafi threatened to turn all of Libya into a charnel house. The United States and its allies responded with overwhelming military force that is clearly intended to cripple the government and boost the revolt’s chances of success.

Thus begins our third concurrent Middle East war. No one has the slightest idea how, or when, this one will end.

snip

Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn’t going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We’ll know this isn’t about justice, it’s about power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-mideast-useful-and-non-useful-tyrants/2011/03/21/ABeWu38_story.html

[malaise]

101. Great post

Rec

[Catherina]

102. Recommended with sadness n/t

[ItNerd4life]

104. If it's a Democrat being the Neocon, it's okay.

War is only bad if Republicans do it. Don't you understand Hypocrisy?

I totally agree with you, the number of people supporting what we are doing in Libya is disgusting.

[justiceischeap]

105. I am not pro-war but I am pro-humanitarian aid and if that includes bombing

to save people, then so be it. I feel better about this military action (we're not at war) then I do about Iraq and Afghanistan. If Mubarik had done to his people what Kadaffi is, I would have supported UN military action there too.

There's a huge difference between being pro-war, a war monger and using military action to help people who can't help themselves.

[DutchLiberal]

108. When I signed up, DU was filled with progressives who favored international solidarity...

Now, the majority of people seem to be in favor of letting the people of Libya die at the hand of a known terrorist and war criminal, because they're afraid their taxes may go up a dime. I've never before seen such ugly nationalist sentiments on DU. It seems to have turned into Free Republic. And they're still stuck in 2003, and everything the administration does is always about oil --even if there is no substance to that claim and the situation in Libya different from Iraq on all points.

"No war" is easy to say. Scorning those who want to help the Libyans as "war-mongers" is easy too. But such outdated isolationist points of view have no place in the REAL world, where not everything is as black-and-white as many would like to think.

[Javaman]

118. Shhhh, this is one of those "good wars"...

remarkable, isn't it?

war is war is war is war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

121. That's a really daft attitude.

Historically, most decisions to go to war have been wrong; some have been right. Or do you think that e.g. the Nazis should have been allowed to conquer Europe, or that Milosevic should have been allowed to ethnically cleanse Kosovo?

I don't know whether military intervention in Libya is a good idea or not. But "all wars ever are wrong" is not a position worth taking seriously.

[Javaman]

127. I'm a pacifist.

your stance holds no ground for me.

War is war. People get killed.

If you can figure a better way other than peace, knock yourself out.

[zipplewrath]

231. Wars are predecessors to more war

War is what you do when you missed all your chances to do the right thing.

You'd be hard pressed to find the "good" war. The vast majority are merely predecessors to more war. Wars of "choice" are worse.

WWII was a successor to WWI. Hitler, Nazis, and every other aspect were the outflow of WWI. WWII didn't "solve" the nazi problem, it created it. Dictators, fascism, and genocide didn't disappear with WWII. It also set up the proxy wars of the cold war. Vietnam, Korea, and much of the combat up to and including the current Afghan war (not to mention Iraq) can trace their roots back to WWII and the start of the Cold War.

WWI was an outflow of several wars, amongst them were Napoleon and company. (Portions of both France and Germany have switched hands so often over the last 200 years, the languages and customs are all mixed up).

The American revolution was a successor to the "French and Indian wars", and had as a successor, the war of 1812. Truth is, the American Civil War was a successor to the American Revolution, although westward expansion (including the "indian wars" and the Mexican American wars) was as much a predecessor as was the revolution.

We don't have a good history of "winning" wars, much less fighting wars for "humanitarian" reasons. We're not going to break these chains by just fighting "one more war". We already fought the "war to end all wars".

Of course, as I've written before, it would help if us "peaceniks" had some concrete plans, strategies, institutions, and assets in place to offer when these situations arise. Something that would help a president actually be able to "choose" to do something else. The peace corp isn't it. We need the "National Peace Academy" and the "Pacifist Brigades" trained and ready to go "into action" when they are needed. We need the "Peace Industrial Complex" to provide the infrastructure prior to it being needed. We need the "police" and "justice" forces to roll in and "wage some international law enforcement" when a government begins to turn on its own people. We need the courts to arrest people and put them on trail. Not just bomb some place and hope they give up.

Just going to a peace rally and then climbing back into the SUV and putting the placard into the recycling bin isn't going to get us where we need to be.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

257. I don't think that that is how things work.

>War is what you do when you missed all your chances to do the right thing.

"We should not have ended up here" is not a useful answer to the question "what should we do in this situation".

And in many cases it's not at all obvious what "the right thing" was, or even if there was one - I think that the options for a long, long time have been "war with Libya" and "what actually happened"; the only way the West could have avoided the current crisis arguably (although arguably not) meriting a war would have been by fighting a war earlier.


>You'd be hard pressed to find the "good" war. The vast majority are merely predecessors to more war. Wars of "choice" are >worse.

I think there are very few if any things worth fighting a war for; I think that there are some things worth fighting a war against. War is violence on a massive scale; it's worthwhile when the only alternative also involves violence on a massive scale. But sometimes it does.



>WWII didn't "solve" the nazi problem, it created it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The Nazis came to power in 33; they'd been gaining popularity well before that; they'd have expanded a lot further, with corresponding loss of life in the territories they conquered, if Britain and France hadn't declared war on them in 39. If you're referring to the fact that the holocaust didn't get into full gear until the 40s, I think it's naive to assume it wouldn't have done so without the war - I think it was probably always where the Nazis were going.



>Of course, as I've written before, it would help if us "peaceniks" had some concrete plans, strategies, institutions, and >assets in place to offer when these situations arise. Something that would help a president actually be able to "choose" to do >something else.

This could only work if you had an international body on the lines of the UN which a) had teeth and b) respected human rights. But the vast majority of the countries of the world are lead by people who don't respect human rights, and so this is not possible for the forseeable future. The nearest you could get would be something along the lines of the "League of Democracies" which was one of the very few possibly good ideas John McCain had in his 2008 campaign. Even something like that wouldn't be able to do anything about Libya other than military force, because Libya wouldn't have joined it. But it could create a "human rights ratchet" whereby once a decent regime was in power in a country it would be harder for democracy to collapse there. But, frankly, I think even that is a pipe dream.

[zipplewrath]

294. Wars set up the next wars

>WWII didn't "solve" the nazi problem, it created it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The Nazis came to power in 33; they'd been gaining popularity well before that; they'd have expanded a lot further, with corresponding loss of life in the territories they conquered, if Britain and France hadn't declared war on them in 39. If you're referring to the fact that the holocaust didn't get into full gear until the 40s, I think it's naive to assume it wouldn't have done so without the war - I think it was probably always where the Nazis were going.

The nazis, and Hitler, existed at all because of the conditions created by the loss to the Allies in WWI. Without the humiliating terms "negotiated" at Versailles, Hitler is just another pissed off corporal. Now look at the conditions which created WWI, and again you see that it is the fear created by previous armed conflicts that create the web of alliances that literally force Germany to declare war out of a sense of self defense.

War creates more war. That is pretty much a constant. In some ways, our "loss" in Vietnam may have actually "ended" war in that region for some time. Didn't "end" pretty though.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

311. Ah, hang on. Did you mean "WWI created the nazi problem"?

Assuming you did, my response would be "sort of" - as you say, most historians I've read agree that Hitler came to power as a result of the conditions arising from the Treaty of Versailles.

But I think it's much more accurate to say that the Treaty of Versailles created the Nazis than that the first world war did - while we'll never know for sure, I suspect that if the peace terms had been less punitive then WWII would never have happened (and, by extension, that the Marshall Plan might have prevented World War Three...)

[butterfly77]

122. I haven't changed..

I am tired of a bunch of brainwashed hypocritical bastards who believe everything these mfkers on television tell them about war.

Most of these people don't like the President regardless of what he does and most of them jump their asses on television and start their storylines on what is really going on when they will benefit in the matter one way or the other.

Most,of the military in charge are republiCONS who can make whatever they want to happen,happen no I am not for war but when it comes to this President I don't believe not of the shit I see or hear.

The same mkfers who are screaming the loudest are the same mfkers last week who were complaining about how he needs to do something about the people being killed in libya. As far as I am concerned we need to be concerned about what will be happening very soon in our own country if they keep this shit up..

Tax cut mfkers keep it up the party will be starting very shortly if you really think everyone will sit around and watch you enjoy all of the riches of this country while we all suffer keep on watching you will be getting more than you bargained for its getting closer and I can't wait..Greedy,rich ignorant bastards!!!! For mike Barnicle send your sons to the war since you are so concerned...

[Baclava]

124. My, you are a brave one. You know the blood lust has taken hold of DU.

Pitchforks and flaming torches if you dare to get in the way of the mob on the warpath, it's unreal.

But I will continue to persevere for peace.

NO MORE fucking wars!

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[DutchLiberal]

175. How would you want to accomplish peace when Qaddafi is murdering his people?

THAT'S what I call 'blood lust'. The ones who are trying to stop this madman are now scorned on DU. It's the world upside down.

Yeah, let the Libyans DIE just so you can pat yourself on the back for holding on to outdated kooky isolationist ideals.

[Baclava]

181. 'People' are being slaughtered by their own nations everyday - how many Holy Wars you want?

Go get em

[JoseGaspar]

199. 1 million dead in the Congo, although it might be 5 million...

(it's a "controversy")... but not a peep.

It is continuing to this day... not a peep.

The Congo is a U.S. client state, along with France and Belgium... not a peep.

It is a continuation of the Rwanda genocide (the Second Congo War)... not a peep.

It is in Susan Rice's bailiwick (equatorial Africa)... not a peep.

It is in Samantha Power's bailiwick... not a peep.

It all started with the CIA assassinating Lumumba... not a peep.

Somalia, Sudan, how many others?

But quick, it is time to save Libya. 250 wrongs don't make a right.

Frauds...

[DutchLiberal]

200. Oh, we should let them ALL die? Yeah, that will improve things.

The picture of the crusader and the term 'holy wars' rea;ly show how out of touch you are with the real world and how deeply entrenched you are in conspiracy theories and Quadafi's rhetoric.

[Baclava]

209. WE? Get your cowboy hat and giddy-up. Yee-haw!

KILL KILL KILL!

WAR WAR WAR!


I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[denverbill]

125. Yes, because all wars are the same, from the Revolution to WWII to Vietnam.

Anyone who cannot see the difference between idiot-boy's 'preemptive' war against Iraq and the situation is Libya would probably say we should have fought the Revolutionary War or WWII as well.

Bush pushed the world into Iraq, but the world and Gaddafi pushed Obama into Libya. And frankly, it's one of the few decisions he's made recently that I support.

[bhikkhu]

131. There was a war - we may have helped to stop it

Where there was expected to be little but rubble and mass graves by now, there is celebration, hope and joy.

[Swampguana]

132. I don't support

any of the bush wars, but Libya from what it seems has been begging for help from outside countries to be liberated. Theres a difference in starting a war where the people want help and attacking a country because of fear of another 911.

[Omaha Steve]

133. My current personal email sig file

Every bomb is a school we didn't build!

~ Jesse Jackson

[Richardo]

137. "Illegal wars based on lies"

PLEASE think of another cliche. :boring:

[LWolf]

144. This is why we couldn't impeach Bush.

That's not a cliche. It is a talking point. It's a talking point with some facts behind it, unlike many. Here are some others for you:

"9/11 changed everything."

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."

"We need to give up civil liberties to protect ourselves."

"If Jesus said it I believe it."

"Obama is a liberal."

"Obama is playing 99-dimensional chess."

"Obama is a socialist."

"Obama has accomplished more for liberals than any other president living."

"Obama is the 2nd coming of JFK, MLK, etc., etc., etc.."

"We need to bomb the Iraqis and Afghans to free them from tyranny."

"War is peace."

"War is needed to create peace and/or to provide humanitarian relief."

"We're # 1!"

"I'm proud to be an American, because at least I know I'm free."

[displacedvermoter]

138. But..but..but.....

if McCain had won we would be in Iran now! Same with Hillary!!!

Now we are only fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and the Sudan, but not Iran!!!

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[Romulox]

142. 2008 = Thank GAWD it passed! 2011 = Thank GAWD we bombed! nt

[L0oniX]

143. The word is "hypocrites".

[davidthegnome]

148. I'm not sure

what the right thing to do is here - the right stance to take. I'm not a pacifist, but a lot of the people opposed to this action aren't pacifists either.

I don't trust our government, I don't trust our military leadership. That's nothing new, I never really have. Still... if our actions in Libya saves lives that otherwise would have been lost, if we can reduce the death toll and perhaps do something right for a change... I just don't know. Qadaffi is a lunatic who doesn't seem to have any comprehension of reality - or mercy. The rebels have been begging for help against what was becoming a complete slaughter.

Still, I suspect corporate involvement as I suspect corporate involvement in just about every government decision. I hope we help the Libyan people find peace and prosperity, I hope we help them end their war and get rid of Qadaffi. I've hoped for a lot of things though, which for the most part never happen. The civilian casualties will be significant, we have no way of knowing how long this will last or what our ultimate level of involvement will be.

It's really not always (if it's ever) clear what to do in a situation like this. My hope is that we'll do what we can to help and then leave Libya to the Libyan people. Somehow though... I don't think that will happen.

I just don't know.

[bigwillq]

150. K and R (nt)

[proud2BlibKansan]

152. K n R

[krabigirl]

156. Seriously. It would be absolutely hilarious, if it wasn't so scary.

Yay war! USA! USA, USA! Oops, we are broke and can't fund healthcare, schools, roads and so on? Oh but we always have money for war.

[Amonester]

193. Why are we broke? We have the biggest group of tax-free billionnaires....

#1 indeed, in fiscal cowardice, maybe.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

157. One of the things I really appreciate about being intelligent

is seeing the difference in certain kinds of actions or situations.

Saddam Hussein didn't attack America, wasn't sending war planes and tanks to slaughter his own people and in fact he was nicely contained. He should have been kept contained till his own people had the balls to kick his arse. The Iraq war was for some kind of sick Bush revenge and making money for certain people.

On the other hand, Omar Kadafi is killing his own people. (I've watched the videos and I wanted to help them). Something had to be done to stop the tanks and planes that were targeting these innocent people.

Think of it this way: Your local police department force their way into some ones house when the occupants are minding their own business, and shoots the place up, killing many family members and the head of the household. That would be Iraq.

Or this; your neighbour is chasing down his family members, other local residents and killing them and so the police step in and shoot him to prevent him from killing more people. That would be Libya.

[krabigirl]

159. Sad dam attacked the Kurds for many years and they begged the world to intervene.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

279. Well I remember the pictures of the gassed people

and I believe that's when I would have taken him out. But nobody asked me what to do at the time...

[pokerfan]

162. Really?

"One of the things I really appreciate about being intelligent is seeing the difference in certain kinds of actions or situations. Saddam Hussein didn't attack America, wasn't sending war planes and tanks to slaughter his own people ..."

:banghead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Casualties and losses: 100,000-180,000 (including civilians)

[Boudica the Lyoness]

280. and I would have kicked his arse

These are not the reasons that Bush started a war in Iraq...you know that right? He didn't give a shit about Kurds or anyone else...

[pokerfan]

282. You honestly weren't aware were you?

[BlueJac]

166. The United States killing civilians in foreign countries..........

and Moammar Gadhafi killing civilians in his own are the same thing. There is nothing that happens in this world that we are not behind or have lot to do with. This is just an oil grab that we probably had CIA agents instigate with the unhappy citizens of Libya. War is war and we seem to be the bully in this world WE run!! Disgusting.

[harun]

167. Those cheerleading intervention all fail to understand the basic error of their

assumption. The error being that Obama is the ONLY one on Earth who can do anything about Lybia. They need to ask themselves the question of "Why do I think Obama and the United States military is the only thing to save the Lybian people?".

It is interesting because many of the responses would be "It is too politically difficult for other nations to assist". This of course begs the question "Why is the United States politically able to go to war over and over and over again, yet somehow it is impossible for almost all other countries to assist?"

I wonder what people would think if China volunteered to take the lead on saving the people of Lybia and didn't need any help. Somehow I don't think they would be as supportive.

[Taverner]

169. You said it, Ripley

And let me add: this sucks

[RedCloud]

173. Exactly! War! Good God you'all. What is it good for?

[sellitman]

177. I believe in what Dennis Kucinich said

Obama may have invited Impeachment Articles filed against him for starting a war without Congessional consent.

[nonoxy9]

182. Amen

[Auntie Bush]

188. Well, for one thing...Obama didn't tell us no lies.

This war wasn't started because we wanted regime change like Bushes wars.
This situation is more like the Bosnian war...trying to stop mass slaughter.
I hate the cost too, but we couldn't be the only ones to say no. I just hope and pray we get out soon! Wish the other Arab/Muslim countrys would take care of Mubarak.

[reggie the dog]

222. mubarak has stepped down

[displacedvermoter]

197. How the fuck are we going to pay for it?

Not being a born-again deficit hawk, not using a GOP argument that they haven't used for Iraq or any other war, I am seriously asking this question. How the fuck are we going to pay for this?

[grahamhgreen]

296. +1. They never answer this question.

[AllTooEasy]

204. Yay, Let Them Die!

Remind us all of this article when you need help.

[Hissyspit]

251. People are dying in Bahrain and Gaza

They would say they need help.

[Gman]

205. What war are you talking about? Obama has not started a war

what the hell are you talking about?

[orbitalman]

214. There is slaughter everywhere at different times...

so what makes Libya so damn special????

[rhett o rick]

217. Obama should have asked for the US involvement to be debated in Congress per the Constitution.

That also would make those who favor war to have to get their vote recorded. This was Boner is off the hook. Best of all worlds. If it works out, Boner will say he let Obama do it, if it fails, Boner will say Congress should have been asked.

Good cop bad, cop. the results is more war.

[WiffenPoof]

219. What I Find Interesting,...

When Bush was in office, we made it a point to call him out on any and every violation of the Constitution or the law in general. Now, when President Obama violates the same laws and some of us point out these violations, we are told that "we never liked Obama" or that he is facing challenges that no other President has had to face...we are told to go vote for Palin...

I don't give a damn who the President is or what party he belongs to. If he is not adhering the Constitution or breaks the law, we as citizens of this country, have an obligation to call them out.

Of this, there is no wiggle room.

-PLA

[G. Odoreida]

223. But check out these MAJOR differences

See, what makes this different from Bush and Iraq is that . . . is that Qadaffi has violated numerous U.N. res-- uh, wait, no, hold on . . . is that Qaddafi has been brutalizing, I mean, BRUTALIZING, his own--no, wait, that won't work either. . . . Oil? Nope, don't want to go there. . . . I've got it! Weapons of Mass--no, shoot. . . . Well, it's different, let me just say that. Obama is one of us, and Bush is, well, Bush. Clearly.

[liberation]

230. Plus Libya is in Africa, and Iraq is not. And Qadaffi and Saddam have different fashion styles

so that also makes this like totally different and stuff ;-)

Ironically, if I exchange Iraq for Libya, some of the excuses in this thread map point by point to the excuses I heard some of the wingnuts in my family use to justify the action in Iraq (UN Resolution, Iraqis asking for our "help," humanitarian concerns, yadda yadda). Sure there are differences, but the overall themes for the red herrings of those justifying war remain remarkably constant.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

226. So in the end, what is this good for ? Will it change minds ?

Will it make us more peaceful? Will it help extract us from the region? Will it help oil corporations to continue operations without any care about nations or peoples rights as to how they operate? Will it make more profits for the military industrial complex? Will it use up resources for weapons instead of food production and energy? Will it help explain why we are here on the earth? Think about that. Peace be with you.

[gateley]

232. What an unfair generalization. There are A LOT of people here who are opposed to

this action, and those who support it, myself included, are not YAY WAR.

You don't have to agree with our viewpoint, but at least stop dissing your fellow anti-action DUers. We are NOT all in lock-step.

[Bucky]

246. Thank you. It's as petty spirited as those saying opposition to bombing is supporting the slaughter

It'd be nice if we could all argue on the merits. It's a complicated issue and equally troubling whether we get involved in it or if we do nothing.

[Dawning Red]

233. Here's the problem:

In order to stop the slaughter of innocent Libyans, you have to have regime change. There's no way around that. All the missiles in the world short of nuking the entire country won't put Qaddafi out of office, and that's where your human rights violations begin, right at the top. If simply raining bombs on a country were enough to effect a change, Churchill would have been out during WWII. So at some point, you're either going to have to say "Mission accomplished! No more missiles, Qaddafi learned his lesson!" or invade. Now the thing is, Bush lied about the WMD's but he could have easily made an argument about the human rights violations there. Just the rape-rooms alone would have been enough.

Now here's where I start seeing things getting a bit sticky. You've got people who were vehemently anti-Iraqi war, but at the same time seem to be just as vehemently supporting the Libyan one. It's a bit contradictory. Kucinich is a bit out there for my tastes sometimes but he's consistent and seems to have his core values in place here. If you really want to stop the human rights abuses, you're going to have to go in and effect a change, which means pretty much doing what W did. That's not going down too well in a lot of places.

[Stuckinthebush]

237. Come on, Ripley! The people of Iraq need protection

Umm...er...sorry. Libya, not Iraq. Iraq was bad. Libya is good.

I keep forgetting which team I'm on.

[Atypical Liberal]

238. No "yay" from me.

It seems quite clear to me that the world is full of humanitarian disaster, but our country only bothers with the ones where there is some financial interest in it for us.

Moreover, I think it is terrible that we are currently firing teachers and defunding things like Planned Parenthood and NPR for a pittance of savings, but then we drop a few hundred million, likely to blossom into billions, at the drop of a hat in order to kill people to protect financial interests.

Even if you put the very best possible face on it, and ignore all the true financial interests really motivating things, the bottom line is just about every military action we've fought in the last 40 years has been for the benefit of non-US citizens. I don't understand how anyone can claim with a straight face that "We are fighting for our freedom and democracy". And yet, people do.

It should be an absolute outrage that we are cutting funding for things that matter to American citizens while we have trillions of dollars to spend helping the people of other nations.

In this light, these wars in the Middle East represent the hugest welfare project of all time and don't even benefit Americans. It is mind-boggling that the teabaggers support them.

[FiveGoodMen]

240. DU would oppose these actions if they were taken by a puke

DU is all about the player.

The game and the outcome matter to only a few.

[indimuse]

241. Agreed! x 100

You said it! "Somewhere"!

Thank you! ;)

[defendandprotect]

243. Ironically, how little we see at DU of posts re the wars and loss of lives --

whether or soldiers or innocent Iraqis - Afghanistanis ---

WHY if so many here are against these wars? I think, perhaps, because now that

they are Dem Party/Obama wars many here don't want to discuss them with the same

anti-war fervor they may have had when W was president?

Meanwhile, I definitely have mixed feelings about Obama's intervention -- mainly

because of my mistrust of my own government -- and my mistrust of Obama -- sad to say!

I'm hoping that Gaddafi will be taken into custody and given over to the Libyan people

who want to put him on trial -- as it should be.

And that our government will leave the rest to the Libyan people -- who want a democracy

of their own design -- equality for women -- and for those of any religious belief.

And that our govenrment will leave -- unlike what we've seen in so many other countries --

and now especially where OIL is involved -- almost a decade now fighting two wars

bankrupting our Treasury?

All whilst our own nation is being destroyed -- homelessness increasing -- those without health

insurance increasing -- our system of democracy being replaced by private systems and control

being taken from the American citizenry.

Let's make a point of having at least one or two articles a week on these illegal wars of aggression

we're still fighting in the ME -- would love to see it!!

[emulatorloo]

248. Strawman argument and flamebait. CONGRATS it seems to be working.

[craigmatic]

250. I'm still against wars for oil.

[carolinayellowdog]

252. Funny how "ignored" often gets first reply

to posts that criticize the Obama administration, only to be overwhelmed by scores of recs.

[stevenleser]

254. Sorry "ignored", I cannot read what you are saying.

[Zorra]

255. Hero worship: idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess;

venerate as an idol

[Puregonzo1188]

256. Back during the Bush years someone posted a link to protest warrior or some

pro-Iraq War protester group with all their signs. One of them said something to the extent of "We Oppose Wars Unless There's A Democrat As President" and numerous posters derided that sign, while mocking the other really absurd ones (something about reparations for slavery--as if that was related to Iraq).

I'm not laughing now.

[pokerfan]

293. was this it?

[rpannier]

264. Five things

1. How is it an illegal war? The Senate approved a resolution authorizing the "No-Fly Zone" and the "No-Fly Zone" has UN backing.

2. This action has been done after consultation with many different parties and they are on board.

3. The rebels asked for the No-Fly Zone and have asked for no other outside intervention

4. Afghanistan is NOT an illegal war

5. Your solution is what exactly?

[Arkana]

267. Boo critical thinking! Nuance sucks!

[Prometheus Bound]

274. I know this pisses some people off.

But I would only be willing to support a war, military intervention or whatever, if I were ready to sign up immediately myself and willing to see my son sign up. If it's not important enough for me to die for, I will not push for other Canadians to risk their lives.

Using this criteria, I cannot support the Libya intervention.

[democrat2thecore]

276. How DARE you speak the truth! Why are so many ObamaBots climbing aboard the war wagon?

Is this the change we voted for?

[roberto IS beto]

278. I am opposed to U.S. involvement in any foreign war

I wish that Khadafi would stop killing his citizens, but I also wish that Texas would stop executing prisoners.

[rtassi]

281. Yes, and all it took was a couple of news cycles, to get everyone

revved up for more blood... While the majority of the posters "jack off" about mid east policy, political revolution, and America spreading its mighty shield to protect the innocent ...which we know nothing about, except for what we are told on the "news" ( remember WMD's )....or likely have the balls or convitiction to die for themselves ... We let our little Presidental corporate puppet Advance the intentions of the pnac ... AGAIN! I hope to see you all in the recruiting line signing up to to get YOUR ass shot off for the sake of libia's revolution ... Oil = blood plain and simple ... And you are shitting yourself otherwise ... Democrats ..what crock of shit we are ... We are the worst kind of hypocrites ...

[tomp]

284. there are far too many democrats, especially in govt,....

....who never met a war they didn't like, or at least didn't mind voting for.

[pokerfan]

302. or just hate "republican" wars (nt)

[tomp]

341. imperialism is bipartisan u.s. foreign policy.

there are ALWAYS enough democrats to make it happen.

[dbt]

285. Yay Rip!

Here's a hornet's nest that shoulda been kicked over a LONG time ago. Bravo to You for DARING to speak some Truth around here!

:bounce:

(Yay War is my new reply to everything in this cesspool. Thank You again!)

[sasha031]

286. it has always made me wonder why these arm chair warriors don't join the military

and join in the shared sacrifice.

[Prometheus Bound]

329. If that were required of war supporters...

I guess support for these wars, interventions and so forth would pretty much dry up.

[IndyJones]

288. Why the humanitarian concern over Libya when thousands are

slaughtered in Mexico every year (35,000+ since 2006) and their President looks the other way, we don't insist our agents are armed when they go there, and the US looks the other way, too. Where is the humanitarian interest to make changes to that country? How is Libya worse than Mexico when you look at the numbers?

Sorry, not buying the "humanitarian" BS. Plenty of other countries endure slaughters (not "potential" slaughters, ACTUAL slaughters).

The US does not belong in that war.

[Catherina]

289. 208 recs? Thank you DU. Was really beginning to wonder about this place n/t

[grahamhgreen]

295. Dont forget CENTCOM personas troll these boards...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4775085

[SylviaD]

297. This is exactly what I don't understand.

Why is war okay so long as it's Barack Obama who is starting it?

I will speak out against ANY president who does what this one is doing in Libya.

I used to think the repugs were the kings of hipocrisy. How wrong I was.

[yurbud]

303. there's a handful of PR shills here who parrot the DLC, inside the beltway line and they know how to

make their numbers look bigger than they are.

[Arkana]

336. Oh please.

If this was true, then by the same token I could say there's an even greater number of bitter, eternally angry "liberals" who will brand politicians traitors for not hewing to a vaguely-defined standard of purity, and have developed a knee-jerk reaction time that would make the far right blush. And they DEFINITELY know how to make their numbers seem bigger than they are.

[yurbud]

366. So those left of the DLC figured out a way to rig this DU poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5567638&mesg_id=5567638

[ingac70]

304. "The manipulative pro-war argument in Libya"

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/22/libya/index.html

[JuniperLea]

330. Would you rather it be "YAY let the people suffer and die"?!

Would you be too cool for the nightmares? People begging for help and you raise your nose in the air... harrumph! I'm above using the military!

[IndyJones]

338. Why not start by asking our neighbors in Mexico how it feels

to live in fear, to know that over 35,000 of their citizens have been slaughtered in the last four years? Do you have nightmares over that and do you know that the people in Mexico actually do want our help, even though their corrupt leaders don't? Why do we use military force for humanitarian reasons in Libya but not to help our neighbors?

[JuniperLea]

346. Right, because the two cases are exactly the same...

Oh, wait, except that they are no where near the same. If you think they are, you should do some reading.

I live in El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciúncula and I consider myself a Mexican citizen because this is still Mexico in my eyes and I was born here. I have the greatest respect for my Latino brothers and sisters, and they are my kin... don't let the blond hair and blue eyes and English name fool you. I take no offense to your crude attempt at an insult, however.

When the Mexican people have had enough and start another revolution, I'm with them all the way. You can't assist with a revolution when there isn't one. I do what I can to support them.

[IndyJones]

348. I believe it's you who should do the reading. We are helping because of

"humanitarian" reasons, not to assist with a revolution. You just tried to change the course of your own post asking if someone could sleep knowing people were being slaughtered. That was the point of your post and that was the point of mine. Same thing - people being slaughtered and others coming in for "humanitarian" reasons.

I don't care if you are Mexican or Libyan. Doesn't change the topic.

[JuniperLea]

357. Where is the uprising wherein people are gathered en mass...

... being cut in half, set on fire, or disemboweled? Not the same thing. There was an immediate need in Libya, thousands of people in the cross-hairs at one time. Over the course of a year there will no doubt be the same number in the cross-hairs in Mexico, but there's no military action that can be taken right now that will save them all. The only thing that will save Mexicans is a political action. What are you doing toward that end?

[uppityperson]

339. What war "Obama is getting us involved in another one"? What war?

[3lyford]

345. The country is involved in two wars already

Its not all about blaming Bush or supporting Obama. If you want to celebrate that Bush started wars that were failures, great, enjoy your party. That doesn't help the fact that we already don't have the manpower for our current engagements. Please feel free to not draft my children for any new wars and I don't give a fuck if you blame/credit Bush/Obama or anyone else for those wars.

[uppityperson]

347. Thanks for the reply, am 1 of those adamantly against draft, what new war is Obama getting us into?

Since the OP said that, I was wondering what was meant. What "Please feel free to not draft my children for any new wars " are you talking about?

[3lyford]

349. These no fly zones have a way of being inneffective

Which leads to the brilliant idea of using ground troops to fix a civil war. Already we are attacking tanks which clearly goes beyond a no fly zone. Even without ground troops, this will take alot of manpower. A small number of pilots represent a large group of people keeping the planes/base supplied and running.

Next part is not related to your comment per se. People are saying that the people there want us to bomb. This is unknowable. Their is no elections so who knows what the majority wants. Even if the majority wants to be bombed it doesn't mean we should. You can't vote to have your neighbors bombed. That makes less sense than voting to ban gay marriage.

[uppityperson]

350. Thanks for the clarification

[JuniperLea]

358. So, you object due to the hypothetical situation you fear...

but you have no crystal ball.

[3lyford]

360. The repeating of history

You make it sound far fetched. Iraq was a no fly zone. Vietnam was us just sending in advisors. Afghanistan was a limited campaign to find Bin Laden. Didn't Somalia start with us sending food? Incremental war without debate or declaration, don't look now, just baseless speculation. Of course the fact that everything is lining up the same to be an repeat means that fear of repeat is unfounded.

Do you usually post peace signs while agitating for war?

[JuniperLea]

361. Here, let me help you with that...

Good morning! I say what a joy it is to look ahead and show you the signs of your future. So much happiness is in store for you the most brilliantly lighted stars are put to shame by the brightness of your light! Oh, happiness what an elusive thing you are, but thank GOD you were born beneath this star!

Drop another coin in the slot and I will tell you more!

[3lyford]

364. Yes, no way of knowing

We should bomb them to stop violence. It will work great. A war to end war. We could do it, but we don't need to cause Mr. Wilson already accomplished that. So again with the peace symbol for war, thats cute.

[ProudDad]

354. Uh, Libya

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/21/uttm/london_comment/main20045705.shtml

In case you haven't heard... :shrug:

[uppityperson]

363. Uh, thanks. I didn't know President Obama was getting us involved, thought it was the UN

silly me.

Looks like NATO is going to take over.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014585749_apaflibya.html

[3lyford]

368. Is this sarcasm?

Regardless of what the UN or NATO wants. The US president makes the final call for the US military (we'll pretend congress isn't supposed to play a role since DC pretends it too). If Obama said no bombing we wouldn't be bombing. If he wanted to bomb he wouldn't need the UN or NATO to give permission. Lets all be grown up now. You can't say, they told me to do it. Weak.

[inna]

343. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

late kick, anyway

[ProudDad]

352. You've got that right...

It's disgusting how many war mongers litter the halls of DU these days...

[Name removed]

362. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

365. Deleted message

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