The usual rhetoric is already in force: "If you aren't with us, you are with Ghaddafi"

[howard112211]

At least that is what I am getting out of several posts here on DU. Nice to see that many who proclaim to be Democrats act like Republicans when it is THEIR leader who is going to war.

[Hannah Bell]

1. rec but still zero

[cali]

2. I haven't seen it, but I'm not surprised.

and although I'm opposed to the U.S. bombing Libya as part of a U.N. no fly zone, I do understand the why others would not be. In any case, you're doing the same thing- hurling abuse at others who disagree with YOU.

[howard112211]

6. I suppose I am. But then, who is truly innocent here at DU?

;)

[ixion]

3. Yep, seeing the same thing

and I'm disgusted by the war mongers here on DU. As long as it's a dem doing the bombing, these stooges seem to think that's just a-okay...even though the Libya rebels have said "stay away," we're still going to 'liberate' them.

[stockholmer]

4. I stand w/ the five abstaining UNSC member nations- Russia,China,India,Brazil,& Germany against this

Plus, the USA is standing by doing nothing as Bahrain brutally murders its citizens, with the aid of the troglodytic House of Saud.

:thumbsdown:

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

[sakabatou]

7. On here? Really?

Well, at least we'll be hearing that from Fox "News."

[joshcryer]

8. Link some of these posts. I find that most people who are against the NFZ...

...are ignorant of what is going on, have no idea what Gaddafi has done, and overall are diminishing the fighting that the revolutionaries have embarked upon for almost a month.

Now I can link posts suggesting that United States money is more important than lives (ignoring the fact that 12 countries have signed on to help the NFZ).

I can link posts suggesting that the United States "wants the oil" (ignoring the fact that the Arab League tabled the NFZ resolution and that the United States was the last to sign on to it).

I can link posts that attempt to compare other events in the Middle East to Libya in a very derisive "tongue in cheek" sort of way (ignoring the fact that none are yet comparable to Libya and that they have not escalated to the point where the military refuses to take orders to fire upon their own civilians, subsequently defecting to the side of the revolutionaries).

I can link to posts that attempt to dishonestly portray the revolutionaries as people who did not want intervention (ignoring the fact that they lost 6 cities in 3 days, many people died, many more people were unaccounted for or 'disappeared' and the fact that the vast majority of them wanted the NFZ).

But I bet you won't be able to link to a post in the vein that you are suggesting.

[howard112211]

9. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=674742&mesg_id=675462
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=675992&mesg_id=678833

and I saw one or two that apparently were deleted. Oh well.

[joshcryer]

10. Those should be deleted too. Thanks for following through. But I wouldn't consider that "in force."

"In force" implies it's everywhere when it's really not.

[Bosonic]

11. Do you suffer from amnesia?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4771022#4771130

[joshcryer]

17. Nicely done.

But that poster in particular has made pro-Gaddafi statements. I've tried my damndest not to make these generalizations and to inform people of what is happening in Libya when they make really lame statements. That poster has been effectively harassing me for days now with his anti-revolutionary stuff. And I can find the links if you need them but you appear equipped to find them yourself.

[pampango]

12. And "If you're not with us, you are a warmonger." There is, apparently, no middle ground. n/t

[cali]

13. raises hand. I could be said to be occupying that scorned place

Although I'm against the action, I do understand why others would be for it.

[howard112211]

14. I guess the problem is that when it comes to war it is hard to be neutral.

These are questions of life an death. Its not like we are discussing which historical figure the new elementary school should be named after.

But then again, maybe it should be. I fit the profile of someone who gets wound up about such things, either way: Male and below the age of 30. Maybe there are good reasons why politics should be done mainly by older people.

[cali]

18. I'm not neutral. I have a position. I'm just not willing to demonize those here

who disagree with me. I don't think many of them are merely supporting this because a dem president is involved in it. And no, young people should be as much a part of politics as older folks.

But I would say, don't confuse vehemence with degree of commitment.

[pampango]

16. "Although I'm against the action, I do understand why others would be for it."

Thanks, Cali. Such an expression of mutual respect for posters who disagree on any action or issue seems rare here (and probably nonexistent at certain RW message boards). :) Many disagreements seem to devolve into accusations that the "other side" belongs to some nefarious "force of evil" (in this case, pro-Gaddafi or warmonger) rather than a progressive who sees things through a different lens or with different priorities.

[malaise]

15. I don't give a flying fugg

I'm against this UN hypocrisy crap.

[old mark]

19. Do you think Ghadaffi will just change his mind and go away?...

"Gosh... Maybe I was wrong to kill all those people...maybe I should re-think this..."

I doubt it.

mark

Who STILL claims to be a Democrat