All of you who are now suddenly so concerned about Libyan civilians ......

[Joe the Revelator]

What would you have rather had the rest of the world do while Gadaffi butchered these same people? Watch quietly tsking in his general direction?

[MineralMan]

1. That is the question, isn't it?

Not an easy one to answer, either. Let's see if anyone tries.

[MH1]

9. I'll bet if Obama had 'done nothing',

some of the same people who are complaining about the military action now, would instead be complaining about the lack of action. "Obama's just deserting the protestors!"

It's kind of an interesting dynamic.

(That doesn't mean the military action is necessarily a good thing or being done well. It sure as hell will cost a lot of money. But I guess replenishing our missile stocks is a 'jobs program' that both parties will support, sigh.)

[MineralMan]

17. Yes. That's probably what would have happened. President

Obama can't win with some folks, no matter what his decisions are. I'm pretty used to that here.

[Bluerthanblue]

19. I'll join you in that bet-

I'm not convinced it's about the issue as much as it is about an opportunity to spread the negative message.

:shrug:

[Joe the Revelator]

26. Thats 99% of it. Usual suspects spouting the usual rw inspired talking points.

[fishwax]

42. and some of the same people defending him would probably still be defending him

From what I've observed on DU, that seems to work both ways :)

[Joe the Revelator]

43. This is such a cop out though...

Not your post, but the fact that we'd rather watch Gadaffi kill his people instead of helping them when they ask for it.

[vaberella]

133. Not bloody likely.

You don't travel all over DU. I'm not a fan of this mission. But I support the international effort and all I'm defending is the overall language that was used and I notice many on DU mistaken on purpose to sort of show how much like Bush he is in this particular situation as well. I don't think that is the way to go even if you dislike this move. However, I have clearly stated many times why I have issues with this move overall----And I've been labeled one of his "cheerleaders".

[fishwax]

139. yeah, pretty likely

You're right, I don't travel all over DU. But I've been around enough to have seen that, just as there are posters who seem ready to criticize Obama no matter what he does, there are posters who are ready to defend him no matter what he does.

That's not to say that everyone who supports this action or everyone who is supportive of the president in general behaves that way.

[vaberella]

131. Don't you notice the usage of Yemen, Bahrain and the like as a natural equivalent here..? n/t

[timtom]

128. It's not the question that's problematic.

It's the unevenness in asking. I'm not going to catalog the nations we propped up, but you must take my meaning.

[L. Coyote]

2. Where have you been for the last 25 years while Mubarak did the same thing in Egypt?

[Joe the Revelator]

5. So that wrong means we should always ignore genocide? And I don't remember Mubarak systematically

Attacking his own ppl.

[Posteritatis]

31. Or saying explicitly that to disagree with his rule means one must die

Or promising to give no quarter when seizing opposition-held cities, etc., etc., etc.

[L. Coyote]

33. There is no genocide in Lybia, and you demean the term with this blatant propaganda usage.

There is an armed insurrection against the government, a civil war with opposing factions fighting to control the country. How many similar situations are being ignored?

[Joe the Revelator]

36. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize that you were the authority on how to quantify the weight of killing

Innocent civilians. Please let me know when it will be ok for me to refer to this as genocide.

[TorchTheWitch]

101. Never - it doesn't qualify as genocide and never will

Genocide is the attempted extermination of an entire group of people simply for who they are, not what they do. The term was coined by a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin in 1944 and was for the purpose of describing Nazi policies of the extermination of Jews. Lemkin formed the word "genocide" by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe, with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. Genocide does not mean just killing - other methods of extermination such as enforced starvation, removal of children from the group with the intention of destroying their culture and language and interbreeding with other groups so as to wipe out future generations, etc. A few years later the term "genocide" became an actual legal term rather than just a descriptive term which it still is today.

The Nazi's policies of exterminating Jews was genocide. The US's policies of exterminating Native Americans was genocide, Rwanda's policies of exterminating the Tutsi was genocide. What Ghaddafi is doing to the rebels in Libya is not genocide be any stretch of the descriptive and legal term and NEVER WILL BE.

Words have specific meanings whether or not you like it.

[Joe the Revelator]

125. What would you call it then?

[TorchTheWitch]

126. what it is

It's the normal consequences of a revolution. This is what happens when people rise up against their government attempting to take over. It's not anything new nor surprising. Lots and lots of people die in a revolution. Depending on how determined and blood thirsty the government attempting to quell the uprising has a lot to do with how many people die and how many of them are likely to be innocents. How long a rebellion lasts also depends on how well funded and well armed are the rebels, how many are willing to rebel, how long they're willing to stick it out for, and whether or not there is foreign involvement.

If you want a specific term perhaps you need to make one up. I've never heard of any specific term that defined the deaths of rebels and civilians as a consequence of a revolution. I've only ever heard to such deaths as the general use term "casualties".

[freshwest]

47. L. Coyote, they were waiting for the 5-minute hate to come on TV.

We don't know who committed mass, systematic genocide, and this isn't the third reich. But for every single person that was killed for interfering with the best vested interests in this world, and their families, I don't think the label mattered. Each death was their own private family holocaust, an irreparable loss.

Libya is having a civil war. I don't give a rat's ass about helping Quack Daffy. What about Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, South American countries that killed off their people with the media saluting putting down the 'troublemakers?'

Are not all lives important? The deaths of people in the national boundaries of our allies were never reported with sympathy in the mass media and those who complained attacked as isolationists, hippies, liberals, communists, etc.

Just because we're not all GUNG HO for bombing Libya, doesn't mean we fit any of those words, or that we don't care. Our level of caring is not measured by agreeing with media, just like we don't agree with Rush Limbaugh's hateful comments on victims of wars and disasters everywhere. Are Freepers attacking peace loving Dems here?

Those who disagree with attacking Libya for any side in this civil war are seeking consistency in our foreign policy. We need real disclosure about what's going on there-- different than decades before-- that is suddenly suddenly so important.

For example. hasn't Quack Daffy been getting the pass for decades despite his harboring terrorists, by brokering his country's resources to the highest bidder? No one called for bombing him when the story of the Lockerbie bomber getting out of prison in Scotland and living well there, and that was mass murder.

So what's different now, that he is fighting armed forces arrayed against him, and vice versa? Were civilians killed over Lockerbie?

What got the Lockerbie murderer out was Tony Blair and BP. How many American firms have contracts with him that are endangered? Is this what 'national interest' means?

Is this the only time to feel compassion, as the media defines it? Who owns them and is pulling their strings? If we are not allowed to think differently than the mass media tells us to think are we now failing to be humanitarians?

Does anyone see anything wrong with the media telling us what's morally right and wrong for money? Does anyone really trust the FNN on DU?

As far as having a different opinion, will those who want 'fair trade' instead of 'free trade' going to always be painted as being against trade and making an honest living by the US CoC news media?

This sounds just like the prelude to invading Iraq. Does anyone remember about manufacturing consent through these stories?

Is there something worse going in Libya than a dozen other countries, or do we have to pretend only the genocides on the mass media matter, or what the UN says matters? Where were the cries for bombing all these other holocausts?

I smell oil and contracts from international energy firms behind this and it stinks. Just my humble opinion. And if anyone wants to say those of us don't agree, don't get it, maybe the reverse could be said to those who want to drop bombs.

Long, incoherent rant over. Maybe some was of use to someone.

[Joe the Revelator]

48. Some questions

1. What's the 'fnn'
2. Why does what happened in the past matter if we're doing what you hoped we did then, now?
3. All things being equal, what should the world community do when someone likes Gadaffi begins killing his own people?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

58. I admit I was ignorant of Mubarak. I admit I was ignorant of Gaddafi.

I admit I was ignorant of Ben Ali.

But I am not anymore.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. In many cases...

...the same voices calling for intervention in Darfur for years, too.

Oil makes people crazy -- and not just on the right.

[meow mix]

4. que the isolationists.

tell us how they arent worth the expense.. and best to let huda ben hang them.

[ReggieVeggie]

6. so you supported the Iraq invasion

These same justifications were used at the time

[Joe the Revelator]

10. There are so many things wrong with this analogy you're parroting all over DU

For starters

1 that wasn't the justification for Iraq. Non-existent WMD were
2. The ppl of Iraq were not trying to overthrow Saddam

[PurityOfEssence]

107. Saddam Hussein was much worse than Qaddafi, yet so many were outraged at the war

I was very vocally against that incursion, too, and much of it was because of the violation of sovereignty.

To answer this pathetic and incorrect rebuttal, here are the facts behind your contentions:

1) WMDs weren't the only justification for that war; a HUGE one that was repeated over and over was that he had gassed his own people and killed demonstrators. Do you not remember this? He killed his own people. That was even a bigger justification; WMDs were more of a means issue.

2) We didn't intervene when the people WERE trying to overthrow Hussein immediately after the 1991 war, and this was simply because George H.W. Bush didn't give a fuck about them and also had great doubts about his ability to destabilize him. He also felt that the UN mandate was to remove him from Kuwait.

More than anything, anyone who says this is SIMPLE, OBVIOUS OR EASY is truly missing the point and many of them (on both sides on this board) are resorting to hysterics and extreme character assassination to silence their opponents.

Saddam made Qaddafi look like a mere playground bully, yet even his actions didn't justify violation of Iraqi national sovereignty to me.

[Arkana]

111. Actually WMDs were pushed as THE ISSUE.

We were lied to over and over about Iraq. The weapons inspectors were never allowed a chance to do their jobs properly. Colin Powell sat in front of the United Nations GA and said things he KNEW were false out of some warped sense of "duty".

Every time we asked where these famous WMDs were, we were told "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east and west and north and south of there" or something akin to that.

Also, and perhaps most poignantly, the Iraqis never asked us for our help. Not true this time: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libyan-rebels-why-wont-the-world-help-us-2237608.html

The rebellion in Libya has asked for international help, and the UN has responded.

[Joe the Revelator]

114. This x 101

[David__77]

129. Wrong on both counts. The analogy is extremely valid.

The rationale for the war against Iraq "Operation IRAQI FREEDOM" was in large part to allegedly free the Iraqi people, regardless of the WMD issue. And second, there were many armed insurgents inside Iraq, the SCIRI and the Kurds, who were very actively engaged in struggle against the Baathist government. Wrong and wrong.

[Ikonoklast]

61. Saying that ten milliion times will not make it true.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[NightWatcher]

8. so we're supposed to bomb every country with a shitty leader?

When do we hit North Korea?
When do we hit China? How many of his own has he killed or imprisoned?

[MH1]

13. I guess if several of their neighboring countries go to the UN and get a resolution

and ask the US to support it, that might be when.

Has that happened for any other situation?

[Joe the Revelator]

15. If the people of those countries wanted to raise up against their governments, I think we should

Support them as much as possible and at least make sure they aren't butchered.

[L. Coyote]

35. Brace yourselves, Canada.

[Joe the Revelator]

40. Even though you disagree with me, that was funny.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. Piss and moan because Obama didn't do anything

There are some people here who are going to bitch no matter what the circumstances.

[meow mix]

28. exactly. nt

[vaberella]

134. ! This is what I have noticed! n/t

[Union Scribe]

141. Noticed? Where, in an alternate universe?

How can you notice something about a hypothetical that cannot happen?

[Modern_Matthew]

12. I'd rather not have enough of a military to have intervention even be possible. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

14. Well, join the conversation when you're ready to enter the real world.

[Modern_Matthew]

16. If the real world means being a hypocrite, then I'll stay stay in fantasy land. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

22. Fair enough, but I rather deal with actuality, than wish for ideals.

[Critters2]

41. +1 nt

[Taitertots]

18. You are right, we should butcher their civilians until they stop butchering civilians

Because our last two wars of aggression to help people worked out so well:sarcasm:

[Joe the Revelator]

29. So you'd be ok watching Gadaffi kill all of his people who opposed him?

That's a progressive ideal....

[Taitertots]

37. Unjustified war is not a progressive ideal

So, you would be ok watching the US murdering more civilians then they hope to save?

[Joe the Revelator]

Genocide justifies war. Being asked for help by those being murdered justifies war. You disagree?

[Taitertots]

44. There is no Genocide and no justification for war

"Being asked for help by those being murdered justifies war"
Does this apply to the civilians murdered by the US? Or is this something that only applies to nations that you don't like.

[Joe the Revelator]

46. What gives you the right to quantify genocide? Please enlighten me.

[Taitertots]

49. It is not genocide, and we are not justified

Support your assertion that it is genocide or I'll continue to regard it as unsupported non-sense.

[Joe the Revelator]

51. If you want to pretend to be dense enough to not call systematic killing of his people genocide what

Do you call it?

[Taitertots]

55. Civil war

It certainly isn't genocide. Are you really so intellectually dishonest that you are going to claim this obvious civil war is genocide?

[TorchTheWitch]

108. What gives you the right to change the meaning of the term genocide?

The term "genocide" has a very specific descriptive meaning and an actual legal definition that complies. Just because YOU don't know what the term means doesn't give you to right to use it to mean whatever the hell you want it to. Your calling it a hamburger wouldn't make it a hamburger either.

[David__77]

130. And are YOU not quantifying genocide by saying it's happening in Libya?

I firmly believe there is no genocide in Libya. There are killings of armed fighters on both sides, which is legitimate in war, and there have been deaths of non-combatants as well, which may be criminal indeed. But it is not genocide. To say it is belittles the concept of genocide. There is no genocide in Bahrain either or Yemen even. I am not sure if the US conducted genocide in Iraq, but maybe. But the scale of death is not even comparable. I try to avoid the word genocide because it should be reserved for cases of systematic annihilation of whole peoples.

[DevonRex]

50. People said that in WWII before we got in it. nt

[Taitertots]

52. And this is nothing like WWII

Do you have any evidence that shows that the situations are similar?

[Joe the Revelator]

54. What makes you believe that the reports from the rebels regarding their casualties are not true?

[Taitertots]

57. Even if true, their reports still make this situation in no way similar to WWII n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

63. No, nothing will ever be exactly like WWII. That's not an excuse to not help if we can.

[Taitertots]

69. The lack of justification is the difference, so we shouldn't declare war on them...

What do you mean "help"? Like we did to Iraq and Afghanistan, murder far more civilians than the people we were allegedly protecting them from.

[Joe the Revelator]

71. Good thing we didn't declare war.

And we' re giving the rebels the help THEY asked for.

[Taitertots]

74. We declared war the second we started attacking them without provocation n/t

[Posteritatis]

77. The line was drawn in the resolution, Qadaffi crossed it within hours

He was told to stop doing something utterly unacceptable, given clear warning that continuing to do so would result in military actions, and the dumbass went ahead anyway. He earned this.

[Taitertots]

85. We gave them our demands, and decided to murder them if they don't follow our orders

"He earned this"
Where does that put us? The US has murdered orders of magnitude more innocent civilians than Qaddafi.

[Posteritatis]

88. Considering "we" is the world community in general and the demands were just? Sure.

Are you seriously trying to argue that "stop attacking and killing your own population" is somehow a mean and wrong and incorrect thing to demand? Are you actually trying to tell me that Qadaffi is somehow the wronged party here?

Or are you just saying that it's okay for him to do it because the US has as well, at least until he catches up scorewise?

[Taitertots]

95. The demands were certainly not just, they were egregious and would never be accepted by any.....

of the people who demand that it is imposed. Not to mention that the nations advocating this have so much blood on their hands that any objective observer could advocate the same restrictions on them.

"Or are you just saying that it's okay for him to do it because the US has as well, at least until he catches up scorewise?"
No. I'm saying he shouldn't do it, and we already have so much blood on our hands that it is laughable to assume that we are in any position to judge libya.

[Posteritatis]

103. Wait, you seriously believe a demand to stop using military force on one's own populace is unjust?

Christ on a crutch.

I can see any further conversation here is a waste of time.

[Taitertots]

110. No other nation on earth has ever/ would ever accept those demands

Yes, expecting a nation in the middle of a CIVIL WAR to stop using it's military is egregious and certain to be opposed.

[Joe the Revelator]

113. Your ideas about how the world should work are nothing more than silly

[Taitertots]

118. Your delusions about how the world actually works are silly

[Joe the Revelator]

81. I don't think you understand what it means to "declare war"

[Taitertots]

84. What do you call launching unprovoked military attacks on other nations?

The hot air coming out of our government doesn't change the objective fact that we are now at war with Libya.

[Joe the Revelator]

86. First up all, if you're going to just make shit up and claim that this action is unprovoked

Then our conversation is done. Go drink koolaid elsewhere.

[Taitertots]

87. It is without question unprovoked

Support your allegation of provocation or accept that there is none.

[Joe the Revelator]

90. What proof do you need. The man is bombing his own people. A civilized world should not accept that

[Taitertots]

102. Bombing anti-government forces is not provoking us

I see the problem, he is bombing is OWN people, he should be like the civilized nations and attack much smaller weaker nations to exploit their resources.

[Joe the Revelator]

115. Wrong place

[Joe the Revelator]

116. iPad problems.

[Joe the Revelator]

117. Feel free to reengage me when you learn to put the schtick down.

[Taitertots]

120. I'll be waiting for you when you actually want to discuss this n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

122. You're not ready for adult discussion yet.

[Taitertots]

124. Ok, start trying to justify going to war with libya n/t

[Aerows]

67. People die in the US every day...

...from lack of health care. Why is that not important, and we all know that happens, but what happens in Libya is important?

One answer - some people just LOVE war. Some people get very wealthy off of war, and will do anything to keep them going. Some people look at war as a necessity, because it satisfies their need for machismo.

I've already seen people called anti-American today because they are skeptical of this action. Whenever I see that, I honestly start wondering if they are being paid (or ordered) to gin up support. We saw this same crap during the Iraq war.

[Obamanaut]

20. The rest of the world sits idly by while people are dying (being murdered, starving),

displaced from their homes in Darfur - and there is tsking in *that* general direction.

Cruise missiles for one atrocity, ennui for another.

[rug]

21. Qaddaffi didn't even make the top ten last year.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/the_worst_of_the_worst?page=0,11

When are you going to develop a sudden concern for those civilians?

[Joe the Revelator]

24. This post is dumbfounding. Last year his people weren't trying to overthrow him. He wasn't murdering

them. How do you not understand that?

[rug]

34. How About #7?

Karimov's regime earned notoriety for boiling two people alive and torturing many others. Outside the prisons, the president's troops are equally indiscriminate, massacring hundreds of peaceful demonstrators in 2005 after a minor uprising in the city of Andijan.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/the_worst_of_the_worst?page=0,7

Concerned yet?

[joshcryer]

59. Gaddafi killed more people in in a week than Bahrain, Yemen, and Egypt combined.

[vaberella]

135. My mum is 65 and she remembers and despises Gaddafi and she's from Haiti.

The man has been a crazed nutcase for the last 42 years, because he didn't make it for the top ten last year---we should let him slide doesn't sell.

[tabasco]

23. I know!!

:think:

Let's sing kumbaya and the baddies will go away!!

Of course, most of the pacifism we see here today is from trolls and turfers.

[Posteritatis]

25. I love how not one response so far has directly answered your question.

That's interesting. I think that's really interesting.

[Joe the Revelator]

27. I think it proves the point quite nicely.

[Posteritatis]

38. Doesn't it, though?

As I said, it's a very interesting thing to notice from people here.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cedric]

30. Turn the electricity on

when the wires are applied to the rebels genitals.

The rebels in Libya are fighting for the freedoms that those of us on this board possess. They are asking the west for help in fighting for tyranny and the response from many on this board is nah, too much money, why should we help you we didn't help the oppressed in other countries so crawl into your graves and await the bullet.

As long as the west gets it oil it doesn't care about the rights of the people who suffer under the regimes that supply it.

[Joe the Revelator]

32. Well said.

[EFerrari]

65. Ridiculous. As if the only "help" is to bomb the crap out of Libya.

[Joe the Revelator]

72. At the point things have escalated to, what other option do you think there is?

[Joe the Revelator]

39. If you can't answer the question, you really shouldnt unrec it....

Just saying

[Itchinjim]

56. KNR

[LiberalAndProud]

60. My concern is not sudden.

There are many tyrants in the world. MANY. Is it our mission to knock every one of them out of power? How about those who continue to be friendly to the US?

If that is our mission, then our struggle in our own country is moot. We can cry about Social Security, Planned Parenthood, NPR, infrastructure projects, EPA -- name your pet project. They will all be razed, simply because the ONLY product we will be able to fund will be our war machine. Kingmaker for the world. And you and I will eat the shrapnel, because that is all that will be left for us.

[Joe the Revelator]

62. So you think it's better to turn a blind eye to people when they ask for help

How very progressive of you!

[LiberalAndProud]

66. I think it's self-perpetuated.

http://armscontrolnow.org/2011/03/04/update-u-s-libya-arms-trade/
The State Department posts annual breakdowns of licenses granted for Direct Commercial Sales on its website in a publication known as the ’655 report’, after the section of the Foreign Assistance Act that mandates this transparency measure. The reports for 2006, 2007, and 2008 show that licenses worth roughly $54 million were approved for the sale of aircraft components, parts, or equipment. Also issued were licenses for explosives worth $1,141,160, military electronics worth $56,018, and fire control, range finding, optical and guidance and control equipment worth $27,715. Not all licenses result in transfers, making it difficult to know exactly how much of this equipment made its way to Libya.

In addition, in 2009 a DSCA official confirmed that Libya had also submitted a license request for the purchase of Humvees. According to Reuters, representatives of defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing Co., and Raytheon Co. have visited Libya in recent years as members of trade delegations.


I have never been inconsistent in my opposition to the wars. Never.

[EFerrari]

64. What a bunch of cr@p.

I've been following this since the very first actions in Libya. There's nothing "sudden" about it.

What about cutting off his money. What about cutting off his supplies. What about arming the resistance. What about making the Arab League really step up and not just fake it as they're doing now. What about recognizing the revolutionary council as the legitimate interim government.

The only limit on strategy short of bombing Libya is the rest of the agenda.

[Aerows]

68. People die in the US every day...

from lack of medical care, but it isn't macho or profitable to save people's lives. War, however, satisfies both of those objectives for some.

[Joe the Revelator]

73. None of those things stop Gadaffi from air booming the shit out of these people. Take out the planes

Even the playing field, then arm the resistance.

[EFerrari]

76. We never go into another country with the military without expecting

to take a lot out.

It's exactly like taking out a subprime mortgage. The borrowers are going to lose.

[Aerows]

78. Oh great.

Let's arm the resistance and train them, too. That has worked out very well in Iraq and Afghanistan and hasn't been costly AT ALL. We also have suffered no blowback from it, either.

[Joe the Revelator]

82. That was in response to the other poster's alternative idea for helping these folks.

[AntiFascist]

70. Taking out Gadaffi would be a good thing....

the question is: will he be taken out that easily, or will the US fall down the slippery slope of another major war effort primarily motivated by the oil?

[vaberella]

136. We're not there to take him out. This is not another Iraq.

If the people work together to get rid of him, then that's up to them. But our forces are NOT there to take anyone out.

[AntiFascist]

142. The people need to work together to create a democratic government....

he can be either taken out or forced into exile at the appropriate time. The problem is, in the past, we have exploited tribal differences in order to prolong war. A divided people are less able to maintain control of their resources.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. How is killing them helping them?

I can't quite wrap my brain around that one.

[Aerows]

80. I can't either

[Joe the Revelator]

83. How exactly are we killing them? They asked us for air superiority and we're giving it to them

When did we start killing those we're helping?

[Posteritatis]

89. People seem fixed on the idea that this is just the coalition deliberately aiming at civilians

I get concern for civilian casualties, but I'm tired of seeing people seriously argue that the airstrikes are being aimed directly at civilians and similarly idiotic things. It's taking a real concern and inflating it into a ridiculous red herring.

[AntiFascist]

93. I disagree...

this is a civil war. There are civilians on the side of Ghadaffi and there are the rebels who are opposed to him. By taking sides, we will inevitably be killing innocent civilians, unless Ghadaffi can be taken out quickly.

[Posteritatis]

97. Oh, I agree on that front

(Aside from the implication of "it's a civil war" meaning "we should ignore it" - I think that line got crossed when no-quarter orders were given.) I hope that if this is going to happen it happens with as close to zero civilian casualties as humanly possible.

I meant that I have seen a few people seriously and with a straight face claim that the air and missile strikes are deliberately being aimed at the civilian population, though, and it drives me up the wall that people seriously believe that sort of thing.

[LAGC]

100. There's no such thing as a "smart" bomb.

By their nature, they destroy indiscriminately. Who knows how many civilians were "accidentally" killed with today's barrage, especially with many pro-Gadhafi civilians forming "human shields" around potential targets?

[EFerrari]

94. The fact is that more civilians die in these things.

The fact is that of those civilians, women and children and old people die.

That may or may not be a "red herring" but it also happens to be true.

[Aerows]

104. Civilians will be and have been herded in to protect

military targets. What do we do then? Bomb them anyway, or are we going to end up with boots on the ground? Once boots are on the ground, prepare for the long haul.

The problem with this whole situation is the same as the problem in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. If things do not go as planned, and in war, they seldom do, and we get mired in Libya, we will here the same thing we hear about the other 3 wars we are in: "We're already there, we can't leave now!"

In Afghanistan, we are PAYING the very people that are attacking our own troops! Does that sound like we actually want to pull out of there? In Iraq, civilians were gunned down just recently - where is the outrage over that?

I'm sorry there are bad things happening in the world, but frankly, I'm even sorrier that there are bad things happening in our own nation and there isn't this fervent push to fix them. Do you know how many people could get medical care for the same price as every single one of those Tomahawk missiles and the deployment to the region?

And what happens when we DO move in to "secure" the area, which you know we will also end up doing? 3 wars were plenty for me, and Europe could have handled this just fine without us. We got involved because there is profit for defense contractors and the possibility for a base to secure the oil.

It has ZERO to do with "helping people", just like Iraq had ZERO to do with "liberating" the Iraqi people. The bad news is that once we get in there, we will be stuck in there.

[bluestate10]

79. The prescription is to sing kumbaya, hold hands and talk lover and brotherhood,

while hoping that a homicidal maniac gets the message and stops lying and killing.

[EFerrari]

91. Another bunch of cr@p. There are a lot of options between holding hands

and bombing the shit out of people.

But thanks for posting stupid mindless freeper cliches to DU!

[Posteritatis]

98. So what would you suggest?

Sanctions, freezing assets, etc., won't halt a military campaign on the spot, and given the guy's language and actions this needed to be stopped and rolled back right now to avert an even bigger catastrophe than what's been going on so far.

I'm serious here - what would you suggest that would have prevented Qadaffi from sacking a city of a million people here?

[Aerows]

105. I suggest letting Europe handle it

We have 3 wars already going that we can't get out of because "We're already there, we can't leave now!". Why the hell do we want to be in a 4th?

France, the UK and Italy could have handled this one just fine without our involvement.

[Posteritatis]

109. I don't necessarily agree, but fair enough in that case

I get the impression the American involvement is as much a matter of "we've got the stuff there already" as anything else; I heard you guys weren't actually committing aircraft aside from AWACS support (which the US is really good at), for instance, though I'm open to being corrected on that one.

In any case, I understand where you're coming from, and appreciate that your suggestion is very far away from "do nothing" or "do something symbolic and ineffective."

[Aerows]

119. Just because we are good at it...

...doesn't mean we have to be doing it in yet another country. You must admit, the potential for this to turn into a ground war is high. If Qaddafi keeps rounding up civilians as human shields for military targets, what do you do then? It pretty much HAS to turn into boots on the ground, and the US military is already stretched thin in that department.

Hopefully, the UK, France and Italy will provide them if it becomes necessary, and maybe it might get Germany to take more direct involvement as well.

[Posteritatis]

123. Fair enough again

I don't agree that we should expect it to escalate to a ground invasion, though. Chapter VIIs are hugely more skittish about ground troops than they are about air and naval intervention, and the authorization for all of this very explicitly forbids a ground invasion in the first place. UN ops on the ground that permit the soldiers to fire in more than immediate self defense are incredibly rare.

If there were to be boots on the ground I can only really see that as part of an additional thing after the fighting stopped, and that would involve a whole additional round of discussion and diplomacy in the first place to be authorized. It'd be much harder to get that past a veto than this; I can't see Russia or China allowing it, and I'm surprised enough that they let this through.

[joshcryer]

132. Europe is. Watch. The US won't even be in the headlines in a week or two.

[Aerows]

106. Why does the US have to be involved?

Europe can handle it just fine. Aren't 3 wars enough for us at the moment?

[ileus]

92. Didn't we vote for hands off in 2008....

[Joe the Revelator]

96. Obama ran as an isolationist? News to me.

[Posteritatis]

99. Hell, he ran as an internationalist

I'm pretty sure he was open about taking part in things like this that actually have a broad backing and the explicit support of the United Nations. That's a far cry from Dim Son's adventurism; Bush would probably have put ground forces in Tunisia, never mind Libya. ;P

[Arkana]

112. No, and if you did, you should have written in "Ron Paul" instead.

[BzaDem]

121. Nope. n/t

[U4ikLefty]

127. Nope will be my vote in 2012. n/t

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codeine]

138. I didn't. Nobody I know did. Obama didn't run on that platform. nt

[Union Scribe]

140. Cluck cluck, when do you ship out, soldier?