Thinking one should not have interfered in Libya is not "pro Gadhaffi"

[howard112211]

even if not interfering had lead to him remaining in power.

I can't believe the crap I am reading from the pro-war camp. Its almost like it is coming straight from the Bush propaganda machine.

[DeSwiss]

1. K&R!!! n/t

[CJvR]

2. Not technically.

But in practice non-intervention = greenlight for Gaddafi to crush the popular revolt. Since that is exactly what Gaddafi wanted it is hard not to view that as support for him.

[Democracyinkind]

5. By that logic you are promoting any and all things that you're not actively working against.

Which makes you, me, and everyone on this board pro-genocide, pro-war, pro-criminality, pro-pedophilia.

What a wonderful logic.

[CJvR]

31. No.

Not working or arguing against genocide, war, crime & pedophilia is not the same as arguing against others taking steps to prevent such things.

[Democracyinkind]

38. You said

"
But in practice non-intervention = greenlight
"

Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Seems that we're "greenlighting" quite allot of things by that logic, don't see how you can deny that.

[CJvR]

53. Such as? n/t

[Democracyinkind]

56. Any and all (in your words "immediate) goings on that we're not actively fighting.

Like Syria.

The list is long.

[CJvR]

69. Like Syria.

You think it would be wrong to protect the Syrians from their regime, which has been getting more and more murderous lately?

[Democracyinkind]

83. Theoretically, I'm all for it. Practically, it's simply not possible. (Syria)

But I'm convinced that we should be governed by standards; meaning that once we have intervened in Lybia, we should do so in Syria too - and a whole lot of other places right now too. But we're not, and the reasons for that are not to be found with humanitarian arguments. So I refuse to act like this is a purely huminatarian intervention, even if I'm for it principally. I just wish it could have been multilateral in a true(r) sense. And I refuse to act like the US empire has suddenly resorted to humanitarian motives as the principle motor of its actions.

[CJvR]

104. Practical reasons...

...have nothing to with if an intervention is right or wrong.

[Very_Boring_Name]

41. When it comes to immediate violence, not taking action IS promoting it

If you see a rape occuring and decide it's none of your business and move on, you are promoting the rape because your inaction permits it to continue. As an individual, you don't have the power to stop genocide, or war, or pedophilia, but as superpowers the western nations DO. Therefore, any inaction on their part is the active promotion of violence.

[Democracyinkind]

52. In that case you, I, and everyone else is quite the promoter of..

violence, rape, gencodie, pedophilia.

Nice to see so many people labelling themselves promoters of these things in this thread.

Edit: "Immediacy" can not be a criterion; as I've written above - these things are always "immediate" from the perspective of the victims.

I find such defintions contra-productive; in fact, we all did when Dubya pulled the same shit on us in 2003.

[Very_Boring_Name]

54. Did you even read what I wrote?

If I see a rapist, I'm going to try and stop it. If I see a pedophile molesting a child I'm going to try and stop it. Likewise, if I see genocide or violence (i.e Libya) occuring, I will support 100% whatever it takes to stop it.

[Democracyinkind]

58. Did you even read what I wrote?

Then the criterion is whether you want to see it or not.
Great.

Bad deal for all the unseen genocides, though, isn't it?

So I take it you are for intervention in all similiar cases? Syria? The rest of the list?

[Very_Boring_Name]

59. Actually the criterion is whether or not we're willing to stop it

If you have the power to stop immediate violence, but choose not to, you are supporting the violence. Watching it happen and saying to yourself "oh, what a shame" simply isn't good enough. As for the "list", I favour intervention for humanitarian reasons ALWAYS.

[Democracyinkind]

63. I don't know of one intervention in history that was really "humanitarian"...

But at least you are consistent in your position; you wish to see US military intervention all the time everywhere. There's nothing wring with that, of course, it's just never going to happen. And it makes the whole practice of deeming anyone not willing to take that stance as a "supporter of genocide" a farce (not that you said that, but I picked that up in this thread)

I don't necessarily disagree with the way you state things, IMHO it follows from that that we are all supporters of violence etc. I usually don't think of myself as a supporter of these things.

[Very_Boring_Name]

66. You're right, it won't happen. That's why we end up with Rwanda and Sudan

Which is a real shame. Romeo Dallaire, who was the commander of the UN peacekeeping forces during the Rwandan genocide, has had an impact on my views on the subject. He contemplated suicide after watching the massacre of civilians while in Rwanda, as the western nations sat back and did nothing. In my mind, this is genuinely the international-equivalent of averting your eyes and quickly walking past a woman being raped.

[Democracyinkind]

82. Dallaire's book has influenced me too.

It convinced me of the necessity of strengthening the UN's intervention capability - something that sadly is contingent upon ending American world hegemony and therefore not very probable. And it convinced me that these problems will never be addressed adequately absent a true and potent form of multilateralism. (Something along the lines of a strong UN intervention force that acts independently from the Security Council system of politics, which is utterly unrealistic given the current state of world politics.)

Then again - one could have prevented the Ruandan Genocide by not looking the other way when the French started importing a half a million machetes in just one year. Just as the prospective "massacre of Benghazi" could have been prevented if the West hadn't provided the very means to carry it out. It's very selective to look at these issues only from the moment when the killing starts.

I'd be very much for a world where a credible UN would have the power to intervene decisively in all such matters. I'm completely against acting as if our current MO of intervention has anything to do with humanitarian sentiments or follows any kind of coherent standard - whether we intervene or not is never decided by "the need of the people on the ground" but always by contingent socio-economic and geostrategic factors - that's what I'm against.

Labeling this kind of pseudomultilateral action a "humanitarian intervention" negates the fact that we don't act in similar cases when there are no contingent interest involved. Such a label also negates the fact that absent of Western help for Ghaddafi, the people of Lybia could have gotten rid of him long ago.

I'm all for intervening when I see a person being raped. If I am witness to someone intervening to prevent a rape, I will reserve my right to call out the "rescuer" should I come to learn that he enabled the rape in the first place. I will also reserve my right to question the morality and motives behind his "rescuing" the victim should I have grpunds to do so. And I refuse to accept that "doing the right thing for the wrong reason" is beneficial for everyone no matter what those wrong reasons are.

So yeah, let's intervene, that's what I'm saying. But then for god sakes let's do so every time and everywhere and let's quit intervening in other places for other, non-humanitarian reasons. If we do it, let's do it right. If we're not doing it right, let us not pretend that we are. That would be my plea.

[howard112211]

6. Nonsense. There is no entitlement to military aid.

If group X fights group Y and external power Z does not get involved, it is not equivalent to "siding with the victor". It is just that: not getting involved. No more and no less.

So are we "pro North Korea" because we didn't go to war when we didn't go to war with them when the recent border skirmishes happened?

By your logic, we should be in a constant state of war with essentially the whole world, otherwise we are "supporting dictators".

[joshcryer]

7. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I'm glad we're helping the revolutionaries.

[inna]

15. "the revolutionaries", lol

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/vicman130411.html

[BlueCaliDem]

19. So is Hillary Clinton since she pushed for this intervention

because she remembers what not having intervened in Rwanda resulted in.

On the disagreement by Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defense Gates over Libya

"Gates, as he said publicly, simply believed that Libya was not in the vital interest of the United States, and if it's not in the vital interest, then you have the question of, 'Well, we have a humanitarian crisis on our hands' — the crisis being Gadhafi's forces were on the outskirts of Benghazi and Gadhafi and his sons were publicly saying that they were going to go house to house to find these rebels.

So you had a pretty convincing case that an imminent massacre was going to take place. And if you're Bob Gates, the world is a very ugly place where lots of bad things happen and it's not the United States' job to intervene every time something like that happens even if we can.

Clinton comes out of a very different tradition. One of the things that the Bill Clinton White House was known for was its development of a policy of humanitarian intervention, and I think one of the things that both Clintons are tormented by are the cases where they didn't intervene — specifically Rwanda.

This is something in Hillary Clinton's blood and she, as did other people in the Obama administration, made a powerful case that even though Libya was not in our vital interest — Libya is not Saudi Arabia, for instance — we had a responsibility to protect the citizens of Benghazi essentially."

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/27/135746117/obamas-foreign-policy-the-first-two-years?ps=cprs

I don't like it that the U.S. has intervened in Libya, but I understand it. I still don't like it, though. I don't like knowing the world sees the United States as they personal police department, letting the U.S. shoulder the military battles almost exclusively.

That money could've been better spent HERE where it's needed most.

[joshcryer]

20. The daily Libyan Revolution thread has video of the convy meaning to raze Benghazi.

It was very similar to Sarajevo, very similar. Back then people were saying "But, but! You can't prove that Benghazi would've been razed." Then, we see Misrata, after it had been besieged for nearly two months before NATO intervened, and then we can at least point to Misrata as an example of how Benghazi would've turned out.

I have absolutely zero problem with saving Benghazi and over 1/5th the population of Libya from having to endure what Misrata has endured and what the western mountains are currently enduring. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada.

[BlueCaliDem]

106. To be honest, me either. Then again, you and I still have compassion for the plight

of those who would've otherwise been massacred by Gadhafi and his sons.

I feel we did a good thing there, but I still wished it wasn't necessary.

[still_one]

24. So countries should involve themselves in another countries internal affairs if it is on the basis

of moral grounds?

I am not referring to country A invading country B, which by definition makes it no longer an internal affair

So by that reasoning we should involve ourselves in Syria, and Sudan?

[joshcryer]

39. Look at the Ivory Coast.

Should the UN not involved themselves there?

If the international community wishes to involve itself in a crisis, I believe it should do so, not on moral grounds, but on humanitarian grounds.

Where are the dozens of OPs about the dead in Misrata from cluster munitions and tanks? Where are the dozens of OPs about the west arming Gaddafi to the teeth (beyond all comprehension, thousands of tanks, jets, missiles, mortars, cluster munitions, land minds, the list goes on)? It's just a double standard. One OP talks about Libya (both the good and the bad), the rest of the OPs are extremely negative about Libya, talking about how it's all a CIA conspiracy, that the rebels are terrorists, that the bankers want to control everything, that the oil is the reason.

And it all overlooks the fact that Libya is undergoing a revolution.

[still_one]

49. Good points. I see no distinction between moral or humanitarian grounds. I think they are the same

thing.

As to your second point especially the negativity, this is an open forum.

When the demonstrations occurred in Egypt, Bahran, and other areas, the posts were for the protesters, and even before the NATO no fly zone, they were very sympathetic to the Libyian protesters. It is when the actual direct involvement occurred is when the shift came against it.

There is a lot of cynicism which is the result that we invaded Iraq based on a lie, twith the financial melt down, very few of the individuals who were responsible for that situation were prosecuted, and so many other things, that it should be no surprise about the negativity here.

However, I would venture to say that you could most likely go to any blog, liberal, conservative, or moderate, and find the more negative posts than positive ones.

[joshcryer]

50. Yeah, but people still cannot appreciate the level of intervention, and how the revolutionaries act.

The revolutionaries asked for a very limited role, and they're getting it. They don't want troops on the ground, and even as Misrata was under heavy attack (one local council member wanted troops, but he was not representative of the entire eastern population), the representatives said no to troops on the ground, even as NATO was formulating plans to put troops on the ground. That alone should be enough to prove that they are not going to allow troops on the ground and that ultimately they believe they have popular support. That really, truly, the external forces are not going to be used to coopt this thing.

So all these leftists feigning "concern" for some sort of imperialist invasion are really on the wrong side of history, Libya will prove them wrong.

[still_one]

55. They do not need troops because air support is significant. As for your conclusion, no one really

knows what the result will be, the situation is still fluid, and I am not talking about quaddafii remaining in control, I am talking about whatever government comes out of this is a big uncertainty

Egypt is an example. There is real concern that the Muslim brotherhood may become a political force, which would not be in the interest of how the West views it.

It is still too early to tell

As for your argument regarding feigning "concern", I disagree, I think most of the group you are referring to has been extremely consistent on the position that you are characterizing them having "imperialist" intentions.

They simply don't believe in getting involved in another countries internal affairs.

[joshcryer]

61. All the air support is doing is ridding Gaddafi of his west-provided munitions and tech.

Without it he doesn't stand a chance.

You misread the "imperialist" comment. They believe NATO's intentions are imperialist, and be that as the case, the revolutionaries are not allowing them to have a presence on the ground.

Therefore said "imperialism" is mediocre at best, and being actively fought against.

[CJvR]

71. Compass malfunction.

If your moral compass is fixed at "The West is the supreme evil in the universe" then everything else follows quite logically. There isn't any tyrant that cant be passionately defended as long as he is anti-western and the rather abrupt about face from many on the Libyan revolt was hardly unexpected once the bombing started. Someone who allies themselves with the ultimate evil must be worse than Gaddafi who fights it.

[Very_Boring_Name]

42. After the Holocaust and Rwanda, I think we know the answer to that question. n/t

[still_one]

51. The Holocaust was NOT an internal affair. hitler invaded other countries, so that does NOT fall

into the same category. However, the point you are making is what the crux of the argument is, do countries have a right to involve themselves in another countries internal affairs?

[Very_Boring_Name]

57. German concentration camps were very much an internal affair

Yes, eventually they were expanded outside of the country. But it's seriously disturbing to hear you argue that it's perfectly acceptable for a dictator to massacre his own people, so long as it doesn't leave his borders.

[still_one]

60. I never said it was acceptable for a dictator to massacre its own people. The

question is when does the international community get involved in another countries internal affairs?

I didn't even actually state my view on that, because it is that straight forward due to international alliances

Let me give an example, if Qaddafi had nuclear weapons, and a means of delivering them do you really believe we would be enforcing the no fly zone?

[Very_Boring_Name]

64. You're asking the wrong question

Not to be rude, but you're hiding behind this term "internal affairs". Committing genocide or massacring civilians is not just your every day "internal affair," it directly affects human civilization as a whole. A better framing of your question would be "At what point does the international community get involved in preventing violence against civilians?"

[still_one]

67. You are not rude, and that is an excellent question. I do believe that there are several reasons

why we are involved, and not necessarily in this order:

1. Oil is a factor.
2. qaddaffi is not well liked in the region, internationally, or in his own country, and there is very little risk with other countries that could poise a risk to us, aligning themselves with him.
3. Humanitarian Considerations.

No matter what the positions of various posts are, quadaffi will eventually be gone this year, and I have no doubt that NATO would like the succeeding government to be on good terms with the West

[Very_Boring_Name]

68. I agree with 2 and 3, but I have to disagree with oil

Unlike Iraq, oil was flowing freely in Libya, and Gadaffi was happily providing it to the west. If oil was the goal, intervening in Libya would be the wrong thing to do, since it encourages destabilization. Gadaffi was a sure thing when it came to supplying oil, we have no idea what the rebels will do if they are in charge.

I also think a huge factor was public opinion. The public in all of the major intervening countries (US, France, England, Canada) overwhelmingly support the rebels, and prior to the intervention polls showed that the public supported some form of action.

Putting aside Libya though, I honestly think there needs to be some binding criteria for intervening on a humanitarian basis. As I mentioned up above, my views on the subject have been influenced by Romeo Dallaire, who was the commander of the U.N forces during the Rwanda genocide, and was powerless to stop the massacring of civilians all around him (later, he contemplated suicide because he was so distraught over the fact that the violence could have been stopped, if only there had been the will to get involved). I just really, really, really disagree with the people around here who say we should mind our own business and not get involved. If the cause is just (not based on greed or lies, i.e Iraq), and violence is imminent, we should be doing everything in our power to stop it.

[CJvR]

34. Quite! n/t

[eridani]

102. The siimple fact of not being a relative of Ghadafi doesn't make anyone a revolutionary

Ghadafi's relatives, and thos allied with them, support him. Those who aren't related are against him. unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, nobody in Libya wants to be one with anyone exexpt their relatives.

[CJvR]

37. Ah...

...but if group Z does get involved, to prevent atrocities against group Y by group X, then isn't arguing for an end to that intervention the same as supporting group X? Before the intervention your argument might be more accurate but after you are arguing for a shift in policy that will directly favor group X, how can this not be considered defacto support for group X?

ps: The world is at war with the Norks, there is only a cease fire in Korea.

[Fool Count]

11. No, it is not hard at all, in fact, it is very easy.

At least for me it is. Saying otherwise is equivalent to saying that we are (in practice) supporting
every dictator in the world who we don't go to war with - the statement ridiculous on its face.
We don't support Kim Jong Il, for instance, but we are not bombing him, though that is exactly what
he wants (us not bombing him that is).

[joshcryer]

12. Do you have evidence of a popular revolt in North Korea?

I haven't heard of it and I would like to contact my politicians about failing to act about such a thing.

[howard112211]

16. Maybe there would be one if we offered them weapons.

There the dictator is firmly in power. That doesn't mean many wouldn't like to see him go.

[joshcryer]

18. No doubt they would like to see him go.

Re-unification is a more likely outcome there.

However, the rebellion in Libya reached a point of no return, either you wish for the rebellion to continue and a new state to be formed, or you watch as Gaddafi crushes the rebellion over a matter of months, possibly as long as half a year or more.

The Battle of Algiers should tell anyone urban warfare is not easy, and that Gaddafi would not have "peacefully quitely silenced the uprising." If there was any time to intervene the potential raze of Benghazi would've been it.

[eridani]

103. That a new state would be formed is beyond possibility now. The best we can hope for

--is a western state for Ghadaffi's relative, an eastern state for those who aren't, and a southern state for those who identify more with the people of the Saharan states bordering them.

[bluestate10]

78. Offer weapons? Are you serious? I read one post where you claimed you

did research to support your anti-war bias. Well, maybe you should do more research to see why offering weapons to North Korean rebels (that is a leap of faith that there are any) is an off the edge idea.

[Fool Count]

26. Do you have evidence that we will start bombing North Korea

the minute after a popular revolt there starts? You better start contacting
"your politicians" now. I have a sneaking suspicion those idiots will sit
idly by and let our troops in South Korea (together with the Koreans) avoid
getting dropped a couple of nuclear devices on. That would totally suck, so
better go to work now while you still can do anything about it.

[joshcryer]

30. It's highly unlikely the world would do shit if there was a popular uprising there.

But I will be critical of a lack of support if that ever happened, just as I am critical of a lack of support in Syria which is escalating to the point Libya has.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

48. Just as it can deal with a whole bunch of people uncritical of tyrants.

See: China, and Russia.

[bluestate10]

79. If China turned on North Korea, the country would have issues.

China supports NC for practical reasons, China does not want NK's enormously poor population crossing the border and de-stabilizing China.

[still_one]

21. Not technically? Not in reality either. Because someone has a position which believes that one

country should not involved themselves in another countries internal affairs, it does not even follow that they approve of that government

Gee, I guess because we aren't trying to overthrow the government of Sudan, we must support the genocide that has been going on their for some time. Same argument, no?

Argue on the basis of whether another country has a right to involve themselves in another's internal affairs. not on creating strawmen, which is a tactic that some of our most extreme opponents who say liberals hate our country or are not patriotic. It is far more difficult to debate the actual issues, than it is to accuse someone by inference that because they disagree something else follows

[CJvR]

44. I will note...

...that thanks to opinion stirred up by the anti-interventionists the Sudanese have now basicly completed their genocide/ethnic cleansing. Some argue that a simillar result in Libya would be preferable to bombing and then try to pretend this is not a morally bankrupt position to hold.

A little Hitchens on Darfur
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgAowBnSMvg

[still_one]

62. I suspect it has more to due with the Chinese involvement in the Sudan, however, you are

articulating the position well, and it should give one pause to consider it fully

Unfortunately, most of us on these boards get pretty fired up, and sometimes cannot see the other point of view

[alarimer]

98. So we intervene in Libya but not Syria?

They are murdering protestors there too. By what logic do we does this make sense? None whatsoever. We are not the world's fucking police. we seem to intervene only when it is convenient or serves some interest i.e., oil. Libya has it, Syria (to my knowledge) does not, so who gives a shit what they do? Don't you think we have enough on our plate already? Our budget, our military are stretched too far as it is. I want us out of the middle east period. We have done enough damage.

[CJvR]

108. The Libyans...

...were first in line. Limited resources as you point out.

[lib2DaBone]

3. It's only a matter of time until Mr. Obama puts Troops in there....

Read somewhere that Marines are standing by offshore.. waiting to go in.

[bluestate10]

80. The anti-war crowd's nuke. "It is going to spin out of control" nt

[EFerrari]

84. Why would the "anti-war crowd" want a nuke?

I guess that Down's Syndrome charity office NATO demolished over the weekend was on a target list somewhere.

[JackRiddler]

90. It did "spin out of control" and continues to do so, if I've understood your reference.

Real nuclear scientists aren't sugarcoating the disaster, either.

[joshcryer]

4. Accepting the reality of the situation and backing the revolutionaries is not "pro-war."

Cute how you put that out there.

It is anti-anti-Gaddafi to support actions that would have led to his success. anti-anti-Gaddafi is synonymous with pro-Gaddafi.

[howard112211]

8. So then one is a supporter of Kim Jong Ill if one doesn't go to war against North Korea?

[joshcryer]

9. If Kim Jong Ill has a popular uprising against him and chose not to help, the position is...

...effectively "pro-Kim Jong Ill."

[Aerows]

22. I guess the US is pro-Syria

and pro-al-Assad, too. In fact, since you aren't bringing up Syria, you are also pro-al-Assad.

I've thought from the get-go that this was a manufactured "revolution", especially considering how long the UK and US have been stirring in Libya. It may come as a shock to you, but it wouldn't be the first time either country manufactured one - particularly in a place where there just happens to be an asset they want.

We are in Libya for one reason, and one reason only - OIL. I'm also still holding you to admitting you are wrong if we get boots on the ground there. I HOPE I'm wrong, but after all of the propaganda (unsubstantiated claims of Viagra Rapes - LOL) that sounds just like the babies getting tossed from incubators, I suspect they are itching to get boots on the ground.

If we were looking for a place to spread democracy or intervene with a humanitarian mission, there were plenty of other places we could have gone to besides Libya - except none of those places have oil.

[joshcryer]

27. I post regularly on Syria.

Fail.

[still_one]

32. Also pro-Chinese, pro Sudanese, etc., etc., etc. /nt

[CJvR]

72. So your argument is...

...if we can't do the right thing everywhere we should do it nowhere?

[uponit7771]

77. If the "right thing" applied to countries with no oil or something elese we'd want you'd have a poin

[Aerows]

89. Are we doing the right thing?

Are we there to "do the right thing", or are we there for another purpose?

There are CLEAR indications that we aren't there to "do the right thing" - considering that we are killing innocent people right along with the "bad",and due to both the economic and geopolitical importance of the region.U

If you want to discuss "doing the right thing", what would you say of addressing the slaughter of 40,000 people per year? That happens right here in THIS country, you know, the one I pay taxes in because people don't have access to medical care.

It isn't that I don't care - forgive me, but I just happen to care MORE about this country. If you aren't suspicious of our motives in Libya, and how they align so well with the goals of big oil, you really SHOULD be.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

28. I've done all I can.

And that's show solidarity as I do with those I sympathize with.

When Libya is liberated I will visit and I will continue sharing positive news about the Libyan revolution despite the crypto-Stalinist reports I see posted almost daily.

[still_one]

35. Who are you calling Stalinists? Someone who believes we should not involve ourselves in another

countries internal affairs?

I guess we justified the 1953 installment of the Shah of Iran by your same logic

[joshcryer]

36. I've seen known Stalinist apologist sources posted here against Libya.

The websites in question are unquestionably totalitarian socialist garbs.

[still_one]

43. It is my belief that if you want to argue the merits of your position it is far better to debate

with reasons why one country should involve itself in another countries internal affairs, instead of name calling

I suspect your position is on the basis of humanitarian arguments, which is a valid position.

The opponents position would be on the basis that a countries internal affairs, even if they are a dictatorship, are within that countries own boundaries, and another country should not get involved.

Examples of where involvement worked or didn't work would be a good basis of any discussion

[joshcryer]

45. Unfortunately for that argument international law no longer follows that convention.

With the responsibility to protect sovereignty becomes a responsibility, not a right. R2P has never been used before, it has been cited, but never used. It was tried in Burma in 2007 but both China and Russia vetoed it (for obvious reasons). Libya had the fortune to be used. The international community, for whatever reason (oil is enticing) acted.

A civilized interconnected planet should stop oppression whenever it can, here it could, and given the state of Misrata and the clear indicators that Benghazi was going to turn into another Misrata, it is good that it did so.

[Mimosa]

87. Oh wow, 1953 McCarthy era talk is back! Re Re Retro!

Let's Do the Time warp agaaain....

[still_one]

29. No, it means that person believes that we should deal with our own internal problems. By that logic

I guess we must all be all for the current Chinese government, and the suppression that goes on there, because our government is actively trading and supporting that government

[joshcryer]

33. Isolationism is bullshit.

[still_one]

40. Not wanting to involve yourselves in another countries INTERNAL affairs IS NOT isolationism

There is a difference

but just throw out bullshit, and you don't have to justify your position

You want to give an example to argue your case you can use Kosovo, and how if we had become involved earlier a lot of lives could have been saved.

[joshcryer]

47. Yes, with the advent of R2P, it is.

Kosovo is an example, but Sarajevo is far more relevant, because we're talking about urban centers here, which lasted several months and the international community finally ended a years long conflict, but the loss of lives over those years was enormous and the international community completely failed in that regard. Then when Kosovo happened, we were far too gung ho and killed as many people as were killed by the conflict itself (which is why it is different than Bosnia and why we can be against it).

[Gravel Democrat]

70. there was no genocide in Kosovo but I don't expect you to believe me so google FBI genocide kosovo

and you will see that William Cohen (R) was lying

the whole thing was a lie

do some searching, i'm convinced that posting links is pointless

that is if you want to know the truth

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[JackRiddler]

91. No, it would be effectively "don't walk cluelessly into global disasters."

Your idea on NK seems to be predicated on some kind of US omnipotence fantasy where an American army in the middle of a North Korean civil war would somehow do anything other than fuck up the situation and probably unite the pro-Kim forces.

What about China? What if they're having another Tiananmen Square? Think if the US doesn't invade China, that would be "objectively pro-regime"?

[JVS]

105. Yes it is. Pro-war means getting involved, anti-war means accepting the reality of the situation...

and not getting involved.

[inna]

10. yep. i can't believe it, either. the mind boggles.

[Prometheus Bound]

13. US neo-cons urge Libya intervention (lest we forget)

US neo-cons urge Libya intervention
Signatories to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) demand "immediate" military action.
Jim Lobe Last Modified: 27 Feb 2011

<snip>

a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to "immediately" prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence

....The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organised and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC).


<snip>

The usual suspects

Among the letter's signers were former Bush deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Bush's top global democracy and Middle East adviser; Elliott Abrams; former Bush speechwriters Marc Thiessen and Peter Wehner; Vice President Dick Cheney's former deputy national security adviser, John Hannah, as well as FPI's four directors: Weekly Standard editor William Kristol; Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan; former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor; and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman.

It was Kagan and Kristol who co-founded and directed PNAC in its heyday from 1997 to the end of Bush's term in 2005.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/02/2011227153626965756.html

[Aerows]

25. Pretty much anything those characters are for...

...is something I'm against, because it's just another way for them to funnel money into their own pockets and into the hands of their cronies. Libya was on the agenda, anyway - those that remember the PNAC schedule KNOW Libya was on it, just like Iraq - and we also know why.

[Gravel Democrat]

14. "Its almost like it is coming straight from the Bush propaganda machine" That is because...

some of it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x771125
posted by Hannah Bell

"The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is headed by Weekly Standard publisher William Kristol, foreign policy consultant Robert Kagan, and former Bush administration official Dan Senor...

Many see the FPI as the logical successor to Kristol and Kagan’s previous neoconservative organization, the now-defunct Project for the New American Century. PNAC’s membership roll included many prominent Bush administration officials, including then-Vice President Dick Cheney and the Defense Department’s top two officials, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=dan_senor_1


Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Forty-five former U.S. government officials, human rights and democracy advocates, and foreign policy experts expressed concern Friday regarding the ongoing crisis in Libya, urging President Obama, in conjunction with NATO allies, to take action to end the violence being propagated by the regime of Muammar al-Qaddafi.

In an open letter to President Obama, the bipartisan group outlined several specific actions the United States and NATO should take in response the ongoing violence including establishment of a presence in Libyan airspace and waters to prevent the use of regime air and naval assets against civilians, the freezing of Libyan government assets, and consideration of a temporary halt to importation of Libyan oil, as well as immediate provision of humanitarian aid. The group wrote that failure to take action “will cast doubt on the commitment of the United States and Europe to basic principles of human rights and freedom.” The letter notes that “There is no time for delay and indecisiveness” and that “clear U.S. leadership” is required.

The signatories include Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) Directors Eric Edelman, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and Dan Senor as well as former Bush and Clinton administration human rights and foreign policy officials and other experts.

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/foreign-policy-experts-urge-president-take-action-halt-violence-libya-0

more including a list here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x771125




SPQUSA! SPQUSA! SPQUSA!

[still_one]

17. That is outrageous, and is without merit. There are two basic arguments that can be used regarding

Libya.

One is that we have a right to involve ourselves for humanitarian and perhaps economic reasons

and the other is that we don't have a right to involve ourselves in a countries internal affairs

If country A invades country B, it no longer is an internal affair, but as long as it is within a countries sovereign boundaries, it is an internal situation.

When I saw the post you are mentioning I immediately thought of the strategy of the republican's saying liberals are not patriotic, or somehow anti-American.

This is the worst form of setting up a strawman, and the argument is not only without merit, but insulting, and should be alerted as such.

[oldlib]

73. Killing of a member of

his family is not a solution. This looks too similar to the Bush wars.

[BlueIris]

74. I think we should have stayed out. I think my position is pro-sanity, not pro-Gadhaffi. nt

[bluestate10]

75. Not getting involved is immoral and outright evil. nt

[Mimosa]

88. Namecalling against Pacifists! It feels like 1969 ! Timewarp!

Those who support peaceful solutions to conflict and ending cycles of violence -including Jesus Christ, Bertrand Russell, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Martin Luther King, and others including myself- have arrived at a position of 'if not now, when do we refuse to support violence and bloodshed'? Violence begets violence and by perpetuating it mankind never arrives at the goal of ending wars.

[krabigirl]

95. Lol. What is creepy is that people still buy into this.

You actually think NATO is there to "help" people.....

[bvar22]

101. Oh YES!!!!

Look at all the morality and goodness we have brought to Iraq and Afghanistan
with our military interventions there!!!

If you could point to a single successful Military Intervention in the Middle East in the last 50 years,
you might have a point...
but you can't,
and you don't (have a point.)

[malaise]

76. K & R

100% correct

[KG]

81. 'you're with us or you're with _______!!!!' where have i seen that steaming pile before?

there is nothing 'humanitarian' about a barrage of cruise missiles, no matter what rhetorical gymnastics you use to try to justify it.

[krabigirl]

96. Nope. It is sickening really.

[mmonk]

85. It's the same 'ol same 'ol. You're either with us or against us.

You're not supposed to have an independent opinion. If you do, you will be defined by their terms.

[krabigirl]

97. Yep. It is sad how the left has been co-opted by the neocons on this issue.

Very scary really.

[WatsonT]

86. I think that's fair though, since it was also fair to label all opponents of the Iraq war

as pro-saddam. Or pro-taliban. Or pro-viet-cong. Or pro . . .

[JackRiddler]

92. If you oppose Hitler, you must be pro-Stalin.

You may oppose Hitler when the government tells you to do so, however.

We don't want no "premature anti-fascists"!

Dichotomous thinking, bane of the world.

[JoeyT]

93. It's often claimed that it is.

Of course the same people claim cheering for dead children is the moral high ground.

Yeah, it's fucking ridiculous.

[krabigirl]

94. I agree. It is like bush-era propaganda.

[Odin2005]

99. The reality of the situation is more complicated than the knee-jerk pro and against folks want...

...to think. It's damn obvious that there are oil interests involved, but European countries are also worried about a glut of Libyan refugees that they cannot handle for domestic political reasons.

There there is the humanitarian concern that Gaddafi will slaughter people in Bengazi if he retakes it.

[bvar22]

100. "like it is coming straight from the Bush propaganda machine"

They didn't even bother to change the marketing.
You CAN fool some of the people ALL of the time.



If you're not FOR the New WAR in Libya,
you're WITH The Communists AlQaeda The Terrorists Saddam Qaddafi!!!

[donheld]

107. Just like thinking we should have stayed the tell out of Iraq

Was being pro-Saddam. Don't even let DUers try that shit.