Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003

[ProSense]

Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003

by Juan Cole

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

more

[dipsydoodle]

1. 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands ?

Sounds unrealistically high especially given the main area of dissent is in the east.


btw - was posted yesterday in GD : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=713406

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

4. the Rebels were on the outskirts of Tripoli when Gaddafi began his counterattack

[dipsydoodle]

6. That still doesn't define

the high percentage expressed unless the number of rebels on the outskirts of Tripoli was exceedingly high, which is unlikely , and given the population of Tripoli, Gadaffi's main base , is over 1 million.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. This is sure to be an interesting thread.

For some, none of this will matter.

[treestar]

3. I can see opposing it, but people opposing it for the wrong reasons

And it being like Iraq, or a "third war" is just wrong.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

5. but, but, but it's Unconstitutional!!&%&$^#

:sarcasm:

[KurtNYC]

12. A 'helping, humanitarian WAR' ?! How many times are people going to buy that?

How many Tomahawk missiles are we away from democracy in Libya ?

No this isn't like Iraq. Iraq was a lot of bogus war pimping up front then the invasion. This is shoot first make up reasons later.

[BlueMTexpat]

24. Exactly.

There has been too much false equivalency used for the Libyan situation.

There are too many uninformed people with broad brushes pontificating about this. Reason and logic don't work with such closed minds.

In the meantime, pro-Gaddafi forces continue with their war crimes. http://thenewadmin.com/top-stories/gadhafi-troops-attack-hospital-in-misrata-witness-says/

Again. This is not the first attack on hospitals since the uprising began. http://feb17.info/media/hospital-after-gaddafi-bombed-ajdabiya/

http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/02/24/gaddafi-forces-execute-hospital-patients-bomb-mosque-libya/

[dkf]

7. Iraq no fly zone: 1991-2003

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html

"The "No-Fly Zone War" pitted the air and naval forces of the United States and the United Kingdom (also referred to as "Great Britain"), against the air defenses of Iraq. This conflict proved to be largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and in the U.K., though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on an almost weekly basis, especially after the intense "Desert Fox" bombing campaign of 1998. The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq.

The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors.

As tensions mounted after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the possibility of a major escalation between Iraq and the U.S. increased dramatically, and the violence in the No-Fly Zone increased in preparation for the beginning of the Third Persian Gulf War: "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which began on March 19, 2003. In historical terms, the No-Fly Zone War is considered to have ended on March 19, 2003, when "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began and this conflict segued into the larger war. All three of the U.S.-led Coalition wars with Iraq (the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the 1991-2003 No-Fly Zone War, and the 2003 Iraq War ) can really be seen as one long, extended conflict, but for classification purposes, are seen as separate conflicts. (written on March 22, 2003)"

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

8. so you think Libya = Iraq? is that the best you can do?

[dkf]

9. Do we learn from history?

How do no fly zones resolve themselves?

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

10. why don't you use Kosovo as your example? It's at least comparable.

But that resolved peacefully.

So you wouldn't want to bring that up, right?

[former9thward]

11. Nothing peaceable about it.

The no-fly zone was installed after the mass killings took place. Nothing to do with the UN either.

[BlueMTexpat]

25. Are you possibly confusing Kosovo with Bosnia?

It was largely because of the Bosnian example that - finally - the West stepped up to the plate.

There were some mass killings in Kosovo prior to the establishment of the NFZ, but nowhere near the scale of Bosnia.

[ProSense]

14. Let's learn from history

Rwanda

The 1991 no-fly zone has nothing to do with the OP. It had nothing to do with Bush's illegal attack on Iraq.

[golfguru]

13. Except we are deeper in debt than in 2002.

[ProSense]

15. The debt argument is bogus

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

The cost of the current operation is coming out of defense discretionary funds, and the missiles were paid for years ago.

[golfguru]

16. $14 TRILLION debt is not bogus, it is real & scary

To service that debt we will soon be spending more than entire military
yearly budget, or to provide free health insurance for every citizen.

[ProSense]

18. Seriously,

did you understand the point?

"$14 TRILLION debt is not bogus, it is real & scary"

What does the "$14 TRILLION debt" have to do with the point that the debt argument in relation to the cost of this operation is bogus?

<...>

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

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

link

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

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

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

[golfguru]

23. The $14 Trillion debt obviates the fact that we are broke

and even the minor cost of any war is unjustifiable.

It is like a person about to have his house foreclosed going out and buying
a 52" flat screen TV because it costs way less than what he owes on the house.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51864.html

I guess fiscal prudence is not one of your strong points.

[timo]

17. the replacement missiles

will be paid for out of obamas magic stash of cash!!

[ProSense]

19. Thanks for the intelligent response. n/t

[timo]

27. about as intelligent as getting involved in this mess.

and spending a shitload of money to help people that have been trying to kill our soldiers in Iraq for the last few years!!!

[ProSense]

32. "spending a shitload of money to help people that have been trying to kill our soldiers in Iraq"

Yes, $2 trillion versus $255 million to $1 billion.

Another $500 billion to $1 trillion versus $255 million to $1 billion.

The amounts for Afghanistan and Iraq are yet to be allocated. The monies for this operation are already in existing allocations.

The argument about the cost is stupid.

[VoteProgressive]

20. We have to replace those missiles! nt

[ProSense]

21. Why?

Being against this operation and using the argument that the missiles have to be replaces seems incongruous to me.

I mean, what are the missisle for? Other than Afghanistan, when was the last time there was a direct threat to the U.S.

In any case, replacing the missiles is not a valid argument.

[timo]

28. actually thats NOT an intelligent answer

YES the missiles WILL be replaced, if your protecting your country from possible threats YOU DO NOT WALK AROUND WITH AN EMPTY GUN, AN EMPTY GUN WILL DO YOU NO GOOD WHEN THE MOMENT OF NEED ARISES!!!!

[ProSense]

30. " if your protecting your country from possible threats YOU DO NOT WALK AROUND WITH AN EMPTY GUN"

People face threats every day. Should everyone be allowed to walk around with loaded guns?

That's not an intelligent response to the point I made.

No one is advocating not replacing the missiles, but using the cost of the missiles in relation to the debt as an argument is bogus.

Missiles that expire are replaced. What about the debt?

[VoteProgressive]

33. Sure it is. It means you add their cost to the cost of this operation. nt

[Johnny2X2X]

22. Saudi Arabia

I am excited to see us helping the cause of Freedom in the Middle East, but when is the 1st time Saudi Arabia's name comes up? They are a brutal regime which practices Sharia Law.

[BlueMTexpat]

26. I agree with everything that you say.

It is one of the most radical and repressive regimes in the world. But Saudi Arabia is not bombing its own people right now.

[ProSense]

31. Iran, North Korea

a lot of countries. Are you claiming that no one should be helped because everyone isn't being helped?

[Dash87]

29. The solid fact is, we should not be in Libya when millions of Americans need our help.

All of the money spent on cruise missiles and this war could have fed hundreds of thousands of families for years.

It's time to pull out of all countries, and for America to start thinking of its own citizens for a change. :(

[timo]

34. I agree a bazzilllliooonn percent!!!

but the loons in here wanna feed every stray dog and cat for life.....its a rough world and no one ever said it was gonna be fair....let the other countries fend for their own damn selves!!!

[Johnny2X2X]

35. Hypocrisy at it's highest levels

SCORECARD

George Bush 1 Dictator Dispatched (who had no connection to terrorism against the US) , Cost- over 2$ Trillion, 4427 American Lives, 30,000+ American casualties

Barack Obama 1 Dictator about to be Dispatched (who is a proven terrorist who has killed Americans), Cost $100 Million+ (EST), 0 American Lives, 0 American Casualties thus far.

Now, which one should I complain about?

If there was a hypocrisy scale this would break the needle.

[Keith Bee]

36. Kick