So, a question comes to mind about Libya and Iraq..

[DFab420]

Both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi are dictators who rule through terror and violence.

Both were/are actively seeking out political opposition and out right murdering them for their views.

How do we, as progressives who wailed against the Iraq war. How do we now reconcile calling for the bombardment of Libya, which is exactly how the war in Iraq started. Also how do we, as progressives who wail against the inhumanity of predators and smart missiles, suddenly accept the fact that actively engaging in military operations over Gaddafi controlled Libya won't result in the possible deaths of innocent civilians.


Why is ok to intervene on this dictator and it was not to on Saddam Hussein ? I understand that the idea about WMDs was a lie, and that certainly throughs a bit of weight behind the difference, but still, we are now once again actively policing the world. Is this something that this time we support? Is it ok to cheer for military action after railing against it so hard for so long?

Asking for clear well thought out responses please. I think this could be a really interesting discussion as to the grey areas of morality and force.

[rug]

1. Because these are progressive bombs.

[meow mix]

2. sorry im not going to support mutilating protestors to satisfy isolationists

and i dont have any respect for a so called liberal that would turn thier backs on sanity here. im glad the world is more sane than they are.

[DFab420]

5. Ok.. so when we invaded Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

"The New York Times described in its obituary how Saddam "murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".<37> Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.<38> Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000<39> to over 600,000,<40> estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,<41> and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000<42> to 200,000.<40> Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.<43""[br />

Saddam had already worked up a death toll the shadows the death toll in Libya right now the way Everest shadows a man. Were we sane then? Were we righteous then? Of course we didn't go in because he was murdering Kurds or his own people, but going in did stop that. So I put it to you.. Do you now support the invasion of Iraq because you couldn't turn your back on the mass slaughter of so many? If not, please tell me how you see them as different, on a humanitarian level.

[meow mix]

10. ah right i forgot iraq has swollen into the entire universe...

when are you guys going to talk about the issue at hand? instead of the constant avoidance games.

[DFab420]

15. WHAT?

Did you even read my OP?

The entire discussion is about Iraq and Libya, and the similarities and how its a bit hypocritical to call for military action in one country and then think it's wrong in another at the same time. Especially using humanitarian need as the basis for support. Iraqis needed help just as much as the Libyan people do.

[meow mix]

16. we had an open revolt to support in iraq? hmm i guess i missed it

link plz

[DFab420]

20. Ok a couple of things.

There was the First Gulf war, which was the liberation of Kuwait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Then as for the oppostion, I'm sure they would have stood up and revolted had the NOT BEEN MURDERED!

Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000<10> to over 600,000,<11> estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,<12> and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000<13> to 200,000.<11> Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.<14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq


But you're right, I mean they weren't in the streets, obviously it wasn't dire. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

21. People who need help need help, whether they are openly revolting or not, don't they?

Is an open revolt a qualifier for you before you feel we should help them?

[DFab420]

23. Exactly.

[meow mix]

24. if you want to fixate on iraq to avoid the topic at hand go ahead guys

love the avoidance.. look over there, at everything else! lol

this is the last time im going to indulge your games

[DFab420]

26. Wow, are you purposefully being obtuse?

THE DISCUSSION IS HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THE DISLIKE OF WAR IN IRAQ WHILE SUPPORTING WAR MANEUVERS ON LIBYA!!!!!! Do you get it now? I'm not avoiding the topic, you just aren't paying attention.

[Forkboy]

39. LOL...you're just playing games with yourself.

:)

[Forkboy]

38. Speaking of avoidance. I love yours as well.

Taking rather a cowardly stance here, aren't you?

this is the last time im going to indulge your games

How will I go on in life?

[rug]

6. How about mutilating civilians to stop mutilators from mutilating protesters?

[meow mix]

8. i think theyd want a fighting chance.

your telling me they dont want a fighting chance. they prefer to just be killed outright. uh no wonder you guys are so mixed up.

[DFab420]

12. Not really, I know where I stand on this issue.

I support military action if necessary, just as I saw the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. What I am asking is how people who still to this day view Iraq as wrong can be calling for the start of aggression towards another country.

I think they want a fighting chance too, but I'm also just as sure that the civilians that live in between, the ones not fighting for whatever reasons, probably don't want Tripoli to start looking like a bombed out downtown Baghdad.

[rug]

13. You guys?

How many mutilated children are asking for a fighting chance?

[meow mix]

17. youll have to ask the ones ghadfi has tortured...

im not sure of any others hopefully none

[rug]

27. Ok, give me the link to the children Qaddai's tortured.

[Upton]

3. Reading the text of Obama's speech..

all you have to do is substitute Iraq for Libya and Saddam for Gaddafi, and boy does it sound eerily familiar..

The folks advocating for this intervention are making the war profiteers very happy.

[forty6]

4. Another costly war we cannot afford, and another number of fallen soldiers!

Those who cannot remember the recent past.....

[Kennah]

7. War is our only industry

[meow mix]

11. right, they arent worth it. we can only help people whos "worth" is more than the expense.

disgusting way to look at it there.

[Posteritatis]

29. Shades of the Rwanda discussion back in the nineties

"The only resource they have is people, and there's too many of them anyway."

Ugh.

[forty6]

31. IF Libya is worth it, why not Somalia, Uganda, Darfur? following your logic...

If you don't know, the reason for going into Libya is that they have oil !!!

Those other places, not so much. Same abuses of humans. Not the same response.

[Forkboy]

40. None them had the guts to openly revolt, so they didn't make her radar.

[forty6]

41. I guess you listen to American News sources....and miss the facts

Rawanda:

"For some time now, the international community has described Uganda and Rwanda as Africa’s Superstars. Their leaders, General Yoweri Museveni and General Paul Kagame, have been variously praised as the new ‘kids on the block’ and a ‘new generation African leaders’.

It is now becoming clear that these praises were nothing but misrepresentations of reality by a self-seeking international community; a community whose main interest was to nature and impose two pro-western warrior-rulers capable of protecting the West’s economic and geo-political strategic interests."........

"Signs of an impending revolt in Uganda

In Uganda, the September 2009 Buganda uprising which saw many demonstrating civilians shot dead by the security forces showed that thousands of simple Baganda people were ready to die in the name of securing their Kingdom from the threats of a hostile NRM government."

http://www.ugandacorrespondent.com/articles/2011/01/uganda-rwanda-have-signs-of-imminent-rebellion/

American News sources all fail to factually inform.

[Forkboy]

53. I know that, my post was sarcasm.

[Posteritatis]

44. Are you kidding me?

Somalia, Uganda and Darfur haven't had insurrections? Are you seriously trying to claim that?

They didn't make your radar because they're Somalia, Uganda, and Darfur, not because of some lack of moral quality on their part.

[Forkboy]

54. Sarcasm about someone else.

Relax.

[Posteritatis]

55. Dammit, Poe's Law!

Fair enough. :)

[Forkboy]

56. My fault.

I never use the emoticon. It was bound to get me in trouble sooner or later. :)

[Posteritatis]

42. That'd be part of it

Part would also be that there's a concerted attempt to depose the guy that just might succeed (or would have before last week's reverses). That's cold logic, about as cold as oil as a casus belli, but it's certainly there. I don't like it, as my rant below will illustrate, but it makes a certain sense. It might have also gone that way in Egypt if the government hadn't folded, if just because the Suez Canal is way too important a location. Fortunately it didn't get to that point.

I do think the reasoning behind ignoring the other places you mention is more plain and simple bigotry, too - two of the three countries you mention (well, treating Darfur as part of Sudan there) have substantial amounts of oil either on hand or sitting underneath them. I think they're being ignored not because there's no oil there, but because of a combination of the Mogadishu Line and that tired "oh, they're all just primitive tribes in a perpetual war of all against all and will never ever get better anyway" line that keeps getting bandied about, with its extra implication of "it's not like they're real people."

I think it's tragic, frustrating, and outrageously goddamned offensive that Somalia, Uganda and Darfur aren't seen as worth it.

[joshcryer]

33. "We" aren't paying for it. Costs will be mostly split between 11 countries.

The United States in particular is only acting as an "enabling force" (aircraft carriers, AWACs, fueling ships, etc).

[forty6]

43. How are we not paying if 11 countries are paying? Are we putting it on some...

Libyan credit card?

Check back with us in a year, and tell us how many billions of dollars we did NOT pay for this with.

[joshcryer]

46. I was attempting to clarify that we weren't footing the entire bill.

From my POV the operations will cost no more than typical exercises if the revolutionaries can end it quick.

[ecstatic]

9. Either remove all dictators, or leave them all alone

And since removing them all is neither possible or practical, then I say we just mind our business and make it very easy for citizens in oppressed countries to immigrate here.

[Posteritatis]

30. How do you propose to actually do that?

All making it easy for people from, say, North Korea or Burma or a few other places to immigrate to the US would do is give warm fuzzies to Americans hopelessly naive enough to believe that such a thing would be possible for people in those situations.

[malaise]

14. Mubarak, the Saudis, Yemen,

Bahrain, Jordan , etc are all led by dictators.
Why was Mubarak referred to as President but Gaddafi by his surname.
Why are the protesters in Bahrain anti-government protesters but those attempting to overthrow the dictator disliked by the West called rebels against a 'regime'. They are all fucking regimes and I do not support invading sovereign states. The United States and other Western powers do not own the world.
Bush was wrong and Obama is about to be just as wrong.

Saddam no longer is - the US backed goons hanged the head of a sovereign state following an illegal invasion and an illegal war. War crimes were committed in Iraq.

Wrong wrong wrong - this is all about stealing oil by controlling the Middle West and North America. I say fuck all the looters - they don't give a shot who dies once they have the oil.

I notice they played down the bombing of the oil refineries in Iraq a few weeks ago. The people in the Middle East and North America understand what's going on much better than most folks in the West.

[leftstreet]

25. +1

And I would add: This is also about smashing democracy outbreaks. After Tunisia and Egypt, the West needs to help Gaddafi suppress Arab revolt. Every dictator/king in the region worth his ill-gotten western $$ is probably hoping for a WIN-FOR-OUR-SIDE through brutal repression

:grr:

[oberliner]

52. You asked: Why was Mubarak referred to as President but Gaddafi by his surname.

One possible answer is that Gaddafi was/is not president.

In fact, as recently as a few weeks ago, Gaddafi himself made that same point:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has said that he is not a president and so cannot resign his position, and that power is in the hands of the people, during a televised public rally in the capital, Tripoli.

"Muammar Gaddafi is not a president to resign, he does not even have a parliament to dissolve," Gaddafi said on Wednesday, his third public appearance since the uprising, surrounded by dozens of supporters in a large ballroom for a ceremony to mark 34 years of "people power".

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132113120236750.html

Also, not sure what your point is with respect to the word "regime". This term has been used in the context of Bahrain by the Western media just as it has in the context of Libya.

Examples from UK and US sources:

Bahrain's regime talks softly while bringing the big guns in

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/15/bahrain-protesters-saudi-army

Bahraini regime enlists Saudi-led forces against protests

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-bahrain_N.htm

Also, please note that the no-fly zone resolution was first introduced by the representative from Lebanon, the only Arab state currently a member of the Security Council.

And to quote his remarks:

"..a no-fly zone in no way could qualify as a foreign intervention. I would hope that the establishment of a no-fly zone would have a deterrent effect on the Gadhafi regime, not to fly its airplanes to attack civilian areas."

From the looks of things, this prediction of a "deterrent effect" may be coming to pass.

[Duende azul]

58. Gosh, finally someone makes sense here! Thank you!

[Shagbark Hickory]

18. If we go into another war over this shit, I'm moving to another country.

I've had it with this bullshit.

[forty6]

47. We are going in... no ground troops committed so far... but we ARE

going to be part of multi-national assault on a vicious dictatorship which kills their own people.

We've done this before, in 2003, and we are still counting the dead Americans because of this.

I hope this will be equally shared between a dozen nations, but I see nations leaving Iraq after a year or two..etc.

Those who cannot remember history....

[Bluerthanblue]

19. well, I'm not

thinkin all that clearly today,(not that I ever am) but I see this situation as very different than Iraq.


The Military operations against Hussein were undertaken NOT because he was quelling an uprising of his own people, but because GW Bush wanted the war. He wanted revenge for his father's failure to oust Hussein- for the supposed 'assassination attempt' against his father, because he maybe really believed his own rhetoric that Iraq was a threat (to his agenda for the M.E.). And he convinced some of the American people that Iraq was a 'threat to America, and the free world'.

I don't see the situation in Libya as anything near the same. Our intervention in this country at this time, is based on the fact that Gadahfi is using violence to quell what began as a peaceful protest against the ruling power in Libya. We've watched similar situations evolve in Egypt and Tunisia and Bahrain- without the violent response that is happening in Libya.

The question of when and where to get involved in the political upheavals of sovereign nations is a difficult one. I'm not sure I know how to address this - but I don't see the pre-emptive, strong-armed, illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq as similar to this decision to join in the UN's response to Gadahfi's attack against his fellow citizens.

[DFab420]

22. I understand that the "reason" we went to war wasn't about humanitarian aid.

However. As I Have pointed out before. Saddam Hussein murdered almost half a million people because they weren't members of the Sunni class, which was only about 20% of the Iraqi population.



" Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000<10> to over 600,000,<11> estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,<12> and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000<13> to 200,000.<11> Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.<14>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

So just because the UN said this time it's ok it's ok? But stopping Hussein (even inadvertently) was wrong?

I have difficulty separating the two.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. well, there are SO

many places that outside intervention would be 'justified'- in many people's minds.

Rwanda, Sudan, Cote d'Ivoire to name just a few.
It's impossible for me to come up with rational justification as to why the world sits by in some cases and gets involved in others.

Bush Sr. encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein, and then left them out to dry at the end of the first Gulf War, AFTER helping goad Hussein into invading Kuwait in the first place.

Sorry, wish I had a better answer to your issue. As for the numbers of victims- that (to me) isn't as important as it is to some. A handful of people are no less precious than hundreds of thousands they just don't usually have the voice, or inspire the outrage that massive numbers do.

:shrug:

[Posteritatis]

28. Yeah, I don't get the people claiming they're clearly exactly the same either

It's hard to get more unilateral than anything that has enough support to get the kind of Security Council resolution that got passed last night - something with that kind of teeth hasn't passed through that body since the invasion of Kuwait - and the people talking about how it's clearly another invasion meant to conquer and subjugate the Libyan people blah blah blah really need to shut up for long enough to read the damn thing already.

The simple version is that the world community's declared this particular intervention just and righteous, in line with the doctrine of R2P - something I heartily agree with - and that it is not/i] just "lol let's invade another Muslim country for the hell of it" situation like Iraq basically wound up being.

[joshcryer]

32. Are we talking about Desert Storm or Enduring Freedom?

Desert Storm was sanctioned by the UN, as Saddam had invaded another country. Near the end of that war there was an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq">uprising marching toward Baghdad to overthrow Saddam. Bush I decided "oh well" and bailed out. Guess how many casualties there were? 100 thousand or more.

Move to the 2011 Libyan uprising. 800 thousand people are vocally against Gaddafi, along with tens of thousands of military defectors. Gaddafi razed 6 cities in 3 days and is sitting outside of Benghazi and ready to raze it, with over 800 thousand people in its population.

What is the international community supposed to do?

Do we want the UN to mean something? To have a voice and to actually act? Well?

The reason so many of us were against Enduring Freedom is simple, Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and the killings had normalized (no doubt he killed and tortured people every day, such is the act of tyrants). We knew damn straight that the war was illegitimate and that it would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

What we can get from this, the major difference here, is that the Libyan Revolutionaries held on long enough to get the UN to act on their behalf. That's the major difference. Unfortunately for the Iraqi revolutionaries, that was not the case. :cry:

[DFab420]

34. I was thinking along the lines of enduring freedom.

However just a question on your point. If let's say, just if, bush 2 had said we were gooing to iraq for humanitarian reasons. Due to the fact saddam was activly wiping out Shia and Kurds. Would it have your support then? Just curious how much the deception plays into it.

[joshcryer]

36. I would wholeheartedly support it if the international community supported it.

But the international community clearly doesn't support action until 1) there's a rebellion that has a chance of succeeding and 2) they survive for a month without outside military assistance.

I would genuinely like the bar to be lowered a lot.

[Posteritatis]

45. They're certainly setting that bar with a shovel, aren't they? (nt)

[joshcryer]

49. The UN failed to act when it should have in other much worse situations, I agree.

If I am understanding your shovel comment.

[Posteritatis]

51. Yeah, definitely what I meant

I'm torn between blaming the organization and blaming the veto wielders as often as not, though; which gets my ire depends on my mood but the fact remains that the end results could be more, ah, consistent.

I'm still astonished that a resolution with the kind of fangs this one has passed.

[joshcryer]

37. BTW, Enduring Freedom was in fact *not* supported by the UN. It supported the return of inspectors.

Bush used the UN and the previous war resolution (1991) to "prove" that the international community supported the invasion of Iraq, but it didn't. It was by all accounts an illegal war and if we can get the International Criminal Courts legitimized we might be able to get Bush convicted in them. (20 years from now, but we have to be patient.)

[LiberalAndProud]

48. I am not in favor of this, but I would remind folks that the UN did not back us in Iraq.

We had a "willing coalition". But the UN did not swallow the yellow cake lies that Colin Powell trotted before them.

[joshcryer]

50. Exactly. The UN approved the return of inspectors, that's all. Bush effectively, unilaterally...

...attacked Iraq because we were "still at war with Iraq."

[chill_wind]

57. A no-fly zone. And then what? It wasn't even in the cards a week ago.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one."

How Obama turned on a dime toward war
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/blog/11505

Iraq was a war based on lies. They miscalculated a lot in their eagerness to lie.

We don't have here the BushCo lies. But time will tell about the effectiveness of the planning.
Not even Gates thought this was a good idea. Maybe because he doesn't know what the long plan is supposed to be, either.

Steve Clemons-
No-Fly Zone Over Libya Could Backfire & Undermine Protests in Middle East

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2011/03/no-fly_zone_ove/

Let's just hope it really does prove to be the deterrent everybody is hoping for.