This war is wrong

[notesdev]

Just thought I'd throw that out there since there seems to be some confusion on the point.

1. The US is not the world's policeman

This world is full of strife, conflict and injustice. That doesn't mean it is either right nor wise for us to become a player in every such situation.

2. War is not a valid alternative to energy independence

At this point the double standard and the reason for it is obvious: our foreign policy is singularly oriented towards maintaining the smooth flow of oil to our shores (unfortunately BP only got part of that memo). That's the only consistent principle which explains US intervention in Libya yet no US intervention in Syria or Bahrain. I suppose if we are to be honest with ourselves and say we will maintain our position relative to the rest of the countries on the planet via force of arms, one might dispute this point. I'm no fan of that philosophy, and I wouldn't imagine there are too many other such fans around here either.

3. Libya is not a major concern to the U.S.

We don't even get their oil, anyway. It's the Europeans that get the vast majority of Libyan oil exports. Have we fallen so far that we now go to war for other countries' oil?

And why aren't the Europeans handling this themselves? There are two nuclear power, UNSC-permanent-member nations in the coalition against Libya. What exactly are we there to do that the English and French cannot do for themselves?


4. If you support this intervention for humanitarian reasons, please file your apology to George Bush at the door as you leave the anti-war camp

Every reason given on humanitarian grounds to justify this war was also given by Bush regarding Iraq. I didn't believe these things then, and having them come out of the mouth of a nominal political ally doesn't make them any more true now than they were then.


5. No popular debate

Now, full disclosure here - when I first heard that Libyan planes and ships were shelling civilians, my first reaction was "shoot down the planes and sink the ships, save innocent people." But that's not what we did. We let those planes and ships keep going for weeks before we did anything, which eviscerates the "urgency of immediate action" counter as to why we had no public debate.

Since we did wait many weeks to act, there has been plenty of time to have a public debate about the merits of this action. This is a democracy, right? This is a country where the government is supposed to act according to the will of the people, for the benefit of the people.

Where was the expression of popular will to go to war in Libya? With no debate in Congress, no vote on any war declaration, I see nothing that could even pretend to substitute.

How does this war actually benefit the people in this country?


6. Another military campaign with no clear objective destined to turn into a meat grinder where the lives of our soldiers are tossed away for political advantage

Sad to say, but even Bush was better on this score - he had the guts to actually state an objective going in. Never mind that the real objective turned out to be quite different; it was at least a standard to compare performance against.

What's our objective this time? End the Qadafi regime? Then why is he not a target?

Moreover, the tactics suck rotten eggs. Whose bright idea was it to throw multi-million dollar missiles at cheap, low-tech targets? We keep up that strategy and even the regime in Libya can outlast us just by hunkering down until we run out of money. Economics is a big part of war, and on that score this "kinetic military action" (Hello, Mr. Orwell? Your patent lawyer is breathlessly awaiting you on line 1) is an epic failure.


7. We don't have the money

You know, Chinese slaves work very hard so that their government can accumulate money by trading away the fruits of their labor that they then lend to us in exchange for pieces of paper they will be pretty pissed off about when they finally realize they are worthless so that we can spend that money on big-ass ships, guns, and planes and bring the critical federal budget failure moment of truth all the closer in time.

Every Tomahawk missile fired is 18 teachers that don't get hired.






I know all this stuff is obvious to anyone who has been a Democrat since 2003 or earlier, but reading DU these past couple of weeks it really struck me that a reminder is appropriate.

That's my rant, and I'm sticking to it.

[truedelphi]

1. However, it is a perfect Wag The Dog diversion, The war is something

Far more visually exciting than worrying about the metallic taste in our mouths from the radiation.

Bombs exploding. Rebels against Old Guard. Democracy vs Tyranny. Yeah Team. Fight! Fight! Fight!

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Considering Obama has received no bounce from the conflict

And that the approval for the intervention in Libya is unusually low, only 47%, wagging the dog doesn't seem to be working. It's possible the White House thought it would, but honestly given that we're already involved in two wars it's hard to see the logic in that.

[Taverner]

67. Silly Rabbit, Obama THINKS he's a Republican now

And war does give a bounce to Republican Presidents: Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, etc all got a 'bump' in the polls when they started wars

When Dems do it, we get the reverse effect

One would think our President would have learned this

[truedelphi]

124. If Obama gets one billion dollars in future income for every

Supportive action he undertakes, he won't have to care a bit five years from now whether his poll numbers are high or low this week.

(And it doesn't have to be cash handed to him behind the Lincoln memorial on a dark and windy night. It is more likely to be lucrative "speeches" given to the ruling elite, for a quarter million bucks a pop.)

[Runework]

11. It does distract from Obama's support of Nukes.....

President Obama recently announced he has designated $36 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power-plant construction in his newly proposed budget for 2012, almost tripling loan guarantees for new nuclear construction.

An article in The Hill stated that the president also set aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research, and the New York Times reported that $500 million will be allocated over the next five years for the development of small modular reactors


who is talking about this? no one

[truedelphi]

18. people on the net are talking and

will continue tobe talking, unless and until the internet gets pulled out forom under us.

And abelated welcome to DU.

[catenary]

25. I knew there was a reason I liked the President, a LOT

He's not a Luddite! :D

[spanone]

96. what a pantload

[Hannah Bell]

33. you really think we're in libya to take the focus off the nuclear crisis in japan?

[truedelphi]

123. I would say it is possibly fifty percent of the reason we are there.

Especially when you realize that whichever side wins in Libya, the moderates that really are the ones that would be wanting a true democracy are the losers.

So I don't think it is all about democracy.

Nor do I think it is all about a distraction, but if ever a distraction was needed, now is the time.

Otherwise the truth might get out that the GE designed, built and supported reactor in Fukushima prefecture is similar if not identical to the twenty three other GE reactors located right here in the USA. And it might also get out that it was Bush officials and GE officials who, back in 2006, prevented the local opposition to the Fukushima reactor from making headway and getting the plant decommissioned.

\

[kristopher]

38. +1

[BlueIris]

70. Strangely, the Wag Factor was something I did not consider until yesterday.

It's also something that will keep this Administration propped up a bit longer. Kinda hard to expect the president to answer any real questions about his mistakes if he's "a war president" three times over.

[Skidmore]

2. And if there had been no action and Qaddafi had mowed his people

down in a wholesale slaughter, would you be as adamant in shouting about why people were allowed to be killed without stepping up? Or why we didn't meet our obligations under the treaties we have signed?

BTW, there is no such thing as a war that is scenic or doesn't hurt innocents, even if there is some fluke by which only military personnel are injured or killed. Economies are impacted and families are too. Military personnel are not members of other species but of families in any country which engages them in battle.

[dkf]

5. So you admit we are at war?

[Skidmore]

6. DId I say we weren't?

And that's all you have to say?

[dkf]

15. Obama isn't admitting it. Did Clinton or Gates?

[Skidmore]

16. ????

Why is this important?

[Javaman]

118. A little thing called congress makes it important. nt

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Dash87]

22. Oh well. That's their problem, not ours.

[pampango]

32. Who is "them"? And who is "us"? Do we define "them" by place of birth, race, gender,

ethnicity, sexual orientation?

You must think the UN was way off base to adopt the Responsibility to Protect in 2005 "based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing." If you accept the UN as representing "us", genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing are "our" problems even when they occur within the borders of sovereign countries.

[DutchLiberal]

45. I think he was being sarcastic. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

34. gag.

[Hannah Bell]

35. "he killed his own people! incubator babies! torture rooms!"

[Skidmore]

37. Ah, yes.

The proverbial expert on all things and arbiter of morality rises like a phoenix from the ashes of mendacity.

Exactly how many air raids have you sat through? How many war zones have you lived in? How many dictatorships have you lived under? Have you ever lived under martial law? Have you ever served in the military? Do you have relatives who have or who have actually been injured or killed as part of service?

War is not an ideological debate only. It is not an abstract concept or a debate point. It does affect real people's lives, in the zone and out of it. Sometimes the absence of taking a stand perpetuates as much violence as taking a stand. A nation's military is culled from its people. And that is true for all nations.

I speak from experienced living in a nation governed by one of our handpicked strongmen, living under martial law, and surviving a revolution and a war. You haven't lived until you've tried to shelter toddlers during air raids or tried to find adequate supplies to feed your family while on the receiving end of sanctions. You also haven't lived until you've lived in a country where you could not express yourself for fear that those closest to you might report you to authorities and you would be punished for giving voice to your opinion or ideas.

These issues are much more complex than simple black and white judgements allow. At what point do you think it is okay for a people to stand up and fight back? Nonviolent revolution is desirable but not always possible. It works for some peoples and at sometimes, but not always. Egypt's revolution was not completely nonviolent--people lost lives. This nation was not formed by nonviolent overthrow of a tyrant. We fought for self-governance.

When would you take a stand? What make you so certain that your sensibilities serve in all circumstances?

[Hannah Bell]

41. blahblahblah

all that is bullshit & has nothing to do with why we're in libya.

[Skidmore]

42. I'm sure you'll soon have some new cut&paste

to let us know why we are "in' Libya.

Thanks for your non answer to my questions regarding the realities of despotism and revolution and war. And thank you for discounting my real life experiences as "bullshit." Keep manning the keyboards for your brigade. You are doing a yeoman's job.

[Hannah Bell]

43. so far yeah, i'm making a fortune in the pay of teachers' unions, khaddafi & the nuclear industry.

but you're right. of course, the US, after 40 years, suddenly bombed libya for humanitarian reasons, to free the people from this terrible dictator.

in a pigs eye.

[EFerrari]

82. Can you put a good word in for me?

lol

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. Actually, that does seem the most likely reason.

The thing that changed, that you don't allude to, is the sudden emergence of a potentially viable domestic opposition.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[sad sally]

77. Here's a little interesting tidbit about interests in Libya:

Sunday, March 27 / March, 2011, 15:18 GMT
Philippine accuse the West beat Libya for oil
Libyan opposition says that Qatar is ready to market the oil in eastern Libya. Said a senior official of the Libyan opposition to the rule of anti-Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi said Qatar has agreed to market the crude oil produced from fields in eastern Libya, which is no longer under the control of Gaddafi.

Altarhuni, "said Ali, who is responsible for Finance and Economic Affairs at the National Council of the opposition in Benghazi:" We have reached an agreement with Qatar. Will be the first shipment in less than a week. "
Altarhuni said in a press statement in Benghazi that the production of oil fields controlled by the opposition is between 100 and 130 thousand barrels per day.

He added that the production of those fields can be increased to the rate of 300 thousand barrels per day.
And Altarhuni coming from the United States of America where he lived before the recent developments and noted that the opposition has opened a special account be transferred to him the proceeds of oil sales.
Altarhuni said he had asked the oil company in Brega return to work within 24 hours, adding that the region will produce liquefied natural gas for domestic consumption at this time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/business/2011/03/110327_qatar_libya_oil.shtml?du

[Hannah Bell]

101. "Altarhuni" aka ali tarhouni

Those admissions came from Ali Tarhouni, who was appointed to the Cabinet of the rebels' shadow government Wednesday as finance minister. Tarhouni, who teaches economics and finance at the University of Washington, returned to Libya a month ago after more than 35 years in exile to advise the opposition on economic matters.

The rebels' national council appointed another U. S. educated academic, Mahmoud Jibril, to head the interim administration.

As the top financial official for the rebels, Tarhouni will also oversee oil affairs...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20145...


Ali Tarhouni
Senior Lecturer in Business Economics

PhD, Michigan State University, 1983
MA, Michigan State University, 1978
BA, Libyan University, 1973

Specialties
Managerial economics, macroeconomic analysis, financial institutions and markets, international finance and investments.

Positions Held
Joined the University of Washington in 1985.
Assistant professor at Washington State University (1984-85)

Current Research
Cost factors in trauma centers, productivity measurement in the unified German economy, reaction of bank stocks to Latin American debt announcements.

Honors and Awards
MBA Core Professor of the Quarter for Autumn (2007, 2008)
E-Business Core Professor of the Quarter for Autumn (2003)
MBA Core Professor of the Quarter for Autumn (1990, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2003)
PACCAR Award for Teaching Excellence (2002)
Daniel R. Siegel Service Award (2000, 2001)
Professor of the Year (1998)
Charles Summer Memorial Teaching Award (1997, 1998, 2002)
ADMIN 510 Outstanding Instructor (1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995)
Tyee Instructor of the Year (1987)

Academic Service
Advisory Board of the Center of Instructional Development and Research (CIDR) and the Business and Economics Development Program (BEDP).
Helped develop the School's Instructional Resources Office (1994) and the Business and Economic Development Program (1992).

Selected Publications
"Valuation of Internet Companies; Irrational Bubble or Change but Rational Expectations?", with Ed Rice, The E-Business Review, September 2003.

"What’s New on the Internet," with Ed Rice, The E-Business Review, September 2002.

Selected Consulting Experience
Food and Agriculture Organization, consultant. Sit on a number of advisory boards of Technology and Internet companies.

http://www.foster.washington.edu/centers/facultyresearc...

[mazzarro]

125. Bingo!

They want us to put on blinders because a dem is in charge this time! Same old song that B*sh sang about humanitarian BS. I do not believe one fig of it - not from a rethug or a dem!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

102. A thought-free slogan, not an attempt at rational argument

Your post is not a rational argument, it's an attempt to avoid having to make such.

The argument you appear to be hinting broadly at is "Some of the accusations levelled at Saddam Hussein were false, therefore some of the accusations levelled at Gadaffi are false, therefore he may not be as bad as he is painted, therefore opposing him by military force is not justifiable". Is this a fair summary of your position?

If it is, I don't think it works.

I think that you could make a much stronger case against military intervention in Libya as follows: "While I acknowledge that Gaddafi is a Very Bad Thing, I don't think that military intervention is likely to be able to replace him by anything better".

But I think that the side of the equation that you're trying to attack is fairly unassailable. Although there were undoubtedly exaggerations and outright lies among the things Saddam Hussein was accused of (the most obvious one being the claim that he had WMD), there was also an awful lot of truth: he really was a spectacularly brutal, wicked and repressive, and indeed genocidal (aginst the marsh arabs), dictator who did have an awful lot of people tortured and killed (I'm not quite sure why you refer to "torture rooms!" in what I think is meant to be a dismissive tone - do you think that he didn't have people tortured?). Similarly, Gadaffi really is an appallingly nasty piece of work.

By trying to deny this, I think you put yourself in some fairly unfortunate company, to say the least - by emphasising "they were accused of things they were not guilty of" without even mentioning "but they were also guilty of an awful lot, too" you risk creating the impression that you sympathise with Saddam and Gaddafi.

If you want to make a compelling case against the war, focus on "it won't make things better"; *don't* try to argue "Gadaffi is not a monster", because he undoubtedly is.

[davidthegnome]

105. While I don't have a strong stance regarding the war

because I simply don't know in this case, if the ends justify the means or if we're being lied to... I would suggest that the poster may be referring to torture rooms in a dismissive tone because our own Country has them (Guantanamo Bay?). We have also exported prisoners to Egypt to allow our friendly allies to torture them for us. I really don't think this has to do with the morality of torture - were that the case, the UN could justly intervene in the USA.

I will say that I think the military intervention is unlikely to find a much better replacement. I agree though, that Gadaffi is a monster, even worse than our own monsters here at home.. or so I hope. That's why I can't say for certainty that this war is wrong. It's too gray for me.

I am highly skeptical and cynical in regards to our involvement - but I cannot say outright that it is wrong, because I'm not sure. Gadaffi is a monster indeed... but in this day and age, we have so damned many of those who are doing things just as bad or worse..., it's difficult for me to understand why we're involved. Even if they asked for help - even if they begged for it. Millions of dead in Darfur would have begged for help if they thought it would accomplish anything.

Gadaffi is an evil man, but he is one evil man in a world of many of them, some who are more powerful and even more cruel.

I agree, nonetheless, that we should do what we can, when we can, to stop the slaughter of innocents. I truly hope that that is the real reason we're involved. I simply can't trust that it is.

[ctsnowman]

114. Yup

Nt

[Modern_Matthew]

4. Agreed. No matter how you slice a war, you still have pieces of innocent people. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

12. and no matter how you turn away when war is happening the innocent

still die-

Just because you aren't willing to see them, or help them, doesn't mean they simply didn't exist.

It's a difficult situation- there are no real good answers, or easy positions. Innocents were dying, do nothing, and you are doing something- inaction is action.

[dkf]

57. But we don't have to be the ones killing the innocents with our missiles.

Besides, people who take up arms against the Government know they are risking their lives. That is different from people sitting in their homes who get bombed.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. we could go back and forth with this till

we're blue in the face. Yes, as as you say, it is very possible that innocent people sitting in their homes could be bombed, it is also more than likely that innocent people- people who were not actively taking "up arms against the Government" would be killed by Gaddafi's forces if we did nothing. He promised as much, has done it before, and boasts about surrounding himself with civilians, without any regard to thier well-being.

There is no good solution to this. I understand your perspective on this issue, and to a great degree share it, but I believe that had the UN not become involved, this situation would have spiraled out of control and left many people suffering and dead.

I don't believe that it is the desire, OR the aim for the UN forces to kill people. I don't believe that "oil" is the driving motivation either.

Violence is never a good solution to anything, sadly it is sometimes the least 'worse' choice imo. I think this was one of those times.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. I've been a Democrat since WELL before 2003,

and I don't agree with you-

on several fronts.

Because something seems obvious to you, doesn't mean that you aren't wrong.

[lib2DaBone]

8. Endless wars to benefit the top 1 %.....

..as if war could have any positive benefit.. but these Mo-Fo-s have control of Congress, Senate and the White House.

GE pays no taxes... American people are forced to buy inferior Chinese goods.. and our jobs are shipped to China while our roads and bridges collapse.

Does anyone in the USA see a problem with this?

[neoralme]

104. That is exactly what it is.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. +1 zillion

[indimuse]

10. KNR!

still @ zero! DU has become the PRO WAR SITE of 2011! Bravo!

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. +1

[notesdev]

19. I would like to believe

that we simply got visited by a clique of "Obama uber alles" supporters, which will be washed away in time by the true sentiment of DU's user base

[WatsonT]

98. I wonder, had McCain won and decided to bomb libya

how much support would there be?

[polichick]

13. Just more smoke and mirrors from our military industrial complex...

...with help from our Nobel Prize winning president.

[dennis4868]

20. The military action is for humanitarian reasons only

Bush said the purpose of the Iraq war was to stop Sadaam Hussein from using nuclear weaponsd against us....a bold face lie!

Juan Cole: An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
http://www.juancole.com/

[Dash87]

23. Yeah right.

The US always has some alterior motive. They never do anything purely for "humanitarian reasons." Look how they treat their own citizens.

Let's be humanitarian and pull our own citizens out of poverty, not fight a war half way across the world that doesn't matter in the least bit.

[DutchLiberal]

48. It matters to the thousands we've saved from getting slaughtered.

If Obama hadn't done anything, DU would have decried him for letting another 'Rwanda' happen.

[Distant Observer]

24. YAY! Thats why they are killing all the Gov forces in the Oil producing areas

[PurityOfEssence]

30. You know this for a fact? How so?

To most of the rest of us, including staunch supporters of the adventure and our President, it seems REALLY complex.

[Dash87]

21. This thread just about sums my feelings as well.

Who cares about Libya? Seriously.

We have people in the US that need help, and we're firing off expensive pieces of metal that kill small groups of people at a time. The money spent on those missles could stop our cities from crumbling apart.

What's happening in Libya is awful, but we just shouldn't be involved. I don't trust the rebels, and it's not our problem. The arugments supporting this war are ridiculous.

It's time to think of Americans first. Libyans would never come to our aid if we needed help, yet we have a responsibility to save them for some reason. Ridiculous.

[pampango]

40. "Who cares about Libya. ... We have people in the US that need help. ... Americans first."

Amazing that the only "us" vs "them" that works for some on the left is based on nationalism.

Thankfully, none of the other birth characteristic-based "us" vs "them" mindsets holds any water on the left. (The same cannot be said for many on the right.)

Just imagine:

"Who cares about Blacks. ... Whites first." (None of the left would say "We have whites that need help. It's time to think of whites first.")
"Who cares about women. ... Men first." (Not - "We have men that need help. It's time to think of men first.")
"Who cares about gays. ... Straights first." (Never - "We have straights that need help. It's time to think of straights first.")

The left values people as people. (The source of our opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) People who need more help should get more help. (The purpose of a safety net, civil rights legislation, etc.) People with more wealth should provide more. (The purpose of progressive taxation.)

Racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, ageism, "ability-ism" (anything based on "Sorry. You were born ______ ) have no home on the left.

[onenote]

46. it really is amazing how "American exceptionalism" seems to have taken hold

with some DUers.

[Dash87]

50. I'm against more endless war when we have people starving in the US.

It is not the US's job to help other people under other governments before helping its own citizens.

[Obamanaut]

53. 'rec' your response. It astounds me that in the midst of the need to

fix stuff here - people who are homeless, hungry, no medical care, no money for Rx, crumbling bridges and roads, no money to pay for all those things - the deciders can find the funds to lob a couple hundred million dollars worth of bombs and missiles at somebody - and be applauded for making that decision.

[DutchLiberal]

73. Letting the Libyans die doesn't stop the American elite from letting their own citizens die.

I can't believe I have to explain this on a progressive forum. What did you think? If we didn't rescue the Libyan people, the American elite would instead start taking care of its own citizens?

[Dash87]

85. The money spent on them should be spent on us.

[DutchLiberal]

103. Wrong, The money spent on the Bush-Obama tax breaks should be spent on you...

That's the right framing. Not the false dichotomy and the disgusting, ugly, nasty nationalism you display here.

[Dash87]

107. If we slashed the military budget, that would free up hundreds of billions of dollars

to pay off our national debt and stop our country from falling apart.

[olegramps]

119. This is a drop in the bucket compared with the rip off by the wealthy and Corps.

This argument plays well to the right-wing since it distracts the peoples' attention from the real monster that is crushing the Middle Class. Stopping a brutal tyrant from massacring his own people is justified, period. Taxes payed by GE on billions of profits, ZERO; in fact they got a refund of billions. Bank of America, again, a big fat ZERO. Who gains from this rip-off. The wealthy since only 2.5% of stocks, bonds and mutuals are owned by the bottom 50%. The top 1% own 51% of the stock, etc. and the top 10% own 71%. So complain about spending a pittance on protecting Libyans while you are being robbed into the poor house.

[pampango]

83. I'm against endless war even when people are not starving in the US.

We have no right to unilaterally intervene militarily whether it's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, you name it.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't support the UN when it decides to intervene based on R2P. We should promote international decision making to replace cowboy diplomacy.

[DutchLiberal]

49. Ugly and nasty nationalism like this belongs on Free Republic.

[Dash87]

51. It's not about nationalism. It's about blowing millions of dollars on missiles,

only to fire them off at some nutjob, when that money should be spent on US social programs instead.

Our military is eating a hole into our budget. The US is going bankrupt. How can we justify jumping into another quagmire? :(

[DutchLiberal]

52. Money for social programs should be taken from the wealthiest 2%, whom Obama gave a tax break.

You want to punish the Libyans for that. Go get the money where it is, but stop making these utterly false, bullshit comparisons.

[Dash87]

54. I didn't realize our government has some kind of duty to police the world?

North Korea is also a horrible place. They throw people in concentration camps, abduct people, and shoot them in the street. So are many other places.

Is it our responsibility to play world police?

[DutchLiberal]

60. If you had followed the news, you'd know this is a joint UN/NATO operation...

Besides, it's US administrations that kept thugs like Qaddafi in power all these years. Now they have to face the consequences.

Besides, it's good that for once they display a moral compass and not the selfish, egoistical ugly nationalism that you embody.

And you didn't address my point.

[trud]

69. are you kidding?

Re "it's US administrations that kept thugs like Qaddafi in power all these years"

The CIA started trying to assassinate Qaddafi as soon as he came into power, because he committed the major error of declaring neutrality in the cold war.

[DutchLiberal]

72. The US made friends with Qaddafi after 9/11, when he swore to fight Al Qu'aida for us.

Did you miss that?

[Dash87]

108. A NATO operation - that's why the majority of it is being done by the US.

What are European countries doing right now in Libya, minus France?

NATO is a euphimism for a venture where the US does most of the work, and NATO takes credit for it.

[Dash87]

109. Re: Consequences

Nobody feels higher consequences of this war than the Libyan people we're supposedly so concerned about.

[Dash87]

110. Addressing your point

Slash the military budget, tax the rich heavily, and don't get into another quagmire. We've failed at all three of these.

[pampango]

78. I believe the UN (not the US or Russia or China, etc) has a duty to protect people in the world.

The members countries in the UN made this a policy (at least with respect to violence against civilians) when they adopted the Responsibility to Protect in 2005.

I agree that North Korea deserves UN attention to its treatment of civilians. Unfortunately, China will probably protect them with a veto on the Security Council, as they protected for Burma in 2007. It would be interesting to hear why China (or Russia) did not veto UN intervention in Libya as they did in Burma.

[trud]

68. Dash87 has it right.

When the U.S. takes care of its own people, then just maybe it can meddle elsewhere. But even then it better be darn sure it's meddling appropriately and not being an idiot, as it is in Libya and Iraq.

That said, I have zero problem with humanitarian aid, as to Japan. Blowing people the hell up is not acceptable to me, however.

[nosmokes]

26. Nailed it w/ the first four words.

I agree.Thanks for the post.

[LWolf]

27. +1

[bvar22]

28. I'll stick to your rant with a K&R.

We jumped into a brand new war,
and most people have NO idea WHO we are fighting for.

Have "they" invoked the Pottery Barn Rule yet
to justify further involvement?

[The Northerner]

29. K&R

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. Sorry, but you fail

Point 1: UN, not US. Security Council resolution with the support of the US, yes. The UN IS in fact the world's policeman. Or rather that's one of its intended functions. Following what happened in Rwanda and Serbia, the UN formulated a doctrine of "responsibility to protect", stating that sovereignty is a responsibility and not an absolute right, and further laying out conditions for intervention by the international community in the event of gross abuses of sovereign power by a ruler against his people (Gaddafi's use of military forces against civilians qualifies). Security Council Resolution 1973 is the first real test of the principle.

Point 2: This war isn't over Libya's oil. The fact that Libya HAS oil may have made Western intervention more likely, granted. But Gaddafi was quite happy to do business with Western oil companies (the Italian company Eni being the largest foreign operator). Gaddafi's use of his military against a civilian population after sanctions and calls from the international community (including the US) to cease and stand down from power make the intervention justified. What's happening in other parts of the world (Bahrain, Yemen, the Congo, Ivory Coast, and name your location) is bad, yes. That the international community can't act everywhere doesn't mean they shouldn't act anywhere, and the imminent and immediate crisis in Libya with its potential for tens or hundreds of thousands dead again made intervention there rather than exlsewhere a more pressing concern.

Point 3: Libya is a major concern to the EU; France and the UK are 2 of the 5 permanent UN Security Council members. Again recall this was the result of a UN resolution and is not the US acting unilaterally. Also I'm very sorry that you don't understand how oil markets actually work; if Libyan oil is unavailable for purchase, suddenly, to Europe, then Europeans will look elsewhere for the lost supply. Including countries that supply the US (which imports over half of its oil). Given limited supply increased demand competition will also drive up the world price for oil. (But again--oil isn't the sole reason for intervention; I'm not naive enough to think that it wasn't part of the consideration, but neither am I naive enough to think it's the entire reason.)

Point 4: Not comparable to Iraq. Was Saddam using military aircraft and tanks against Kurds in 2003? No? Then your comparison is specious and stupid and wrong.

Point 5: UN Security Council Resolution.

Point 6: The objective is to reduce or eliminate the threat posed to the people of Libya by Gaddafi's armed forces by eliminating his ability to employ them. The US is drastically reducing its participation and there are no plans to deploy ground forces. So you're wrong...again.

Point 7: the hardware is already bought and paid for out of past budgets. This is also a stupid and ignorant argument. (And you're comflating federal and state budgets; since when does the federal government hire teachers? Since never!)

[BzaDem]

36. Just because you claim the justifications of Iraq and Libya are the same doesn't make it true.

"Some have charged that the Libya action has a Neoconservative political odor. But the Neoconservatives hate the United Nations and wanted to destroy it. They went to war on Iraq despite the lack of UNSC authorization, in a way that clearly contravened the UN Charter. Their spokesman and briefly the ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, actually at one point denied that the United Nations even existed. The Neoconservatives loved deploying American muscle unilaterally, and rubbing it in everyone’s face. Those who would not go along were subjected to petty harassment. France, then deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz pledged, would be “punished” for declining to fall on Iraq at Washington’s whim.

The Libya action, in contrast, observes all the norms of international law and multilateral consultation that the Neoconservatives despise. There is no pettiness. Germany is not ‘punished’ for not going along. Moreover, the Neoconservatives wanted to exercise primarily Anglo-American military might in the service of harming the public sector and enforced ‘shock therapy’ privatization so as to open the conquered country to Western corporate penetration. All this social engineering required boots on the ground, a land invasion and occupation. Mere limited aerial bombardment cannot effect the sort of extreme-capitalist revolution they seek. Libya 2011 is not like Iraq 2003 in any way."

Juan Cole: http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html

"If you support this intervention for humanitarian reasons, please file your apology to George Bush at the door as you leave the anti-war camp"

Where did you get the idea that everyone opposed to the Iraq war was EVER in some sort of abstract general "anti-war" camp?

[quaker bill]

39. It did not become a war

when we arrived. The war existed, the only question was whether western powers would get involved.

All war is wrong. It does not become more wrong because we show up.

[DutchLiberal]

44. Why do I need to "file my apology to George Bush" for supporting rescuing the Libyan people?

It doesn't make sense at all. Bush said we were going to war in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world, since had supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Obama has been strategically bombing Libyan army vehicles to prevent Qaddafi from continuing his massacre after he had already slain about 6,000 of his own people. And there are no and will be no American boots on the ground in Libya.

So, where is the comparison? But why am I asking you this? You already said at the end of your OP: "That's my rant, and I'm sticking to it." Why come to a discussion forum if your intent is to not discuss? You have already made up your mind and you have already said no amount of facts can change that.

The only true thing in your post, is that last sentence. It is indeed a "rant". A well thought-through piece it is not.

[kudzu22]

55. I agree on every point

and I'll add one - or at least an addendum to point 5: No Congressional Authorization. The president does not declare war, and neither does the U.N. This is another thing that Bush did that our president neglected to do. The War Powers act allows the president to use the military against threats to the U.S. while he seeks Congressional approval, but I've seen noone argue that Libya was any kind of threat to the U.S.

P.S. Does anyone else find it ironic that the United Nations, a body created to prevent wars, is now used to start them?

[JoePhilly]

56. Let's go point by point.

1) NATO is going to take over the NFZ and protect the civilians.

2 and 3) In 2 you claim that this is about oil. In 3 you claim we don't get any from Libya. Those thoughts are OPPOSITES.

4) Silly. Bush added the humanitarian claim AFTER it became clear that there were no WMDs. The tight HATES to engage foreign countries on humanitarian grounds. Fail.

5) Also silly. The entire reason you ELECT people to the government is to make decisions. Unless you want to have a popular vote for everything.

6) Just wrong. Bush went to get no-existent WMDs. Period. No time line for YEARS. Obama's engagement here, on the order of 2-3 weeks, conducted jointly with the UN from the start, is now shifting to NATO control.

7) This is the only accurate point you make. But, the only reason deficits are important today is because we have a DEM in office. And that's the only time a deficit matters.

[DutchLiberal]

75. I wish I could rec' your post.

[zorahopkins]

88. Oh, Please

"Obama's engagement here, on the order of 2-3 weeks, conducted jointly with the UN from the start, is now shifting to NATO control."

I get so tired of hearing this talking point over and over again.

If ANYONE really things that the US does not control NATO, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell them.

"Shifting" this war "to NATO control" really means that the US will still be waging this war, but doing so through its control of NATO.

[JoePhilly]

91. ahhh ... NATO does not exist ... gotcha.

[OneBlueSky]

59. pretty much every war is wrong . . . especially if the U.S. is involved . . .

what war actually is, in the immortal words of Gen. Smedley Butler, is a racket . . . writing in the early 1930s after he was asked to take part in a military coup to overthrow the civilian government, Gen. Butler -- an unsung American hero -- wrote the following . . .

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

to support his contention that war is, always has been, and always will be a racket, he also wrote . . .

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

'nuff said . . .

[Hotler]

61. k&r n/t

[Catherina]

62. Rec'd. It couldn't possibly be more wrong n/t

[Little Star]

63. Oh, just stop all that making sense stuff! k&r

[jeff47]

64. Why #7 is wrong

You're buying into the Republican frame that the government is broke.

It's only broke because Republicans want claim it is broke, so that they can fire those teachers. Using their argument validates it. You've made it easier to fire those teachers, because you agree that the government is broke.

[trud]

65. Plus, there's pretty good evidence the rebels are al Qaeda

That area is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and any number of al Qaeda operatives in Iraq are from there.

Once again the U.S. demonstrates its brain power by taking out an enemy of its enemy.

Could we have a more stupid U.S., government? Maybe, but not by much. It's like being an ignoramus is a qualification to run for office.

[Taverner]

66. " Every Tomahawk missile fired is 18 teachers that don't get hired."

I think that hits the nail right on the head

[DutchLiberal]

74. No, it's a lazy false choice. Could've said: "every extension of the Bush tax cuts is..."

It's a false choice you people are propagating.

[Taverner]

79. Ah...Ik had een gevoel dat je hier zou zijn

...

[DutchLiberal]

84. Wat? Geen weerlegging van mijn post? Hoe wist ik nou dat zoiets zou gaan gebeuren?

[WatsonT]

99. Yes but would 18 new teachers give us cool clips to show on TV?

Would they distract from numerous domestic problems?

[QC]

117. You have a point.....

[Xenotime]

71. It's not a war.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. Neither was Iraq

at the beginning.

[zorahopkins]

87. Ah, Yes, It Is "Kinetic Military Action"

Truth really is the first victim of war.

[WatsonT]

100. Peace-missiles away!

[EFerrari]

80. Well done. nt

[malaise]

81. I agree 100%

Rec

[zorahopkins]

86. VERY Well Said!!

Thank you so much for posting this most excellent post.

[slay]

89. I agree

n/t

[krawhitham]

90. good to know you support genocide

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. Now there's a stupid and offensive allegation.

Of course the OP doesn't support genocide. And of course you don't think they do, you're just making a cheap, silly and rude rhetorical point.

[ProSense]

92. Three things

First, this is not a war and the U.N. Security Council under the U.N. Charter was formed to address atrocities like those carried out by Gaddafi.

4. If you support this intervention for humanitarian reasons, please file your apology to George Bush at the door as you leave the anti-war camp

Every reason given on humanitarian grounds to justify this war was also given by Bush regarding Iraq. I didn't believe these things then, and having them come out of the mouth of a nominal political ally doesn't make them any more true now than they were then.

The Iraq war was not a humanitarian mission.

7. We don't have the money

You know, Chinese slaves work very hard so that their government can accumulate money by trading away the fruits of their labor that they then lend to us in exchange for pieces of paper they will be pretty pissed off about when they finally realize they are worthless so that we can spend that money on big-ass ships, guns, and planes and bring the critical federal budget failure moment of truth all the closer in time.

Every Tomahawk missile fired is 18 teachers that don't get hired.

The missiles were paid for years ago and this mission is being paid for out of funds already allocated.

<...>

To date, the United States has spent some $225 million firing Tomahawk missiles, according to CNN estimates based on U.S. Navy figures.

The cost could reach up to $800 million to fully establish the no-fly zone and another $100 million a week to maintain it going forward, said Zack Cooper, a senior analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

link

Even if the cost of the operation climbs to $2 billion, it pales in comparison to the cost of maintaining operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The cost of Afghanistan and Iraq for this year alone is 150 times the projected cost of this operation. Add the cost of Afghanistan for the next three years, and it's at least 450 times more.

Again, the costs, even $2 billion, would still come out of defense discretionary funds (nothing to do with additional debt), and the missiles were paid for years ago (also not related to additional debt).

Replacing the missiles? They do it anyway when they expire, and still, the cost of replacing 200 of them would be negligible in relation to the savings that could be achieved by ending the Afghanistan war.

The cost of saving lives is not a trade off for saving teachers' jobs. The U.S. can afford to do both.

[Dappleganger]

93. Yes, yes, YES!

Your rant is righteous, indeed!

[gracchorumspes]

94. Seems like you got right... REC

This is not exactly a humanitarian effort, only a civil war with a convenient veneer. One side, Gaddafi, a man with monster's face, the other side, the rebels, monsters with the face of men. Maybe if the conflict were simpler, a humble Good vs. Evil rumble in the desert, would suffice, and put our minds at ease. I like those, need them, but the world presents so many mixtures and blends, nuance is the theme of the universe. So, the innocent folks caught in the middle, suffer and gain from both sides in a civil war--such as occurs in Libya. What the US and Europe could do, if a humanitarian spirit so behooves them, is to encourage--if not brow-beat--the rebels as must as possible to develop the best characteristics and qualities, to not be the next Gaddafi, or Saddam, or tyrant-on-deck. Perhaps a better ending would emerge than what we may envision, which is Gaddafi's regime intact (and more brutal and paranoid than ever), a little Jugurtha on our hands; and on the other side, the rebels, unknown, faceless, and with no certain guarantee of good intentions for the entirety of the Libyan nation. Tripoli delenda est, sure, but at what cost?

[spanone]

95. bu$h* LIED about wmd.....

[mcollins]

97. Is killing people wrong?

Yes.

But too many people then continue of with "However, sometimes..."

If something is wrong it is wrong. Justification simply leads to doing wrong.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

121. The answer to your question is "sometimes", not "yes".

If something is wrong then it is wrong.

If something is almost always, but not absolutely always, wrong then it is almost always, not absolutely always, wrong.

Killing people is almost always, but not absolutely always, wrong.

[Ramulux]

106. Great post

I have been trying to get these points through to people on here for over a week and its not working too well.

[sarcasmo]

111. Kick.

[ncteechur]

112. You are a dumb-ass. Nothing you said has anything to do with this action.

I don't consider this a war. Not every military action is a war.

When Jimmy Carter tried to rescue the Iranian hostages, was that a war? (even though it didn't work) No.

When GHWBush went after Noriega. Was that a war? Nope.

I suggest you climb down off your self-righteous high horse.

[grahamhgreen]

113. 45,000 dead every year in the US because of no health care. 123/day. How we gonna pay for the war?

[olegramps]

115. Can I suppose that you would have remained silent when Jews were being exterminated?

The citizens of Libya mounted a peaceful protest against a vicious tyrant and he responded with brutal military reprisals against his own people. I can't help from wondering if you would also remain silent if the same action was taken by our own government? There is little doubt in my mind after visiting some right-wing sites that they would not hesitate to slaughter anyone who disagrees with their homophobic, evangelical, corporatism idiocy.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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