I just can't decide whether to support the action in Libya or not. Anybody else?

[Brigid]

This time, both the action's supporters and critics have what I consider valid points. I just can't see this ending well for us, and yet I hate to see us do nothing while a dictator massacres his people. Bill Clinton says he regrets doing nothing in Rwanda. I just can't make up my mind. Who else feels the same way?

[arcane1]

1. Count me in! n/t

[Ohio Joe]

2. I'm right there with you

There are indeed very valid points on both sides. I also agree that I do not believe this will end well for anyone. not us and not the people of Libya.

[provis99]

3. it would help

If our own leaders knew what they were doing, and what their objectives are. but they appear to have just started bombing without any idea of what they were doing, and hoping that if they bomb enough, some idea will occur to them. A fuckup on the scale of the 1983 Lebanon intervention.

[BeFree]

20. That is the problem

We seem to be shooting first and asking questions later.

Or if they have asked and answered they sure as hell are not telling us.
Which leads to: What are they hiding? And why are they hiding?

This is a democracy, I thought. They sure don't act like it is a democracy.

[markpkessinger]

4. It's a tough call, which is why . . .

. . . I think it is all the more important that the decision, one way or the other, be made by Congress (as indeed the Constitution mandates).

[Catherina]

12. Your point is why, regardless of my personal opinion on this, I'm outraged that

Congress wasn't even consulted. Their sole function is to represent us. Damn it, I expect representation because that's what we pay them for & allowing presidents to act as monarchs and then pretending you were fooled or not consulted ain't cutting it for me.

[ClarkUSA]

16. FACT: A Senate resolution calling for a Libyan no-fly zone was unanimously passed on March 1, 2011.

No need to be "outraged" further, Catherina...

"WH pushes back on charge that it didn't consult with Congress"

Administration officials began to pushback hard today in Chile on the charge that the White House did not consult with Congress.

Exhibit A for the White House: A Senate resolution that passed March 1, which denounced Khaddafy's atrocities. The White House says the U.N. resolution authorizing force in Libya incorporates it.

The resolution was incorporated unanimously and calls for a "no-fly zone."

The resolution "urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory."

Still, the resolution was non-binding and does not have the weight or legal standing of a declaration of war.

Full text of the resolution below. The lead sponsor was New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez (D). Co-sponsors included: Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bob Casey (D-PA), Ben Cardin (D-MD).

The New Jersey delegation, remember, has particular interest in Libya and Khaddafy because of Khadaffy's suspected involvement in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that killed 270 Americans, including 38 from New Jersey.

Here's the full text of the resolution:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x634978

[sabrina 1]

97. A Senate Resolution does not meet the Constitutional

requirement that Congress, and only Congress has the power to start a war. The only legitimate reason to go to war and it is written in the War Powers Act, is when this country is in imminent danger of attack.

Congress has the power of the purse when it comes to war. There is a reason why war needs to be debated by Congress. They are the people's representatives (well, they are supposed to be) and if the FFs wanted the President to have that power alone, they would have given it him.

The real problem with this is that when only one person makes these decisions, they can so easily be influenced and manipulated by unelected warmongers like the PNAC gang eg. And I believe that is what happened. Obama doesn't seem to want to do this, but someone behind the scenes, and I doubt we need three guesses to know who they are, is pulling the strings.

Wolfowitz was on TV this week, bemoaning the fact that 'we waited too long but better late than never'. The Neocons who pushed for the Iraq War, wrote a letter urging the president to go to Libya.

The Repubs in Congress are for it of course so it probably would have been approved, but they would have had to go on the record spending all that money on bombs while at the same time taking every dime they can away from the poor and the disabled.

WE have a Constitution, how about we use it every once in a while?

[markpkessinger]

19. Indeed.

And, although proper procedure should always be regarded as being of utmost importance, in cases such as this (which are, at best, ambiguous), proper procedure becomes more, not less, important.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Did you not bother to read your own OP threads where erroneous claims re: this issue were debunked?

Read and learn now, markpkessinger:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=727436&mesg_id=72

[markpkessinger]

32. Has Congress issued a declaration of war?

A Senate resolution is insufficient.

[ClarkUSA]

47. Why should it? You're conflating a UN coalition action into a war. This is not a war. Get a clue.

[markpkessinger]

48. Look, we disagree on this point. Okay?

An aerial bombardment of another country is an act of war. To claim it is not is to claim a distinction without a difference. But you have a different opinion. That's fine. You're entitled to it, as I am entitled to mine.

[Hugabear]

62. It's not a war? I'm sure that's news to the people that we're attacking

I'm pretty sure that the Libyans that we're attacking would consider it to be war.

I know that war hasn't been declared. All this means is that there's not an "official" state of war. But in reality, any time you have two armed sides fighting each other, it's a war.

[riderinthestorm]

70. +1. nt

[ClarkUSA]

126. Who gives a shit as to what Gaddafi's pro-genocide fans think? I sure as hell don't.

Read this before you reply to me again:

"... despite a largely incoherent chorus of second-guessers, Obama has settled into a groove of reflective dithering before making his decisions. For the most part, it has served him well.

Think back to … oh, all of one week ago. The mercenaries of Muammar el-Qaddafi were closing in for the slaughter of people trying to take a breath of the same Arab Spring air going around Tunisia and Egypt.

Had Obama done nothing, as the Dennis Kucinich fringe Democrats and the Ron Paul isolationist Republicans would have it, the blood of many civilians would be filling the streets of Benghazi. Don’t forget: the regime had promised to chase its own citizens into closets and butcher them.

Or, had Obama put U.S. troops on the ground, as the imperious former Bush “diplomat” John Bolton insisted, a humanitarian mission would now be seen as another superpower invasion of an oil-rich Arab nation.

In his deliberative fashion, Obama ultimately saved countless lives in the short term, and will allow the rebels in Libya to own their revolution in the long term, if they can push ahead — a big if, of course. In the meantime, the economic and diplomatic noose will tighten around Qaddafi and the people he pays to kill on his behalf."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x638032

[Catherina]

34. It's not lost on people that the President had time to confer with France, the UK

the fucking monarchs slaughtering their own protesters in the Middle East, the UN to the point of trying to browbeat nations that wouldn't go along but not even a minute to talk with Congress, the representatives of every single citizen in this country.

A rubber stamp from the other gas-guzzling nations in the EU who are part of the good old boys UN Club ain't cutting it.

We have no voice on the biggest expenditures in US history. Just bills now and indentured servitude to the elite & corporations pulling the strings.

I'm sorry, that's not how our country was set up and I won't sit silently, adoringly, while the few rights we have aren't even given a pretend glance and partisans rely on bullshit to justify this fraud on working class taxpayers who are losing the very roofs over their heads.

[joshcryer]

53. Benghazi didn't have the time for that, sorry.

I'm glad that it happened swiftly. The Congress would have meandered especially the fucking GOPers.

Benghazi would've been razed, it would've scored them political points.

"Obama didn't act quick enough!"

:puke:

[markpkessinger]

54. I sure hope we're not making a decision...

...about bombardment of another country based on such cynical, political calculus.

[joshcryer]

57. Benghazi literally was saved within hours of being razed.

Any delay by the fucking congress would've caused major casualties. And you should never believe that the congress would never ever allow people to die to score political points.

[markpkessinger]

58. Funny we don't seem to be in any great hurry to protect...

...the citizens of Bahrain, or Yemen.

[joshcryer]

64. Neither has escalated to the level Libya did.

[riderinthestorm]

69. Or Ivory Coast or Darfur... Libya though beckons with all that lovely oil.... nt

[joshcryer]

71. Darfur predates R2P, Ivory Coast wouldn't warrent it yet.

Gosh people are uninformed abut the situation in Libya.

[riderinthestorm]

72. Gosh 300 +/- people killed in Ivory Coast in the last month since the election.

How many have to die to have that conflict "warrant" intervention?

And funny how R2P is so conveniently in place for Libya but couldn't be implemented for Darfur... (hint: cuz Darfur doesn't have oil).

[joshcryer]

78. *sigh*

All the deaths in the Ivory Coast that happened over a 4 month period happened in Libya in 3 days.

*sigh*

[riderinthestorm]

87. Go sigh to the families of those who have been killed in these similar conflicts

and get back to me on how they feel about the situational importance of Libya vs. their own internal conflict.

Look, this thread is about those who are conflicted about Libya. Many of us are TRYING to take a bigger picture since the US government has a nasty habit of getting involved in petro-state conflicts solely.

It's not silly to look at ALL factors on why one state is chosen for the world's largest military (the US) and NATO intervention.

[joshcryer]

92. Yeah, so basically because the UN didn't intervene in other situations, we shouldn't want them...

...to intervene here. That's the basic logic flow you're trying to present, and it's silly. Beyond silly.

And no, the current regional conflicts do not compare to atrocities that Gaddafi is committing against his own people.

It's one thing to say "let's invade a country due to secretarian violence" and another thing entirely to say "let's invade a country because that countries LEADER is MASSACRING PEOPLE WHOLESALE."

[riderinthestorm]

76. Just did a quick google search of military conflicts that we are NOT intervening in....

which includes the Shi'ite insurgency in Yemen that has killed 13-16,000 people since 2004. Does that meet your criteria?

Or how about the Sudan? Where it's estimated that more than 3000 people have been killed since 2009. Hell even the Chechens in Russia are pushing 2000.

What's the cutoff? When does the "genocide" (and I use that word cynically since it's not even applicable really as much as pro-Libyan intervention supporters want it to be) warrant intervention?

Libya "feels" like it's blood for oil. Wish it were not so but it does have that taint.

[joshcryer]

86. It looks like the UN intervened due more to the refugee crisis that was happening.

Hundreds of thousands of people were predicted to flee eastern Libya into Egypt due to Gaddafi's shelling of civilian cities.

[riderinthestorm]

88. My point is it doesn't have to be one over the other. Refugee crisis are HISTORIC

in Africa.

But we only intervene in Libya... come on.

[joshcryer]

91. This is the first fucking time R2P has been invoked. You should be supporting its invocation...

...so that future crisis' can have it invoked.

No doubt oil is one reason why people are concerned about the Libyan people.

But I'd argue that it's also because they're not all black is just as well.

[sabrina 1]

100. 2 million Iraqi refugees are still living in squalor and in other

countries due to our 'intevention to find WMD and to 'liberate' the Iraqi people. The UN is nowhere to be found. Another 2 million are displaced in their own country. But WE are in charge and we have done NOTHING to alleviate the plight of those 4 million Iraqis.

Dahr Jamail and others have written about and photographed and interviewed people in those horrible camps, but to no avail. In fact most Americans have no idea what our 'liberation' of the Iraqi people has and continues to do to them.

Asking the U.S. for help to save civilians, is like asking a serial killer to protect you from a mugger. He might do that, but who knows what he might do next?

In Iraq at the same time all these other countries have been protesting against their oppressive regimes, most of whom are OUR friends, the Iraqi people were protesting their corrupt government. 29 of them were shot down and hundreds maybe thousands of others were rounded up and thrown in Iraqi jails where they are most likely being tortured.

What did the U.S. do to control the government they installed? Did they even condemn the killings? No, the only comment I saw on the brutal crackdown was from the U.S. ambassador to Iraq who mumbled platitudes about how people 'have a right to protest'.

Sorry, there is a reason why, no matter how much people want the Libyans to succeed, they are not at all convinced that the saviors ought to be the U.S. While in the short term they may have stopped the carnage in Benghazi, if this follows the path of every other example of U.S. intervention, people will die later and not only that, they will NOT get a government that puts their interests first. They will get an Iraqi-style government.

I truly hope that this one time in our long, bloody history in these parts of the world, that we are there only to stop a massacre. What are the odds for that? Not great at all, which is why there is so much conflict over it.

[joshcryer]

110. No evidence to support that they'll get an "Iraq-style government."

[sabrina 1]

111. No evidence to support that they won't. But there is precedent.

[joshcryer]

114. Iraq isn't comparable to Libya.

Slander the revolutionaries as you will.

[sabrina 1]

117. So you don't care what happens to them

The revolutionaries are smarter than you are, apparently. They have already said clearly 'we do not want our country to become another Iraq, brutalized, abused and destroyed'. They have said clearly 'we do not want foreign troops on our soil'. They KNOW what can happen. And now that Wolfowitz is pushing putting 'people on the ground' because 'the air war is not going to be enough', it's looking more and more like Iraq every day.

I'll take their word for whether or not Libya can become another Iraq over yours if you don't mind.

[joshcryer]

118. It cannot become like Iraq for that very reason, they're combatting such forces internally.

Watch and see, it will not become "another Iraq."

[Hugabear]

77. You were wrong about the Congo as well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=713108&mesg_id=713108

45,000 people per month. Nearly 3,000,000 since 2004.

[joshcryer]

80. 45k a month from disease and famine, which is of course a tragic thing.

[riderinthestorm]

83. Oh yeah, cuz Congo has no factional fighting going on there at all...

:eyes: :mad: :banghead: because there are no words to answer this if one is going to be so obtuse....

[joshcryer]

84. I would've supported intervention then dude. I don't see how a military presence...

...is going to help feed them and get rid of disease.

But if you can make the argument that it would I'd support a UN resolution to make it happen.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. There is only one thing worse than a bad plan, and that is two good plans.

I think that it's very desirable that decisions involving military action be taken by an individual rather than a group.

[walldude]

5. My vote was to send in a hit squad to bump off Gadhafi

I can't abide yet another war, spending millions on killing and bombing while we are taking away pensions, health care and wages from public workers.

I notice they had no trouble finding money for bombs.

[Fuzz]

8. +1

[Brigid]

11. But we never, ever assassinate foreign heads of state.

That would be wrong. :sarcasm:

[AndyTiedye]

17. If the CIA Had any Assets in Libya

…they got blown (and probably tortured to death) when Cheney's minions outed Valerie Plame and her entire organization.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Yup. nt

[Ian David]

7. I was conflicted until I saw that Pat Buchannan was against it. So now I'm for it. n/t

[markpkessinger]

56. Pat Buchanan firmly opposed Iraq, too. Did you support it, just to be on the other side? n/t

[krabigirl]

107. +1. Why be for/against something just because someone you don't like is for it?

[markpkessinger]

116. Exactly ...

...and I'm no fan of Pat Buchanan.

[Ian David]

119. Good point. n/t

[The Magistrate]

9. Rather Ambivalent About It Myself, Ma'am

[joshcryer]

55. I Do Wish I Had That Privilege.

Unfortunately I feel as though I must support the Libyan people, because if I don't, who will?

I would have preferred to be ambivalent.

[tabatha]

10. It is tough.

I have been 100%, 1000% behind the Libyans.

But the cost is becoming unbearable.

The biggest lesson here is: we SHOULD NOT sell arms to dictators. But then they will just get them from someone else. The hardware that the rebels captured in Benghazi was all Russian.

But the reason that the cost is too high, is that the rich are screwing the poor in this country.

It is hugely ironic --- the Libyans are dying so that they will be able to vote in leaders and government.

Here in the US, we screwed up in the last election by allowing Republicans who are behind the rich-take-from-poor to get into positions where they can wreak havoc.

I hope if the Libyans ever get their freedom, they will have close to 90% turnout in all elections - and they will have public TV where money will not buy the politicians.

Please learn from this Libyans.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. I have a very difficult time with

using violence period. I've vigil-ed, protested, and marched against war.

But I supported Pres. Clinton when we entered into the Kosovo situation, and I support Pres. Obama in this.

I don't think either of them like war, and believe that both would prefer to find a better way to end the slaughter of others.

To do nothing, would be participating in the slaughter imo. It may very well end badly with our involvement, but I would most certainly end badly without it.

It's a difficult choice-
And one we should really think hard about.

:grouphug:

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Still sorting it out myself.

[leftstreet]

15. Let's defund the 17+ Intel agencies that couldn't come up with a better idea

...also the entire State Dept & diplomatic corps

This was the best advice?

Meh.

[AndyTiedye]

21. Blame Cheney

see #17 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=727436&mesg_id=727580

[hfojvt]

18. I have not studied it enough to have a strong opinion

My default position is to be against war, but it is not locked in. But I don't know enough about this conflict to know whether I would approve.

[Maru Kitteh]

22. I lean towards support but I remain on the fence. n/t

[GoCubsGo]

123. That's how I feel, too.

People are comparing this to Iraq, but it's actually more like Bosnia, which I supported. The fact that the republicans are all pissing and moaning about it makes me think that the President is doing the right thing. That's the main reason I lean toward support.

[spanone]

24. be like newt

be for it, then be against it. and reserve the right to be for it again if you decide to.




i share your pain.

[Pharaoh]

25. I thought I did

But it is clearer now that I did not have enough info to make that call.

[rhett o rick]

26. We cant afford to be the world's police anymore. We have people out of work

homeless, running out of unemployment, etc. and the President wants to spend billions on war. It would be nice to be able to fix all the atrocities across the world but we cant. This is just to keep the war profiteers in profits.

[Scuba]

27. Yes, we need to fire lotsa cruise missiles to ensure peace....

...after we've assured peace worldwide, then we should feed the children at home. Hope they can hold out til then.

[applegrove]

28. The fact that Gadhafi is a crazy nutcake who would have killed many thousands

made the decision for me.

[Moondog]

29. President Obama is

in an argument with Candidate Obama over this. Both are losing.

[DevonRex]

30. G is attacking hospitals. I'm not on the fence. Check out

The thread by Josh. He and pinboy are providing lots
Of information that might help you decide. Bobolink is also doing a great job.

[Amonester]

36. Yep. I am against all wars, BUT that unspeakable MANIAC has definitely

JUMPED THE SHARK

I usually don't hate anyone, but... my tolerance goes to ZERO in cases like this (and the neocons lies for greed).

[DevonRex]

40. Exactly. He is a crazed murderer, attacking entire cities, targeting hospitals

and who knows what else. If we can help protect the people from this maniac,who said he would have no mercy, then wehave to try.

[Amonester]

49. Merci beaucoup.

Merci beaucoup America!

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

104. Gaddafi has been killing the wounded -- taking them out of hospitals and killing them ...

hiding the bodies!!

[defendandprotect]

105. Gaddafi has brought in 50,000 and more mercenaries to keep himself in power -- !!

[walldude]

39. Then send a goddamn hit squad out to get him.

We didn't need to start bombing.

[DevonRex]

42. UN-approved NFZs are legal. Assassination is not.

Had he complex with the UN there would be no bombing at all.

[GoCubsGo]

122. Not to mention...

...if "assassination" was possible, it likely would have been done decades ago, especially right after the Lockerbie crash that he ordered. People throw the assassination card around like it's easy to just waltz right in and off the head of a country. I guess people don't think that other national leaders protect themselves to the extent our President is protected. But, the more despotic they are, the more their people hate them. And, the more their people hate them, the bigger their security operation is.

[joshcryer]

52. Misrata is what Benghazi would've become, 100x, plus the refugue situation would've been...

...incredible.

People aren't informed. And they just don't care for some other deep seated bias.

[grahamhgreen]

31. Not until I know where the money will come from.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

33. My problem is that I no longer believe ANYTHING they tell me.

Should we be there? maybe. I simply don't know but I sure as Fuck don't believe what the robber baron media tells me. I mean, if this is "humanitarian", why weren't we in Rawanda? Oh yeah, no oil there. We have been lied to so often that the whole thing is just a big Pravda joke. Katrina is being handled, the gulf oil spill is fine, the nukes in Japan are fine, there are weapons of mass destruction, and on and on and on. I simply do not believe anything they say anymore. I don't know if we belong their or not but I sure as shit do not believe what they are telling me is the reason for us being there.

[riderinthestorm]

67. +1. nt

[emilyg]

115. +2

[Sonoman]

35. Let History speak. The US has sat on its hands during many outrages.

Idi Amin, for one, Sudan, Somalia, etc. The list is long.

No profit, no intervention.

I'm with you, Brigid.

Sonoman

[riderinthestorm]

68. We're sitting on our hands with the situation in the Ivory Coast. How abour Darfur?

It's because Libya has oil. The rest of these conflicts rate the big zip on the intervention scale....

[Nye Bevan]

37. The UN tipped the balance for me.

The fact that they voted for action without even one single dissenting vote. Even if you don't trust the US (and there is good reason why you may not) if you are going to ignore the UN you might as well not be a member.

[DevonRex]

45. Between that and G's threat to have no mercy, I'm for it.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

96. Our professional, well-trained military seems to be more than capable of handling this.

I'm not sure that trying to prove some kind of political point by foisting untrained enlistees on them is a good idea.

[DevonRex]

99. Just so you know, I was a member of that professional, well-trained military.

[Nye Bevan]

101. Thank you for your service (nt)

[DevonRex]

102. You're quite welcome. :)

[DevonRex]

98. I am a veteran. US army. 98G2LRU. I already served my country. Did you serve yours?

[achtung_circus]

38. Read this, then

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/macaroni-with-the-rebels-waiting-for-a-just-war-to-start/article1948123/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=World&utm_content=1948123

[craigmatic]

41. I can it's none of our business and we should stay out of it. This is about oil. Clinton didn't

get involved in Rwanda because they either didn't have oil or the oil shipments were still coming to the US. Typically the US doesn't care about massacres unless it disrupts business.

[achtung_circus]

43. Then there's that whole responsibility thing. R2P

1. A State has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing (mass atrocities).
2. If the State is unable to protect its population on its own, the international community has a responsibility to assist the state by building its capacity. This can mean building early-warning capabilities, mediating conflicts between political parties, strengthening the security sector, mobilizing standby forces, and many other actions.
3. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.

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

Thank you Lloyd Axeworthy.

[Dj13Francis]

44. Not me.

Not one fiber of my being has one single doubt about it. I'm neither ambivalent nor undecided. I can say with absolute certainty, without the slightest hesitation, that this action is absolutely, positively, undisputably, wrong. Wrong for so many reasons, I couldn't possibly list them all here.



Davidjamesfrancis.com

[cbdo2007]

46. Good post.

I commend you for not being like many of the other zombies here at DU who have an opinion about everything without considering the different points.

[myrna minx]

50. I'm having a difficult time with this - even moreso seeing the desperate

condition the rebels are in - as seen on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight. My default position is always anti-war but I have to say I'm really not sorted out. There's horrible suffering no matter what we do and that makes this so agonizing for me and I'm sure a great many of us. :-(

[bobbolink]

65. You're right, its agonizing. Its painful.

However, the Libyan people organized themselves to get rid of their dictator, and asked for help.

That makes it DECIDELY NOT like Iraq, or Vietnam, etc.

Ghaddafous will slaughter them all... he assured us of that. We have to do what we can to stop that.

[Adsos Letter]

51. I have supported it, but with many reservations. My hope is that it ends well for the people

of Libya in the longer term, but there are so many ways this can go wrong.

I, too, recognize the validity of many of the arguments put forth by those who oppose it, and more than one discussion on this has caused me to see different facets of the issue.

I haven't seen anyone who doesn't recognize the potential for disaster.

[paulk]

59. it doesn't matter what you think

our government is going to do what it pleases and your opinion, or the opinion of the American people, for that matter, will hold no sway in the decision.

[librechik]

60. yes,it's difficult, but read Juan Cole, Mideast expert and sterlng analyst (link+) helpful

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

Here are the differences between George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

(more at link)

[Zorra]

75. The Arab League should be dealing with this. Why are we the world police?

(On edit: Wrong place. So sorry, librechick, this was meant as a response to the OP)

The Arab League can use some of their oil profit money to finance the action.

We're already involved in 2 endless, bloody, expensive messes that we need to get out of.

[akbacchus_BC]

Good question, but no, the US is the police of the world and most

on here prefer the US to be that way. By the way, the US in shits with its internal programmes, cutting health care, etc., but invasions are so right for the powers that be.

Where is the President during all this turmoil, oh, vacationing!

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notesdev]

61. Just line up on the right

with all the other people waiting to apologize to George Bush

[and-justice-for-all]

63. I do not support our action in Libya...

If the libians want a revolution, they are going to have to have it without intervention. We need to stop policing the entire world.

[bullwinkle428]

66. I've been torn on this since the beginning, and have tried to read

as much as I could from trusted sources holding both viewpoints.

[DeadEyeDyck]

73. every story has two sides

[U4ikLefty]

74. Ask yourself, "if Bu$h did it, would I support it?"

That sould give you some insight.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

121. Yes, but only into your own character, not into the rights and wrongs of the decision.

I suspect that if Bush had done it the vast majority of DU would have opposed it.

This gives us useful information about DU's attitudes to Bush (or rather it would do, if it had actually happened), but not useful information about the rights and wrongs of the issue.

[U4ikLefty]

124. I agree, I guess consistency is in short supply here as well. nt

[akbacchus_BC]

79. Why would you want to support another invasion in a ME country?

It is all about the fucking OIL. Did the US intervene when Rwanda happened, fuck no! No oil there!

[devils chaplain]

81. Same here. n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

82. Let your conscience be your guide. Rwanda does not have oil, so

the powers ignored the slaughter. The ME has oil, so the powers have a vested interest. Makes me fucking sick how Obama turned tail!

[in_cog_ni_to]

89. We cannot afford another war.

That's just the truth and everyone knows it. Maybe this will help you make up your mind:

DEBT:

As of February 28, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States of America was $14.19 trillion and was 96.8% of calendar year 2010's annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.66 trillion. Using 2010 figures, the total debt (96.3% of GDP) ranked 12th highest against other nations.<snip>

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

DEFICIT:

WASHINGTON — A surge in oil prices helped push imports up at the fastest pace in 18 years in January, giving the country the largest trade deficit in six months.

The Commerce Department said Thursday the January deficit increased 15.1 percent to $46.3 billion. <snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42005784/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

UNEMPLOYMENT:

The number of unemployed persons (13.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.9
percent) changed little in February. The labor force was about unchanged over
the month.<snip>

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

HOMELESSNESS:

In a recent approximation USA Today estimated 1.6 million people unduplicated persons used transitional housing or emergency shelters. Of these people, approximately 1/3 are members of households with children, a nine percent increase since 2007. Another approximation is from a study done by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty which states that approximately 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in a given year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2007).<snip>

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/How_Many.html

INFRASTRUCTURE:

<snip>
“How bad is our nation’s infrastructure deficit? A recent report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that it will cost $2.2 trillion over a five-year period to raise the U.S. infrastructure grade from poor to acceptable. Measure this against the roughly $100 billion from the 2009 “stimulus” legislation that had in fact gone toward infrastructure construction projects as of last fall. Deficit-ridden cities find putting off preventive maintenance and replacing obsolete equipment as tempting ways to cut budgets. Henry Petroski, professor of civil engineering and history at Duke University, warns: “Potholes know no politics….Bridges will corrode and collapse. Pipes will crack and burst. The physical foundations of our civilization will crumble under the weight of our complaints about it and our neglect of it. It will happen so fast it will be impossible to keep up with its repair.”

“The dilemma posed by infrastructure spending was seen in microcosm last fall when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie stopped work on a new commuter-train tunnel that would run under the Hudson River into Manhattan. A federally-assisted project that was supposed to cost $8.7 billion faced a revised cost of $11 billion to $14 billion. “I can’t put taxpayers on a never-ending hook,” Christie said. The fact that the nation can’t even afford to build a railroad tunnel under a river highlighted the failure of government to bring the nation’s infrastructure up to 21st century standards. This includes America’s out-of-sight network of water systems, some of them built by our great-grandparents and now threatening public health and safety.

“Meantime, many nations around the world look to the future by developing critical infrastructure. China plans to spend $295 billion in the next decade to build a high-speed rail network, totaling 10,000 miles, that will connect its major cities. A World Bank report last July praised the project, saying it could speed passenger traffic, free up overloaded freight routes and reduce dependence on autos. One route, between Shanghai and Beijing, could cut travel time from 10 hours to four at speeds up to 302 mph. And China will spend $10 billion to connect the inland cities of Chengdu and Xi’an with a 320-mile railroad that will cut travel time to two hours from the current 13. Contrast this with the decision by the newly elected governors of Wisconsin and Ohio to forgo $1.2 billion in stimulus money for passenger-rail projects in their states. And a high-speed rail project in California that would connect Los Angeles and San Francisco has been derided by critics as “a train to nowhere” because the first leg would connect L.A. with the inland city of Bakersfield.

“While the United States is in retreat from big public works projects, on the grounds of can’t-afford-it, other nations with equally bad debt problems have taken a different course. Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, cut dozens of social and military programs when he took office last fall. But he also unveiled a National Infrastructure Plan, a blueprint for spending $316 billion of public and private money over five years in his country’s railways, power stations, roads, internet access and scientific research. “The government is keen to point out,” said The Economist (Oct. 30, 2010), “that unlike many of its predecessors it has avoided the temptation to slash capital spending during a downturn, a habit that helps explain the current ropy state of the national infrastructure.”<snip>

http://kgab.com/infrastructure-decay-in-the-united-states-cost-2-2-trillion/

COST of LIVING:

U.S. cost of living hits record, passes pre-crisis high
By John Melloy, CNBC

One would think that after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Americans could at least catch a break for a while with deflationary forces keeping the cost of living relatively low. That's not the case.

A special index created by the Labor Department to measure the actual cost of living for Americans hit a record high in February, according to data released Thursday, surpassing the old high in July 2008. The Chained consumer price index, released along with the more widely-watched CPI, increased 0.5% to 127.4, from 126.8 in January. In July 2008, just as the housing crisis was tightening its grip, the Chained consumer price index hit its previous record of 126.9.

"The Federal Reserve continues to focus on the rate of change in inflation," said Peter Bookvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak. "Sure, it's moving at a slower pace, but the absolute cost of living is now back at a record high in a country that has seven million less jobs."

The regular CPI, which has already been at a record for a while, increased 0.5%, the fastest pace in 1-1/2 years. However, the Fed's preferred measure, CPI excluding food and energy, increased by just 0.2%. <snip>

U.S. CITIZENS WHO HAVE NO HEALTH CARE INSURANCE:

Number of uninsured Americans rises to 50.7 million

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

A record rise in the number of people without health insurance across the nation is fueling renewed debate over a health care law that could to work better at boosting coverage than controlling costs.

More than 50 million people were uninsured last year, almost one in six U.S. residents, the Census Bureau reported Thursday. The percentage with private insurance was the lowest since the government began keeping data in 1987.

The reasons for the rise to 50.7 million, or 16.7%, from 46.3 million uninsured, or 15.4%, were many: workers losing their jobs in the recession, companies dropping employee health insurance benefits, families going without coverage to cut costs. Driving much of the increase, however, was the rising cost of medical care; a Kaiser Family Foundation report shows workers now pay 47% more than they did in 2005 for family health coverage, while employers pay 20% more.

SENIORS: Despite recession, they see income gains

Although the health care law signed by President Obama in March is designed to insure an additional 32 million people in public and private programs, it doesn't fully kick in until 2014. For the next few years, experts say, the problem could get worse. The average cost to insure a family of four is already about $14,000.<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-17-uninsured17_ST_N.htm


TEACHER SALARIES IN THE UNITED STATES:

Every few years the American Federation of Teachers releases a Teacher Salary Trends report about teacher salaries across the United States. This information helps teachers decide where to teach and how much they should earn. The latest report indicated that the average teacher salary was $47,602. The Federation indicated that unfortunately, teachers are struggling to find housing in their areas that they can afford on their salaries. As more teachers pursue additional education after receiving their bachelor’s degree, their student loan debt increases dramatically. New teachers may not start at an average teacher salary and could therefore struggle even more than veteran teachers, who may have higher salaries.<snip>

http://www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/

CONDITION of U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS:

Schools

Spending on the nation’s schools grew from $17 billion in 1998 to a peak of $29 billion in 2004. However, by 2007 spending fell to $20.28 billion. No comprehensive, authoritative nationwide data on the condition of America’s school buildings has been collected in a decade. The National Education Association’s best estimate to bring the nation’s schools into good repair is $322 billion.<snip>

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/schools

UNION BUSTING BECAUSE THE STATES ARE BROKE:

Governors who are less prone to macho posturing than Walker are pleading poverty – "we're broke!" they say. And indeed, they are.<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/18/us-unions-wisconsin1

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA LETS U.S. CITIZENS GO HUNGRY:

Record numbers go hungry in the US

Government report shows 50m people unable to put food on the table at some point last year.<snip>

<snip>
The number of children living in households where there were shortages of food at times rose by nearly one-third to 17 million. The report says that most parents who did not get enough to eat ensured their offspring received sufficient food but that more than 1 million children still suffered outright hunger.

The worst affected states are in the south with Mississippi having the largest proportion of its population enduring shortages of food followed by Texas and Arkansas. More than half of those affected are minorities, principally black people and Hispanics.<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/millions-hungry-households-us-report

COST OF IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN WARS:

Jan 14 (Reuters) - The cost to U.S. taxpayers of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 has topped $1 trillion, and President Barack Obama is expected to request another $33 billion to fund more troops this year.

Over two-thirds of the money has been spent on the conflict in Iraq since 2003. This year is the first in which more funds are being spent in Afghanistan than Iraq, as the pace of U.S. military operations slows in Iraq and quickens in Afghanistan.

HOW MUCH HAS BEEN SPENT ALREADY?

Congress has approved $1.05 trillion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan budget research group that has a continuously running war cost counter on its website.

The tally topped $1 trillion last month, when U.S. lawmakers approved the fiscal 2010 defense spending bill that included $128 billion to be spent on the two conflicts through Sept. 30. The trillion-dollar total includes war-related costs incurred by the State Department, like embassy security.<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/14/afghanistan-iraq-usa-costs-idUSN1415708320100114

[akbacchus_BC]

93. Surely, you mean another invasion! Who crowned the US to police

the world?

You all got you a President who failed!

[in_cog_ni_to]

94. YES! It IS an invasion.

I agree. I agree with your second point also.

[MrSlayer]

95. Not really. I'm firmly against it.

It's none of our business, costs too much and does nothing to protect our country.

[defendandprotect]

103. Support any true attempt to knock out Gaddafi and no troops on the ground ...!!

As long as the protesters agree with what we're doing --

and we do it and go!!

How many nations armed Gaddafi -- US had a contract for weapons --

UK, France and Russia armed Gaddafi -- there's a responsibility there because

had it not been for all these weapons, Gaddafi would NOT have been in power for

40 years!!

[krabigirl]

106. no, sorry.

[JonLP24]

108. I felt the same way

but then I thought no congressional approval was sought, they are not a threat to us, and we're already in two wars. So against but I did feel strongly in the middle.

[Lisa0825]

109. I was unsure, but the UN, the Arab League, Egyptian protesters I met online, and Desmond Tutu

all seemed to feel it was warranted action, so for now, I will support it. But only as long as it is limited in scope and duration.

[applegrove]

125. I too feel it should be supported. I got fooled by Powell so I was a little hesitant this time

around but I do generally feel that when civilians are at great risk there should be action taken by the UN or coalitions.

[LynneSin]

112. I'm kinda 'wait & see'

If this turns into an Afghanistan or Iraq I'll be pissed. But I suspect this will turn into a Kosovo, which is what Afghanistan and Iraq should have been - in, out, done and let the UN clean it up.

[Ramulux]

113. Not me

I have spent the past week detailing why I think this invasion is a terrible idea and I haven't been able to find anyone to debate me about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x704246

Read this, if you are still having doubts. I would like to see what your response is to some of the points I make here.