OK, I'm willing to back the President on Libya.

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/03/28/president-obama-s-speech-libya

I have just watched the President's speech on Libya from last night.

As some of you may have read, from the beginning of our military intervention in Libya I have been against it. I have seen this as an expense we cannot tolerate given the current "budget crisis" being used as an excuse to cut teachers and public services, and I have questioned our motives about why we have chosen Libya as the focal point of our global humanitarian efforts given their oil reserves that other places in the world that need humanitarian efforts don't have.

However, after watching the President, I am willing to accept what he says at face value. He seems earnest in his manner. I don't do this lightly. I remember backing the War in Iraq after watching Colin Powell point out supposed chemical weapons trucks outside of chemical weapons depots on satellite imagery. I bought into the argument that "maybe the government knows things you don't - you should trust them when they say this is necessary."

But I am willing to accept that the President says that this is a moral undertaking that the people of Libya asked us to undertake. That as the most powerful nation on earth we have a duty to help such people.

But most importantly, I also believe the President is correct in something that I had overlooked - In just the last few months the middle east has been shaken with revolution. Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain. For the most part, mostly peaceful revolution is winning. It is achieving in weeks what forced regime change in Iraq could not achieve in a decade. This revolution spread to Libya, and might spread even further still. But for the first time, major military firepower was being used to suppress it.

If we had left it for the Libyans to sort out, maybe the rebels could have won eventually, or maybe the country would simply be demolished in a massive civil war, with all the humanitarian strife that comes from it. If Gaddaffi won, it, as President Obama said, may very well have sent a message to other countries on the verge of revolution that military action can save your dictatorship after all.

The Middle East seems to be in the throws of a great awakening. What it ends up awakening to no one can say yet. But maybe it is the right thing to do to allow these revolutions to prosper and aid as we can. Yes, it is true that it is in America's financial interest also to be on the side of the people of the Middle East.

I'm still upset about the cost when so much is being threatened here at home. But I'm willing to support the President for now.

[MedleyMisty]

1. Recommending

Because you helped me think about my own reactions.

I have been following the Libyan revolution since the beginning - indeed, all my free time is spent reading the Twitter feeds of Libyans - both ones who are there and expats, and I know to not take what the expats say at complete face value - and keeping up with the news and with our Libya threads here in GD.

So I knew that the Libyans had asked for the intervention, that there were all sorts of things besides oil that led to intervention being politically possible in Libya - like, as you say, the Arab Spring and how Libya is part of a regional uprising.

So I looked at the arguments of people who were against it, and I tried to understand why they thought the neocons had wanted Libya's oil so bad for so long that they paid the Tunisian vendor to set himself on fire, for the Egyptian police to beat Khaleed Said to death, etc. I couldn't comprehend seeing all these little events as propaganda - I mean, if "they" control things so much that they can get a Tunisian policewoman to slap a Tunisian fruit vendor, get him upset enough to set himself on fire, get the footage out on Facebook, get people protesting, get other people to start protesting, and then have been engineering pro-democracy movements in Egypt so they were just at the right place for the example of Tunisia to inspire them, and then for the Libyan youth to be inspired - which I've read that another thing to help spark off the Libyan revolution was that the Gaddafi-appointed head of the bar association had stayed past his legal term limit, and the lawyers were upset about that, plus there was the group of families of the victims of a massacre of prisoners back in the 90s who were the first to sign up for the Day of Rage on Facebook - it's just, I looked at all that and at people's claims of conspiracy, and thought - if they can control all that just to get oil, it's time to just give up because they are so powerful that we can do nothing against them.

I didn't think about people not knowing about those events, and made assumptions and arguments based on the idea that they had that knowledge. Your post helped me see what was wrong with that.

If you're curious about who we are supporting in Libya, here's two informative links from Al Jazeera.

First, the interim council's vision of a post-Gaddafi Libya:

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Documents/2011/3/29/2011329113923943811The%20Interim%20Transitional%20National%20Council%20Statement.pdf

And a op-ed column about how the interim council came from Libyans and is responsible to Libyans and is NOT a US puppet:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/2011/03/2011328194855872276.html

I see the unreccing crew is out. Rage against ideologues who put politics before people rising.

[Turborama]

8. Your main paragraph should be an OP in and of itself...

You really nailed it.

BTW have you seen these Al Jazeera English documentaries yet?

The death of fear (Tunisia) (50 mins)
Rageh Omaar examines how the death of a street vendor led to a wave of uprisings across Arab world.
Special programme Last Modified: 10 Mar 2011 08:46 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/ragehomaarreport/2011/03/20113993920597144.html

Egypt: Seeds of change (25 mins)
People & Power reveals the story behind the unprecedented political protests in Egypt.
Last Modified: 09 Feb 2011 10:56 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/02/201128145549829916.html

Building Egypt's future (25 mins)
What happens next for those who dreamt of a free and democratic Egypt?
Last Modified: 02 Mar 2011 13:29 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/03/20113212393364943.html

Bahrain: Fighting for change (25 mins)
As unrest sweeps through the Middle East, People & Power looks at the mounting pressure for reform in Bahrain.
Last Modified: 09 Mar 2011 09:29
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/03/201138153916892448.html

Yemen: A tale of two protests (25 mins)
As demonstrations advance across Yemen, People&Power follows activist Tawakkol Karman.
Last Modified: 16 Mar 2011 13:56
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2011/03/201131683916701492.html

[highplainsdem]

10. +1

[MrTriumph]

2. Another boneheaded decision by our president. And regardless of who wins, we pay.

x

[Atypical Liberal]

5. I can understand that sentiment. n/t

[CelticThunder]

3. I am not.

[meow mix]

4. k&r welcome aboard

go rebels =)

[EFerrari]

6. The rebels have cut their first oil deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4790867&mesg_id=4790867

[L. Coyote]

24. And five million have died in the Congo, a million refugees disrupting neighbors

Oh, and by the way, there are some democracy demonstrators in China to protect too.

Best we start taking out the Chinese missile defense systems?

Damn Logic !! :rofl:

[Ship of Fools]

7. Yep. IMO, it's arguable that Obama can get credit for

inspiring younger middle-easterners to start protesting, given how popular he has been over there. Even Al-Qaeda was purportedly having some difficulty recruiting when Obama came into office. Personally I think it IS in our interest for the old regimes to change. To what, who cares? Out with the bad, then let THEM define what a good and righteous government is. It's the difference between Bush cramming democracy down their throats with guns or Obama inspiring it. To me, it's the same with Wisconsin. Some argue that he hasn't put on *comfortable shoes* and joined them. I think that the guy should be given the benefit of the doubt -- he'd be there if he could, but he's dealing with 3 wars and a nuclear crisis. Not like he's under any pressure or anything. Allow the poor bastard (who is working 24/8 and sometimes looks like someone has sucked the soul right out of him) a little metaphorical latitude. Also remember that there are literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people out here who would just as soon shoot him and his black-skinned family than look at them. Stressed much?

No, we can't afford Libya, but I couldn't think of anything more important, speaking about long-term national security, to blow our money on than the middle east at this point in history. Domestically speaking, if Obama gets another shot in 2012, he'll have the newly awakened middle class behind him. We are SLOWLY awakening to RepubliCorp crap. Watch Obama do the old switcheroo when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Watch him close tax loopholes. If nothing else, the man is consistent in principles. I hear it in his books. Maddow pointed it out last night, as well. For the life of me, I don't see how anyone can NOT recognize this ...

Thank you.

[Maven]

9. Well, you're wrong.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. I very well might be.

I am still not entirely comfortable with the situation.

[highplainsdem]

11. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

12. I believe President Obama made a good case last night for our actions in Libya.

In that regard, I believe he's currently charting the best course.

Thanks for the thread, Atypical Liberal.

[Shagbark Hickory]

13. There are far cheaper actual genocides we could have stopped. But the europeans wanted us to protect

their fucking oil so here were are. If we didn't they might not wanna be our friend anymore.

[Uncle Joe]

15. If you accept the proposition that Libya was becoming a genocide in the making, refugees would have

spread into Tunisia and Egypt and with those nations having just gone through great upheaval and depending on fragile democracies; of a sort, this conflagration could have become mush more expensive, covering most of North Africa.

[Shagbark Hickory]

16. Not my problem. China, maybe you would be interested in preventing this surge of refugees?

[Uncle Joe]

17. Self-delete due to technical error.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I believe in the following decades China will gain the ability to intervene in such crisis.

But I don't believe they have it now, at least not in this area of the world.

[Shagbark Hickory]

21. Russia? Sweden? Finland? Any takers?

[Uncle Joe]

26. I believe NATO will be taking it over.

[Shagbark Hickory]

27. That's nice but we already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this already.

Still no Qaddafi.
Still no massacre.
Still no refugees.

[Uncle Joe]

30. In the age of microwave ovens and the Internet everybody wants it now.

I believe Gaddafi's end time is coming up rapidly.

I also believe our actions prevented the worst of the massacres and ensuing refugee problem from taking place, that was the whole point.

What happened in Rwanda took place within a month, and sometimes decisions must be made quickly.

[sad sally]

31. Sounds like that might take a few more days to happen since all

messy details haven't been agreed to yet.

NATO Is All Over The Place on Arming Libyan Rebels
By Spencer Ackerman March 29, 2011 | 5:30 pm

The NATO military alliance may have reached consensus on taking over the Libya war. But the members of the transatlantic partnership spent Tuesday sending all types of mixed signals about whether to take the next step in ousting Moammar Gadhafi: giving the opposition guns.

In Brussels, the alliance’s civilian leader firmly backed off that option in an interview during CNN. “We are not in Libya to arm people,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “but to protect people.”

That contradicted the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. “We’ve not, certainly, ruled that out,” Rice told ABC’s George Stephanopolous, who said that the U.S. has “an important interest in seeing Gadhafi step down.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/nato-is-all-over-the-place-on-arming-libyan-rebels/?du

[Uncle Joe]

32. I believe what happens on the ground will dictate

the resolution of "those messy details," it will be up to the Libyan People but at least they will have a fighting chance against Gaddafi's mercenaries.

[sad sally]

33. So you're suggesting if the people say they need bigger and better

weapons (more than what Egypt has provided, paid for by the US) and somebody to provide training on how to use them, with protection (combat troops) to protect the trainers, that those demands will be met without question?

[Uncle Joe]

34. I believe they will be met, but not without question and not under those circumstances.

If Egypt is providing arms then training can take place in Egypt as well, U.S. combat troops need not be in Libya.

[Gravel Democrat]

35. You bet they have the "ability" to intervene LOL >> Tibet

When are "we" going to free Tibet?

"We're" not even going to discuss it.

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

At the end of the decade, however analogously to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, monks in the Drepung and Sera monasteries started protesting for independence, and so the government halted reforms and started an anti-separatist campaign.<50> Human rights organisations have sometimes criticised the Beijing and Lhasa governments' approach to human rights in the region when cracking down on separatism.


The rhetoric in this country has become a mockery of itself

[Uncle Joe]

36. Staying true to the Serenity Prayer or if you prefer Bartley's philosophy.

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

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.


(snip)

For every ailment under the sun
There is a remedy, or there is none;
If there be one, try to find it;
If there be none, never mind it.

[L. Coyote]

40. And what have we done about China and Tibet, after millions have died? NADA!

Where were the cruise missiles then?

[bobbolink]

41. And if we freed Tibet, who would be the leader of the country?

It couldn't be the Dalai Lama, since, according to DU logic, that sweet smiling man is an ex-pat, and therefore not eligible. After all, he did FLEE his country.

[L. Coyote]

39. Hypothetical future possibilities justify war when oil is involved? Isn't that the Bush Doctrine?

Saddam might have done this, Qaddafi might have done that!

[Uncle Joe]

43. No, waging war based on lies and fabricated evidence is the Bush Doctrine.

Qaddafi did in fact bring in mercenaries and turn guns against his own people; when they began to protest as the Egyptians and Tunisians had earlier.

Furthermore any foreign policy must be based on a hypothetical outcome whether from action or inaction, that's basic logic, now whether you agree with their assumptions or not is another thing.

[GeorgeGist]

19. To accept the President at face value ...

is to admit you're a fool.

[Uncle Joe]

20. The same can be said for dismissing the President at face value.

Your logic must come in to play, as to the consequences of doing nothing and accepting Gaddafi at face value.

[L. Coyote]

22. The Principle of Unintended Consequences:

If we back the AQ rebels in Libya, and they control and sell the oil, peace will break out :rofl:

[Uncle Joe]

28. If we had backed Gaddafi, do you believe he wouldn't sell the oil?

Regardless the oil would still be sold, the question became whether to back the people rebelling against a 4 decade reigning dictator or the dictator.

[L. Coyote]

37. While everyone turns their backs on the five million who died so far in the Congo, right?

No, the question is why are these nations intervening in a civil war
over oil on the basis of hypothetical, possible, future calaminity,
and not in an ongoing human rights disaster of unbelievable proportions.

[Uncle Joe]

44. A civil war bordering two nations; which have just gone through great tumult and have very

fragile embryonic democracies, to assume there would be no refugees or bleeding over from a such a calamity seems to defy logic.

No doubt oil plays a part in their calculations but so does proximity and the capacity for this to metastasize.

[Fire Walk With Me]

23. We must support the Libyan people on this!

[L. Coyote]

38. Which ones? The Democrats or the Republicans?

[Bluerthanblue]

25. wow- now that

took some moxie!

As did your responses to a few of the somewhat snarky replies as well.

I appreciate your posting this. I hope that this situation turns out for the best- for everyones sake.

[FLPanhandle]

29. I'm with you

I started out thinking we should intervene before we actually got involved.
Wavered a bit afterwards wondering if this was right or not.
Now, I'm back to supporting the decision.

It's rare that people think enough to change their intial position and to admit it openly is brave, so Kudos to you.

[Snoutport]

42. I get it too... i hate war. I hate the war machine. But those people were gonna be hacked to pieces

and as another human being... I support stopping that.

[Fire Walk With Me]

45. Kick!