If Iraq and Afghanistan had not happened, how would you feel about this Libya action?

[WilliamPitt]

Just curious. Still puzzling through my own feelings on this situation.

[ingac70]

1. Still pissed off. n/t

[PVnRT]

2. I would feel no different

The Libyan situation is completely different from Iraq and Afghanistan, despite what plenty of people around here want to believe.

[Wait Wut]

27. Ditto.

:thumbsup:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. It seems to me to be more similar to the NATO/UN action in the Balkans

undertaken by Clinton in the '90s than to Iraq/Afghanistan. Of course, the Republicans opposed that, accusing Clinton of using the Kosovo intervention to divert attention away from l'affaire Lewinski.

[Raksha]

23. I agree with you. It seems most similar to the action in the Balkans.

I was in favor of both of actions, but a lot depends on the motivation. It seems to me that if liberation is truly the motive, the first thing Obama would do is recognize the provisional Iraqi government the way France did. The fact that this didn't happen makes me very suspicious of a not-so-hidden neo-colonial agenda.

I don't compare it with Iraq or Afghanistan because they are completely different situations.

[ReggieVeggie]

4. hmmm...let me remove the last 10 years of history from my mind...

can't do it

[ananda]

5. I hate double standards period.

There are lots of countries where the people are oppressed, suffering,
and being killed.

[PVnRT]

11. So, we either intervene in all or none?

That makes no sense.

[w8liftinglady]

6. This funnels funding away from troops on 2 war fronts.

Yes,i realize we are leaving Iraq. We are still there.
We are still in Afghanistan. My kid saw 2 Marines killed last month.
I CAN"T separate the two.
we'll f&ck the kids over fighting our other fiascos to launch a shiny object at a new target.

[phantom power]

7. Interesting question -- does "forgetting" that history clarify one's thinking or muddy it?

The point of examining history is to learn from it, but it's also possible to draw the wrong lessons.

[NightWatcher]

8. the picking and choosing of whom to "help" is curious

Darfur? nope
Libya? in a heartbeat


What does one have that the other doesnt? Military strategical significance, and oil. The other, a genocide of black people.

[wtmusic]

12. That's somewhat of a myth.

"Since 2004, the United States has spent more than $15 million to airlift 11,400 peacekeepers and their equipment to and from Darfur and has provided more than $100 million to train and equip those forces, according to a White House fact sheet. Much of this support is coordinated through the State Department."

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/January/20090115132552dmslahrellek0.9125025.html

You could argue we didn't do enough and I'd have to agree. But the logistics are completely different, which has at least something to do with the scope of our involvement.

[NightWatcher]

13. what about Yemen, or China, or Bahrain, or (insert down trodden country with mean ruler here)

but the #6 oil producer, BOOM, we're there in no time flat.

[wtmusic]

16. You're right, not going to argue

merely point out that a ground war in Darfur is a whole different game than enforcing a no-fly zone.

[PhillySane]

14. Incidentally

I believe I saw a report very early on that some British special forces had been captured inside Libya, long before talk of a no-fly zone.
If true, military action had already been initiated by the Brits. I'm not convinced this is a humanitarian action in the least. It's quite possible that those SF were arming and organizing the rebels.

[wtmusic]

17. Or guarding oil interests

There's a lot of expensive American/British equipment on Libyan soil.

[PhillySane]

20. The report

said they said they were trying to make contact with the rebels.

[blindpig]

9. No matter

The history of US imperialist aggression goes way back and the 'humanitarian' fig leaf is well used.

[PhillySane]

10. Not only did Iraq and Afghanistan happen

they're still happening. To me, this looks like another quest for oil. Maybe not ours, but certainly Europe's. You now have three civil wars going on which we are stuck in the middle. The money, resources and simple distraction from our own problems is immense. Even if I supported military action of any kind, which I don't, I would still have a hard time with this.

[Bluerthanblue]

15. probably similar to how I felt about Kosovo- terrible, but

unable to simply say "it's not our problem".

I marched against the first Gulf war with my children in our state capitol. There was just a small group of us.

I don't believe war is a good solution to anything, but I supported Pres. Clinton's decision in Kosovo.

I think I'd probably have responded the same to this situation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. I think this situation is much more similar to Kosovo

than it is to Iraq or Afghanistan. I somewhat skeptically supported the Kosovo action and I guess that's where I'm leaning with this one.

[tjwash]

19. Since they are probably using the permanent military bases they built in Iraq as staging areas...

...and partial operations bases, that is an impossible assumption to make.

[freshwest]

21. That it is still a foreign policy failure and dictated by oil since their media is promoting it.

I'll get back after coffee. I value your conclusions.

[TorchTheWitch]

22. the same - we should stay out

I don't get what other wars have to do with it. Every one is different with its own set of circumstances. Getting involved militarily in another country's revolution is just wrong. There are many other ways to help if that's what you want to do as far as choosing sides goes. Taking a military part in their war is far too much involvement, and dropping bombs on the country sure as shit isn't any kind of help. Revolutions are ugly and bloody, some more so than others - that's just how they are - and any country should be allowed to have their revolution without military interference. There is no question whatsoever that when another country or countries involve themselves in a country's revolution there is an ulterior motive and there will absolutely be a quid pro quo. With even a modicum of research it's as obvious as can be that the West has gotten involved militarily in Libya's revolution because of the oil and the billions of dollars wrapped up in it. The West requires a stable Libya with a "friendly" government honoring their oil contracts and keeping the oil flowing.

[Johonny]

24. had the government not just spent 3 months telling me how broke it is

I know I'd feel a lot better. But it did. The 180 degree change in availability of funds by our current government has left me dazed. I'm too dazed to think back to Iraq or Afghanistan :)

[GeorgeGist]

25. It's unconstitutional.

[Travelman]

26. Exactly the same.

It doesn't really matter whether Iraq, Afghanistan, and anything else is going on, because those have no effect on the reason I think we should have left Libya alone. We would not somehow know who these people are that we're siding with just because we weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan.