Are you for or against the no-fly zone in Libya?

[oberliner]

Seems pretty split around here. What are DUers thoughts on the matter?

Be curious to hear arguments pro and con from those who are following it closely and/or have strong opinions on the subject.

[joshcryer]

1. For.

Gaddafi is a tyrant, the revolutionaries have called for a No Fly Zone for over 3 weeks. I only hope it is not too late.

[L. Coyote]

43. Against. Remember all the excuses to invade Iraq, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Mexico, Cuba, the Holy Land

Yeah, let's start another crusade and steal some oil because someone is a bad person!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. I'm for whatever it takes to create a NO KILLING zone. n't

[Mojeoux]

18. No Fly Yes!! Yesterday, Today, Tommorro! No Bombing!

Stop Killing!

[KittyWampus]

3. I am completely ambivalent.

[dipsydoodle]

5. I had one of those

but the wheels fell off.

[seabeyond]

4. i heard a handful say it was a good idea. i heard one person say would do no good.

i tend to go with.... do it.

on edit... i see un voted for it. i am all for it coming thru un.

[rpannier]

6. I'm for it

Ghadafi needs to go.
They will use everything at their disposal to put down the rebels no matter what the human cost is.
If they kill 50,000 innocent people it will make no difference to him.

[endless october]

7. for.

[Kennah]

8. I might have supported it weeks ago ...

... but I'm wondering if it's not already too late.

[oberliner]

12. What do you mean by "too late" ?

You think the rebels are doomed?

[Kennah]

56. Sadly, yes

I hope I'm wrong.

[Biker13]

41. I Think You're Right.

It's a ground war now...three weeks ago it would have helped, but it is now too late.

Biker's Old Lady

[KeepItReal]

68. Agreed.

Qaddafi is gonna survive no-fly zones just like Saddam did.

UN is not gonna invade, so the freedom fighters in Libya are still pretty much on their own.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. I'm against the U.S. getting involved. Let someone else do it for a change.

Though I do think Gaddafi needs to go.

[oberliner]

13. What about the UN Security Council vote?

Do you support that decision?

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. Sure I do. Send in other countries to do the dirty work.

Why do we always have the money for wars and never have money for the people in our country? I'm sick of it. Send in the Arab League. We don't need to get involved here.

[joshcryer]

17. The US is not playing a significant role at all.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. I understand that. However, the U.S. shouldn't be involved at all. Period. n/t

[joshcryer]

29. OK, assume the US abstained. It would've still passed.

[in_cog_ni_to]

58. Now, isn't that a terrible argument? Had the U.S. abstained, we wouldn't be involved.

That's the problem. We're already fighting 2 wars and cannot afford another one.

[joshcryer]

74. I have seen no evidence that our involvement goes beyond what we'd be spending in normal...

...exercises.

[The Wielding Truth]

31. That's a perfect place to be. If the world is together against injustice

we can also fight crime together. To me terrorism is crime.

[joshcryer]

32. Exactly. The Arab League, the Arab States, and the UN, along with the idiots who armed...

...him with new weapons are getting involved.

If only gun dealers in the US went after the gangs who bought their guns...

[bluestateguy]

10. Honestly?

Right now my attention is upon the situations in Japan, Wisconsin and our economy here at home.

[krabigirl]

71. Well, our economy at home will be affected badly if we go into another war.

This is but a prelude.

[readmoreoften]

11. If McCain, Lieberman, and Gingrich are for it, it has to be good.

:sarcasm:

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110308-how-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-backfire
http://socialistworker.org/2011/03/09/no-friend-to-libyan-uprising

[joshcryer]

14. And Kerry?

[oberliner]

27. Kucinich is against it

For what that is worth:

Kucinich Says No! To ‘No-Fly’ Zone Over Libya

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x675117

[oberliner]

45. With Obama now supporting it, Gingrich will probably change his mind

Or come up with some way to blame Obama should things not go as planned.

[rug]

15. Against.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. dupe....delete

[Ohio Joe]

19. I have some really mixed emotions about it

I would really like to see the Libyans be free of their tyrant but he does have them out gunned and shows no problem in using the guns. So yeah, part of me wants us to help them by helping with the no fly zone. The other part of me though knows it would not really end there, more would be required and I do not want us getting involved in another war. Then I think.... man, he is really going to fuck up a lot of people keeping his throne and punish a lot more once he is set... I do not know the correct answer, there does not seem to be one for us in this situation.

[cali]

20. I don't know. I'm torn. n/t

[jannyk]

21. For!

[roamer65]

22. Avidly for all measures necessary to protect the rebels.

Free Libya!!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. As long as the Arab League leads it, I am fine with providing logisitical support

[daa]

26. Against unless there is one in Yeman against the Saudis

And not one more workd about "the deficit" or cutting social security or shared sacrifice to pay for war on a third FRONT.

[meow mix]

28. im for it and more.

take him out

[BeFree]

34. We've propped him up

We should now help take him down?

War, unless we are attacked, is not an answer.

The only profits made from further or expanded war in Libya is going right to the oil companies.
And the oil companies have attacked us.

We need to stay out of this civil war.

[meow mix]

63. not a civil war, its hired killers hacking the limbs of the actual citizens

take him out.

[BeFree]

73. Are the hired...

....Flying jets?

And whose jets would they be flying if they were flying jets?
American jets? French jets? Russian jets?

[oberliner]

81. Most are Russian jets, I believe.

Some French.

[xchrom]

30. This is a long shot: as long as they don't subvert

A Peoples movement - I'm for it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

33. I hope that people understand the definition of a "no fly zone".

Remember what Gates said:
"A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defences. That's the way you do a no-fly zone.
And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down. But that's the way it starts," Gates said.
"It requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier. It is a big operation in a big country," he told lawmakers.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/142655/implementing-no-fly-zone-would.html

I am against our invading any countries. Period.
The only reason the US would get involved...IS involved..is because of the oil.
Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa.

The PNAC plan ( remember that?) called “Rebuilding America” stated that we need to invade Afghanistan, ... Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.

One may note that there has not been a word of USA concern about the people uprising on the Ivory Coast.
Somalia's conflict continues....not a peep from Hillary.

[oberliner]

35. How do you explain Lebanon's passionate plea for a no-fly zone?

France, as well.

Both have been pushing it hard at the UN - much moreso than the US.

[joshcryer]

It's all going to be about empire/imperialism and crap for some.

The dead that Gaddafi killed won't matter.

[dipsydoodle]

39. That's all we need

common sense.

Like you said "on the others not a peep from her the well known pronoun"

:hi:

[bvar22]

36. While I think a legitimate No Fly Zone would be a good thing,

I absolutely Do Not Trust our current government to implement one
without taking advantage of the situation for another round of Shock Doctrine Capitalism.
There is also the probability of Mission Creep with the current PTB/MIC to include another ground war in the Middle East.

IF we implement a No Fly Zone,
we MUST be prepared for whatever form of government the Libyan Rebels decide THEY want.
Remember Afghanistan....the Taliban WON.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. More than just a no-fly zone

let's be clear about what's actually being planned. The US ambassador to the UN was calling for air strikes against Gaddafi's forces, specifically tanks and artillery. That's a bit more than a no-fly zone. The UN resolution as passed authorises "all measures short of an occupation force".

[joshcryer]

Yes, you can't have tanks driving around able to shoot your planes down.

I don't see what's controversial about that since Gaddafi, from the very beginning, was shooting his own people with anti-aircraft tanks.

[Akoto]

38. For. I don't support Gaddafi massacring civilians. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or not...

What do you think? Are you for or against it?

[oberliner]

53. I can understand that

I would say that I am still in the information-gathering stage.

Not sure that I fully understand all the ramifications of the decision (or the ramifications of not taking such an action).

[Violet_Crumble]

59. That's definately where I am at the moment...

I'm worried that a no-fly zone does more harm to the people of Libya than to Gaddhafi, but I'm also worried that not doing it inadvertently helps Gaddhafi stay in power...

[Bandit]

42. No more military involvement anywhere..

Bring our troops home NOW.

[MikeW]

44. No ... if the Senate insists this country is broke then were broke and dont have the $300M / week

to run this op.

Not to mention I dont believe for a minute considering Obama's last comment something to the effect of "going beyond a no-fly zone"

that were not going to put boots on the ground.

[JonLP24]

46. No idea

but I 'rec' for the discussion.

[jannyk]

47. If we had supported the rebels in Iraq after we stirred them up...

...there's an excellent chance we wouldn't be stuck in Iraq right now. We dropped the ball then, don't let's do it again!

[joshcryer]

51. Yep. I remember my dad being against Bush I allowing Saddam to massacre the uprising.

[Canuckistanian]

48. No-fly, OK. But not ONE boot on the ground.

And that's what a lot of Libyans want as well.

[Bonhomme Richard]

65. There are probably boots on the ground now targeting.......

anti aircraft battery's.

[Canuckistanian]

72. As long as they don't get discovered

It would be a PR coup for Ghaddafi to say that foreigners have been involved since day one as agitators.

[mahina]

49. For.

[jakeXT]

50. Knocking down the most developed country in Africa into stone age

At least one thing we are good at...

[jenmito]

52. FOR due to the way it was done. This is NOT U.S.-led like the neocons wanted. They

got a U.N. resolution which is the smart way to do it.

[toddwv]

54. I'm mostly for but I don't think the US should be the primary enforcer.

There are MANY other countries with the firepower to deal with Libya's decades old military apparatus.

[OHdem10]

55. I had reservations, but since the Planes may be in Air with

UK, France, UAE, Jordan, as an old fashioned Liberal,
I support our troops.

[daleo]

57. It will turn into another war for oil. n/t

[neverforget]

60. I wonder what programs we're going to cut to pay for this?

:shrug:

[chill_wind]

77. Raising health care premiums and deductables on Vets

was one proposal being kicked around by the Pentagon and DLC think tankers before all this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x672252#top

I can't believe they would even utter the idea.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

61. FOR (strongly). It's the least we can do for people fighting for freedom against a gangster. nt

[Zambero]

62. For, with NO subsequent occupation

If a multi-nation coalition implements a no-fly zone and it provides the rebels with an advantage in overthrowing the current regime, I'm all for it. If there is no form of outside intervention and the rebels fail, the outlook for democracy in the Middle East will be greatly diminished, as other dictatorial regimes in the region will conclude that brutal force will quell any uprising. What we certainly don't need is to establish another long-term military presence. Just get in and get out and provide freedom-seeking Libyans with the opportunity to chart their own future.

[jberryhill]

64. For

[Scuba]

66. Gotta be there, gotta get that oil. n/t

[backscatter712]

67. FOR!!! Sorry, but violence CAN be used for good!

It's about fucking time we acted. I hope it's not too late.

Maybe if we're lucky, Gadaffi himself will get napalmed. He earned it.

[Ian David]

69. I'm for it, so long as someone else does it this time. n/t

[krabigirl]

70. against any intervention by the U.S. in Libya. nt

[hlthe2b]

75. For, but Arab nations need to take the lead... western nations

would be support only....

[Shagbark Hickory]

76. The only thing I'm for is the most that Switzerland is willing to do. It's time for them to step up.

And let the rest of us be "neutral".

[NoTimeToulouse]

78. For

Somebody other than the United States doing it. Let Britain Italy and France take this one. They have 3-5 aircraft carriers over there.

[Ramulux]

79. This thread is insane

People are being killed and oppressed all over the world and suffering under dictatorial regimes. We do not have the right to intervene in all of these conflicts just because we are America, we are not fucking special and we do not have the money or right to declare war on Libya. Horrible shit happens all over the world and many times the people suffering in these countries, beg the rest of the world to help them. It sucks but we cant save everyone and even if we could, doing it in a violent militaristic fashion doesn't solve anything.

[oberliner]

80. There was a UN Security Council vote pushed primarily by France and Lebanon

This is not a US-led initiative. In fact, the US has dragged its feet about supporting it for several weeks.

Numerous countries around the world are supporting taking this action in order to help prevent what could be massive civilian casualties.

[somone]

86. Yep, let the French take care of it

[joshcryer]

89. They armed him, they need to disarm him.

Simple.

[jenmito]

83. We got the UN on our side so it's NOT us doing it "just because we are America." n/t

[Upton]

87. That's the same argument the Repubs used

when challenged over the first Iraq war....did you support that too?

[jenmito]

88. That's not true. Bush promised to take a vote in the UN but when he learned France would

veto it, he went in anyway without the UN vote.

ETA: The resolution establishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians." It also authorizes UN member states to take "all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/unsc-approves-nofly-zone-over-libya/146306-2.html

NO boots on the ground-another big difference with Bush's Iraq invasion based on LIES (another difference).

[jacquelope]

82. Absolutely yes!!

As long as it's done entirely by the Arabs and not us, that is.

[thewiseguy]

84. I am for it and glad Obama was on board.

Can not wait for the SOB Gaddafi to try his luck.

[malaise]

85. Vehemently against n/t

[fascisthunter]

90. against.... we have enough on our own plate here in the US

such as our government merging with corporate interests then using our military with money we borrow from other countries to invade other countries for business interests. Enough is enough....