Are your political beliefs clouding your judgment regarding Libya?

[BooScout]

I keep hearing the same arguments over and over....."it's not the same as Iraq"........."It's all about humanitarian aid", "it's not a war", etc.

Well let's have a discussion on the situation shall we?

No, it's not like Iraq. In Iraq we had umpteen UN resolutions, but not the Big One we really wanted, but we had the approval of Congress and we had the 'will of the people'......like it or not, the majority of Americans supported the initial 'military intervention' in Iraq. Personally, I just wish we'd leave the Iraq nightmare out of this discussion. It was wrong then and it is still wrong.......and yes it's different.

With Libya, we have the important UN Resolution, but we have no Congressional Approval......because..........ta da......we don't need it because 'this action is not long term'........well how in hades do we know that? All those evil little supporters of the Iraq War thought we would be in and out of there in a week or a month or so too.......now, years and years later we are still there.

If it's about the humanitarian aid, then why are we not 'intervening' in Bahrain or Yemen? If it's all about humanitarian aid, why does the fact that an estimated 2-7 percent of Libyan oil is imported to the US and a staggering 85 percent of it is imported to the European Union disturb me so much? Is it because that I am not letting my political beliefs that a good Liberal US leader couldn't possibly go after the oil as easily as a Conservative Leader could?

Now, the argument of "It's not really a War when we are establishing a No Fly Zone." ....well what the heck is it then? We've been saying for weeks that it's a civil war in Libya and now we wade in firing off well over a hundred cruise missles....and sending jet fighters in to blast away. When exactly does it become a war? Is it just a 'police action' like Vietnam was? We were supposedly the 'good guys there too.......fighting against communism.

Now we also have the Arab League which is appearing to legitimize this action. Do you honestly think they don't have their own agenda? You do know that Qaddafi has been a thorn in many of their sides for years and they do have a strong desire to see him toppled.

Those of us that see through many of the smoke and mirrors and poetic rhetoric flying around regarding Libya are in no way opposed to the people of Libya freeing themselves from a leader they have had enough of. I personally am all for the rebels prevailing and winning the day, but it's just my opinion that it's a sovereign matter that they must do so themselves to be successful. It's not the role of the West to bomb democracy into being throughout the world.

Just because I am a Liberal, doesn't mean I have to support a Liberal President in every thing he does....especially when I can see through the smoke and mirrors to the real issue of OIL.

[RZM]

1. Without outside help, the rebels will be crushed

Everybody knows that. So your argument that you want this to be a 'sovereign matter' is the same as saying 'may the best man win' when everybody knows who the best man is.

And could you please demonstrate why oil is the 'real issue?' What sources do you have that show this?

[fittosurvive]

13. Are willing to sacrifice your life for the Libyan revolution?

How about the lives of your children? To be clear, you are calling on others to do just that.

Before we go to war with Libya, shouldn't the People's representatives make the case that this is something that merits the sacrifice of their sons and daughters?

Regrettably, the legitimate process of declaring war has been disregarded and as a result, we have been subjected to one disastrous blunder after another. There is no vital U.S. interest in the outcome of this conflict; therefore, it is not rational for us to become involved.

[vaberella]

2. What has been said are all valid.

And I'm one of the ones not happy with this move---100%. However, my position is only appreciation with the usage of the UN and it's now significant role in making international decisions. As for whether this is the right decision...I don't know if it is. I don't know if going in is worthwhile, I don't know if sitting it out and allowing people to do die is a good idea. I know my judgment isn't clouded, I think this is just a tough call. Only time will tell on if it was worthwhile or not.

[joshcryer]

3. Absolutely my political beliefs are clouding my judgement.

For instance, I refuse to believe that people who were fighting for a month for their freedom are "terrorists," a claim perpetuated on these very forums and started by Gaddafi.

For instance, I refuse to believe that people who asked for help from the international community are "going against their states' sovereign rights." As the UN showed, the Responsibility to Protect automatically moots such "sovereignty."

Yes, Europe has a lot to gain by having the oil flow again, but if they had let Gaddafi raze Benghazi as he was threatening to do, this would all be over in a few days from now and the oil would be happily flowing. This automatically debunks the myth that it's "about oil." The fight will be protracted and will last at least a few weeks yet, and that's being optimistic.

[Catherina]

4. Happy to rec your great post but the more you search, the more like Iraq this is. Right down to PNAC

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x696362

[Scuba]

5. My heart bleeds for the people of Lybia....

...and for the one in four children growing up in poverty right here at home. To those with no medical coverage. To those in schools cutting their speech therapists, because they can no longer afford them. Etc.

Once we've taken care of our own people, perhaps then we can once again take on the role of "policeman to the world".

How can we possible afford to intervene elsewhere when ONE in FOUR American children are living in poverty?

[sendero]

6. "The will of the people".

.... you mean the people who were lied to and manipulated to conflate Iraq with 911? Those people? What a pantload of bullshit. We had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to go into Iraq and pretty much every reason to try to help the Libyans.

[BooScout]

8. And you think you aren't being lied to and manipulated now?

Bush couldn't say enough how horrible Saddam was to his own people. if Qaddafi is so damned bad, then why pray tell has he been good enough for the West to put up with him for the past 40 + years? ....we even let him blow one of our passenger planes out of the air at one point.....If we are so good and wonderful to help the poor people of Libya, then why aren't we good enough to help the poor people of Yemen and Bahrain? And all the other poor people suffering under various dicatorships around the world?

So dismiss me with your pithy 'pantload of bullshit'......it's ok......it's hard to take off those rose colored glasses I know.

[sendero]

14. I have no reason to doubt..

... the various internationally based stories about Quadaffi's actions. I had every reason to doubt the bullshit coming from Washington in 2002.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

7. All I care about is getting more plutonium!

Because Deloreans don't run on nothing!

[Modern_Matthew]

9. It's sad that people are only loyal to a label, even when that label is placed on bullshit. nt

[pampango]

10. Definitely. That's why I'm glad it's the UN that took action. It has a responsibility to protect

civilians in countries whose governments don't do it. The US should not act unilaterally and I'm glad that we didn't.

"It's not the role of the West to bomb democracy into being throughout the world."

Agreed. It may rather be the role of the world (and the UN comes the closest to representing this) to promote democracy throughout the world. Military force, in general (not just bombing), should be a very last resort, not a preferred one. And it is, at least in the UN's R2P declaration.

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

1. Principle One stresses that States have the primary responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (mass atrocities).

2. Principle Two addresses the commitment of the international community to provide assistance to States in building capacity to protect their populations from mass atrocities and to assisting those, which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

3. Principle Three focuses on the responsibility of international community to take timely and decisive action to prevent and halt mass atrocities when a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations.

Threshold for military interventions

According to the International Commission for Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) Report in 2001, any form of a military intervention initiated under the premise of responsibility to protect must fulfill the following six criteria in order to be justified as an extraordinary measure of intervention:

1. Just Cause
2. Right Intention
3. Final Resort
4. Legitimate Authority
5. Proportional Means
6. Reasonable Prospect

[joshcryer]

11. +1

[KharmaTrain]

12. We Don't Live In A One-Size Fits All World...

I'm not "happy" the U.S. is involved in this military action but I can see how supporting the actions of a coalition is different than taking unilateral action and where military means may have to be the option when there's no diplomatic one. Yes, this is three-dimensional chess as each revolution has different causes, characters and options. In Egypt we had a lot of diplomatic avenues that I'm sure were instrumental in forcing Mubarak to step down. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (the two are very much linked) there's another set of relationships at work...mostly through the back-channels that can have an affect there (or one would hope). Also Bahrain is turning into a religious protest rather than a political one...which has different implications than what we're seeing in Libya. Yemen is yet another can of worms as this is yet another round of civil war that has been ongoing in that country for decades. None of these revolutions are truly inter-related other than timing. It's not a Pan-Arab movement and there's little proof of an Al Queda or any other "organized" group involved.

Gadaffi has long been a pain for his people as well as many countries. The fact that China and Russia abstained rather than veto or put up any opposition to the UN Resolution says they wouldn't be sad if he vanished. Most of Western Europe has had a strained relationship especially France who sees Gadaffi as the cause of a lot of troubles in Sub-Saharan Africa (especially Darfur). Getting him out of the way removes a main source of funding for many African civil wars as well as an unstable regime right in their backyard.

I don't see the U.S. in the lead here...this has been pushed by the French and British and I see them taking a lead role if there are to be boots on the ground. The U.S. role will be at a distance...Gadaffi is well armed but not well trained. Yes, I do see a coalition army that either will support or take the lead on a march to Tripoli to force Gadaffi out once and for all, but I don't see American troops in the lead. If there's a historical blueprint, maybe its the African-led coalition that marched on Kampala to remove Idi Amin.

My hopes are this war is brief and American action is limited...to give the tools to the rebels and others who will have to finish the job. This country has enough messes to deal with right now. Britain and France are the ones who want him gone...they are allies and thus as they've supported us in the past, we are somewhat obligated to assist in their ventures. For those who are against any and all wars, this is a lame excuse, but it is what it is.

[vi5]

15. Saying they are "political beliefs" implies that they are...

deeply held political values and things that people truly believe.

Like a lot of stuff over the past 2 years, people's acceptance of and support for lots of things have been shown not be based on political beliefs and more on political affiliation.

[TBF]

16. Rec for what it's worth -

but the apologists will line up with their lame excuses.

[Buzz Clik]

17. "Well let's have a discussion on the situation shall we?" Okay. Why didn't you start one?

Your OP was a weary rehash of every point made by those opposed to the action.

So, to answer your question: My political viewpoint is NOT clouding my judgment about Libya. Gaddafi has been an international murderer for decades. He makes a spectacle of creating world-wide unrest, and now he has (again) started killing Libyans with military force. I hope that somehow this leads to his departure, but it will not.

If you truly wanted to discuss Libya, you would not have interjected Bahrain and Yemen. I seriously doubt that you want us to become involved in two more conflicts. I certainly do not.

I am a liberal, and liberals do not generally support military actions. So, no, my political viewpoint has not clouded my judgment. It most definitely has clouded yours.

[BooScout]

18. My OP was a rehash???

I pointed out valid reasons to doubt the stated 'reasons' for military intervention.

I just find it extremely disturbing that people who were so against the War in Iraq are prepared to fight a war do get rid of yet another 'evil doer'.........all because someone 'different' is in charge. Any you way you look at it, it's the same old shit being waded through.......this time though we've got our sun glasses on deflecting us all from what's actually going on.

BTW, we killed 48 civilians and injured 150 with those non-war missles and air strikes. What a way to save a few lives all in the name of democracy.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Absolutely: I have a very high threshold for intervention

If we grant ourselves the right to intervene simply when we don't like the guy in charge, it opens a real Pandora's box. Cynically, too, I think we're being thoroughly played by the media and oil-interested governments, including our own. There does not seem to be any evidence of the mass genocide that's so constantly shrieked by the warhawks, and once people have risen in armed conflict, declared a government of their own and siezed land, they're no longer "innocent civilians". They may be righteous freedom fighters and on the right side of pluralistic niceness, but they're not flower-carrying hippies who are being mowed down like cord wood, and those who continually repeat this are granting themselves a selfish moral superiority to be selective with facts and demand that their opponents be shouted out of the communal square as scum.

Yes, my politics color my decision here, and I fully admit biases, probably having even more than I recognize. It's part of being human.

[Shandris]

20. I think either belief is disingenuous and guilty of shortshrifting the issue.

It's not 'just about oil' and its not 'just because its humanitarian'. If you're blind enough to think that we, as a nation, predicate these kinds of decisions on just one factor, you've already left reality behind. NOT EVEN IRAQ was 'just about oil', although its about as close as we could get to it. But even Iraq had to have a multi-month propaganda campaign waged before Americans would even begin to accept the premise of going into that nation, and propaganda alone would not have been enough to do anything about it if they hadn't managed to subliminally link it to 9/11. Do I think we would just get involved if it were purely humanitarian? Of course not -- Darfur is a good demonstration of that. Do I think we would get involved if it were 'just about oil'? No, we don't tap much of that market's oil anyways -- our allies, however, do. Can we trade military intervention on behalf of our allies for future important votes we may actually need? Yes, we could. And we could do something humanitarian as well, something which many rebels are asking us to do and something which a lot of Americans, myself included, would like to see done -- provide some assistance to the rebels in overthrowing (by their own actions) someone who has been an irritant and a callous, cruel individual for many long years. Not callous and cruel enough to bother with before, but if you can achieve a sub-goal while achieving a fully realized goal (that of helping our allies), then it's a bonus.

So in the end, its about helping our allies, its about oil, and its about a humanitarian cause. If ideology is blinding you to the good that can be done by some kind of LIMITED military intervention...then there's not much else to say -- you've already decided and neither logic nor reason is going to make a shred of difference.