Here are some of the reasons why I do not support the military actions against Libya.

[howard112211]

1. We do not even know what the fuck is going on. There are no reliable sources of information.

2. We do not even know who these rebels are. Apparently they have tanks and aircraft, and consist partially of defected military, so this is way different than "protesters being gunned down".

3. There is no guarantee that the rebels are a genuine "democratic" force, rather than, say, disgruntled military officers seeking to extend their personal power. We don't know what they will do if they win. The endresult may well be mass executions of civilians on the "loyalist" side. Will we step in then?

4. Our media is shit (see point 1)! All we are getting is biased shit and more biased shit. Ghaddafi could have tried to surrender yesterday, with the violence that is still going on coming 100% from the rebel side, and we would never know.

5. What Wesley Clark Jr. said: "Have you ever been in a fight as an adult? As an adult it is differnt than when you are a kid: Once you open that door to violence there is no telling where it will go.". If it wasn't a full scale civil war before, it is now that we have stepped in. Ghaddafi now has every, in his view and that of his supporters legitimate, reason to use all means available to him to crush the resistance as fast as possible.

6. The rebels better fucking win quickly now that it has started, because if they don't, no amount of airstrikes will put any bounds on the retaliation that will occur. If the rebels turn out to be weak, it doesn't matter how weak Ghaddafi is compared to the NATO, he will crush them, at which point there will be no other option than a ground invasion, which will lead straight to quagmire number 3.

Related: If we simply take out Ghaddafi and the rebels turn out to be unfit, to weak and disorganized, to maintain a civil order, the country will descend into shit.

7. I don't believe a word that comes out of Sarkozy's mouth, and neither from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. They have proven to be servants of special interests once to often. I'm so tired of their shit and the shit of their peers, that I go by the rule of thumb that "if they are for it it must stink somehow"

8. The west doesn't do "humanitarian". It does "strategic self interest" (related to reason 7).

9. That hypocricy thing. Strikes against Ghaddafi and then turn around and lick the shoes of the Sauds.

10. I'm tired of hearing "but would you have been against stopping Hitler too". America has way wore out its WWII creds. America has been the aggressor in wars so many times and used the "but we are doing it to prevent another Hitler" excuse so many times for all sorts of shit, it just gets fucking old.

Probably even a few more reasons, but those are plenty to be firmly against it. But possibly the strongest one is we really don't know what the fuck is even going on.

[The Northerner]

1. I'd like to add that the US is bankrupt and that

the US already spends too much on military spending.

[meow mix]

4. yes we already know "they arent worth helping" we can only help those whose worth > expens

and the brown skinned are definetly "not worth it"

[meow mix]

2. Unrec for the protestors / victims of genocide

people are being slaughtered and so-called "liberals" want to turn thier backs on them. fucking pathetic

[johnroshan]

27. Pathetic is right...

I never in my almost 2 years on DU felt so far from the views expressed here. Its almost like they've grown so self centered that they are not willing to lift a finger to help innocent people from getting murdered from a madman.

No money?? give me a fucking break! 800 Billion fucking dollars budget and you guys are bitching about a few missiles launched to take out air defenses.

[PurityOfEssence]

51. Again, there is NO GENOCIDE HERE

Genocide is against ethnic groups, races or religions. This has none of that at all. It isn't even a tribal dispute.

Crying genocide cheapens the word.

This is now an armed uprising. Justifying stepping in when brutally suppressing protests is a huge stretch of the UN charter as it is, but the numbers I see from the period before it was an armed insurrection are very small. There are a couple of single incidents with estimations of fatalities over 20 (one in Tripoli and one in Benghazi) but those are the only ones for which I can find references.

Yes, these seem to be firings upon protests, but in one of them, some arson seems to have occurred.

If one conflates the death of unarmed innocents with the death in combat of those who have taken up arms, then nothing means anything.

I had personally hoped the asshole would be taken out of his palace and thrown in the sea or worse, and actually thought he would be--and justifiably so--the Ceaucescu of this particular sweep of history. This may still wind up being the case, but that remains to be seen.

What we are now doing is granting ourselves the chest-thumping holier-than-thou right to dispense with facts due to the righteousness of the cause, and we're willing to use military force as we damned well please without any real justification. I don't like the implications here, and feel that they should be voiced.

[Mojorabbit]

73. I agree somewhat with the OP

this uprising doen not seem to be totally grassroots and if it is then it has been facilitated in the first place by the west, ie British special forces in there for a good while now(see other DU threads). While I want to help those people who are fighting for removal of their leader (I really do want to help those people)I am also very aware that we could spend every penny and more that we have doing this for a myriad of countries. The list of those who would like/need our help is huge. We cannot do it and should not do it. Should we do Burma and North Korea next? Will your child be the one to go if this ends up another ground war? Shall we starve our poor, children, and elderly of needed funds in assistance even more to pay the cost of these excursions? It isn't a simple black and white issue.
I also agree with the op that we are getting a very narrow view of what is going on over there.

[William769]

3. I'm betting that our Government has better intel than you.

Thats my only reason, that I support military actions against Libya.

[ohheckyeah]

5. Like the intel

that said Saddam had WMD?

[William769]

14. Intel from then to intel from now there is a wolrd of difference.

And you know it. but thanks for trying to get those undertones in with making the Obama Administration look just like the Bush (cabal) Administration.

[moodforaday]

74. Intel today?

Are you kidding? You *are* kidding, right? The current intel has been so great that the CIA had no idea of the grass-root rebellions brewing in Tunisia and Egypt in the first place. The West was entirely unprepared for them. And now you're claiming (without a shred of evidence) that there is "a world of difference" between today's intel and that at the times of Iraq invasion.

You know what, there *may* be a difference. In 2003 there was good intel: we knew Saddam had no WMDs. So much so Bush's people had to actually manufacture evidence, including Colin Powell's infamous slide show, because they had nothing real to go on.

Today, we did not expect the popular uprising in Arab countries. But you're convinced Obama has good intel. On what grounds, please?

All you are saying is Obama apparently must have good intel, otherwise he would not do what he's doing. That's just wishful thinking.

[ohheckyeah]

76. I didn't say a word about either administration

I was talking about the intel. Intel is often wrong no matter what administration is in office. Do you think all of the CIA that got the intel wrong in the run up to the Iraq war have been fired and replaced? I don't think so and I don't know that the intelligence today is any more intelligent than it was then.

[El Supremo]

7. Oh, have we done better that all those Weapons of Mass Destruction?...

That were supposed to be in Iraq? I doubt it.

All we got is Kadaffy's Mass Nose Hairs.

[joshcryer]

16. That's why the war was illegal, Fisk and Ritter both said there was no WMDs.

Everyone was saying it. So the war was illegal and fake.

[Critters2]

8. Actually, I was sure there were no WMDs when our govt said there were.

It turns out, I was right. Why would it be different this time around?

[joshcryer]

15. Do you have any evidence that Gaddafi has not massacred innocent civilians?

Oh, that's right, you don't because I can trivially counter that bullshit with one post.

[Critters2]

20. Yeah, and he's the only dictator who's ever done that.

No, wait, he's not. Yet, we don't attack all of them. What's with that?

[El Supremo]

22. +1000

[joshcryer]

44. Do you support our attacking other dictators who massacre in mass their people?

Or are you just against it because this one time the UN actually did something about it?

[Critters2]

64. I don't support violence at all. But can't see what makes this particular crazy so special

to those who do.

[William769]

17. The Administrations. NT.

[Critters2]

25. And their different Secretaries of Defense.

Oh, wait.

[William769]

30. Your so funny!

is Rummy still the sec of defense? :rofl:

[Critters2]

35. I do believe Gates was SecDef under Bush, too.

But I'm sure he strongly opposed the war in Iraq. That's why we're not there anymore.


Oh, wait.

[William769]

36. But he wasn't during the Iraq war or the intel leading upto the Iraq war.

Oh, wait you just want to give your version of it. Sorry my bad.

[Critters2]

37. "During the Iraq War" hasn't ended. We're still at war in Iraq. Or didn't you know? nt

[William769]

38. We are?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-08-31/news/27074186_1_iraq-war-president-obama-war-policy

ON EDIT: You have yet to get anything right here. I need to move along and debate someone who at least has some knowledge of whats going on. Bye.

[Critters2]

40. This'll be news to those still serving there. nt

[William769]

43. Ok I will humor you just a little more.

To all those still serving in Germany do we need to tell them that WWII is over?

[jacquelope]

21. Our Government has better intel than us! Great reasoning!

:rofl:
It's not like our Government has ever, like LIED TO US!!!

The Gulf of Tonkin and Saddam's WMD's, anyone?

[William769]

32. Well then your intel is so great run fpr President in 2012.

[KurtNYC]

52. Okay, here is the Intel they have: "Brown people have oil"

And what we do about it now seems no different than exactly 8 years ago.

[bvar22]

71. Not just that they have oil,

but that they are diverting the profits from the Oil Corporations to fund Social Programs and pay a Royalty to all Libyans.
Definitely a NO-NO to Western Big Business.

[silver10]

42. exactly!

[moodforaday]

75. That's just another way of saying

we're all supposed to bow before almighty Government.

But there is one problem with this. You can't advocate blind faith and blind obedience to one government and not another. You can't say Obama has good intel but Bush did not. Whoever says "Obama knows something we don't", must say the same for Bush, too.

But I feel we're wasting time. There's no arguing with blind faith and blind obedience. Some people *were* born yesterday.

[JanMichael]

67. "My country right or wrong" is ethically evil. nt.

[gmaki]

6. Like the Libyan jet shot down this morning

That turned out to be a rebel jet.

The reporting is absolutely shit and completely based on hearsay.

Everytime I see video of an ACTUAL reporter in Libya, NOTHING is going on around them. But they always have plenty of stories of what "witnesses" told them...

It's "babies tossed out of incubators" all over again.

[Critters2]

10. I hadn't heard this, but sadly, I'm not surprised. nt

[gmaki]

28. That's because the story is almost impossible to find

The original (and erroneous) story is all over the place because it sounds like a Libyan military jet was shot down by rebels over benghazi which of course supports the idea that they are under attack.

However:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-benghazi-jet-idUSTRE72I2XM20110319

[Aerows]

34. What the hell are they doing with planes?

They are certainly a lot better equipped than any "protesters" I've ever heard of. Who is providing them with all of this gear? Egypt didn't have protesters with planes and anti-aircraft missiles!

[Prometheus Bound]

9. Rec for common sense.

[TBF]

11. We spend more on defense than ALL of the other countries in the world put together.

It is ludicrous.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Thank you for stating well that which I've being stating poorly.

This is a total morass. I can't believe that we've started yet another war.

And we'll be there at least until Obama's out of office, because neither side has enough oomph to win.

[joshcryer]

13. We know what is going on, we've been following this shit for a month, see my thread.

1. We've had a month to figure out what is going on, and the UN unanimously voted for action.

2. Protesters were, are, and continue to be gunned down. That's why the military defected. They don't all have guns, it's maybe 1 in 10 who has a gun.

3. So we should only help those who are "guaranteed to be a democratic force"? I think that what is important now is to stop the wholesale slaughter. The TNC has said that it wants to inact a constitutional refrendum. I have no reason to believe that they won't try given that it is headed by a civil rights lawyer in Benghazi who has been against the Gaddafi regime.

4. Our media is shit, but Al Jazeera isn't shit, BBC isn't shit, Sky News isn't shit, and the reporters on the ground in Libya are not shit. So this question falls flat. Our media, the MSM particularly, has been pro-Gaddafi the whole time, sipping tea in Tripoli while protesters were massacred in Ras Lanuf.

5. Gaddafi isn't crushing some homogenous 'resistance' he's firing upon civilians with "no mercy." Benghazi itself is almost entirely anti-Gaddafi, it is a bloodbath.

6. Gaddafi without heavy arms will be no contest for the rebels, they will roll him in weeks. I agree they should act quickly just so that there is no protracted level of peace and calls for a split state by other tyrants.

7. I believe the UNSC.

8. Sure, so does the UNSC, that doesn't mean it's wrong to help.

9. Saudis haven't said that they're going to turn Saudi Arabia into Rawanda and kill civilians "without mercy." In fact the deaths in all other middle east conflicts (Egypt, Tusinia, Yemen, Bahrain) are equal to one weeks fighting in Libya.

10. Would you have been?

I've been following this shit for a month straight, I know what the fuck is going on and I am really offended by all these passerbys who will stfu once the US stops bombing shit and we move on to some other big dramatic thing. While that's going on I'll still be astutely following the actions in Libya while everyone else worries about other things.

[howard112211]

24. Well, in the end, it's a done deal now anyway. "Alea iacta sunt", so to speak

We will see how it plays out. I'll bookmark your post to re-read in a month or two, when the endresults are in.

[joshcryer]

47. I'm worried that the TNC will be killed and that the revolutionaries will have no voice.

The council heads need to be a voice for the future referendum of Libya. If Gaddafi kills them, of course, and things go to shit, then of course people will say "all along I knew it!" but the reality is that if they can make it I would bet that things go OK and Libya does become a good democratic country.

[luvspeas]

26. 100 percent agree...

Al Jazeera has no interest in supporting the US, and has often presented opposing views. Their reporting is showing mostly support right now. We shall see how the African Union's call to withdraw military action effect all this, but my belief is that most people in the Arab world are glad we are there.

[Prometheus Bound]

29. Your first point is incorrect.

Only 10 UNSC members voted for the resolution. SC Members Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany did not vote for it.

Then there's the hundreds of other members of the UN who weren't even asked to vote.

[joshcryer]

45. An abstaintion is effectively a vote, Russia and China could've trivially vetoed.

Russia would've benefitted from Benghazi being razed. They had a billion dollar arms deal in the works.

[Prometheus Bound]

50. It's a long way from your statement: "the UN unanimously voted for action".

[TheKentuckian]

56. Not too far since any member of the Security Council can shut down the whole works.

[Prometheus Bound]

62. About 192 members of ther UN. 10 voted for the no-fly zone.

[joshcryer]

65. That's not how the UN works.

There are a lot of despotic states that shit all over R2P for their own tyrannical ends.

[joshcryer]

63. An inch.

[Catherina]

39. Information posted by Libyan expats isn't the whole truth. Like relying on Iraqi expats yrs ago

This shit didn't start overnight with Gaddafi gunning down peaceful protesters. That's a myth.

The West didn't wake up overnight to discover Gaddafi was a bad egg. That's another myth.

And none of the imperial tigers changed their stripes to become humanitarian kittens. We're not going in there to help. We're going in there for our own financial interests. We're willing to risk turning an internal matter into World War IV so we can have a base to squash further non-Western friendly revolutions in the Arab world.

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
...
Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_TEelPBX8U


Wheelus Army Air Field
Tripoli, Libya
used by the US Air Force for bombing runs "a Little America...on the sparkling shores of the Mediterranean,"
Before that used by the Italians and the Germans for the same.

there is a logic to imperialism and the Obama administration is driven by it. The ultimate goal of US and European intervention would be to fill the “political vacuum” in Libya, as the New York Times termed it Sunday, by turning the country into a protectorate of the imperialist powers.

A US expert on Libya, writing in Newsweek magazine Sunday, directly compared an intervention in Libya to the long-term US role in the Balkans. The political situation in Libya, he wrote, “suggests the Balkans rather than neighboring Egypt or Tunisia as likely precursors for state building in Libya. And as with the Balkans, the international community could have a large and positive role to play by providing expertise and, temporarily, security forces.”

In other words, Libya is to be turned into a semi-colony, ruled by the United States and its fellow predators from Western Europe, who will seize control of the oil reserves and transform the country’s territory into a strategic base of operations against the mass uprisings now sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/pers-m01.shtml

[joshcryer]

48. Mohammed Nabbous is an expat?

:puke:

[Catherina]

54. Another dangerous reading comprehension fail

I'm going to put you back on ignore. Please refrain from addressing me. I'm not interested in war lust.

[joshcryer]

61. Yeah

You were quick enough to bail on the Libyan Revolutionaries when they were getting massacred and asking for help.

[druidity33]

55. thanks josh...

have people here been paying ANY ATTENTION at all?

I don't think so...

Kicked and Unrecced.

:(

[undeterred]

18. What is the purpose of the US military action in Libya?

Do we have a stated goal/mission?

[Catherina]

19. Excellent post.

Whatever outcome in Libya, the new regime (most likely led by the idiot and charlatan, Mustafa `Abd-Al-Jalil) will be indebted to the Western governments and to the Saudi-led Arab counter-revolution. That should give you an idea about the direction of the new regime.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 3:12 PM

The Libyan people have been betrayed. Their revolution against the Libyan tyrant has been hijacked by US and Saudi Arabia. That lousy henchman for Qadhdhafi, Mustafa Abd-Al-Jalil, is now a Saudi stooge who hijacked the uprising on behalf of a foreign agenda. I mean, what do you expect from a man who until the other day held the position of Minister of Justice in Qadhdhafi's regime, for potato's sake. And don't you like it when Western media constantly refer to him as "the respected Libyan minister of Justice." Respected by who? By Western governments.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 5:34 AM

[Marblehead]

23. damn it

ratheon needs to sell missiles, or they will be out of business. Plus a whole lot of other big players. As far as infrastructure for the US forget about it.

[bengalherder]

31. There has been excellent sources pertaining to

this affair from the beginning. Film from cell phones and news crews verifying Gadaffi's attack on his own people following what began as peaceful protest has been availible on line for some time.


Check Catherina's journal, and the continuing threads posted by joshcryer and pinboy3niner. These go back months of continual primary source material via twitter and video. This should be required reading of any who would comment on the situation.

Myself, I'm torn about this and waiting to see for myself what the result will be, but there is undeniable proof of Gadaffi's crimes against his own people dating back for weeks before the mainstream news was reporting or before any of the major players even showed interest.

Frankly I'm dissappointed that more DU'ers haven't been following this as it developed. Catherina's thread and it's sucessor are/have been one of the best resources availible on the web for information. Here's the most recent:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x692608

I really wish more people would read this series of threads before acting as if this all came as a big surprise, or worse yet, turn apologist for Gadaffi.

[Catherina]

53. There have been horrors and Gaddafi must go but there's too much Western interference right now.

for the wrong reasons.

I want the Libyan people to succeed but on their own so their revolution belongs to them and they can shape their country's destiny.

I still follow the tweets closely but keep bearing in mind that the sentiments expressed come from middle and upper class expats whose opinions don't necessarily represent the people in the country. One of the reasons I quit doing those threads for Libya is because of that.

People like Sarkozy are not to be trusted. That man is pure scum. There's a reason we're hearing so much about Libyan atrocities and only Libyan atrocities right now. There's barely a word about atrocities in countries where our allies are in charge or atrocities in neoliberalism-friendly countries where we've intervened with weapons or money. As much as my heart is with the Libyan people, I refuse to jump on the imperial war wagon. They're risking World War IV in their lust for resources.


Angry Arab News is a good source to balance things out. I highly recommend it.

Bush Doctrine Revised: Obama puts his stamp

The Western/Saudi/Qatari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent. The charade of overthrowing regimes and invading countries in the name of democracy was a bloody farce in the case of Bush era. They now don't need to do that. They can just jump on the case where they see a potential for a real democratic change and then guarantee the installation of a puppet regime without having "boots on the ground", as Obama kept warning in White House meetings. They bomb and kill and manage to maintain a high tone of moral uprightness while the puppet Arab League puts its ugly stamp to make it look like an Arab affair. A useful idiot is needed, of course, and Mustafa `Abdul-Al-Jalil is perfect for the role and he has been so chummy with Saudi propaganda as of late. Obama has modified Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: not only maintaining the occupations but guaranteeing long-term presence in both countries. He has also started a war in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen where the US is a major force in the war there. Western enthusiasm for intervention in Libya has never even been explained: why the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia did not warrant any condemnation (the State Department did manage to condemn the protesters in Egypt, lest we forget too soon)? Israel manages to kill far more than Qadhdhafi and in shorter periods of time, and we never encounter the "humanitarian" impulse of Western governments there. Western military intervention in Libya is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers to our region and 2) perhaps as importantly to abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain of today is the vision for Libya of tomorrow, as far as the West is concerned.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 6:59 PM

The Arab counter-revolution is winning

There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia has engineered the Arab counter-revolution with full US support. Only Libya will be allowed to change but in favor of a Saudi-controlled regime staffed by Qadhdhafi stooges, like Mustafa Abd-Al-Jalil. And it pains me to say this but I will say it: Aljazeera has officially joined the Arab counter-revolution, their silly obsessive coverage of Libya notwithstanding.
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 7:03 AM

Bio
As'ad AbuKhalil, born March 16, 1960. From Tyre, Lebanon, grew up in Beirut. Received his BA and MA from American University of Beirut in pol sc. Came to US in 1983 and received his PhD in comparative government from Georgetown University. Taught at Tufts University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Colorado College, and Randolph-Macon Woman's College. Served as a Scholar-in-Residence at Middle East Institute in Washington DC. He served as free-lance Middle East consultant for NBC News and ABC News, an experience that only served to increase his disdain for maintream US media. He is now professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley. His favorite food is fried eggplants.

[chill_wind]

68. That commentary, sadly, is going to blow right by too many here

because WE here in the West know what's best for them.

[Catherina]

69. "This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values,"

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war

I can't thank you enough for bringing that article to my attention.

...

Mr. Brennan acknowledged that the political turmoil in the Middle East in the past three months had breached or weakened counterterrorism cooperation among some Arab countries. But he added that the United States had taken unspecified steps in recent months to offset its losses in that area. Among those steps may be more electronic eavesdropping, spy satellite coverage and more informants on the ground, independent intelligence specialists said.

“We’ve been able to weather some of these storms, but clearly there have been effects,” he said. “We need to work hard to ensure that the cooperation that existed before with certain countries continues.”

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19terror.htm

[unkachuck]

33. I support....

....military action against a tyrant and his mercenaries willing to slaughter his own people in order to remain in power....

....unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the reasons for our intended use of force were suspect, the Libyans have demonstrated their desire for democratic change and a will to make it happen....I'm sure all US and Western interests in Libya have been discussed with the rebels....

....who knows what will ultimately happen in Libya, but it seems to me that we are at a crossroads; continue to support a tyrant and his mercenaries or support what appears to be the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people....

....if the rebels turn out not to be democrats, being unacceptable to the Libyan people, then they too should be resisted....power to the people....

[silver10]

41. I'm with you! Nicely put!

Fuck war and fuck the fuckin war machine. And fuck Obama - let's see if his buddy the republicans vote for him in 2012, because I will not, never again.

[aquart]

46. They asked for help.

It doesn't much matter who they are. They are Libyans and their government is trying to kill them.

We don't usually care about that. But they began as peaceful protesters and were forced to fight for their lives. This is a lot about how the rest of the MidEast is going to look at the West.

[silver10]

49. What's next?

No money for teachers, education, health care, arts, financial oversight, labor relations oversight, or any other social programs, but man we got money to launch 110 missiles at $1 million a pop. Must of gave the defense boys orgasms like you wouldn't believe.

Now, there's plenty of markets we can open up, this is just the beginning - why stop here? - we got N. Korea, Yemen, Iran, a bunch of African countries and S. American countries committing atrocities against their own people - there's probably a bunch more in E. Europe and S. W. Asia I'm overlooking. Business looks great!

[TheCanadianLiberal]

57. Nor can america support another war..

Financially.

[Nye Bevan]

58. Sounds like you have the same amount of respect for the UN that George W Bush had.

You don't even mention them in your post.

Doesn't it count for anything in your book that this action is proceeding multilaterally, with UN approval, and not even one dissenting vote?

[somone]

59. Great list!

[DutchLiberal]

60. Not *everything* the US does is an evil neo-con conspiracy, you know?

1. Yes, we do.
2. Yes, we do.
3. Yes, there is.
4. You believe murderous, terrorist dictator Gaddafi's propaganda over BBC, CNN, Reuters? Interesting.
5. Clark is in support of these actions against Libya.
6. We should've helped the rebels earlier then, like 2 weeks ago, when they first asked for it. But I bet you would be bitching we were too hasty then.
7. Broken clocks are rights sometimes, too. But if you trust Qaddafi over Obama, you need to get your head examined. Qaddafi is not a benevolent leader.
8. One can go with the other. Oh, and the rebels asked for this.
9. So? Instead of letting some people be repressed, you advocate letting *all* people be oppressed?
10. You DO hold the same position of the majority of Americans on WWII before Pearl Harbor, so own up to it.

If you don't know what's going on, TURN ON THE FUCKING TV AND PUT DOWN THE FUCKING TINFOIL HAT!

[TheKentuckian]

66. So, you are saying we should have used our Security Council veto to crush this action?

This is the UN, not a US rogue cowboy move. Not even to the tune of the first Gulf War, I'm seeing little indication that this is US driven.
This being the case you are saying the US should have vetoed and that moves you straight out of neutral/passive to taking a pretty proactive action to allow Qaddafi to have his way.

The use of the veto is siding with Qaddafi, which you are free to do but that doesn't sound like your actual intent to me.

[Imagevision]

70. This ads to reson as to why the US. should send a smart bomb up Gadaffi's ass and end it!

[Martin Eden]

72. Here ar the main reasons why I DO NOT SUPPORT this military action:

1. It is an act of war, and as such should not be undertaken without the consent of Congress. Given how military engagements today do not fit the model understood by the framers of our Constitution I don't think a formal declaration of war is necessarily called for, but Congressional consent before an act of war is imperative to uphold the intent of the Constitution and to restrain the impulses and possible ulterior agenda of the executive branch. Of course, the Commander In Chief must have the authority to direct a military response when imminent threat does not permit time for Congressional deliberation.

2. I support having a body of international law such as the UN that can, when necessary, authorize military action for humanitarian purposes. Atrocities such as genocide or widespread starvation in the midst of anarchy or civil war justify -- and perhaps even demand -- outside intervention in a civilized world. However, I don't think Libya has crossed this threshold, and worse humanitarian disasters elsewhere remain unresolved.

3. This intervention in Libya primarily seems to be taking sides in a civil war against a tyrant who serves no purpose for the major participants in the military strikes. On the other hand, we find ourselves in the position of taking no action against other tyrants in the region cracking down against democratic uprisings -- tyrants with whom we have close ties and who do serve our purposes. Given our history in the region, the principle at work here can appear more self-serving than humanitarian in nature.

4. Even if this is essentially a humanitarian mission to safeguard the lives of Libyan civilians, there appears to be little thought given as to how this goal can be achieved on a long term basis. The enforcement of a no-fly zone by no means guarantees a resolution of the ongoing civil war, and could very likely prolong the conflict along with the suffring of the Libyan people. This could be an open-ended costly commitment for us with the inevitable bad options of abandoning the effort with Gadhafi still in power, or escalating the cost and scope of our involvement.


on edit:
Changed the last sentence in point #3.(I think Obama's motives are good)

[Iterate]

77. Since you're off base on all ten points and have admitted

you have no sources of reliable information I'd suggest you turn off the teevee.

I've done the heavy lifting of looking for original sources close to the scene, reading the history, learning as much as I possibly can about the culture and politics of Libya, take nothing at face value, and I can tell you that in spite of hardly ever supporting military action anywhere for my entire life (and fighting endless progressive battles along the way), I've reached the opposite conclusion and am quite at peace with it.