Let's rewind back to 1936

[RZM]

Pretend that current political positions could be transposed. Where would most DUers come down on the Spanish Civil War? Intervention or no? The great powers (Britain and France) opted for non-intervention. The primary Fascist powers chose to get involved, as did Mexico (not a great power) and the Soviet Union (who didn't really help all that much). The Falange eventually won -- would they have had a more difficult time had the West taken a strong stand against them? It's highly probable (and yes I know, business interests played a part in the non-intervention). Sometimes it's right to take a stand. It was right then, and it was right in the 1990s in Bosnia. When there is an opportunity for multilateral action against an authoritarian aggressor, it should be taken. Period.

[denem]

1. They would say not US while

Guernica burned. Them not Us, a deep vein in humanity, if not particularly attractive.

Lindberg et al. get at did not hold their piece until the ships were exploding in Hawaii.

[RZM]

3. Agreeed

The US was entirely disinterested in directly intervening in Europe until WWII. It's in our political blood, I suppose.

[joshcryer]

2. Too much history for people to absorb. I know the anarchists got involved.

It's a shame anarchists are extremely niche these days.

[RZM]

4. Anarchists were certainly part of the Popular Front and the International Brigades

If DU had existed in the 1930s, it would strongly support the Republican cause. Woodie Guthrie himself organized benefits for Republican Spain. But now, 'no blood for oil' is the rote mantra, unfortunately.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Yes, and they got betrayed by the communists

"Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell is a great read...

[joshcryer]

7. Yep, there was a communist here defending that in the "capitalism is no democratic" thread.

[RZM]

13. The point here is intervention

Random Communists from around the world couldn't make a difference -- nor could the Soviet Union, which put itself first even in the intervention. The real question is what would the Great Democratic Powers do? Many DUers are arguing that they shouldn't get involved in Libya. I'm only trying to point out the parallels. Strong Western involvement might have given the Popular Front a chance to succeed or fail on its own terms.

[joshcryer]

16. What breaks my heart about this is that Benghazi was / is very much a Catalonia for Libya.

And DUers who I used to respect or at least listen to have spent hundreds of posts trying to demonize the protesters and rebels alike.

Hair dressers who take up arms become combatants and can't be counted in the death counts, etc.

[RZM]

24. I guess some poeple just don't get it

The world is a brutal place. Might DOES make right, unfortunately. And in this case, I'd prefer the West's/rebels might over Ghadaffi's.

[joshcryer]

36. So do I, and I don't think they're terrorists.

[Hannah Bell]

6. not getting the parallel with the spanish civil war whatsoever.

the spanish civil war started when "rebels" (the francoist generals) revolted against the elected government of spain.

in this case "rebels" are revolting against a government which, though not elected, has been the established government for many years.

what is the parallel? i don't see *any*.

[joshcryer]

8. It's a question of intervention.

Not sure what there's not to get.

[Hannah Bell]

9. what does anything about libya have to do with the spanish civil war?

why bring up the spanish civil war? there's no similarity at all in the situation.

[RZM]

11. Libya does not equal Spain in a domestic sense

But the question of international intervention does have some relevance. Do you get involved in another country's civil war? How many DUers would have preferred that the West took strong action against Franco? I'd imagine quite a few.

[Hannah Bell]

15. franco was a fascist trying to overthrow an elected government, that's

why many duers would retrospectively support that intervention.

there's no such situation in this case.

[RZM]

19. Here you have rebels trying to overthrow an authoritarian government

The question is where does the international community come down. On the side of the rebels, or on the side of the government. Because doing nothing ensures that Ghaddafi gets his way.

[Hannah Bell]

23. which has nothing to do with the spanish civil war. there is no parallel.

[RZM]

26. Please read closely here

FRANCO WAS A BRUTAL AUTHORITARIAN DICTATOR. GHADDAFI IS A BRUTAL AUTHORITARIAN DICTATOR. Both engaged in wars with their own people. In both cases, the Western Democracies had a chance to intervene. In the 1930s, they chose not to do so and the result was 40 years of Fascism. Now, you have a similar chance to intervene and oust the authoritarian. Of course the countries and regimes are not the same, but the dynamic for the international community (AKA, us) is not all that different.

[Hannah Bell]

30. franco was not a dictator at the time of the spanish civil war. he was a rebel general

making a coup detat against an elected government.

khaddafi is a long-established dictator, & not a particularly brutal one in the larger scheme of things. no more brutal than many past or present us allies.

there is no parallel with the spanish civil war at all.

[RZM]

31. Sheesh, have you read my posts here?

I'm not saying they are the same person. My point is about intervention. Do you intervene when you have the chance or not? If you say no, fine, but I say yes and I'm very confident using the Spanish Civil War to bolster my point. You're not alone in my parallel if you say no. The French and British leadership said the same thing.

[Hannah Bell]

34. there is no reason to invoke the spanish civil war. i have no idea why you don't get it.

a closer parallel would have been intervention in the recent egyptian uprising: dictator facing rebels. only in that case he was "our" dictator.

[RZM]

37. Was Franco 'our dictator?'

Yes I know, the British were not keen on the Popular Front's nationalization schemes - nor were various American companies who helped Franco fund his war. But your parallel doesn't work here. Mubarak was a longtime US ally. Franco was not. The West was entirely able to take action against Franco without damaging longtime strategic partnerships, just as they are now with Ghaddafi.

[Hannah Bell]

39. apparently so, as he remained in power for a very long time with no challenge

from the west.

[RZM]

42. I meant at the time he seized power, which is when all of this, you know, mattered

As I said int the previous post, American companies helped fund Franco's war.

[joshcryer]

43. I do believe Franco was a lesser evil at that time and at that culture from a global perspective.

Socialists were demonized at that point of time, so I see where Hannah Bell is coming from.

[RZM]

46. Many people agreed

Including corporate interests in Western countries, who didn't want to see their business interests nationalized. The fact remains that intervention would have been the better option.

[Hannah Bell]

47. ???? no, i don't think so.

where i'm coming from = the spanish civil war has nothing to do with libya, however much you wish to claim it as a symbol for this low mean exercise.

[RZM]

10. It's about the foreign response

Do you help or not? The Western Democracies said no in the 1930s and the result was Franco's Spain. Maybe we could do it different this time?

[Hannah Bell]

17. the situation then did not parallel the situation today. there is no parallel.

at all.

"doing it different this time" implies there's a parallel. there's no parallel.

[RZM]

20. I don't think you're getting this

The great powers did not intervene in the Spanish Civil War. Had they done so, Franco would have had a much harder time. Here we have a chance to intervene against a horrible authoritarian government. Why not learn from the mistakes of the past? The British and French should have gotten involved in the 1930s. Had they done so, the 'dream that might have been' perhaps could have gotten off of the ground . . .

[Hannah Bell]

25. i get totally what you are saying. but there is no parallel in the situation.

you are invoking the spanish civil war invalidly. and invoking it *because* retrospectively it is a fairly clear-cut example of a case where intervention might have been a good idea.

precisely because it began with the overthrow of a democratic government by fascists who supported hitler.

this case is nothing like that.

[RZM]

28. What are you arguing here then?

That Ghaddafi is more legitimate than Franco? Was he elected freely and fairly? He came to power in a coup too. Sure, it was 42 years ago, but better late than never.

[Hannah Bell]

32. i am arguing that you are illegitimately invoking the spanish civil war

to bolster your case for invading libya.

your real argument, though, is actually: khaddafi is bad.

make that case, then, & leave the spanish civil war out of it.

[RZM]

35. I will not

Because there are parallels. Then you had an opportunity for intervention in a civil war . . . by the same countries no less! It wasn't taken, AND MANY DUers WOULD HAVE WISHED IT OTHERWISE! That is my point.

[RZM]

21. BTW

I don't know you, but I'm guessing that someone with your avatar would have been a very strong supporter of Republican Spain. If you transpose the current situation back into the past, it's pretty clear that Ghaddafi is not on the right side here.

[Hannah Bell]

27. completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. there is no parallel whatsoever

in the situation.

if you want to argue about which is the side of "right" then do so. that argument has nothing to do with the spanish civil war.

[RZM]

29. I don't think you're going to come around here

My point is about intervention. Do you oust the fucking authoritarian or not? I say yes, you say no. I guess we can leave it at that.

[Hannah Bell]

40. my point is about your inability to make a case for intervention beyond

"khaddafi is a bad guy, this is like the spanish civil war"

which it's not.

[RZM]

45. One more time

Ghaddafi is not Franco. But the dynamic for the international community is similar. Do you get involved or not? And many DUers, especially knowing what they know now, would have said yes in 1936.

[Hannah Bell]

53. lol. if this is the entire argument for intervention, not a chance in hell i'd

want to get involved.

[RZM]

54. That's not the entire argument

There are many other components as well, including issues of human rights and democracy (and yes, even oil). I'm not condeming everybody who's against intervention here. All I'm saying is that Western leftists (i.e., DU) should think long and hard about which side they want to prevail here. Not intervening ensures that Ghaddafi remains on top. Is that what DU wants?

[ejpoeta]

51. here is my issue....

in some ways you can't NOT help the people who are trying to get free of this regime. But then again, what do we expect the outcome to be? do we expect to install someone we want, or are we going to get all mad when they don't do what we want? and then there is the issue of when do you get involved. because there are awful dictators and governments all over the world. are we going to go into EVERY country that has one of these leaders?

It's not just about Libya here. Why THIS fight? We are also stretched so thin that it makes it difficult to get involved even if we wanted to. Not to mention how 'broke' we are. We are so broke that we have to cut everything that isn't related to MIC and tax cuts for the rich!!!

[Turborama]

12. There's also 1939 when Britain and France 'intervened' on another country's actions

I know for sure which side I would have been on then.

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

[RZM]

14. Agreed. They finally got wise after Hitler took over Bohemia and Moravia

Although it's not often noted that the way they went about it (mainly the British) was incredibly stupid. The British 'guaranteed' Poland and Romania, which gave Stalin a fee hand to make a deal with Hitler, since the British guarantee of those countries was effectively a guarantee of Soviet security.

[Hannah Bell]

18. you're comparing this now to england fighting hitler?

if that's the case, i have to say again, there's no parallel. there's no similar element. who has khaddafi invaded?

these are absurd comparisons.

[RZM]

22. Ghaddafi has invaded Eastern Libya, which is in open revolt against him n/t

[Hannah Bell]

41. "invaded"? um, last time i checked, eastern libya was part of libya,

& khaddafi has been the acknowledged head of state of libya for about 40 years.

[RZM]

44. I see

I'm sure you extend that courtesy to other regimes as well. Were you supportive of Russia in the Chechen Wars? How about the Bosnian Serbs?

[Hannah Bell]

48. you're saying a head of state "invades" the country he rules?

what language do you speak?

what does being supportive or not of any of that have to do with anything?

we're talking about basic meanings of words.

this discussion is going nowhere.

it's really propaganda techniques on display. not saying that's purposeful, but the style of argumentation is designed to blur rather than clarify.

this post is another example of same:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=696186&mesg_id=696359

no attempt to argue any position.

just the simple propaganda technique:
franco = bad = khaddafi
serbs = bad = hannah

anyway, i need to leave.

[RZM]

49. Did the North 'invade' the South during the Civil War?

I'm from Ohio and very glad the north won. Even I would call it an 'invasion' because troops were sent into an area they weren't wanted. We both know what Ghadaffi is doing. He's sending troops into areas that oppose him. Whether you call it an 'invasion' or not, it's still the same thing - armed aggression against a rebellion.

[Hannah Bell]

50. no. the south was rebelling against the central government. the north did not "invade"

that's the difference between a civil war & a war.

duh.

it's not the same thing.

that's why there are two words/phrases:

war
civil war


it's like arguing with jello or oatmeal. meanings transmute as you try to grasp. on to the next slippery transmutable term.

orwellian.

i'm very serious.

[RZM]

52. Huh? So it's not a civil war in Libya?

A civil war is two sides within one political unit fighting it out.

[Turborama]

33. Can you read? "Britain and France 'intervened' on another country's actions"

That's the "similar element".

In case it's because you didn't know, Britain and France were behind the Security Council resolution.

And by the way, it was Britain, not just England.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Modern_Matthew]

55. Wrong, but thanks for playing. nt

[bvar22]

56. Do you have ANY friggen idea who "The Rebels" are in Libya?

In Afghanistan, it was the Taliban (Mujaheddin).
In Lebanon, it was Hezbollah.

We Took Out Bad Guy Saddam, and look what happened.

The history of US Military "intervention" in the Middle East is NOT good.
Trying to make a "historical" argument FOR intervention is NOT a good idea.
However, you WERE smart to go all the way back to 1936 and Western Europe to try to spin your argument for more war.
Anything more current, or actually in the Middle East theater, would not have really worked, would it?

Just because Gaddifi is "BAD", doesn't make the other guys "GOOD".
The Middle East is NOT a binary situation,
and old Cowboy Movie "Yiihaaaw! Lets Take Him Out" strategy isn't going to work there.