Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Where does DU stand on the Libyan Conflict?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:20 AM
Original message
Poll question: Where does DU stand on the Libyan Conflict?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 08:35 AM by Pharaoh

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'd like to see the country's name spelled correctly, for starters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Good one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I have also seen about
14 different ways to spell Gaddafi. Which one do you prefer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's all about oil? Libya was pumping oil freely
The ignorance on DU about basic world affairs is astounding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. And the Neocons want to make sure it KEEPS pumping oil freely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. The best way to keep pumping oil freely is not to destabilize the area
The idea that it is "all about oil" is one of the most ignorant things I've read here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. The region was already "de-stabilized" by the revolution. We are there to protect the stake of the

oil companies. I think the administration knows Gadhafi is going down and they want to make sure that once the revolutionaries have control of the oil fields they won't stop production. There will be millions of dollars in no-bid contracts awarded to KBR, Blackwater, and Halliburton to repair/modernize the oil fields when this thing is all over with. Lost of nation building to insure that the new leadership is sympathetic to the American cause of... cheap oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Keeping Gadhafi in power would do more than supporting the revolutionaries
Your argument has no logical flow to it. If your only goal is to secure more oil, you dont intervene in a conflict to help overthrow the guy providing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. They can't support Gadhafi now that he's turned on the people, that'd be bad for PR

And I seriously doubt the UN would have supported us backing Gadhafi. So regardless of what the DLC is saying, we are there to secure the oil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. No need to support Gadhafi. Could have stayed neutral
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 10:18 AM by Very_Boring_Name
The "it's all about oil" people are intellectually lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zinnisking Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Every post of yours in this thread, bar none, includes an insult.
4: "The ignorance on DU...."

9: "...one of the most ignorant things I've read here."

15: "...no logical flow..."

22: "...intellectually lazy."

It has a comedic irony to it. A smart person wouldn't need to hide behind an insult. You can't manage one post without it.

Your name is apropos. ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Very_Boring_Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. I call it like I see it
If that upsets you, I'll mail you a box of Kleenex
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erose999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. Staying neutral while "unrest" goes on is bad for the market. And what if the rebels succeed and

decide they want BP running their oil business for them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. then the US would not be intervening. The circular logic employed by the "it's the oil" is sad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
48. "The ignorance on DU about basic world affairs is astounding."
But not how you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. It's about the War ( and the military industrial complex), stupid
We've no money for schools, healthcare, anything....BUT we can always find money to throw at the Military Industrial Complex. Funny how those in power are giving the money to the corporations that put them there or that will offer them jobs when they retire.



http://www.americablog.com/2010/12/washington-revolving...

From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according to the Globe analysis. That compares with less than 50 percent who followed that path a decade earlier, from 1994 to 1998.

In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles nearly 90 percent.

And in many cases there is nothing subtle about what the generals have to sell Martins firm is called The Four Star Group, for example. The revolving-door culture of Capitol Hill where former lawmakers and staffers commonly market their insider knowledge to lobbying firms is now pervasive at the senior rungs of the military leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. If it was about the oil, we would've left Qaddafi alone...
We had good dealings with him and he had almost defeated the rebels and taken control over the entire country. If we wanted the oil, we would not be destabilizing Libya any further. We would just let Qaddafi in place and let him reign with an iron fist, like he always did before. With this UN resolution, there will be none of our troops on the ground in Libya and we can't predict the outcome; we don't know if Qaddafi will stay in power or who will replace him. Uncertainty like that is bad for the oil market.

People who are yelling "it's about the oil!" suffer from an oversimplified black-and-white worldview. They need to get over the fact that their last president was a shitty one who lied to his people about the Iraq War. To automatically equate that with Libya is mindless and lazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiny elvis Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
34. yes. i think this is an italian and french concern for the security of commerce
and the usa is being the good nato ally
the usa is not the only manipulator of world events
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diveguy Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
7. war is usually always a bad thing.
people saying it's for the good of the people, how many other rebel groups are we supporting right now? Hell, i bet we are helpng some suppress the protesters.

If a repub president were to start firing off expensive cruise missles and killing people, DU would go nuts. Where's the anti-war rhetoric now? Just because Obama's in office, we cant stop trying to bring the troops home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
10. If this is about the rebels....

why weren't they being 'helped' two weeks ago? The UN has been manipulated by NATO to ensure an optimum outcome, the rebels greatly weakened, crushing Libya's conventional forces is a piece of cake, and the 'Arab street' will be chastened. It's all win for the big boys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Because, in the REAL world, it takes time to get all countries on the same page...
It's called 'diplomacy' and two weeks is considered very fast in the diplomatic circuit. Not everything is as black and white as DU makes it out to be. I know, I know, it's much more comforting to simplify the conflict so we can make quick judgements... but that's not the reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ship of Fools Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. THANK you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. Just get that old razor out and ask...

"Who benefits?"

Therein lies the 'reality'.

Humanitarian considerations my ass, it's always about business, that is the purpose of the US government after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. If we wanted to benefit, we would have left Qaddafi alone...
Who benefits? The people of Benghazi, who will not get slaughtered now, like the 6,000 Qaddafi already murdered. (That's why they begged us for help.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yeah, it is better to be robbed than slaughtered.

Hurray for NATO. Too bad about those 6000, we were deliberating, don't ya know.

The only deliberation of consequence was diving up the oil concessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. How are the people of Benghazi being "robbed" by NATO?
Please explain, because you don't make sense. What conspiracy theory is behind your unsupported remarks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
14. The interesting thing is that the pro-military-action people are much less vocal.
I've seen several polls suggesting that DU is split about evenly between those who support and oppose military action against Gadaffi/Libya, but very many more posts opposing that supporting it.

My theory is that most DUers (including me) think that most wars are wrong, and so there are whole pages of anti-war rhetoric lined up and ready to be produced automatically whenever needed, but anyone who wants to argue that this is one of the few exceptions when military action may actually be justified has to put together a more detailed and thought-through case, which is harder work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iterate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. Lack of ready slogans.
And there's no borrowing them from previous conflicts.

It's a long and tedious process to really learn the details of each nation and you'll get little help from American media. Whatever is thought-through stands next to something that might not be. It's humbling, or should be, and if the process leads to a strong conclusion for intervention, as I think most of the time it would, it should still be plastered with doubt and caution.

And that's not conducive to a lot of shouting and banner waving. Besides, anyone who's reached that sober conclusion shouldn't feel too thrilled that they felt they needed to.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReggieVeggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
16. Well, there is no DU per se
there are thousands of people with very disparate opinions over a range of topics...thee is no universal consensus on anything (at least anything I can think of)

That would be an interesting idea for a series of polls. Find out if there's any subject where we can all, or most of us, agree...say 80% or better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
18. I'm against getting into another war
I'd prefer we get out of the other wars, not start a new one.

But, we're in it. And we've picked a side to have win. I'd be surprised if we don't start sending in some trainers and advisors. Maybe not U.S. troops, but at least some mercenaries or contractors.

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Siouxmealso Donating Member (89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
19. To be consistent ...
I hope that whoever voted for "Gaddafi is slaughtering his own people and we should help them" was in favor of taking out Saddam as well. Jus sayin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revolutionnow45 Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
46. The Iraqis were not about to be slaugtered- the GOP made up propaganda for months promoting the war
They made up a bunch of phony evidence like Saddam was gonna get us with UAVs, laughable forgeries for yellowcake (that the UN figured out were fake in 5 minutes w/google) and a bunch of other stupid shit. They said he was responsible for 9/11. They said he was going to get us with a nuke in our backyard.

The Iraqi people begged us to leave them alone. Polls showed they did not want to be attacked.

When we shocked and awed them bombing the country to smithereens to the point where they still have no water or power....they did not appreciate it.






When we established a no fly zone in Libya so that people wouldn't be slaughtered, the protesters were grateful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
27. It's another glolrious victory...for the MIC and the neo-cons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
29. "It's about the oil" meaning Libyan rebels & supporters get to be slaughtered
just because their country has oil. If your country having oil would allow you and your fellow rebel supporters to be wiped out you might wish your country had no oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Ha, reminds me of the game "Just Cause 2"
*ending spoilers ahead*

After a massive civil war between a dictator and various meddling factions against him it's found out that the whole thing is part of a struggle between China, Russia and the US to take over the country for the oil. The dictator launches some nukes at the countries involved, the hero ends up fighting him, gets him caught on one, and then redirects the nukes to the oil fields instead of their targets. The oil fields are blown up along with the dictator, thus ending the possibility of another war in the country by the external players for the oil.

But it's pretty pathetic in this case as people are simply mindlessly chanting "oil" as a reasoning against it ignoring all facts. Gadaffi was pumping plenty of oil and the best way to ensure it to keep flowing would be to keep Gadaffi in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
32. A "Don't know" yet vote -- hoping it's #1 and not #4 -- but time will tell ....!!
Libyans asked for "no fly zone" but even they were worried about it --

think we would have been better to have earlier bombed Gaddafi's air fields, planes

and runways --

In other words, try to balance for the protesters the HUGE advantage that global arms

dealers -- US/UK/France/Russia -- gave to Gaddafi!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
33. Nuanced...I'll leave it at that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
36. There is no valid anti-war response on this poll.
I oppose the aggression against Libya. I do not think it is mainly about oil, and I do not oppose war in all circumstances by any means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. # 2 or other
What would your response be that would not fit in to other?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I guess "oppose - other."
Oil isn't the main thing here by any means. But what is at stake is national sovereignty. It's the same reason I think the invasion of Grenada or Panama was wrong. Reagan didn't invade Grenada to acquire material resources, but he did do it to increase strategic influence for the United States at a higher level. The message: "we're boss."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Well, I see the uprising of
People in the middle east and parts of Europe and now spreading from Wisconsin throughout the country as breath taking!
It is a good thing . And to give those people in Libya a chance by taking out gaddafi's heavy weapons, kind of levels the playing field.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. So you don't believe R2P is valid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. If that doesn't conflict with what I said, then "sure."
I think the US should take in refugees from other countries, should boycott companies that profit off of human tragedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. I really don't like the idea of absolute sovereignty.
Edited on Tue Mar-22-11 03:22 AM by joshcryer
It leaves tyrants with way too much control over their people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Curmudgeoness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
39. I am embarrassed that I was in support of the No Fly Zone they talked about.
When did enforcing a No Fly Zone equal an offensive attack on a country? I still voted that the people need help and we should be helping them. I just don't agree with the "how" of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. I think it is just
leveling the playing field for the rebels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Curmudgeoness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. I hope that you are right. This just doesn't feel right to me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revolutionnow45 Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
44. I stand with the people of Libya who were about to be slaugtered



And I think we must DEMAND NO TROOPS ON THE GROUND (especially US troops) as the protesters have requested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
45. I picked other. I think there are legitimate arguments for both sides...
nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
49. Other - lots of nuance and unknowns.
What is the goal?

Removel of Ghadaffi?

But that is not in UNSC directive.

China, Indian, Russia, Brazil, and Germany abstained so the vote was 10-0.

An extended time of NFZ and Libyan unrest will result in more collateral damage to innocents if Quadaffi maintains control.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runework Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Goal = Better Deal for Oil Companies There
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

93%!

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Newsfeed/Artic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Oil is obvious and Ghadiffi was playing shrewd --
looks like Quaddiffi was playing the UNSC vote abstainers (Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Germany against France and Italy plus the USA and UK.

The actions of France in recognizing the rebels accelerated and raised the immediate stakes.

I hope the UN "police action" comes to a rapid conclusion but look like a war to me. The fog is think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 21st 2017, 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC