All military action isn't bad action....

[DaDeacon]

While general liberal consensus seems to state that any use of the military has to have some cancerous underlying lie behind it ( often true) sometimes military action is as sensible as sitting across the table with two unwavering diplomats trying to come to an and practical solution where one cannot be reached. How many Libyans must die at the hands of a dictator whose power base has eroded and confidence waned before military action can be feasible? Yes oil does matter stupid, but not as much of the cost of human life. I admit to anyone that I would be naive if I did not acknowledge completely the effect US economic pressure being felt both directly and indirectly by the lack of Libyan oil production & stability however, the need to protect a civilian population that in time will become the ruling class is paramount. I am often disturbed if not angered by the lack of foreign-policy understanding that happens on these boards everything cannot be solved by smiles and handshakes I have several friends and family members who are active or have been active in the military for the past few conflicts they knew the depth of their involvement before they took the oath, and while some may argue that no 18 on 19-year-old could possibly understand the gravitas such a decision they make it as a fully functional, able bodied adult making a decision to join when all is said and done. They knew that their lives may be forfeited for causes that did not benefit them directly or for policies they do not always agree with them. While I don't want to sound like warhawk apologists is true that sometimes violence is better instrument of democracy then diplomacy.

Do I agree with military action in Libya? Yes and no but that's just what I mean military action is not always clear and well-defined and easy-to-understand but the knee-jerk reaction held by many here on this board and in liberal circles that all action must be inherently evil or just money driven is awfully shortsighted and is as poisonous to the national discussion as a right-wing belief that all foreign disputes must be resolved at the point of the spear. While I don't think I'll get many responses to this post in the affirmative continuing to be a silent participant on this board only strengthens the consensus that all liberals share one view. I am definitely more liberal that I am conservative on fiscal, social, and legislative policy however I'm not a monolithic left-wing thinker. I sometimes push on the rest of the left wants to pull. Again this is merely an opinion on an issue and really nothing more.

[NightWatcher]

1. the "protect the citizens" approach would carry more weight if we did it all the time

We cannot pick and choose when we "help" (by bombing) a country where their ruler is killing people. This is the same rhetoric Bush used to invade Iraq (Saddam's killing the Kurds). What about all the other countries where the rulers are killing their own people.

We didnt do shit in Sudan, Yemen, China......

My problem is the apparent hypocrisy that war is evil when Bush does it, but it appears to be honkey dorey and we fall for the BS reasons behind yet another war when Obama does it.

[notesdev]

2. Two things

1) For it to be legal action Congress has to OK it. This was the root legitimacy issue with the Iraq War.

2) Intervening in Libya but not Bahrain is blatant hypocrisy.

[Vinee]

9. Right, congress authorized Bush's war, they didn't authorize Obama's.

There's a lot of hypocrisy here.

[notesdev]

10. Congress did not declare war on Iraq

Nor did it declare war on Libya.

Same problem in both cases.

[David__77]

3. The last just intervention by the US was during the second world war.

That is my opinion, of course.

And that is because the US was objectively acting as an anti-imperialist force. The US helped break up the British Empire, defend and awaken the oppressed colonized people around the world. Further, US national security was indeed threatened strategically.

[blindpig]

4. When it is conducted by, of and for Capitalism it is.

Nothing difficult or ambiguous about that.

[DaDeacon]

5. All true BUT...

while I do not doubt hypocrisies, on the fickleness of the decision to intervene in one theater as opposed to another is doing nothing somehow the moral equivalency of taking the high ground? I don't think so. Success and failure mean very little in most things however failure gives you a lot more to talk about. I think the failure here is how quickly we dismiss the good that can come of this action, and how much good can be done for the region without the Qadhafi as a ruler. I don't think the world change with one less dictator here there however not acting on behalf of the people seems to me the making of a foreign-policy disaster decades into the future.

[EFerrari]

6. Liberals don't all share one view because we tend to value thinking over following.

Tend to.

lol

[gratuitous]

7. What makes you think it's a "knee-jerk reaction"?

Is it possible, just possible, that you don't know everything? I mean, some people may have made a balanced and dispassionate evaluation of the available facts and determined on their own that military action in Libya is not justified.

Oh wait, I'm clearly talking out my ass, because I didn't make an appeal to authority. Carry on.

[DaDeacon]

8. Now now deep thinker

So you didn't "appeal to athorty" well done you did however commit a "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" & "Argumentum ad hominem" and while I will not patronize you by typing something like look it up or Google it as you seem to be a skilled debater do not try to lecture me in fallacies as you commit 2 in far less lines or depth. I simply offered an opinion on the subject that I

A: I did not claim to know everything nor;

B: Did I say that if you did one you can't be the other ( in this case opposed to the actions in Libya , thus didn't think about it; never said or typed that).

What I did however offer was my take on what I was seeing in several post made on this board. I saw opposition, opposition, opposition, with no clarification our discussion as to why minus the old oil for blood sh*t. Granted no one has to explain why they feel one way or the other, however since we on the left tend to fancy ourselves great thinkers even when being sarcastic and witty I have seen less and less of that wit and intellectualism here on DU. while I have no wish to start a flame war, would you please elaborate on your dissension in this matter so that I might be both intellectually stimulated by your prose and reassured that you have more to offer this discussion than a sideways jab that barely find its mark.