If I were as innocent as a child, I would support the US action in Libya.

[MadHound]

On the surface, our action in Libya appears to be noble, the best of what our country has to offer. A large, powerful country coming to the rescue of a group of freedom fighters to help overthrow a dictator. After all, I'm not a complete pacifist, I recognize that in this cold, cruel world, there are times when peaceful means of change simply won't cut it.

However, I'm no longer a child, and no longer an innocent. I recognize what is underlying this action on our part, namely the ongoing business of profit and empire. Face it, we wouldn't be involved with Libya if oil wasn't involved. After all, the UN and the US have time and again turned their back on similar situations in other African countries, the only difference being that they didn't have oil, while Libya does. Why do you think that European powers were so eager to jump into the conflict with us? Europe receives much more of its oil supplies from Libya than the US.

I also find another disturbing pattern in this armed conflict, namely that we are once again blowing a country to hell and back, a country whom we had previously armed. Despite his being a "madman dictator", administrations over the years, including Obama's, have had no problem selling Gaddafi arms, weapon systems and munitions. Once again we are seeing a familiar pattern unfolding in Libya, namely that the US is spending massive amounts of money, resulting in more massive profits for the MIC, in order to overthrow a dictator with whom the MIC has already conducted lots of business. The MIC is making obscene profits both coming and going, again.

This action also has another familiar theme to it. As in Iraq, we are setting up another oil rich country for prolonged conflict involving the US. For ten years the US established a no fly zone over Iraq in order to "protect civilians". The trouble is, during that time the US managed to kill a half million innocent Iraqi civilians. The oxymoronic nature of this sort of action simply didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now, that is unless you consider the fact that we are repeating a strategy that has been repeated a number of times since WWII. Namely that now, with the Iraq conflict supposedly winding down, and the Afghan conflict scheduled to wind down in three years (though I have my doubts about that), we are once again doing what we did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other countries, namely paving the way for another full blown conflict that the MIC can make obscene profits off of once our current money making conflicts are concluded.

Finally, there is the issue of whether this action on the part of the Obama administration is even Constitutional. I recognize that the necessity of having Congress weigh in on any armed conflicts has become a quaint, old fashioned notion, held on to by those old fashioned folks who still believe that the Constitution actually means something in this day and age. Yet the fact remains that according to the Constitution, the President can only take armed action against a country, can only wage war unilaterally if there was a clear and present danger to the US. In all other cases, Congress must weigh in with a declaration of war. That hasn't happened, and the contempt that Obama is thus showing for the Constituion matches the contempt shown by Bush I, Bush II, Reagan and other such luminaries.

If I were as innocent as a child, then I would support the US action in Libya. However I'm a grown adult, one who has studied our history in previous post WWII conflicts, seen how we have cynically used war and rebellion in order to enrich the MIC and play the grand game of Empire. Being an adult, well versed in history, I cannot support the action in Libya. It is simply another war of empire and enrichment, one that is neither noble nor right.

Peace.

[el_bryanto]

1. I have misgivings about Libya as well

But doesn't your argument sort of imply that any war would be the wrong war?

Bryant

[MadHound]

2. No

As I stated, I recognize the necessity of our coming to the aid of a population in a small, oppressed country.

The thing is, Libya is simply repeating an ongoing pattern. We are coming to the aid of those in a country rich in resources, fighting an oppressor that we have armed, in an UnConstitutional manner, all to set up a long simmering conflict that we can put on the back burner until such a time as our front burner conflicts are done.

This is our post WWII historical pattern. If we weren't repeating it, again, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[KurtNYC]

9. Ding! I too have seen this movie before

and I didn't like the ending (or lack thereof).

[WatsonT]

13. If Libya were attacking us we'd be perfectly justified in fighting back

that would be a good war.

[earthside]

3. ALSO ... If I were as innocent as a child ...

... I would still believe that President Obama is a different kind of president.

But, sadly, as a grown, experienced adult I have seen that he is just like most all the rest of our Presidents since FDR: captives of the Wall Street-Military-Industrial-Complex.

I wanted to believe that there was reason to have an audacity of hope, but again there is no change ... just more of the same.

Thank goodness there are a few progressive Democrats like Michael Moore and Congressman Kucinich who are trying to keep some semblance of principle and idealism alive in this country.

[KurtNYC]

14. side point -- M Moore is not a Democrat

Progressive yes; Democrat no.

[pipi_k]

4. And if I were as innocent as a child...

I would believe that nothing in life comes in shades of gray.

As the saying goes, even something as thin as a piece of paper has two sides.


There are too many issues in life that can be seen in more than one way, and it's pretty rare when one side is totally "right" and the other side is totally "wrong".

There is positive and negative in nearly everything. War included.

[MadHound]

5. What makes you think that I don't see such shades of grey?

Because I've come out against our action in Libya?

[pipi_k]

6. I never said you didn't.

My reply was to clarify for anyone who doesn't understand that there ARE two sides to everything.

[MadHound]

11. Yet your implication is that I neither see things in shades of grey,

Nor am I capable of seeing both sides of any issue. That seems rather condescending on your part.

[Maru Kitteh]

21. Well then *your* implication was that anyone supporting action in Libya is "innocent as a child"

Goose and gander and all that, ya know?

[MadHound]

22. Wow, reaching for that one, aren't you

Explaining my viewpoint on this newfound war, in a post directed to people at large, and yet you somehow think it is personal. Stay classy.

[blindpig]

7. k&r for succinct subject line.

They caught me napping and confused for about 5 minutes but Fidel was right about this all along.

[Schema Thing]

8. Gaddafi was selling his oil

If it was about oil, the west would have simply looked the other way, or said "we just can't get involved".



There is no evidence that this is about oil.

[MadHound]

10. As was Iraq,

In fact Iraq was, at one time, one of our major suppliers. It is well on the way to becoming one again.

But mostly, I think that this war, like so many others, is simply another chance to arrange matters in order to line the pockets of the MIC. Setting the scene for another full blown war when our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan die down.

[WatsonT]

15. Gaddafis oil was produced by the state

once that's gone someone will need to move in to run the wells.

Maybe it'll be the new Libyan government. Maybe it'll be someone else.

[MuseRider]

12. I said much the same

to my husband last night who could not really believe I was against helping the people.

I don't want to see anyone have to go without protection from a cruel dictator. The reasoning I hear all around me for doing this sounds so familiar, it is exactly as you said, a repeated pattern with the same old excuses.

If we don't stop him then EVERYONE over there will do this to their people. Really? Maybe, but isn't this statement just more of us playing Father Knows Best? If we were so worried that they would do this why did we arm them? Why do we sell these weapons to other countries if we are so damned concerned someone might hurt us or their own people with them? What did we think they were going to do with weapons? Someone was going to get hurt with them. None of this makes any sense unless put into the terms you wrote about.

Sure, we will not send in ground troops. This is a limited thing. Really? The last time a president did that and really did leave the people were slaughtered in mass making it an absolute that we were back with ground troops.

I don't know, this is my early musing without coffee and in a hurry to pound it down and get to work.

As usual I agree with you MadHound. I agree with all you have said here.

EDIT for spelling

[Marblehead]

16. the banks

make a lot funding both sides

[MadHound]

17. The banks, the arms dealers, even the oil producers,

It is simply another, very efficient way of transferring wealth from the lower classes to the rich and powerful few.

[MadHound]

18. kick n/t

[Catherina]

19. Rec'd. Rec'd. n/t

[Uzybone]

20. KnR...sums it up for me

on the surface it appears as if this is America at its best. But I know America, and we are never at our best.

I just hope our hand in this ends in the next few days as promised. And that there is no significant blowback in the coming decades.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. It's not "the US action in Libya"

it's the UN action in Libya, which the US didnt call for in the Security Council (France and Britain drew up the resolution) and which the US didn't support until the last minute. This little fact tends to undermine and indeed invalidate your whole argument. And the nonsensical "but why aren't they intervening in (Burma, Yemen, etc)" question tends to ignore the fact that Gaddafi's forces were advancing on Benghazi with tanks and heavy artillery; what do you think the outcome of that would have been?

[MadHound]

24. It's *not* US action in Libya? Wow, could have fooled me.

After all, the US is doing all the heavy lifting in this one. US B2 Stealths flying halfway around the world, not once, not twice, but three times over the weekend. One hundred plus US cruise missiles fired by US forces. Hundreds of US personnel busy waging war against Libya. And today, a US plane came down.

As far as the difference between Burma, Yemen, etc. and Libya, yeah, Gaddafi's forces were advancing on Benghazi and would have wreaked havoc. Much as similar forces wreaked havoc against civilians in the Sudan, Darfur, Somalia, etc. The only difference, Libya has oil. Funny how that works out, the US intervening in countries with precious resources.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. The RAF and French air force are engaged;

Royal Navy vessels also launched missiles against Libya. THe US is acting pursuant to the Security Council resolution. The US voted for it but neither drew it up nor introduced it; the US was lukewarm about the idea of a no-fly zone or any intervention at a time when the UK and France were calling for it. So no, calling it "the US action in Libya" is both misguided and ignorant as it ignores the role of the international community and UN forces.

[MadHound]

27. So what is it, the US dance in Libya.

You are trying to parse your way out of a corner, and only making matters worse. There is a war going on in Libya, and the country that is contributing the most is the US. They are taking action in and over Libya, thus the phrasing "US action in Libya".

Yes, I recognize that it was Britain, France and Italy who were the lead on pushing the resolution through, but the fact of the matter is that I doubt they would have been so anxious to do so if they didn't know that the US had their back.

And instead of trying to parse words, look at the actions. Who is contributing the most men and material? Not the Arab League, not the UK, not France, not Italy. WE ARE!

Your parsing of words reminds me of Bush trying to say his coalition of little countries in the Iraq invasion showed great international support.

Give it a rest.

[JackRiddler]

26. Tell me, in 1951 would you have insisted on calling it the United Nations action in Korea?

I would agree with you in this case that France and Britain drove it forward. But the Pentagon is never going to allow such a thing without playing first among equals, even if it hands off the command (we'll see) once it displays its power to flatten stuff from the air.

Now a question for you. Do you really think any hostile military action is taken for humanitarian reasons? It may coincidentally save civilian lives, in exceptional cases. But do you really believe that's the reason for the intervention in Libya? If Gaddafi's tanks were advancing on Bengazi but Bengazi was located in Central Africa (far from Europe, which doesn't like refugees), absolutely nothing of the sort would happen. It wouldn't even come before Charlie Sheen in the US news.

And if tanks were advancing on Yemeni cities in revolt... oh, well, it's possible we're about to see what happens.

The revolts in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya are all part of the same wave of Arab uprisings set off by Tunisia and Egypt. In Yemen, US forces have been helping that government directly in military operations designed to kill the country's insurgents. US forces have killed civilians in the process and will continue to do so, assuming the Yemeni government doesn't fall (as now appears possible).

Saudi Arabia has just sent an occupation force to Bahrain, and they've fired on Bahraini protesters. No amount of murder by Saudi forces, either in Bahrain or in their own country, will cause an intervention there. They can flatten Shiite cities with tanks. The only thing that might prompt a Western intervention in Saudi Arabia would be the fall of the monarchy. Because then a need would be seen to stabilize the situation, prevent it from spreading, keep the oil coming out, keep the refugees from leaving.

I'm not even saying stopping Gaddafi will turn out to be a bad thing. In this case, it might work out okay. (Very unlikely but let's say so for purposes of argument.) I'm agreeing with the OP that it requires a very special naivete (like being "patriotic") to believe the French-UK-US coalition is acting for humanitarian reasons rather than out of perceived political, economic and geostrategic interests.

.