Two types of arguments against our intervention in Libya

[BzaDem]

I often see two rationales for why we shouldn't intervene in Libya.

The first is, "well, if intervening in Libya is a good idea, why don't we intervene in country X?"

But how does this make any sense? Either one agrees with intervening in country X or they don't. If they don't, the argument doesn't make sense on its own terms. And if they do believe we should intervene in country X (and that our lack of intervention in country X is an error), then why should we compound the error by choosing to not intervene in Libya? Isn't that kind of a "two wrongs make a right" type of thinking? How does the lack of intervention in one country with such circumstances provide justification for the lack of intervention in another?

The second type of argument is, "we aren't actually intervening in Libya for humanitarian reasons -- there is some ulterior motive (such as oil)."

But that doesn't make any sense either. Either humanitarian intervention in a country is a good thing or it isn't. If there is a legitimate need for humanitarian intervention, the existence of some ulterior motive (such as oil) is completely irrelevant. Worrying about some second ulterior motive when there is a legitimate humanitarian motive is like worrying about the sound of a tree falling when no one is there to hear it.

And if there is no legitimate humanitarian need for intervention, then other reasons (such as oil) are STILL irrelevant. In that case, the reason we shouldn't intervene is based on the lack of a need for humanitarian intervention -- NOT because oil might be someone else's motive.

I'm not saying there aren't reasonable arguments against intervening in Libya. But some of the arguments against it make no sense at all.

[msongs]

1. great job supporting the Bush invasion of Iraq. He couldn't have said it better. nt

"But that doesn't make any sense either. Either humanitarian intervention in a country is a good thing or it isn't. If there is a legitimate need for humanitarian intervention, the existence of some ulterior motive (such as oil) is completely irrelevant. Worrying about some second ulterior motive when there is a legitimate humanitarian motive is like worrying about the sound of a tree falling when no one is there to hear it."

[BzaDem]

2. If you actually read my post, it doesn't support Bush's invasion of Iraq at all. Nice try though.

[progressoid]

8. True, but...

let's be honest, the "why don't we intervene in country X?" argument was widely embraced by us (the left) regarding Bush/Iraq. I'm sure there are thousands of posts in the DU archives saying just that.

[BzaDem]

11. I think "why don't we intervene in country X" arguments can be used to analyze motive.

And I think that is what a lot of people were doing -- they were using it to show bad motives on the part of Bush. It doesn't necessarily show motive (there are a lot of reasons why there might not be a clear criterion), but I think the main thing people with this argument were doing was attempting to show bad faith on Bush's part.

All I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with the completely separate question of whether we should intervene. We should never have invaded Iraq, but the reasons for this had to do with the specific circumstances of Iraq (not some general abstract notion of never intervening).

Once people arrived at that conclusion for independent reasons, then they tried to use that argument to show bad faith on Bush's part.

[sabrina 1]

84. The 'why don't we intervene' argument was simply a response

to the president's and Hillary's claims that the U.S. 'will not stand by while a brutal dictator abuses his people' (paraphrasing)

Clearly that's not true as we are doing just that. So people pointed it out, that's all.

Everyone knows why we are intervening in Libya, people are not naive. Especially people who have suffered under colonial rule for so long. And they are saying so on a daily basis all over the world.

[BzaDem]

99. OK, if all people are doing is using that argument to argue for more intervention, or to paint

HRC or Obama as a hypocrite, that might make logical sense.

But to argue that that argument is a legitimate argument for NOT intervening (as opposed to painting someone as a hypocrite or analyzing motives) is ridiculous. The lack of intervention in one country is NOT an argument for a lack of intervention in another country.

[silver10]

38. it sounds like you do. Nice try.

[BzaDem]

46. That is a problem with your comprehension -- not my post. n/t

[silver10]

56. Not my problem

[bobbolink]

4. Great job of pretzeling.

Those contortions must be quite uncomfortable.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Your reply doesn't actually address the logic of the OP's argument. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

7. Did you even read the OP?

[silver10]

36. I knew I heard this before!

[ZombieHorde]

3. Those are nice arguments. I have seen a third reason for not invading Libya.

Some DUers are concerned about the US's track record concerning the killing of innocent civilians. Some DUers feel the US will most likely kill civilians, which would be harmful to the overall goal, and increase the US's bad reputation.

[bobbolink]

12. I wish more DUers had read the daily reports from the ground in Libya before making up their minds.

"For people who are worried about the civilians killed
by the no-fly zone. I have heard many Libyans say they are willing to die for freedom.

That is, if the have to die so that Gaddafi is removed, they don't mind.

They do mind being killed by Gaddafi."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=692608&mesg_id=692730

I saw those posts and tweets. MANY of them. These are the revolutionaries on the ground. I take their own words more seriously than I do those who are trying to second-guess them.

[joshcryer]

24. I agree about the USs track record and I think it is a legitimate response, however, the US...

...isn't leading it. It's going to be a coalition of a dozen countries. If the US does have a protracted stay there, and in fact Obama was dishonest when he said that we were simply enabling other countries to act, it will be very very upsetting to me.

[silver10]

63. Yea, right, the US isn't leading it

Really? You believe everything you read?

[joshcryer]

103. I believe Obama isn't lying when he says that we're enabling France and the UK.

[silver10]

109. You REALLY think they're leading. Huh.

[joshcryer]

118. Yep.

No evidence to the contrary.

[silver10]

128. Because everything we are told about wars we are in is so true.

American missiles, American technology, American support - but we're not leading the effort. Ha.

[Amonester]

6. There is a third one and I thought it is legitimate.

The third type of argument is, "we should let other UN member countries do it for humanitarian reasons and not get involved in this OTHER one"

I can understand the reasons behind it since I live in another country.

[leftstreet]

9. Which argument did the BRIC countries + Germany use to abstain?

Curious minds wonder what they're thinking

[BzaDem]

13. I don't know offhand.

As I said, there might be plenty of legitimate reasons for not invading Libya (as opposed to an abstract reason that has nothing to do with Libya). The cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis is very complicated, and none of us has all the information. Maybe Germany and others have a different analysis.

[Union Scribe]

10. The first argument reveals the second

At least in the people supporting this war, if not the country itself. That's why they are used, to show the error of the IOKIODIs.

[Igel]

14. Responses.

Take argument 1, as actually enunciated: There's a moral obligation to intervene to save civilian lives.

If there's a moral obligation, then why Libya? The toss of a die? Flip of a coin? There are a lot of places that could stand invading, or at least no-fly/no-drive zones if we stand by our moral imperative. But we don't. It's not that imperative a moral. So what's the real reason?

In this case, the real reason, as put by HRC, is her "fear" about the atrocities that *will* be committed. Haunted by the shades of Rwanda, making one's foreign policy agenda a bit too based on personal history? That sucks as a reason. But that's not Obama's reason. He seemed to emphasize hearts and minds. In other words, we now oppose Gaddhafi in order to show leadership in following what we suspect Arab popular opinion is, because if we follow sufficiently we'll earn respect and that will make us more powerful. Sort of inverting leadership and servanthood, IMHO. We can argue the merits of that inversion (or problems), but it's not a big moral imperative. It's a personal or a PR imperative. Of course, you have to engage in some close reading to find these. Not so much parsing words as listening to the way information's structured, where the logical emphases and trains of implications lead you. They say the words. But nobody wants to accept them--and then, in rehashing things, the politicians say what they know people want to hear. The simpletons.

That's already moved us to (2). I never thought we invaded Iraq for oil. As it turns out, we didn't get oil and there was no great amount of handwringing. I'm not into big behind the scenes Illuminati/Bilderberger/Trilateral Commission sorts of schemes.

It's true that a false proposition leading to a true conclusion is a valid form of argumentation. However I don't see the humanitarian need as that extreme. There have been more extreme humanitarian needs that received zero UN armed support. In other words, I don't think the conclusion is true. I think a fair number of other people don't think that you're assumption that the conclusion is true is right, either.

However, while F --> T is T, that doesn't earn you a grade of A on a logic test. Why posit the false premise in the first place? Because you don't know it's false? Because you think it'll be good enough and others won't know it's false? C'mon. We wanted transparency, we wanted leadership, we wanted intelligence. I feel insulted by the argument's that been made so far.

Although maybe there has been a shift on the ground, one in favor of that old neocon dogma of supporting democracy, even by dint of arms (which was what the original leftists-become-conservatives preached--the core tenet of the original form of neoconservatism). Maybe the administration that has trouble criticizing China but bombs Libya will take up criticizing all those who transgress their moral imperatives. I'm not going to hold my breath.

[BzaDem]

17. What false premise are you claiming I made?

All I ever said was two particular forms of argument against Libya made no sense. I specifically said there might very well be legitimate arguments against intervention. The need for humanitarian intervention might very well not be there -- but REGARDLESS, these decisions should be made based on the need (or lack of need) for humanitarian intervention (not based on fears of ulterior motives).

"In this case, the real reason, as put by HRC, is her "fear" about the atrocities that *will* be committed."

Well, yes. I think that reason makes sense, when the fear is because the leader of the country says they will go inside people's homes, take people out of their closets, and show them absolutely no mercy. It doesn't take a lot to realize that fear is justified. I don't think it makes sense to wait until AFTER the atrocities are committed and we can't do anything about them.

Whether the cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis makes sense is a complicated question that none of us has all the necessary information to answer; I think it makes sense to intervene but I am open to being persuaded that the various types of humanitarian costs would be too high.

[sabrina 1]

91. We didn't get oil in Iraq?

We most certainly did. We got the puppet government as soon as we installed it, to sign over more than 80% of Iraq's oil to Multi National Oil Corps. That clause was buried in the Iraq documents to be signed several years ago and Iraqis were fighting over the signing of them. Many demonstrations against that agreement in Iraq, all suppressed as brutally as any of our dictator friends are capable of doing.

Dennis Kucinich revealed that clause to the American people, finally proving that the war was about oil after all. He was threatened with sanctions for exposing the clause by his own party. We probably would never have known, had he not done that.

So, I'm afraid you're very wrong, there were other reasons yes, but we got their oil.

[OnyxCollie]

115. No oil and no great amount of handwringing?

It's All About Oil
http://www.zcommunications.org/its-all-about-oil-by-dennis-j-kucinich

Analysis of Iraqi "Hydrocarbon Law" Section by Section:

The Feb 15th, 2007 draft was made available, not because the Iraqi government released it, but because the Kurds released it.

This version passed the Iraq Cabinet, and was referred to the Parliament.

The legislation contains only three sentences in regards to the fair distribution of oil, but do not resolve any of the issues facing this challenge. The legislation simply requires that future legislation be submitted for approval. Thus, this legislation does not even meet the President's benchmark.
The legislation ensures that the "Chief Executives of important related petroleum companies" are represented on the Federal Oil and Gas Council, which approves oil and gas contracts. This is akin to the foreign oil companies approving their own contracts.
The legislation ensures the Iraq National Oil Company has no exclusive rights for exploration, development, production, transportation, and marketing. The Iraq National Oil Company must compete against foreign oil companies with rules that benefit the foreign oil companies.
The legislation gives the Iraq National Oil Company some control of developed oil fields and "rights to participate" in undeveloped oil fields in Annex I and II, but these Annexes have never been made public.
The legislation gives the Iraq National Oil Company temporary control of the oil pipelines and export terminals, but then directs the Federal Oil and Gas Council to turn these assets over to any entity with no further instructions. The opportunity for a foreign oil company to have control over the Iraqi oil pipeline and export terminals would give that company enormous control of the Iraqi oil market.
The legislation demands that "contracts must guarantee the best levels of coordination" with the Oil Ministry, Iraq National Oil Company, the regions and oil companies. The legislation mandates that undeveloped oil fields be developed quickly and oil companies are given explicit authority to "collaborate."
The legislation does not require contracts to be published for public review up to two months after the approval.
The legislation provides up to 35 years of exclusive control over oil fields for foreign oil companies.
The legislation provides for a preference to Iraqis for jobs and services, but only if these benefits do not place extra costs or inconveniences on the foreign oil companies.
The legislation states that disputes between the State of Iraq and any foreign investors will be submitted for arbitration to an international court and will not be decided upon by an Iraqi court.
The legislation has four appendices, whose contents remain secret:

Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071230t.pdf

Accountability Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-28). Section 1314 lists Iraq benchmarks. Included in
the benchmarks is the passage of the DRAFT OIL AND GAS LAW PREPARED BY THE
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OIL AND ENERGY COMMITTEE ON 15 FEBRUARY 2007
Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of
hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of
recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy
resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an
equitable manner.
(GAO-07-1230T, 2007, p. 4)

Executive Order 13303
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-13412.pdf

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of
attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi
petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or
any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or
marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the
restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development
of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby
order:
Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any
attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial
process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the (a) the
Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and
interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature
whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests
therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in
the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter
come within the possession or control of United States persons.

How will Iraq share the oil?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0518/p01s01-usfp.html

”‘The actual law has nothing to do with sharing revenue,’ says former
Iraqi Oil Minister, Issam Al Chalabi, in a phone interview from Amman, Jordan. The law aims to
set a framework for investment by outside oil companies, including favorable production sharing
agreements that are typically used to reward companies for taking on risk, he says
“‘We know the oil is there. Geological studies have been made for decades on these oil fields; so
why would we let them,’” that is, the international oil companies, “‘have a share of the oil?’ he
adds. ‘Iraqis will say this is solid proof that Americans have staged the war.... because of this
law.’” (Christian Science Monitor, May 18, 2007) (p. 3)

[Confusious]

15. Arab league requests no fly zone

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/arab-league-to-officially-request-un-impose-no-fly-zone-on-libya-1.348747

The UN approved. This is something what we didn't get in bush's war.

They asked for help.

Iraq didn't. Bush just thought he'd make a great 'ar 'resident.

[Imagevision]

16. Libya is country X

[DainBramaged]

18. And none of the arguments for intervention make sense

Black, meet white....

[BzaDem]

19. My only point is that for an argument against intervention to make sense, it really needs to be

Libya-specific. All of these abstract arguments (that could just as easily applied to WW2 or any other conflict) are nonsense.

Maybe anything we could do would just make it worse for the Libyan people. But at least if we are arguing about that, we are arguing about the actual situation (not some abstract ideal).

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[bobbolink]

20. If you were listening to the protesters on the ground, it all makes sense.

[DevonRex]

21. ITA. nt

[joshcryer]

22. +1, completely. The first example is the best case of illogic, because you ask the person...

..."do you you think we should intervene in country X" they either don't answer, or say no.

[Gregorian]

23. I find the lack of consistent policy most problematic.

Had we done anything in Rwanda to stop the civil war genocide, where nearly a million died horrific deaths, I could find a sense of confidence that the US cares about human beings. But I don't see it. Regardless of political party in office at the time, I do not see solid evidence that this country is in favor of humanitarian values. We make a feeble show, and then fade away. The list is very long.

I have no confidence that we will do anything other than what we've done.

[BzaDem]

25. OK, let's assume then that we are not "in favor of humanitarian values."

How is that an argument against intervening in Libya? If there is a valid humanitarian reason, but that isn't the "real reason" we are going, shouldn't we still intervene? In other words, why is it a bad thing to intervene for the wrong reason when there also exists a completely valid reason?

Or do you think there is no valid humanitarian reason whatsoever (independent of the possible bad motives of the government)?

[Gregorian]

43. It's a matter of trusting our intentions.

If we really are going in to help the Libyans, then I am all for it. I just seriously doubt that is our intention. I hope they prove me wrong. I'm against force in general, because force rarely produces productive results. It works well for iron workers and auto body repair, though.

[Poll_Blind]

26. +1 Few in America and no-one outside of America are fooled.

PB

[BzaDem]

27. Apparently, some outside America are "fooled," since other countries are taking the lead on this. nt

[Poll_Blind]

28. Quelle-surprise! The Coalition of the Drilling- at it again? Who would have guessed?

:shrug:

PB

[BzaDem]

Well it kind of goes against your statement that "no one outside America was fooled."

Apparently, assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct (which you aren't), a lot of other countries have been fooled.

[Poll_Blind]

31. Heh heh, oh maaaan. You know what (hands up in the air) ya got me!

:rofl:

PB

[joshcryer]

30. Rewanda predated R2P and in fact helped bring R2P into existance.

[Gregorian]

45. Now I wonder if we're operating in coherence with the UN ruling.

I admit that I vaguely recall this UN rule, after the Rwandan genocide. Thanks for the reminder.

Enforcement is always an issue in this kind of thing. By Geneva Convention standards, the Bush gang should be in the Hague. But I digress.

[joshcryer]

52. This is the FIRST TIME R2P has been invoked and implemented*. Burma was vetoed by China+Russia.

*First time it was implemented since adopted in 2005. R2P has existed in concept but was not formally adopted until 2005.

[Ramulux]

29. The 1st argument makes perfect sense

Why is Libya more important than Bahrain? What justifies us supporting a war against Libya, but not against Bahrain? These are questions you actually have to ask when you are deciding to intervene in another countries affairs.

Gaddafi is not special, nothing he is doing is any different than what any of the other dictators all over the world do to their people on a regular basis. N. Korea is like a massive concentration camp and its been that way for decades but I rarely hear anyone talk about how we have to save the N. Korean people from their dictator.

You just dont fucking understand that the United States and the UN are not in charge of the world and dont get to do whatever they want just because they pass a resolution. Libya is run by the Libyan government, its not our country, we dont get to decide what happens there and we sure as hell dont get to declare war on them just because they do things we dont like.

[joshcryer]

32. I think the first question shows a complete disconnect from what's happening in Libya...

...contrasted to what's happening in Bahrain.

[BzaDem]

33. "These are questions you actually have to ask"

Says who?

Let's say the decision to not intervene in Bahrain is a bad decision. So what? Why should we compound the error of not intervening in Bahrain by not intervening in Libya? Or if you don't think we should intervene in Bahrain, again, how is that an argument for not intervening in Libya? You are just saying that two wrongs somehow make a right. That is nonsense.

"we dont get to decide what happens there and we sure as hell don't get to declare war on them just because they do things we dont like."

Hate to break it to you, but we are "deciding what happens" and we just did declare war on them (in a manner of speaking) because they are doing things that we don't like. You may not like that, but that is what is happening.

So the real question is not what we "get to decide" (obviously we end up deciding quite a bit), but whether that is a good or bad thing. But you have made no argument that our deciding here is a bad thing. You have just made the abstract false proposition, that we don't get to decide (when we are in fact deciding as we speak).

[Hissyspit]

34. Ugh.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

37. Nope. Are you? n/t

[silver10]

39. No way.

But if I were, I'd write what you wrote.

[BzaDem]

40. If I were a libertarinan social-darwinist, "let the poor starve" type person like Ron Paul

I would share your opinion on the war.

Your argument-by-association kind of cuts both ways.

[silver10]

47. The right wing is always searching for ways to be in a war

And theorizing and justifying and putting down the arguments for why we shouldn't.

To try to stop your agonizing over the false reasons we shouldn't be, here is something to consider: we heard the same shit about humanitarian reasons for being in a war for Korean, for Vietnam, for Iraq, and for Afghanistan. Despite or superiority, we didn't win any of them. We heard about the suffering, the evil dictators, the fact that people would rather die in conflict against their government than at the hands of it. AND WE HAVE PEOPLE IN AMERICA IN POVERTY! With no food, place to live, health care, education and social programs on the chopping block. WHAT ABOUT OUR OWN COUNTRY?

One million Iraqis dead - more maimed - thousands of our soldiers dead - more maimed.

I wonder who the next Iraqi dictator will be?

[BzaDem]

49. And the far, far right social darwinist "let the poor starve" libertarians are always searching for

reasons why intervention is always wrong. And theorizing and justifying and putting down arguments for why intervention might be justified.

Again, your argument cuts both ways.

[silver10]

50. In your imagination

[BzaDem]

51. Actually, it's in reality. The fact that you don't understand that is your problem -- not mine.

[silver10]

54. Not understanding you is not a problem for me

[BzaDem]

57. Perhaps, but not understanding reality is a problem for you. n/t

[silver10]

58. I don't support a war, so I don't understand reality?

[BzaDem]

61. You stated that far right libertarian's opposition to intervention is "in my imagination."

But it is actually in reality.

[silver10]

65. Well, since you are agonizing about not going, I hope you enlisted to help in our 3 wars

Goodness knows our military needs the extra help.

[BzaDem]

67. Who says I supported the other two?

In fact, nothing in my post even argues for or against the Libyan intervention. It simply presents two common arguments against the intervention and shows why they make no sense. I specifically left open the possibility of there being other legitimate reasons for not intervening (so long as they are Libya-specific, and none of this abstract never-intervene bullshit).

While I didn't say this in the OP, I am inclined to favor our intervention in Libya, but I am open to persuasion that the cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis cuts the other way. While I would probably be of little use to the military, I am happy to have my tax money go to helping non-Americans avoid slaughter -- apparently unlike you (though correct me if I'm wrong).

[silver10]

68. Well, it is very obvious you support intervention, I'm just asking when you ship out?

I'm sick of chickenhawks

[BzaDem]

70. Asked and answered (see post 67). n/t

[silver10]

73. Well, it's nice that you'd give a few buck yourself, but send someone else

to die. You don't think it's worth your life though?

[BzaDem]

76. As I said

I doubt I would be of much use to the military.

How about you? Let's say we were facing a world-war-II genocide-like scenario (or heck, let's say we're attacked directly). Would you "ship out?" If not, does that mean we shouldn't ever intervene to prevent genocide, or fight back in self defense?

[silver10]

78. I've been in the army, and I know all about war, so let's not go there.

That is why I think it would have to be a very, very important reason for me to ship anybody's father, son, brother, sister, etc. Don't think this Libya thing can't have American troops on the ground, despite what anybody says. Even pilots getting shot at and who possibly crash and die or get captured and tortured.

You hold this whole situation below you, "you wouldn't be much use to the military." Or more like an academic exercise.

The country is filled with chickenhawks like you. Wouldn't sacrifice your precious ass, but if it sounds like somewhat of a good thing, you believe it and are all over it.

We get told things as average people, and we fall for it and believe it. When will man ever learn from history?

[BzaDem]

82. I also think there should be a very important reason.

I just happen to think that this is one. Given my admittedly limited knowledge of the cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis, I support intervention, while being open to persuasion that the cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis is negative.

My only point is that this is not a black and white situation. So looking at this as a black and white situation isn't going to get us anywhere. Intervention is a line-drawing exercise, as most complicated problems are.

If you want to take our disagreement about the line drawing as a signal that my message sounds like a Republican message, just don't get too angry when your argument-by-association is turned right back at you with regards to others who agree with you wholeheartedly about intervention.

[silver10]

87. If it is important enough to you, why can't you join? If too old, how about your children?

[silver10]

92. I got a response for all my posts but this one? go wonder

[BzaDem]

94. Maybe you should wait a few minutes before looking silly. n/t

[silver10]

101. takes a lot more than this

[BzaDem]

93. I am not going to reveal personal info about myself on a message board, so you can believe it or not

and I don't particularly care.

But I would ask an additional question (that you are of course free not to answer): If not intervening is important enough to you, would you freely agree to go to Benghazi and share the fate of their citizens in the absence of intervention?

[silver10]

95. I think if this is important enough to you, you'd say that you indeed encourage your family to join

the military. That way you're not a hypocrite.

[BzaDem]

96. Would you freely live in Benghazi without intervention, then? If maintaining the status quo is that

important to you?

[silver10]

98. why should I live there?

[silver10]

100. would you live in Iraq?

We fought Iraq for almost 10 years to "liberate" them?

[silver10]

97. I care about Americans and using the money for Americans

And not sending Americans to ANY of the dozens of atrocities happening at the hands of their leaders - because as history has shown, there's not a god-damned thing we can do about it(Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia). I don't want any more Americans hurt.

So, you care about this one because of the media coverage? Because of the attention? Because of France and England making noise because they get 90% of their oil from Libya.Why this one and not all the others?

[BzaDem]

102. "why should I live there?"

Why should your birth-roulette-result (being lucky enough to be born an American) insulate you from the outcome that your choice would inflict on Benghazi? If you really believed what you were saying, why would you even be asking the question?

[silver10]

104. Fight for justice, like Iraq? Vietnam? N. Korea? Somalia. We were really effective

[BzaDem]

105. Isn't it overly simplistic to pretend the world is black and white, and that any intervention is

either a Vietnam or WWII?

Shouldn't any reality-based argument focus on the facts in Libya? If you want to argue that the cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis doesn't work out for Libya in particular, by all means do so. But that's not what you are saying -- you are arguing against intervention as a concept, pretending that all interventions cleanly fit into two buckets. That is nonsense.

[silver10]

106. So, why are you picking saving Libya? why not Rwanda? why not The Congo? Sierra Leone?

[BzaDem]

107. While I again have limited information, I would have supported intervention in Rwanda

(with the caveat that I am open to arguments from the other side in terms of cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis, given my limited research).

But even if I didn't, I still don't think the lack of intervention in one country is a plausible argument for why intervention should not happen in another country (for the reasons in my OP). Certainly not a decisive argument.

[silver10]

108. and the dozens of other countries? all being killed by leaders?

You'd support all of them?

But of course, you can't join the military or your family. Nice.

[BzaDem]

110. Again, I would have to research the cost/humanitarian-benefit analysis, because the world is not

black and white.

[silver10]

111. All human life has a price (bearing cost analysis) but yours is not on the table

even for a "good" cause. Again, nice.

[BzaDem]

112. Well, you are apparently not on the table for living in any of the places you want no intervention

in. Solely because you won the birth country lottery. Nice.

[silver10]

113. Unlike you, I served my country. I put my "money where my mouth is"

[BzaDem]

114. And I never said otherwise.

I simply said that you are arguing for non-intervention in X, while refusing to accept the consequences that the people living in X will suffer due to your preference.

[silver10]

122. I'll finish this with May all the dead civilians souls who got bombed be on your head

and all the self-righteous POc warmongersin the world.

[silver10]

126. People in other countries we bombed and invaded suffered

the consequences too.

[HEyHEY]

117. Are YOU a repbulican? PLacing money as a higher value than people's lives sounds tha tway to me

[silver10]

123. You think I'm a republican because I'm against war?

And you're using "because money is less important than people's lives"? ReallY.

That's another pro-war argument the right-wing will throw at you.

No, I'm against the war because people's lives - Libyan and American - are more important than money.

Too bad you don't get that.

How many wars need to be started to prove that war gets people nowhere? Who's good, who's bad, who do we kill?

You gotta nerve.

War is an abomination to man, and bombing the shit outta people will result in nothing but dead bodies.

I guess you would like to live in Iraq, since America liberated it and it is now democratic?

[silver10]

66. I didn't say anything about libertarians becasue I don't give a good god-damn about them

[silver10]

53. And I hope you aren't insinuating I am a far far right libertarian

Just because I don't believe the crap about this being a humanitarian cause. And I want the money spent on social programs and infrastructure in our own country.

So, if you are trying to connect my response with libertarianism, that is quite a stretch.

[BzaDem]

55. I'm not insinuating that you're a libertarian any more than you're insinuating that I'm a Republican

[silver10]

59. OK, good then. Because I don't care what you are, just what your post sounds like

[BzaDem]

62. And I similarly don't care what you are -- just what your "us, not them" reasoning sounds like.

"And I want the money spent on social programs and infrastructure in our own country."

I, for one, am happy to have my tax money be spent on helping people avoid slaughter outside our country.

[silver10]

64. Wow. You really make no sense. Just saying

[HEyHEY]

119. How does that make no sense yo you? Cause it isn't selfish and republican-style thinking?

[silver10]

136. Anti-war is selfish and republican style?

We helped the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam sooo much with our wars. They were all heavily supported by republicans here and sold as "humanitarian actions" too. I think we've had enough of your fucking wars - bomb, bomb, bombs. We will end up being considered to be illegal invaders and occupiers.

[HEyHEY]

142. No saying "fuck them, I got mine" is.

You also helped South Korea, Albanians, Eastern Europe.

[silver10]

143. I don't see Canada in the coalition?

"Fuck you, I have mine?" and when do you ship out to Libya to fight the rebels? You can enlist in the American Army, or is that below you? You can just send others to fight your self-righteous bombings?

[MedleyMisty]

146. Canada sent six jets

last I heard.

[silver10]

147. Wow! a whole six jets - you must be so proud!

Maybe your 6 jets killed more than our missiles!

[HEyHEY]

116. Why? Cause he isn't blindy shouting "Conspiracy, war monger!" Without thinking

It's the repbulicans who are likely to let people die with that "It's none of our business" I can't think of a MORE conservative thing to say,

[silver10]

139. Illegally and arbitrarily bombing other countries is not humanitarian

You needed that explained to you.

[kelly1mm]

41. How about this one - the $ spent on this should be spent here instead? nt

[silver10]

48. +1

[guruoo]

42. Wonder if any of our 'little buddies' have slipped up, and posted opposing arguments under

the same screen name?

[BzaDem]

44. See post #11. n/t

[guruoo]

60. It's like a

kaos ops clusterbomb.

[gmaki]

69. Here's one for you

I'm against war.

[BzaDem]

72. But obviously not all war. (I presume you were not against the civil war, for example.)

Or our intervention in World War II.

So it really comes down to what wars you are in favor of versus what wars you are against -- not abstract pacifist nonsense.

[silver10]

75. You are comparing this to the American Civil War - wow you do live in your own world

[BzaDem]

77. No, actually, I'm not. This goes back to the comprehension issue.

The poster says they oppose war (in general). I simply pointed out that it obviously did not apply to all wars. Nowhere did I compare two wars.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[BzaDem]

88. You have twice mischaracterized posts of mine.

So don't be too surprised if I point that out. Nowhere did I compare the Civil war and our intervention in Libya.

[silver10]

89. You are just too intellectual for me. Go back to agonizing over your 2 stupid arguments

[silver10]

124. I comprehend you just fine!

[gmaki]

141. No I'm against all of them

The ones you name killed even more people. Hoe could I be "for" that?

[silver10]

144. agreed!

[HR_Pufnstuf]

71. How about: We have a Dept of Defense, not a Dept of Offense

How are they defending us?

[BzaDem]

74. So your objection is simply that the department is misnamed? That could easily be corrected. n/t

[HR_Pufnstuf]

80. You answered my question with a question.

"The role of the Department of Defense is to protect the security of the United States by providing military forces to deter war and to protect the country's critical infrastructure."

How are they protecting OUR security? The taxpayers who pay for this killing.

Besides, THEY did try to rename it to National Military Establishment, but NME sounded like "enemy".

So answer my question Mr n/t.

[silver10]

81. +1

[BzaDem]

83. Oh, I don't think they are defending us per se.

In other words, I realize that this is not defense of our borders, and I honestly couldn't care less about the name of the department.

[PurityOfEssence]

85. What about national sovereignty?

What right do we have to interfere in an internal dispute? If the suppression reaches a level of savagery, then I suppose so, but this hardly seems to reach that level.

People are conflating armed rebels with innocent civilians and wildly flailing about bloody shirts with no substantiation. We don't like the guy. Others don't like the guy.

Once we go about seeing fit to go in and dictate who is or isn't worthy of running a country, we open a huge can of worms, and I don't like the implications.

Much of the arguing of relative merits of other states in chaos are ones that deserve a hearing. Why are we not intervening in Ivory Coast? On Friday, Yemen had a bigger body count than I can find for any single incident in Libya. Bahrain's troubles predate Libya's by a couple of weeks. The rebels have hanged two policement implicated in shooting protesters, and they've also allegedly executed captured mercenaries. Do they get a free pass because they're fighting against a big meanie like Qaddafi? Do we REALLY know who all comprises this consistently portrayed as pristine and innocent rebellion? Many of the military have defected to the rebellion; are we to simply presume that they're madly in love with pluralism and democracy? Who the fuck are we to say we have all the answers?

Then there's the issue of the rebels requesting help from the world community, hinting that they'll remember those who help and similarly remember those who don't. That sort of wipes away some of the sheen of pure and moral human freedom and all that, doesn't it?

Then there's the ANYONE would be better than Qaddafi. I remember 1979 rather well, and ANYONE would be better than the Shah. Right. We don't have all the answers, and we don't know all the players. Besides all that, the real point I keep coming back to is that this is a private affair between the citizens of Libya and its current government, and for us to barge in killing and kingmaking isn't our right by any legal grounds that I can see or have heard cited.

My specific dispute is the right we claim to meddle in the internal affairs of a nation and the implications should we get more in the habit of doing so, and there are others who seem to have the same worry. What is your rebuttal to respecting national sovereignty?

[BzaDem]

86. "but this hardly seems to reach that level."

I guess that's really the question now, isn't it.

This isn't so much about "not liking the guy." It is more about "not liking what the guy is doing." In particular, if a leader says they will enter homes, open closets, take everyone and treat them "without mercy," I think believing him is rational.

[silver10]

90. +1

[meow mix]

127. Leave that Poor Mr Ghadaffi Aloooooooone!

give me a fucking break you people make me want to puke.

[silver10]

129. How coincidental - people like you also make me want to puke.

[meow mix]

131. im not the one who wants to watch protestersors be slaughtered in the streets.

i dont know how you can look in a mirror..fucking sick

[silver10]

135. so when do YOU ship out to help support our 3rd war?

[cali]

121. and quite a few of the arguments for it make no sense

that's all just par for the course about almost any issue.

[meow mix]

125. K&R they dont even care they just want to see the libyan protestors be slaughered

fucking sick people on here.

[silver10]

130. You just want to slaughter the protesters with your bombs.

They're just civilian casualties of war.

[meow mix]

132. link please

[meow mix]

133. CNN--Residents of Benghazi have one message, and that is: "Thankyou!"

shove that down your panties too

[silver10]

134. link please

[silver10]

138. there's nothing to shove down my panties

[Meeker Morgan]

137. #3 -- We cannot win this war, therefore we should stay out. n/t

[ecstatic]

140. Another argument is that war doesn't solve anything in the Middle East

When we finally leave Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing at all will have changed except for the population numbers. The cultural differences make it almost impossible to create lasting change.

[silver10]

145. +1