Do you think the United States was justified in supporting regime change in Libya?

[Cali_Democrat]

Poll question: Do you think the United States was justified in supporting regime change in Libya?

[socialshockwave]

1. What would you rather have?

A government that has a chance to build peaceful relations with other countries, including the West - which if the rebels are any indication, it could happen.

Or a government based on encouraging and endorsing radical Islamic terrorism world-wide in an effort to overthrow quote un-quote "imperialism" - and someone who would threaten genocide on his own people?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Many people used the same logic when attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq

No?

[socialshockwave]

5. To be fair, this time it is different, no?

We KNOW that Gaddafi backs terrorism.

We KNOW that he's threatened to slaughter his own people who disagree with him.

Hell, I'll even be selfish and say - he's got the oil! If that falls into the hands of Al Quaeda, that could be a VERY BAD thing.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Yes, it's different

The invasion of Iraq was pretty much a unilateral adventure.

[dflprincess]

11. We also know that he threatend to nationalize the oil fields

something that would make certain western interests very, very unhappy as that could cut into their profits.

[CleanGreenFuture]

74. Could you link that please. I'll also do a search.

[bhikkhu]

82. He nationalized the oil fields long ago

what he wanted to do was to renegotiate the contracts, which weren't yielding as much as they should have, given the new "norm" of high oil prices. That gets done routinely all over the place in response to changes in the market.

[Mimosa]

125. How many DUers will cheer when CIA/NSA topples Chavez?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/world/americas/04venezuela.html

Qaddafi and Chavez started talking. They were figuring out a resistance. That couldn't be allowed.

[bhikkhu]

147. It doesn't matter who cheers, but I'd have the most respect for Chavez -

if he leaves a strong party, prepares a successor, and then allows democracy to move on there.

I like him in many ways, but I think that the old saw about "power corrupts" is very true, there is a good reason for term limits everywhere, and that a good leader is one who doesn't suck up all the oxygen, so to speak, and leave a vacuum in his wake. I would judge him by how he leaves power, and partly by how his successors govern.

[spooked911]

153. believe propaganda much?

jeesh.

[Octafish]

163. PNAC by any other name is still PNAC.

Yes. Ask William Kristol, Combover Donald or Dick Cheney -- America's owners should be in charge of Libya's oil and whatever else is worth stealing.

[EFerrari]

13. The rebels killed one of their own leaders. Good luck with that.

And AQ hated Qaddafi.

[tabatha]

33. Yep, ANC supporters necklaced their own.

But that should not and was not used to broad-brush and denigrate Mandela, Tutu or any of the straight-shooters in the ANC. Hell, even Winnie Mandela, closest to Mandela, was involved in some shady dealings. But that was not used to denigrate the good people of the ANC.

That is just the statistics of human populations - most are good, but there are always the fringe elements.

The actions of the few SHOULD NOT be applied to the many.

[EFerrari]

60. Comparing these people to the ANC is offensive, really. n/t

[joshcryer]

77. Still trying to spread the rebels are evil meme? Hey, they arrested Saif...

...which you wanted Obama to do with Bin Laden. :rofl:

God this is so good.

[tabatha]

84. How is that offensive?

I was giving an example of human behavior, and why it is wrong to broad-brush.

What do you mean by "these people"?

[EFerrari]

113. Stating that these "rebels" killed their own leader is not a broad brush, it's a fact.

And comparing these "rebels" who cleansed Benghazi black neighborhoods, massacred black immigrant workers and leave threats of racial cleansing in their wake to the ANC who worked for eighty years to gain social justice for black South Africans is not only insensitive but also massive puffery.

[stevenleser]

122. The French killed the leader of their Revolution too, Robespierre. They didnt turn out so badly

or am I just a hopeless Francophile?

[joshcryer]

126. Younes was a far cry from a leader, he was a torturer who bailed.

Over time if Libya can become a liberal democracy then many of the defectors will be tried (it could be a decade or more but it's the eventuality if you have the Latin American countries to go by).

[stevenleser]

128. Oh, I agree, but I was responding to the other poster who suggested that a movement that kills their

leader has to be bad or will likely have bad results in the longterm.

[joshcryer]

123. Can you provide supporting links other than Mathaba? Or Forte?

No? Didn't think so.

[tabatha]

154. Yes, it is a broad brush.

It was not ALL of the rebels "those people".
I heard that it was a revenge killing because Younis was responsible for the death of the father of the two who took him out.

There were LOTS MORE revenge killings in South Africa - look at all of the White Farmers, over 1,000 that were killed.
The crime rate in South Africa is the worst in the world. I can guarantee that the crime in Libya of "those people" will never come close.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ci1ge4

[tabatha]

157. Please provide a link:

"rebels" who cleansed Benghazi black neighborhoods


And by the way, I know three people who have been shot in South Africa, two of them my sister's kids, one of whom died. Despite that I would never label (broad-brush) South Africans as "those people", because I know that there are good people in that country, whom I know too.

[EFerrari]

159. This blog references multiple mainstream news outlets

covering this issue.
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/

And Glen Ford wrote about it last week:

http://warisacrime.org/content/black-libya-city-said-fall-rebel-siege

[LLStarks]

2. The US should be a force for good. Our participation in Libya didn't even cost us a billion dollars.

Staying in the air and engaging in cheap wars isn't all that bad even if it continues our imperialism.

[dkf]

7. It encourages more involvement, ensuring more of these adventures.

How can we say stay out of Iraq but topple Qaddafi? It is incoherent.

[joshcryer]

20. The UN knew what it was getting in to when it created R2P.

Liberals wanted R2P (see: Darfur, etc) and now that they got it they want to become isolationists. :rofl:

[dkf]

25. Nope. I don't care if it's a big or small job.

How can we say cut defense spending? The hypocrisy is stomach curdling.

[joshcryer]

35. Huh? Cost so far for Libya = 2 weeks of air conditioners in Iraq.

Laughable.

[Davis_X_Machina]

Recent events have a role on peoples' response to R2P...

The high-water mark of the blogospheric left was the run-up to, and the US kicking off, the Iraq war. It was the Spitfire summer for a lot of people still blogging. They’ll see everything in that context the rest of their lives.

Iraq will cast as long, and the same kind of shadow on the left that Vietnam cast on the right.

And there are a lot of people who learned, thirty, forty years ago, one particular set of prisms through which to look at events, and one particular set of categories to fit things into.

And they’ll be damned if they have to change, or even re-examine them.

[joshcryer]

38. Iraq fucked everything up, I completely agree.

[Raksha]

89. The Libyan people ASKED for our help against Gaddafi!

They not only asked but begged for a no-fly zone. The Iraqis not only didn't ask but didn't want any help in toppling Saddam, especially not when that "help" came in the form of a brutal invasion and occupation. Doesn't that count for anything? I don't understand this false equivalence.

[grahamhgreen]

26. Right, so what if grannies are eating out of garbage cans.

[Schema Thing]

3. where is the "Hell Yes" option?

[mvd]

6. Remains to be seen. Haven't had many good..

outcomes over there. Bad regimes can be followed by bad regimes that toe the line. Surely though it is already better than Iraq and Afghanistan because of the lower costs. I'm just weary of our imperialism.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Yep. Only time will tell, let's hope for the best. nt

[gateley]

57. It's an unbelievable first step - and it will be a process, to be sure.

I wish them all the best.

[dkf]

10. You need to ask if they support going into Syria next.

[Pirate Smile]

40. Is the Arab League & UNSC supporting the intervention of an international alliance to enforce the

imposition of a "No-Fly Zone" plus a mandate to protect civilians in Syria? If not then it is extremely doubtful.

[dkf]

124. If so will you support it?

[pampango]

142. If the United Nations authorized it (which is unlikely given threatened vetos from Russia and China)

I would support the UN. But not under any other circumstances would an intervention in Syria be acceptable. No country, e.g. the US, the UK, France or Turkey (the most likely candidates) should intervene there unilaterally.

Russia and China protected the military government in Burma in 2007 by vetoing UN efforts to condemn the crackdown there on civilian protesters and have done so for the government of Syria so far. I haven't seen any sign that either country is reconsidering its support for the Syrian ruler so any UN action is very unlikely since it would require the consent of the Security Council where Russia and China have vetoes.

In the long run a stronger, more effective United Nations implementing R2P is a good thing.

[dameocrat67]

12. trick question since they did not just support regime change they bombed the country

n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

21. At first the goal was to establish a no fly zone in Libya to prevent Gadaffi from attacking...

his people.

Then the goal morphed into regime change.

[county worker]

14. Does anyone else see it as ironic that we are celebrating their increase in democracy

while we are losing ours?

[EFerrari]

47. That is a consequence of imperialism as Chalmers Johnson used to say. n/t

[bhikkhu]

83. Well, let them breathe the free air for once in their lives

and go forward with all opportunity and hope open to them.

I hope they cling to that feeling and never forget...maybe they'll let us know what its like?

[stevenleser]

97. That is not correct.

If economic disparity and control by the wealthy is your definition of losing Democracy, most Middle Eastern, African and Latin American countries have that much worse than we do and Libya is and will be no exception.

[county worker]

148. When you go to vote in 2012 and your candidate has the most votes but loses

come and talk to me.

When a corporation can have more say in an election than the citizens, we are losing democracy.

When your representative gives more respect to his/her corporate sponsors we have lost democracy.

When you have no more control over your country's destiny because what you want doesn't matter any more, you have lost democracy.

[Recovered Repug]

15. Does "support" require direct involvement?

Where is it written that the US has to stick it's nose in every damn place?

[CoffeeCat]

16. NO--This is more of the neocon/PNAC grand plan...

If you read the PNAC/neocon plan, which they were audacious enough to put up on their website--you will see that Libya was part of their plan. They laid it out
and the countries that would be toppled---Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria. Iraq would get them their foothold in the Middle East, and the rest of the countries would
follow. This plan would give them the military positioning and resources to begin to control this portion of the world.

They spelled it all out.

Why in the hell would I spend my time justifying this sick, atrocious pile of dung? Yes. You could justify invading many countries. Sure, there are dozens upon
dozens of countries with horrible dictators, terrible conditions and injustice happening. That's not the point. Sure, you can justify it. These neocon, warmongering
shills run a great marketing campaign.

The problem is, their end game is not to help anyone, or to "free people" or "liberate them" or "remove ruthless dictators". The neocons want to plunder the
resources in this region and dominate militarily in this part of the world. That's what they're doing.

I won't be a part of propping up this neocon baloney--no matter how pretty a story EITHER party cooks up to sell it to the American people.

So......NO.

[shanti]

17. exactly, thanks for the reminder!

it ain't over till it's over for PNAC.

[PoliticAverse]

75. They even got their 'Perl Harbor'... n/t

[woo me with science]

80. Excellent post. nt

[sabrina 1]

107. Thank you. How quickly we forget!

The PNACers are celebrating tonight.

[joshcryer]

18. Do you think the United States was justified in supporting regime change in Egypt?

[Cali_Democrat]

23. The US never bombed Egypt. n/t

[joshcryer]

30. Egypt never fired on protestors and threatened to kill them "house by house."

[Cali_Democrat]

36. They did, but the US was never militarily involved in Egypt

My question was more specific to military support.

Sorry for the confusion.

[joshcryer]

39. When did Mubarak advocate clensing Egypt house by house?

[Cali_Democrat]

44. When? What date?

I'm not sure.

[joshcryer]

48. You can't substantiate with a link?

[Cali_Democrat]

52. I'm not sure about your "house to house" quote

But I do recall regime-supported violence being perpetrated against folks in Egypt.

[joshcryer]

59. You're not sure? You asked a general question about "regime change."

Not about military support. You're back peddling because the position is untenable. Had you asked about "military support" your question would be a lot less loaded.

[Cali_Democrat]

62. I did mean military support

Sorry for the confusion

[joshcryer]

65. Yes, I know what you meant, it's clear the question was loaded.

[Cali_Democrat]

71. I apologize for the confusion.

[shoutinfreud]

79. WHAT?! It was all over the news when he said that.

He put an order out to kill all men between 10 and 60 (fighting age). I never heard anyone seriously suggest egypt be given military support, but their army did refuse orders to kill demonstrators.

[sabrina 1]

136. Mubarak killed nearly 900 protestors, unarmed, peaceful

protestors and untold numbers were jailed and tortured. You really don't know what you are talking about do you, which is why I pay little attention to your pretty-late-to-the party 'coverage' of this latest Western backed debacle.

Mubarak is currently on trial for the murder of his own people DURING the Revolution, and will also be tried for the decades long brutality inflicted his people, if such charges are also brought against him.

The Libyan 'protestors' by contrast, were armed. The Egyptians and Tunisians, (more than 300 were killed in Tunisia) were unarmed, they received no help from the West and did not want it.

They had the greatest weapon of all, which the Libyan 'rebels' did not have, the support of a majority of their people and therefore did not need outside help.

Right up to nearly the end of the Egyptian uprising, the Obama Administration was still trying to keep Mubarak in power. And the same thing with Ben Ali in Tunisia. Both loyal servants of the US, but brutal to their own people for far too long.

[joshcryer]

140. 135 were confirmed protestors, over 17+ days. Gaddafi killed a thousand...

...protesters in a week.

Meanwhile Egypt has a population of 82 million contrasted with the population of Libya of around 6.5 million. Have a sense of proportion.

Just because you have a gun does not magically make you "not a protester." Particularly if you're carrying that gun because you were being shot at as the ICC has evidence for.

edit: By "Egypt never fired on protesters" the Egyptian military did not attack the protesters, that is different from what happened in Libya where the military did attack protesters.

Fact is the Egyptian uprising was http://www.revolutionnow.us/node/398">planned for quite some time according to Wikileaks.

[sabrina 1]

143. The Egyptian protestors never fired on the Egyptian military.

And of course it was planned. Who said it wasn't? But it was planned by Egyptians. Not the US, France or anyone other Western Imperial Colonialists.

Egypt does have a large population and a vast majority were on the side of the protestors. That is why the uprising lasted only weeks, with no outside help. That is why they have a chance of creating a real democracy. However, already the US et al are there trying to get a puppet installed to do their bidding, but the protestors expected that and are not going to be giving up any time soon. Sooner or later the West is going to have to accept that they are NOT WANTED in other people's countries.

Think about that. The US is trying to bully its way into Egypt's business even though they wanted Mubarak to stay. What an insult to those who laid down their lives. And you think they will just go home now that they helped end the Qadaffi regime's reign and invested money and weapons and manpower?

By contrast, with a much smaller population, it took over six months, armed and with money and arms flowing in from France and elsewhere, plus NATO helping (against the terms of the UN resolution btw, but who cares about such things these days) for the Libyans with all that help to finally succeed. Because they did NOT have the full support of the Libyan people nor of the military. The Egyptian military did not attack the protestors because the uprising was a very popular one, unlike Libya.

Egyptian students refused to meet with Hillary Clinton recently, also Tunisians, when she visited stating, correctly, that the US had supported Mubarak (and Ben Ali) for decades as he brutalized his people and that the US must apologize to the Egyptian people.

I have a feeling the Libyan 'rebels' will not be asking for any apology from the US for their support of Qadaffi. But I'm sure they will be asking for money and 'peace-keeping' assistance. Or that's what we will be told. I truly wish that this was a real independent rebellion with no strings attached to the duplicitous, untrustworthy, Western Colonialists, but I'm not that naive anymore.

[joshcryer]

19. Do you think the United States was justified in supporting regime change in Tunisia?

[Cali_Democrat]

27. The US never bombed Tunisia. n/t

[joshcryer]

31. Tunisia never fired on protestors and threatened to kill them "house by house."

[Cali_Democrat]

37. They did, but the US was never militarily involved in Tunisia

My question was more specific to military support.

[joshcryer]

41. When did Ben Ali advocate clensing Tunisia house by house?

[Cali_Democrat]

45. When? What date?

I'm not sure.

[joshcryer]

49. You can't substantiate with a link?

[Cali_Democrat]

53. I'm not sure about your "house to house" quote

But I do recall regime-supported violence being perpetrated against folks in Tunisia.

[joshcryer]

61. You're not sure? You asked a general question about "regime change."

Not about military support. You're back peddling because the position is untenable. Had you asked about "military support" your question would be a lot less loaded.

[Cali_Democrat]

64. I did mean military support

Sorry for the confusion.

[joshcryer]

66. Yes, I know what you meant, it's clear the question was loaded.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. I apologize for the confusion.

[grahamhgreen]

22. You YES votes are jumping the gun - we don't know what the future holds. Could get fugly.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. I agree with you, although the success (or lack thereof) doesn't determine if its justified or not

[scheming daemons]

24. 24% of DUers were apparently in favor of 200,000+ dead in Benghazi

Interesting.

[joshcryer]

32. That's unclear, but it's certain 24% of DUers favor protracted civil war.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Being opposed to US policy of regime change in Liby does not mean you favor a protracted civil war.

nt

[joshcryer]

50. That is patently false, as it's clear the civil war ended very quickly.

[Cali_Democrat]

58. It's possible to be opposed to overt US policy of regime change, especially militarily

While not wanting a protracted civil war.

[joshcryer]

63. It's impossible to be against UN R2P actions and against protracted civil wars.

[Cali_Democrat]

70. What's UN R2P?

[joshcryer]

76. Holy fucking shit. You've got to be kidding me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Libya was the first time R2P was invoked since it was adopted in 2005. (They tried with Burma but China and Russia wouldn't have it, total cost of lives there was 50 thousand people and growing.)

[Cali_Democrat]

81. I have heard of responsibility to protect

I just didn't realize that's what you meant with the abbreviation.

Sorry.

[stevenleser]

94. It's not US policy, it is UN policy. You seem to keep forgetting that. n/t

[eridani]

145. What makes you think that won't still happen?

Many of the rebels are eager to do as they have been done by.

[dkf]

34. I don't want to see you complaining about military spending ever again.

If you really want to be saving everyone then that is the price we pay. So pay it and suck it up.

[Modern_Matthew]

43. Amen. Keeping another nation's citizens alive thousands of miles away...

Isn't worth one cent cut from any of our social programs here at home.

[pinboy3niner]

46. What a nonsensical reply

Nice way to distort what was said and invent something that was not said. Way to go! :sarcasm:

[scheming daemons]

51. The entire Libyan operation by US forces cost less than 1/6 of 1% of the DOD annual budget

Jeesus, that was the dumbest response ever.


Libya cost our DOD about $1 billion so far. Out of a $600 billion annual budget.


$1 billion to save 200,000 lives? Damn worth it.

[CelticThunder]

56. And I'm sure you would have supported it had it been a Bush war, too.

[scheming daemons]

67. Like Clinton and Kosovo, the goal was achieved without a *SINGLE* U.S. casualty

Bush's wars caused Americans to die and budgets to be busted.

[joshcryer]

72. Exactly.

[CelticThunder]

87. So you would have supported it if Bush did it?

[CelticThunder]

86. Is that a yes?

[eridani]

146. Well whoopdedoo. Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo that might have happened= bad

Ethnic cleansing of the Krajina that actually did happen = good. Enabling one and blocking the other for imperialist reasons is disgusting.

No one seems to be crying over Bahrain, I notice. Since we can't save the whole world, let's just save the profitable parts.

[joshcryer]

68. I would have if Bush went about it as Obama did, but he would've had ground troops.

Long occupation, etc.

[CelticThunder]

88. So you would have supported a Bush war if he did it in a way you approved of?

[joshcryer]

91. I would've supported a UN R2P action that followed the desires of the askers.

That is, if they had asked for ground troops, it would be OK, but they refused ground troops, and Obama agreed. Bush would have sent ground troops anyway.

[stevenleser]

93. Yes, those of us who support our involvement in Libya would support it regardless.

I supported Afghanistan but not Iraq. The circumstances matter, not who is in the White House.

You are spouting a tired old meme that seeks to spin this in a way favorable to your attempt to bash the President and his supporters.

[dkf]

90. You think we would have the ability to do this is we weren't already spending a ton of money?

Yeah I'm sure Japan had the capabilities we did and could have easily stepped in right?

We were able to do this because we had all this experience bombing the hell out of Iraq.

[Modern_Matthew]

28. Legally justified? Yes. Handled it well? Yes. Do I support interventionism? No. nt

[totodeinhere]

29. Rhetorically supporting regime change - yes. Getting militarily involved in the civil war - I am

not so sure.

[CelticThunder]

54. Hell to the fucking no.

[McCamy Taylor]

69. Yes, if we do not stick around stealing their oil after the fact.

[joshcryer]

78. There are no ground occupation forces in Libya.

[tabatha]

85. The TNC has said that oil contracts before the war

will remain the same after the war.

Please wait for a crime to occur before charging with a crime.

[stevenleser]

92. I disagree with the question framing. It's like asking if North Carolina should have sent troops

that are based at various bases in the state to duty in WWII.

When the UN calls for action, it is the responsibility of the member states that are signitaries to the UN Charter to carry out UN Resolutions to the best of their ability.

The proper question is, Do you think the United Nations was justified in supporting regime change in Libya.

But that question doesn't allow people to direct their rage at their target of choice no matter that said rage is misdirected in this case.

[joshcryer]

104. Yes, early on I made a poll to that effect. The OP is loading the question. Here's my poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x694407

[stevenleser]

108. Yes, your poll is much more on point. But as I said, it doesnt allow those who want to attack

the US the opportunity to do so.

[joshcryer]

110. Precisely. US hate fuels discussion here, unfortunately.

[joshcryer]

112. BTW, I also created a "control" poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x701030

It was very promising to me back when this thing started, probably contributed to my wanting to cover Libya. That it meant something to some people.

[EFerrari]

117. That question is also easy. No, the UN has no business supporting regime change

anywhere. It is not supposed to be a political body.

The UN's reputation is even more tattered now than it was before, if that's possible. And to pretend that the UN has any power independent of the United States is disingenuous. Your argument is basically a shell game.

[stevenleser]

152. And you are completely incorrect in that assertion. The UN is exactly supposed to be doing that

If the rest of the world believes a particular government is toxic, the UN is where that should be decided and a plan to remove that government hatched.

[GSLevel9]

95. I can't believe so many liberals and progressives

support ANY kind of military aggression to change a nations leadership...

So for all the war fans...

How about China, Syria, Iran and most of Africa? you all ready to go kill people to install new leaders? Hmmmmm... ?? Didn't think so,

[stevenleser]

98. I can't believe so many liberals and progressives want to ignore the UN's leadership on this

There is a good analogy with criminal justice here.

Is it right for you to grab someone on the street who you think has done something wrong, and imprison them in your house for a time you deem fit for punishment?

No, but the criminal justice system here is allowed to do that by Constitutional authority.

It is not right for a nation state to go to war against another state unilaterally.

However, the nations of the world created the UN and signed the UN treaty establishing the UN as the body that determines what is right and wrong in terms of the actions of nation states with regard to one another.

When the UN says it is important that the people of a country be protected against its government with force if necessary, it is not only legal and moral (by definition) to do so, there is a responsibility to do so by all the countries who are signatories to the UN Charter.

If you disagree with that, the proper response is either to call for the US to withdraw from the UN, or to lead an effort to change the UN into something that you feel is better.

[GSLevel9]

100. but innocent die! Or is the collateral damage OK? nt

[stevenleser]

101. There are international laws that cover all of that. Just like collateral damage in a police

shootout with criminals. If the police should have been more careful, they get brought up on charges and fired and possibly prosecuted.

[stevenleser]

102. There are international laws that cover all of that. Just like collateral damage in a police

shootout with criminals. If the police should have been more careful, they get brought up on charges and fired and possibly prosecuted.

[joshcryer]

106. Aggression != intervention. A husband is beating his wife, do you intervene?

If you don't you're not a liberal in my mind.

[stevenleser]

109. Or worse, a parent severely beating a toddler. Do you intervene?

Like you said, if you dont, you are not a liberal.

[GSLevel9]

164. better scenario...

man is beating his wife on a bus... do you throw a grenade onto the bus to stop him?

[ZombieHorde]

96. I don't know. There are different ways of looking at the situation.

One way is to only look at the current situation in Libya at this time.

Another way is to look at the US' current military trends. Is our current military philosophy helping more people than it's harming?

Another way of looking at the situation could be based on our relationship with the UN. Does obedience to the UN ultimately make the world a better place for humans?

I don't know. I am probably too tired to be posting anything anyway.

[Yupster]

99. I think the most lasting impact of the invasion

will be the precedent of the president ignoring the War Powers Act. Other presidents have said they could ignore it, but they grudgingly complied. Now we finally have the precedent of just telling congress to f**k off.

[stevenleser]

105. Its a precedent of limited use.

The precedent is if you dont have ground troops in a conflict and are not participating in a particularly large way in a conflict, you dont have to inform congress.

I cannot think of any conflict since war powers was passed where this precedent would have helped.

[Yupster]

111. Why would a different president agree with your interpretation of

the precedent?

Another president could just as easily interpret the act as null and void since President Obama ignored it and congress didn't act against him.

[stevenleser]

115. Why would anyone obey any law?

Some will obey because they respect it, and some will disregard everything they think they can get away with disregarding. Some President will push it too far and congress will threaten to impeach him and that is where the line will or will not get drawn.

There are only two constitutional checks on a President that matter, Veto and Impeachment.

[Waiting For Everyman]

103. Absolutely yes, justified. I can't believe so many liberals support keeping a thing like Gaddafi

in power. It's shameful and blind. We did not start this. But to refuse to help the Libyan people when THEY rise up to be rid of him would be sheer nonsense.

That would have been the same as backing him and supporting his regime against the people. Liberals who are willing to be on Gaddafi's side for any reason against the people need to be asking themselves some quesitons. "Politics makes strange bedfellows" but that is downright sickening.

[EFerrari]

114. Um, "the people" did not unanimously rise up against Qaddafi

that's simply wrong.

And you must be very young if this story doesn't seem very familiar to you.

[stevenleser]

116. The UN disagrees with you. n/t

[EFerrari]

118. The UN had no business intervening in Libya and has only harmed itself

by doing so.

[stevenleser]

119. Its the UN's business to do exactly that, intervene in the issues of countries. n/t

[EFerrari]

120. No, the United Nations was not established to erode the sovereignty of nations. n/t

[stevenleser]

127. It is one of the powers of the UN as a collective body to do that. Yes.

The UN has the power to sit in judgement of a country and determine if that country has the right to remain sovereign.

[joshcryer]

131. R2P was precedent where national sovereignty heeds to human rights.

A very liberal and leftist position.

Which totalitarian leftists apparently dislike.

[stevenleser]

135. They are annoyed in general that the argument is no longer about the US n/t

[stevenleser]

132. Not only that, if you want wars not to occur, you WANT the UN to be able to do this.

You want regime change or judgement of countries to be left to the UN and not to unilateral action by individual states.

Just like you want law enforcement to be done entirely within the criminal justice system and not by vigilantes. Its an important step in getting crime/wars under control.

[EFerrari]

133. Rubbish. n/t

[stevenleser]

134. And by that I take it you are admitting defeat. Very well, I accept your debate surrender. nt

[EFerrari]

144. First it's too early for you to sprain something with self congratulation.

Second, no, the UN was not set up to allow the recolonization of nations and people. That's neoliberal fiction you're peddling, at best.

And third, the United States rarely even recognizes international law so the hypocrisy ratio here is top heavy.

[stevenleser]

151. Nope, a one word non-answer is a pretty clear capitulation n/t

[joshcryer]

130. The UN has invoked R2P for the first time and strengthened the ICC (Saif will likely be tried).

[Selatius]

138. Months of civil war between two warring factions indicate otherwise.

Gaddhafi's supporters are melting away into the background at this point, taking off their uniforms and leaving their weapons behind to melt back into the population at large.

[joshcryer]

129. Dishonest. Of the 25 largest Libyan cities, 21 were reported to be in open revolt.

The ease at which Tripoli was taken proves you absolutely wrong.

[Waiting For Everyman]

139. Nonsense, and I'm 61. Been news-informed since Eisenhower, thanx.

"Unanimously"? :rofl: When and where would that ever happen?

[Arrowhead2k1]

121. I'm on the fence. It all depends as to what kind of country the Libyans get moving forward.

It's too bad NATO had to interfere, but who knows what Gaddafi would have done if he rolled into Benghazi that day. We all were cheering NATO to stop him. Nato has obviously overreached their mandate now, but in the end all we can do is hope that Libya actually becomes a free and open country because of it. We will see.

[ellisonz]

137. Yes.

[lamp_shade]

141. Yes... absolutely.

[Dappleganger]

149. What did "support" mean, actually?

Creating sanctions against the Libyan government, speaking out against civilian attacks, urging arrests to be made by the Hague...this I support.

Anything involving the military or guarding oil fields, NO.

[MilesColtrane]

150. When it became clear that the only way to stop that regime from...

killing its people was to oust it, it was justified.

[DesMoinesDem]

155. Apparently there are a lot of born-again neocons here.

"He came to me to make sure I was supporting his sound policies. Of course, since his sound policies are more like the policies people like me have been advocating for quite a while, I’m happy to support them. He’s a born-again neo-con.” -Bill Kristol talking about Obama's actions in Libya

[stevenleser]

156. Nah, I would say there are a lot of people who use superficial analysis to come to that conclusion

nt

[MilesColtrane]

160. Bill Kristol?

Really?

[bvar22]

158. I voted "NO".

I can NOT support dropping Freedom Bombs for "Regime Change" unless those who are Lobbying For It can tell me specifically WHO or WHAT they want to "Regime Change" to.

The fact that Gaddafi is a Monomaniacal Dictator is NOT a good enough reason.
So was Saddam,
and we all know what happened there.
The Global Oil Corporations now OWN the Oil Fields,
and Iraq has been turned into a Free Market Hell.
SEE: The Iraqi Oil Law

The "Rebels" we supported in Afghanistan turned out to be The Taliban.

The history of US Military Intervention in the Middle East (or anywhere else) over the last 50 years is NOT good.
NEVER has our government told us "The Truth",
and none of these "interventions" has the benefited "democracy" or the common good of the citizens of those countries.

”Gaddafi is the perfect villain for this Anglo-French-American farce unworthy of French playwright Georges Feydeau. For all his dictatorial megalomania, Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity. Libya was not in debt to international bankers. It did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustment". It used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries. Its independent central bank was not manipulated by the Western financial system. All in all a very bad example for the developing world.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD27Ak01.html

The Bullet points:
*Gaddafi is a committed pan-African - a fierce defender of African unity.
(African resources ore FOR Africans, NOT Global Corporations)

*Libya was not in debt to international bankers

*Libya did not borrow cash from the International Monetary Fund for any "structural adjustments"(Privatization)

*Libya used oil money for social services - including the Great Man Made River project, and investment/aid to sub-Saharan countries

*Libya provided funds to African countries so that they could avoid hocking their resources to the IMF

Unless someone can explain WHAT we are killing FOR, I will NEVER support the use of our taxpayer funded Military Resources.

....So get on with your MISSION ACCOMPLISHED Victory Parade.:party:
History has taught me to NEVER have Blind Trust in our government,
or the use of our military for ANYTHING beyond the Defense of our Country.


("They" didn't even bother to change The Marketing for this one.)
If you're not FOR the New OIL WAR in Libya,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi!!!

[CJvR]

161. Schadenfreude!

I do so enjoy the agony of Gaddaif's cheerleaders and their bitter malice toward the Libyan people, passionately hoping for their revolution to fail.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

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

[stevenleser]

165. Wrong. The governing body that all nations agree should be in charge of such things gave their OK

That is a completely different scenario.

[Scurrilous]

166. ..

:kick: