Do you support military action in Libya?

[LoZoccolo]

[Buzz Clik]

1. Did you vote in your poll?

[onehandle]

3. I dunno about LoZoccolo, but I usually wait until a few others have voted...

...before I vote in my own poll.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[dkf]

2. Sorry but I can't get over the feeling we will be left holding the bag on this one.

[joshcryer]

16. 12 countries have signed on and the US obviously is taking a backseat role now.

So your statement is effectively a vote of no-confidence for the revolutionaries.

[dkf]

50. Yup no confidence in revolutionaries and no confidence we are capable of getting out of wars.

[joshcryer]

80. I believe in them. They held two cities without arms for a month.

They can do this once Gaddafi's west-provided arms are destroyed.

[fittosurvive]

113. Who are the revolutionaries?

Are they advocates of the Thomas Jefferson theory of political philosophy or are their ideas more in line with the Al-Qaida code of beliefs?

I'm just asking, because I have no idea.

However, it is clear to me that we should know exactly what it is that we are supporting before we endeavor to effect the outcome.

[joshcryer]

133. They're like the Egyptians.

Only they got massacred on the first day.

[fittosurvive]

135. Are willing to sacrifice your life for revolution?

Or the lives of your children?

[jacquelope]

4. Absolutely not. I oppose imposing our will on other nations.

Our armed forces are for defense, not nation building.

[Hosnon]

13. It's not really our will, it's the will of the international community.

Countries do not have the right to kill their own citizens like this (under international law).

[jacquelope]

24. I hate atrocities like this as much as anyone, but

Look what happened when we "intervened" in Iraq.

Why aren't the Middle East nations handling this? We send troops there we'll be stuck there forever. IEDs blowing up our troops all kinds of madness. ARGH.

[WatsonT]

25. Really?

How many countries have committed troops?

[Hosnon]

I don't know, but that's not the determining factor.

We have the most resources so it's natural that we would be heavily involved.

But the U.N. voted to authorize this. That IS the determine factor regarding whether this was a unilateral imposition of our will.

[WatsonT]

44. You said it was the will of the international community

the number of countries who have committed something to the fight is a good estimate of actual international consensus.

Unless by "international" you meant a few countries in Europe and the US.

[Hosnon]

51. I think the U.N. is an excellent indicator, and the best. nt.

[WatsonT]

99. And the entire UN voted for intervention?

And all those representatives actually represent the wills of their people?

[Hosnon]

101. No, but the Security Council did. This isn't a unilateral U.S. move.

And now you're trying to switch your argument from "only the will of the U.S." to "not the will of the entire world".

[WatsonT]

103. Not at all

you stated that it was the will of the international community.

If in fact it is only the majority of the security council that doesn't equate to the international community.

You were the one who tried to pretend this had broader support than it really did.

To legitimately be the will of the international community I think it would take more than a dozen or so nations.

[Hosnon]

107. I do think the unanimous decision by the Security Council (abstentions included),

is a good indicator of the will of the international community, particularly on the heels of the resolution from the U.N. General Assembly one this matter.

[WatsonT]

118. There are 15 nations in the UNSC

5 permanent, 10 rotating.

There are 192 nations in the UN.

By what math is 15/192 a majority?

[Hosnon]

121. It's not. But neither China or Russia vetoed the decision,

which says quite a lot about the international community's opinion on this.

Plus, the General Assembly unanimously voted to remove Libya from the Human Rights Council.

"'The world has spoken with one voice: we demand an immediate end to the violence against civilians and full respect for their fundamental human rights, including those of peaceful assembly and free speech,' said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his address to the Assembly.  He welcomed the recommendation of the Human Rights Council to suspend Libya’s membership 'so long as the violence continued', he added."

The world wants him to be stopped, and the Security Council - agreed by all members as the body charged with dealing with these matters - voted to stop him (China and Russia de facto voted in favor).

[WatsonT]

122. Who all is in the UNSC?

Britain, US, China, Russia, France.


Of those perhaps Russia doesn't have a vested interest in 'their' oil which somehow found it's way in to Libyas territory.

If this were 4 years ago people would be losing their minds of this attack.

I have no love for Qaddafi. I hope he get's what he deserves.

But he isn't attacking us. And what Libya does with their oil is not our concern.

[Hosnon]

124. But what Libya does with its people is, rightfully.

At least according to the unanimous will of the U.N. General Assembly c. 2005.

I am convinced that the international community supports this.

[WatsonT]

136. So if enough western nations decide it is their business

then morally they are correct to commence and invasion?

[sabrina 1]

130. Like Iraq, it is the usual suspects who voted for intervention.

Many countries voted against it also. Just like Iraq. And when we saw the Iraq votes, did we then decide that Bush's war was legitimate?

If the U.S. had been against this resolution, it would not have passed. In fact it wasn't UNTIL the U.S. got involved that there WAS a resolution.

[Xicano]

29. Our country, our military, our will...

And as long as Libya hasn't attacked us we have no right to impose our will upon that government. Even if that government is lead by a tyrant.

I agree with the principle behind the Prime Directive.

[Hosnon]

34. Well that's not real international law. Libya voted for the U.N. resolution

acknowledging every country's OBLIGATION to not commit war crimes against their own citizens, and the international community's right to intervene if necessary.

[RKP5637]

75. +1, n/t

[CommonSensePLZ]

139. +1 BILLION - This is NOT

The US forcing it's view on a country or trying to take that action only on itself, like Iraq and it's not just evil mean, old America bullying everyone else. There's real problems in Libya and the Libyan people have asked for help from the international community. Their ARE ulterior motives, their are others who need help too in other countries and we shouldn't go in there thinking we get to call all the shots, but if something isn't done Gaddafi and his minions and family will create another Sudan or worse for sure - they've sworn they will and they've been proving it.

[jacquelope]

35. +100,000,000!!!

.

[Xicano]

39. Welcome to the DU jacquelop and thanks

:hi:

[Puregonzo1188]

102. Nonsense. We have the veto power which we use to stop the international community from imposing its

will on the Israeli government all the time.

[Xicano]

15. +10 I agree

eom.

[joshcryer]

21. Our armed forces are doing what the UNSC requests, unanimously.

[Hosnon]

60. +1. There are justifications for force.

And the knee-jerking here doesn't change that.

[RKP5637]

73. +1, n/t

[Bertha Venation]

5. too scary to know... don't know how I would respond if I were me on a better day

[johnroshan]

6. France, Britain, Italy, Turkey, UAE, Quatar, US and

more arab and EU countries are going in along with the approval of UN. Diplomacy hasn't worked, Gaffadi is just rolling the opposition down with tanks, air force and mercenaries. Its time for the freak to pack his bags.

[RKP5637]

9. Definitely he's a freak and needs to pack his bags. n/t

[joshcryer]

18. 12 countries, they're in my Libya Revolution thread (Day 31).

[RKP5637]

78. Plus he's a madman and out of control. Those there that side with him are

afraid of him and/or on the take for power and profit.

[Amonester]

7. I wonder if Mubarak hired African mercenaries to massacre Egyptians

instead of choosing to go away, what kind of support he would have gotten from the Ghaddafi supporters.

[joshcryer]

19. Almost 700 Egyptians died and they're "calling for intervention" for Yemen and Bahrain...

...where less than a 100 in both conflicts have died.

They're not really "calling for intervention" though.

[Amonester]

23. Maybe they should "call for intervention" before they get murdered.

I know I would if it happened here.

Not sure if it would 'work' though.

[WatsonT]

27. Kim Jong Il has killed more than a few thousand of his own people

you want to head the invasion to topple him?

What so you're a Kim Jong Il supporter?

[joshcryer]

32. I would love to topple Kim Jong Il if there was a popular protest to oust him...

...and those protesters were massacred in mass. Unfortunately it's probably happening but he has an even tighter control over N. Korea than Gaddafi has over Libya.

[WatsonT]

40. Seems then that we are rewarding those despots

that crack down effectively.

That would seem to promote the most egregious abuses of those governments.

[joshcryer]

66. Yes, that is true. I don't like the double standard.

[WatsonT]

100. The message is clear:

don't half ass it. If your people start rioting, kill them all otherwise the UN will intervene.

[Amonester]

105. *kill them all* is easier to write on a message board than to do

in 3-D reality.

Get real.

[WatsonT]

119. I am basing it on reality

the UN has made it clear that half-suppression will not be tolerated but total suppression is acceptable.

It would be like punishing attempted murder but letting murderers slide.

[joshcryer]

108. Yeah, but as the other poster said, easier said than done (see: Libya).

[WatsonT]

123. Developing nukes helped too

Libya stopped and they are being attacked. North Korea did not and they are sitting pretty.

Hopefully every other dictator on earth doesn't watch the news so they don't draw these rather obvious conclusions.

[Amonester]

36. I hate all wars as much as almost everybody else do.

This is not a game. And this is not an invasion.

And as far as I know, there was no UN resolution against NKim Jong.

[WatsonT]

42. If not

then UN resolutions are meaningless.

He is arguably the worst dictator alive at the moment.

If the international consensus is that he's just fine then international consensus doesn't have any moral authority.

[joshcryer]

67. Which is why we should support the UN. Make it more and more legit.

Responsibility To Protect has never been invoked before. This is what the UN was supposed to be about. Protecting citizens of countries.

[Selatius]

137. We've already crossed the line with just invoking airstrikes.

If we had done the same thing with Kim Jong-Il, he would level the entirety of Seoul, South Korea, within an hour in retaliation and in spite. On top of that, he possesses a small stockpile of nuclear weapons. We would be facing a grim situation. If Qadhafi possessed a small stockpile of nukes as well, the chances anybody would dare to bomb Libya would be greatly reduced.

[inna]

8. hell no.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Tentatively

As long as the goal is strictly preventing more civilian deaths by attacking Ghadaffi's strongholds ONLY.

If this morphs into some full-scale attack, NO.

[sad sally]

91. the old slippery slope, huh?

[Hosnon]

11. Yes. Sovereignty does not include the authority to slaughter your own citizens.

And international law permits military action to prevent it.

[Posteritatis]

28. Indeed, the resolution's pretty specific about that

I think this is the first time R2P's been invoked by name in a use-of-force resolution that passed the Council.

[joshcryer]

33. I believe you're correct. Responsiblity to Protect has not been invoked before.

If you're against tyrants (rather than pro-tyrants to use them in rhetorical debates; the rhetoric wouldn't be possible if they were gone), you'd be enthused for this!

[Posteritatis]

At least in situations this far gone, yeah

I imagine one of the things that got this moving as fast as it has was Qadaffi's repeated rhetoric about how everyone in Libya who opposes his rule is to be killed, something he started saying as soon as the shooting started and brought back again right before 1973 passed.

Dallaire's probably feeling alright right about now, I'd imagine.

[Hosnon]

57. R2P is an excellent international legal development, imo. nt.

[Posteritatis]

61. I'm really enthusiastic about it and hope it holds up over time

As far as I can tell it's really the first serious challenge in international diplomacy to the concept of the absolute "they're my people and I'll do whatever I damn well please to them" since the 1640s; it's a major, fundamental change and one in the right direction.

[Hosnon]

68. Yep. It's another welcomed exception to the outdated concept of absolute sovereignty. nt.

[Urban Prairie]

12. I think that the US had enough on its "war plate" beforehand

But it isn't like I am sitting in the Situation Room @ the White House, and have been briefed on everything before I voted, so therefore, I must abstain. Like the nuclear crisis in Japan, the best we can do is myopically speculate on the outcome, good or bad, or more likely, somewhere in between.

[Upton]

14. Absolutely no way..

[groundloop]

17. A hesitant, nervous - yes

I believe imposing the no-fly zone as called for by the United Nations is the right thing to do to prevent a madman from murdering his citizens. HOWEVER, I in no way, shape, or form am in favor of our involvement going one step beyond helping to support a no-fly zone. That's the scary thing about this, it's all too easy to get tangled up in a bigger mess than we had planned on. HOWEVER, if this goes anything like the no-fly zone that was imposed over Iraq after the first Gulf War it may not be as bad as many fear.

[The Northerner]

20. Absolutely hell no!

[Arctic Dave]

22. Do you support Libya sinking a US warship?

If they do, don't say shit.

[inna]

26. huh? that doesn't even make sense.

[Arctic Dave]

31. The US just fired missiles into a country killing people.

Every country that is involved better be prepared for blowback.

So, are ready for Libya to sink a US warship? Yes or no?

[johnroshan]

38. I'm glad that not everyone is so shortsighted that they

can watch others around them getting murdered and not lift a finger to provide assistance. This is approved by the UN and in no way a unilateral US operation. The UN resolution asks member nations for assistance to implement the no-fly zone and possible prevent civilian casualties. The US is just one of the nations providing its military resources to implement the UN resolution.

[Arctic Dave]

46. The UN just intervened in a civil war that was instigated by a violent coup.

Like it or not that is the fact.

I would have more respect for your post but until we start intervening in countries without oil I might be more supportive.

[johnroshan]

56. Instigated by a violent coup?!!

Thats not true. It was a non violent protest until the point when Gaffadi started shooting unarmed protesters with Helicopter gunships and snipers. That is what tipped the scales here, if the freak had allowed peaceful protests to go on and stepped down, it would have been different. His indiscriminate shooting up of the unarmed protesters caused many of his army men to defect and leave his command.

I'm concerned about the other non-oil countries too, and I hope the UN is looking at them. However, the situation is the gravest in Libya right now and politically the easiest one to help. Just because the UN isn't helping Saudis doesn't mean that I should oppose helping others..

[Arctic Dave]

62. Amazing how oil countries get put to the top of the list.

And the "easiest" to deal with.

I do agree that killing people who are protesting is wrong the fact of the matter is our absolute hypocracy in what we do about it.

[Posteritatis]

64. Pretty sure that's the opposite of a fact. (nt)

[joshcryer]

69. So you believe Gaddafi's propaganda that it was "terrorists." Thanks.

[Arctic Dave]

70. Considering neither you or I were there.

My opinion is still the same. We should not be militarily involved in this. And if MG gets a lucky hit in and sinks a ship or uses nonconventional means to retaiate don't say shit.

[joshcryer]

82. I may not have been "there" but I was able to sift through the information from both sides.

As was the UNSC.

[inna]

48. ridiculous and truly "shortsighted" to think they're doing it for humanitarian reasons

[BzaDem]

54. Who cares? If there is a legitimate humanitarian reason to intervene, why does it matter

that some might have an ulterior motive?

[inna]

55. LOL. you go cheer on the war, i'll go protest against it. 180 degrees, as always with you.

[BzaDem]

71. Of course you will. But that doesnt answer the question.

[Posteritatis]

89. And it's a good question too

It'll be eating some brain cycles in my head for a bit, and it's one of those things I think everyone should have rolling around at least a little when we're discussing situations such as this and where we stand on them.

[WatsonT]

104. I assume you cheered on the Iraq war then?

Saddam wasn't exactly cuddly.

[inna]

52. Lybia does not even have the capability to do that (afaik), hence my original question.

i think we're on the same page re. being against the military intervention, though.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. When did that happen?

Project much?

[Arctic Dave]

132. Are you saying it is not possible?

[MilesColtrane]

109. Unlikely

Libya has a tiny navy.

U.S. ships will be 100+ miles off the coast lobbing cruise missiles at radar and anti-aircraft installations until they are cleared and it is safe for aerial missions.

[Arctic Dave]

131. Hubris is an exploitable weakness.

[Bryan]

37. This poll is too binary

I support the U.S. serving as a partner in the enforcement of Resolution 1973. I can't say at this juncture if I support more U.S. involvement than that and/or action taken with fewer partners.

As joe_sixpack has diligently spent the day pointing out, the optics on the endgame are murky, and the strategy seems to be to force Gadhafi into a costs/benefits analysis that may include a peaceful transfer of power or settling back down into a status quo that does not concern his neighbors/trade partners, and that may well be giving him too much credit for rational analysis.

Also, I can't tell from the published reports if the no-fly zone was the most favored action or just the most broadly agreeable compromise, and if the latter, which parties would be most interested in pressing for boots on the ground if Gadhafi manages to avoid getting killed and doesn't want to play ball.

[gateley]

41. Yes, but nobody cares why, so I won't bore you with my reasons. nt

[Marblehead]

43. This will probably

turn out like every other one of our military actions after WWII. Who is picking up the tab for this???

[Upton]

47. "Who is picking up the tab for this?"

In the long run it will be America's most vulnerable, but who gives a fuck about them? After all, we have rebels to support..

[Posteritatis]

63. The couple dozen participating nations, for one

Aside from the missile strikes today the US isn't expected to do the heavy lifting on this one, and you guys certainly aren't going to be bankrolling all the other air forces that are engaged.

[Teaser]

45. I'm conflicted

so which lever do I pull?

[TBF]

49. Absolutely NOT. nt

[KoKo]

53. The way Obama/Hillary did this.......NO! They used Bush's tired UN Resolution BLAH instead

of making a case for what they were doing and why.

I listened to both speeches. BUSH II...Speak... Very Sad. This isn't what I voted for. I have a right to be angry about it.

[DireStrike]

58. No "I dunno" or "other" option?

This is a complicated situation and it's damn near impossible to get good information in the whirlwind of spin going on.

I support the operation if the majority of Libyans support it.

[Synicus Maximus]

59. Obama's announcement about Libya sounds a lot like what

Bush said when we went into Iraq

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

[SpartanDem]

65. Of course this time there is a broad coalition

and the Libyan rebels actually asked for international help

[Arkana]

79. Except that there actually WERE calls from Libyan rebels

for aid from the rest of the world. There are actual, justifiable reasons NOW for getting rid of Gaddafi. We didn't pick this fight.

They WANT our help this time. Doesn't that count for anything?

And for what it's worth I would not support any amount of nationbuilding, because we suck at it. But maybe we can help these people protect their ability to rebuild their own nation.

[TheMightyFavog]

72. As long as this intervention involves only the use of...

..aircraft, cruise missiles and drones to neutralize Qaddafi's air power and to provide limited close air support to rebel ground units, only putting Commandos marine/SAS/SEALs on the ground to rescue downed pilots/aircrew and to do nothing else, I'm OK with it.

As for France, the UK, and the US rolling in a full scale invasion? No fucking way.

[Posteritatis]

86. Yep. The resolution is very specific about excluding ground forces

Maybe in a post-conflict situation there might be more traditional peacekeeping forces there, but that would be a different situation, would require another resolution with its own specific mission parameters, and would probably mostly draw from a different set of personnel from a different set of countries anyway.

This specific one, though? The text is absolutely, crystal clear about there being no boots on the ground.

[kwassa]

74. We should have done this weeks ago. And commit ground troops.

It was a unique historical moment, now probably blown.

[Posteritatis]

88. It still is to a point

Something a bit more, ah, thorough might have helped a week or two ago, but even so we've still got the first Chapter VII mission that explicitly invokes R2P doctrine, which is a huge deal.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. NO. Not for the U.S. to be involved. n/t

[Arkana]

77. Ultimately yes.

Mostly because this time we were asked to help--and not just us, but the WORLD was asked to help.

If we can stop Gaddafi killing the rebels, they can do the rest on their own. Eventually, Gaddafi will decide it's just not worth it anymore.

[DainBramaged]

96. Hey how's that warmongering going????

:hi:

What about Kim Jong iL, he's a scumbag dictator who kills millions to feed his army, why haven't we dropped a few on him???

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. Hell no.

I don't support military action anywhere. Except maybe a war on poverty. That I could support.

[DutchLiberal]

83. 101 so-called 'progressives' in favor of letting Libyan people getting murdered by maniac dictator..

Interesting.

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. Since when is this a progressive site?

You need to get out more.

[DutchLiberal]

92. Hey, you were the clueless person who started another thread in support of poor Muammar...

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. Excuse me?

Talk about a false equivalence.

[DutchLiberal]

95. Come on, own up to it. You want us to leave poor Muammar alone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

97. I don't think it's any of our business.

We aren't the world's policeman. For one thing, we CAN'T AFFORD IT.

[DutchLiberal]

98. Yeah, let the Libyans DIE! Not our problem! We only care about 'the people' when they're in the US!

We're so full of solidarity; we're so progressive; we're so standing with the regular people. Just not if they're not Americans.

[anneboleyn]

111. Problem is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, we care about *some* people, not all peoples

who are being oppressed by brutal dictators. This has been demonstrated before. I don't think any Americans want to see Libyan people murdered by this brutal dictator, but I also think that many Americans are concerned about our troops being thrust into a third major conflict. We should have acted when he authorized terrorists to blow up our passenger jet.

[DutchLiberal]

128. So according to you, we shouldn't save ANY people and let them ALL die?

Oh yes, I see, that's much more fair. :eyes:

[inna]

126. personal attack and false accusation

- and a disgusting, warmongering series of comments

:puke:

[DutchLiberal]

127. Letting Libyans die because you want to pat yourself on the back about your principles...

*that's* disgusting. :puke:

[Dash87]

110. Now, instead they get to be murdered by our troops.

Then, flash forward five years from now, where they're all burning American flags and calling us evil imperialists. These are the people we're arming and helping right now.

I also have the feeling that Libya is just going to get a new dictator. But he's "our dictator," so it's all right (the oil is flowing)!

[Union Scribe]

112. Was the poll edited? I didn't see that option.

Oh, I see, you have (again, let me guess) fallen for the "if you don't support war you hate kittens" propaganda.

[WatsonT]

134. Have you signed up to be part of the invading forces to topple Kim Jong Il?

So you favor what he's doing to his people?

[Marblehead]

87. I stand with

Dennis Kucinich

[TheKentuckian]

90. I favor specific and limited actions. I don't think yes or no is the way to answer the question.

I'm not into getting rounded into a do nothing or in for a penny, in for a pound camp deal here.

So, I do favor support military action in absolute terms but do not accept unbounded action.

This shit is serious and nuance should be accepted all along a spectrum.

[Posteritatis]

93. Absolutely. (nt)

[MilesColtrane]

106. Depends on the definition of military action.

I support the international enforcement of a No Fly Zone.

I don't support bombing any other targets that aren't necessary for such enforcement.

And, I don't support any type of invasion with troops.

[deacon]

114. Yes.

[Vinee]

115. No blood for oil!

[bvar22]

116. Not at this point.

Too many unanswered questions,
like,
Once we start killing Libyans (yesterday),
how do we stop?

The US has a very poor record of Military Interventions in the Middle East.
NONE (0) have ended well.
Why should we expect THIS one to be any different?
Because it is Obama? (LOL)


This WILL have BAD consequences here at home too.
Getting stuck in ANOTHER WAR in the Middle East will NOT play well for Obama/Democrats in 2012.
Does ANYONE here really believe we will be OUT of Libya before 2012 now that we have started bombing?

[Iggo]

117. Yes, with my tax dollars. (n/t)

[krabigirl]

120. Hell no. Sorry, we need to mind our own business and focus on fixing our country.

[JoeyT]

125. K&R

I don't have enough information or enough trustworthy information to reliably decide yet, so I'm abstaining.

[AsahinaKimi]

129. Two wars are not enough?

Sorry. I don't support any war.

[Nye Bevan]

138. There's not much point in having a United Nations if you disregard its deliberations

Especially when a resolution is passed without even one single dissenting vote. I guess there are always a few isolationists, no matter what is going on in the rest of the world.