How do U.S. liberals feel about this?

1. 93

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   How do you guys feel about American involvement in Libya? I'm honestly curious and not trying to start a fight. How is this different than Iraq - other than not having troops on the ground? Have we "invaded" a sovereign nation? Was Saddam just as ruthless toward his own people as Gaddafi? Is it really all about the oil? Is it any of our business? Do you think this is a necessary step in stablilizing the area?
   
   I haven't made up my mind yet about this, so I am genuinely interested in hearing the viewpoints of others. I'll include you conservatives in this, too. lol

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The movement to get involved in Libya was started by David Cameron, the British PM based strictly on a call for assistance from inside.  He put it together.
      
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … l-all.html
      
      The US went into Iraq where there was no request from inside the country to help, and where the US went in against the wishes of the entire international community, and where there was were absolutely no weapons of mass destruction, and everybody outside the US knew that.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         True. I have serious doubts, but I feel better about Libya than our needless, foolish, costly invasion of Iraq. There's some encouraging developments in the Middle East and some that are worrisome (Bahrein, Israel-Palesting).

         replyreport
      2. 80

         Mitch Alanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Actually, if you go back and research, other countries did in deed think he had the weapons...it's easy to find..
         He was a weapon of mass destruction...he had tens of thousands of his own people...
         If we went there for oil, then why didn't we take it?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            @Mitch. Actually, I was living in the UK at the time, and they didn't. Blair begged Bush to wait two weeks for the UN to go in once again and prove yet AGAIN that  Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. It was headlines in the newspapers for weeks on end. The British public was totally against Blair siding with the US, and in the end, it cost him his premiership.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm generally considered a liberal. (I'm not sure why - I think I'm moderate.) But you have to put a bigger frame on the picture, which Obama and Clinton have and many Americans do not. Libya was on the list of terrorist states, in large part to their involvement with the bombing of a passenger jet that fell onto Lockerbe, Scotland. Bush forgave that.
       
      The bombing had state support and there was a conviction of the bomber for life. But the bomber is not in jail now. He was released for humanitarian reasons because he suffered from an incurable disease and was going to die in 6 months. That was over 2 years ago and he's an honored guest of Libya - he got a hero's welcome.  The release was influenced by BP who wants to buy the oil.   
      
      Despite the PR that convinced the Bush administration, Gaddafi continues to embrace terrorists - he used political clout to secure the release of a mass murderer, in which BP was complicit. This is an unholy alliance - BP buys oil, which finances the terrorist activities of a tyrant (despite PR) who murders his own people and FOREIGNERS abroad. More oil money for the dictator will make the problems worse. Terrorism is an expensive business - a huge part of what DHS has done over the last decade is cut off their money.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "I'm generally considered a liberal. (I'm not sure why - I think I'm moderate.)"
         That's because you're really a communist, just like Hitler. Haven't you been paying attention? You saying bad stuff about a multinational corporation proves that you're a communo-fascist and hate America.

         replyreport
   3. 87

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm a liberal and I'm against it.
      
      I hope Libyans can overthrow Ghaddafi, but I'd rather they do it without any foreign intervention.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         " I hope Libyans can overthrow Ghaddafi, but...."
         
         All by themselves, like the Americans in the Revolutionary War. Google the name Lafayette. I quote from Wikipedea.
         
         "In the American Revolution, Lafayette served as a major-general in the Continental Army under George Washington. Wounded during the Battle of Brandywine, he still managed to organize a successful retreat. He served with distinction in the Battle of Rhode Island. In the middle of the war he returned to France to negotiate an increase in French support. On his return, he blocked troops led by Cornwallis at Yorktown while the armies of Washington and those sent by King Louis XVI ... prepared for battle against the British."
         
         It's sad that Americans forget that we were helped in our quest for liberty. That makes it easier for us to tum our back on people who will certainly be exterminated if the world does nothing.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Look back in the history books and you can find any parallel you like. I prefer the more recent ones to the older ones; in recent times, we've only incurred the resentment of the people we've tried to "help."
            
            Libya is an independent country. We're not helping them free themselves from a colonial power.
            
            Ghaddafi is not trying to exterminate his people or any minority like the Sudan tried to do. He is violently trying to put down any challenge to his authority. But that's not the same as genocide.
            
            If this is the voice of the people and Ghaddafi stands alone, then maybe Libya will get help from its Arab neighbors. If they don't want to help, then you have to ask yourself why not.

            replyreport
   4. 72

      DonDWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't like the ideas behind this war at all. Many don't seem to be educated of the real reasons behind it. Real reasons that I won't say on Hubpages in the fear of being banned. . .

      replyreport
   5. 72

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "How do you guys feel about American involvement in Libya?"
      I don't much like it, but there we are.
      
      "How is this different than Iraq - other than not having troops on the ground?"
      Well, we have a UN mandate and the involvement of a bunch of other countries, including other Muslim nations; we didn't start this conflict by ordering Ghaddafi out of Libya by a certain date and invading when he didn't leave; Iraq was relatively stable while Libya is in open revolution; Saddam was originally a US-backed strongman while Ghaddafi took over Libya without our help; and nobody is trying to frighten the American people into believing that Libya has either the ability or the desire to attack the US, or trying to pretend that Ghaddafi and alQuaida are working together, so the differences are many.
      
      "Have we "invaded" a sovereign nation?"
      Invaded? Nope. Attacked, definitely.
      
      "Was Saddam just as ruthless toward his own people as Gaddafi?"
      Saddam was not dealing with open revolution. His ruthlessness was much more covert. Plus, there was already a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Iraq.
      
      "Is it really all about the oil?"
      In this case, probably not, but it's at least partly about the oil.
      
      "Is it any of our business?"
      If we're to maintain our leadership role in the UN, then yeah, it kinda has to be, since the establishment of the no-fly zone is a UN initiative, and we're one of the leaders of the UN. If we were not to support it, well, it'd be just one more reason for the world at large to stop respecting the US.
      
      "Do you think this is a necessary step in stablilizing the area?"
      Well, this is going to sound callous, but no. A full-on rebellion would be a bloodbath, but possibly a Libyan one only. If we could decide that it was okay for Libya to sort out its own civil war, and would be willing to endure a long-term disruption in the supply of oil, then we could leave Libya to its own devices and just keep an eye on the situation so that the conflict doesn't broaden across North Africa. But a disruption in the oil supply would be really inconvenient for the world. And the guy is (or was) attacking his rebels with what looks to civilians like overkill (I'm curious what folks with military training and experience think of Libya's civil war before the no-fly zone). It's hard to look at that, especially given that Ghaddafi is a dictator, and not sympathize with the rebels.
      
      Of course, (and this is an examination of US partisan politics) Obama's detractors (who for the most part were gung-ho about invading Iraq, even though most of those folks didn't sign up to do the invading themselves) are complaining that he hasn't pulled US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan yet, and condemning him for agreeing to help with the no-fly zone in Libya, and saying he didn't establish the no-fly zone soon enough....Plus they're trying to say that the UN-mandated no-fly zone over Libya is exactly like the no-UN-mandate-having elective invasion and subjugation of Iraq.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I said this before I don't consider muslims killing muslims to be a problem that Americans have to concern themselves with. Kadaffy isn't any different today than he has been for the last 40 years. We reaaly don't get our oil from them Europe does which is perhaps why they are so intent on getting involved.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "I said this before I don't consider muslims killing muslims to be a problem that Americans have to concern themselves with."
         
         I suppose that if Muslims were killing Christians, that would be an outrage. I am going to file that quote, LaLo, so that if anyone asks why I think you are hateful and bigoted, I have a truly outrageous example of islamaphobic malice.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You go right ahead though I can't imagine how that lends support to bigotry or hatred. Are we not at war with 2 muslim countries and now a third? Is it not muslims killing people in Israel? Is it not Muslims that have continually tried to kill innocent Americans with at less one attack every 2 weeks since 2009? Was it not Muslims that attacked the towers killing 3000 Americans, some of which were. Muslims?
            You'll have to excuse me but I'd rather see them killing each other than killing Americans and that's not hatred it's common sense.

            replyreport
2. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   I am something of a historian hobbyist primarily interested in Empire Politics. This is history as it happens. I try to look at it from a historical point of view, since as an individual I am given no say whatsoever, in anything that happens.

   replyreport
3. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   I don't agree with dictatorships. Plain and simple.

   replyreport
4. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   I'm just amazed that Obama would attack a fellow Muslim leader.  Look out Kenya, you're next

   replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   When is the last time the US congress voted to declare a war since world war II? By international law the US has started a war with Libya. Seems a little bit like a dictatorship to me.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      junkoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What happened and Lawanda should never have happen, and it brought shame on all developed countries that stood by and allowed it to happen. What happened in Germany was publically made known at the end of the war. If in Libya the head of goverment was responsible for mass killing of men women and children, because they wanted change, America should get involved. In America, If the goverment ever become involved in the mass murder of unarmed Americans, it would become the duty of the rest of the nation of the world to establish a no fry zone over America. What was done by America was the least it could do, and in it was decent. Lawanda never again.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes it is a dictatorship, we change dictators once every four to eight years by democratic elections.
      
      We don't mind dictators we just want a new one every so often.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
   3. 59

      DannyMaioposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i believe the last time was 1941

      replyreport
6. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   "Libya was on the list of terrorist states, in large part to their involvement with the bombing of a passenger jet that fell onto Lockerbe, Scotland." That was a frameup.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      According to you with evidence plucked from your belly button.

      replyreport
7. 52

   harryw45posted 13 years ago

   I am very liberal and I think it was a very good idea. I would hate to see that mad man retake the country. Most Dictators  are/were conservatives. Hitler was a conservative American big business Henry Ford thought he was a great leader.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Hitler was a conservative American big business Henry Ford thought he was a great leader."
      
      I think you must be a bit confused, Hitler was a Socialist and before that a Communist. He stopped the Communist thing when it became detrimental to his health.
      
      He was also a Sociopath, which is the reason he didn't mind killing so many people.
      
      Ronald Reagan is a conservative, Ronnie never ordered the mass killing of an entire race of people.
      
      See the difference?
      
      Probably not....too bad

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No, it's you that is confused.
         Hitler was never a socialist or a communist.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Rush Limbaugh declared Hitler a socialist, thus it is so.  Plus the word NAZI included an abbreviavtion for socialist so it is doubly true.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hmmmm, Hitler wasn't a socialist, please tell me what he was then.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The first Teabagger

               replyreport
            2. 61

               John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Well, as the Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike what does he really sound like to you?
               
               Are the left in the US trying to do any of those things? No.
               Are the extreme right trying to do any of those things? Yes.
               
               There fore, if you want to label anybody as Nazis, it's not the left that you should apply that label to but the tea party who are much closer to Hitler than anybody on the left.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, stop with the facts and logic; you know they don't work. King me!

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah, sorry Jeff not long out of bed and still thinking too rationally

                     replyreport
            3. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Jim Hunter
               
               Hitler was megalomania; they named the mental illness after him,
               
               The screaming me me’s, the universe evolved around him and like most extreme dictators tooled Religion

               replyreport
      2. 60

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Big swing and a miss Jimbo. Hitler despised communists, railed against them. The National Socialists Party (Nazis) was no more socialist than the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was democratic. Fox news as a history source is probably a mistake...
         
         Hitler and the Nazis pumped up private enterprise - funneled all the money from the state into the private sector. There is no doubt Hitler was a dictator, but he was not a socialists or a communist. He was a fascist - with many, if not all, the same rhetoric and proposed policy that your buddies in the Tea Party have and support. Take out the hatred of the Jews and territorial expansion and you have a match for what the Tea Party espouses. Scary, but true.  The Nazis were very anti-communist, very anti-socialist, very anti-foreigner, very nationalistic - always brought up the "greater days of Germany's past," etc, etc. Yeah, actually Hitler was an ultra-conservative - not an ultra-liberal.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I agree. I knew they felt like the Gestapo.

            replyreport
         2. 72

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Aw, don't go and bring historical fact into an argument with a radical conservative about who is a socialist. They always know that everyone they disagree with is a socialist, and so are you.

            replyreport
         3. 60

            Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            He didn't just rail against them, he threw them in concentration camps, several years before he got around to doing the same with the Jews.

            replyreport
      3. 60

         Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         "Ronald Reagan is a conservative, Ronnie never ordered the mass killing of an entire race of people."
         
         No, he spread death and destruction around much more evenly. Let's see, he ordered the sale of chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, which Saddam then used on the Iranians and Kurds. That totally didn't come back to bite us in the you-know-what.
         
         He trained and supported Osama bin Laden and the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. That didn't come back to bite us in the you-know-what either.
         
         He supported the Contras in Nicaragua in their campaign of terror against the democratically elected government of Sandinista, after a popular uprising overthrew the brutal US-supported dictatorship of the Somoza family.
         
         Here's a little sample of how the Contras liked to treat their prisoners (potentially triggering):
         
         "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."
         
         The war killed over 50,000 people, mostly civilians.
         
         He also supported right-wing paramilitary groups in Columbia, El Salvador, and, probably most notoriously, Guatemala, where US trained paramilitary forces destroyed 400 Mayan villages and slaughtered 200,000 peasants.
         
         All this is in addition to his refusal to address the AIDS crisis publicly for 7 years and his repeated attempts to cut funding for AIDS research...
         
         And this is the saint of the US right wing...

         replyreport
8. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   "Most Dictators  are/were conservatives. Hitler was a conservative". I have a different definition of conservative. Hitler wanted to created the super race. That is progressive the same as religions want to create the perfect individual, all progressive advancement.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's a stretch.
      
      He was an ideologue. Ideologues sit at both extremes of the political gamut. Both far-left and far-right people imagine utopia will be achieved if only the entire world would do as they say.

      replyreport
9. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   What's this? The US has launched attacks against another Oil-Rich Muslim Country WITHOUT a declaration of War from Congress?
   
   Hmm.... Why do I bother voting? Seems like Obama and Bush are just sitting in a tree kissing!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      hmmm....Obama's just trying to cover his own tracks better because he knows he has no moral authority to do what he's doing.
      But I doubt your last sentence.
      Bush woulda punched him out if he tried that.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Brenda.. I wondered where you had been - I missed your informed commentary. What "moral" authority has any president ever had to launch military action against a another country - particularly one that has never attacked them? As much as you would like to relate this to the "evils" of Obama, they have all done it - Bush 1, Little Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, etc.

         replyreport
10. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago

    I am a liberal and I am not opposed to all military interventions, just stupid and unnecessary ones.  I have mixed feelings about this one, but at least the goals appear to be clear and achievable, we are not doing it primarily on our own, and help was requested.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Let me guess, Vietnam was not a stupid and unnecessary war while Johnson was President?
       
       It became so when Nixon was elected?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          You guessed wrong, but then I was only a child at the time and my opinion was formed after the fact.

          replyreport
       2. 72

          Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Even Robert McNamara admitted that America's involvement in the Vietnam Conflict was a mistake.
          
          "The CIA appraisal was, and Eisenhower's appraisal was, that the loss of Vietnam and Laos would trigger an extension of communist hegemony across much of southeast Asia. This would weaken the security of the West across the world. Therefore, it was necessary to prevent that. That's why we were in Vietnam. It was an incorrect appraisal."
          
          But there I go, bringing fact into it again...

          replyreport
11. 76

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    I don't like it. I find it suspect. I think it's a continuance of the PNAC plan for Global Domination: Full Spectrum Dominance, is the term our Military Industrial Complex uses.
    I think it's funny how selective they are in who they "save".
    That UK article...I have read articles with pictures like that for years now about Palestinians and no one does a thing to help them.
    In fact, the world stands by and watches while they are brutalized.
    Something I've never forgotten is a hysterical Chinese woman interrupting a Bush press conference years ago, crying out for help..screaming that the Chinese Gvt. was imprisoning people, killing them,and selling their body parts.(fulan gong?)
    She was taken away. And was anything done to help them?
    What about N Korea? Don't they have half the population living in concentration camps? Starving to death?
    We are so selective in who we help...it's very suspect, imo. Because I read just yesterday that Bahrain's People's Uprising will be squashed in no time flat...no going in to help them?....no concern for their lives?
    
    And someone on Meet the Press said it was Hilary Clinton who pushed for it and swayed Obama's decision....didn't bagamall just say that she had sold out?????To the global elite???
    
    I am waiting to see who will benefit.

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       LMC, I've often wondered about this same thing. Why do we try to "help" some while turning a blind eye to others? Do we decide by what's in it for us?

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Us and/or someone else.....

          replyreport
    2. 59

       dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I believe a big reason nobody is helping the North Koreans is that they have a lot of nukes, and will not hesitate to use them if provoked. We're all very aware that a war with North Korea could wipe out half the world population.

       replyreport
    3. 72

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Falun Gong. Yes, I remember that. The Chinese government has been pretty brutal in their repression of the Falun Gong movement, which boggles my mind: how it this movement a threat to the Chinese government? But I digress.
       
       China is big, with a big economy, big army, several atom bombs, etc. If we went to war with them, it would require a WWII-style focus of our resources: meat rationing, gas rationing, blackouts, curfews, victory gardens, recycling initiatives, higher taxes, a draft, etc.
       
       Little countries like Iraq, we can invade those without inconveniencing the people too much (unless they happen to be, or have family, in the military). If we invade third-rate powers only, the Marines can go to war while the rest of America can keep going to the mall.

       replyreport
12. 76

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    All Out War on Libya, Surge in the Price of Crude Oil...
    "Humanitarian Wars are Good for Business".... Speculators Applaud....
    
    by Michel Chossudovsky
    
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … ;aid=23741

    replyreport
13. 76

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    "Operation Libya" is part of  the broader military agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia which consists in gaining control and corporate ownership over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas, including oil and gas pipeline routes.
    
    "Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate." (See Michel Chossudovsky, The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, January 4, 2007) .

    replyreport
14. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    Jim, have you come to your senses and become a liberal?
    Or are you just projecting how you think we must feel about this?

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry, I was just amused by the notion that someone thought Hitler was a conservative,
       
       And even more amused that he wasn't a socialist.
       
       I'll leave the forum so you liberals can solve the worlds problems or rather create more.

       replyreport
       1. 72

          Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          And I'm amused by your tendency to willfully ignore historical fact and pretend that unlike things are alike.

          replyreport
       2. 59

          dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I think the name of Hitler's party may have confused you. The word "socialist" in this case was not an accurate descriptor, for reasons DTR0005 has explained above.

          replyreport
       3. 60

          DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Uh Jim.. I would give up the "Hitler angle" now - you notice how some of the more knowlegeable conservatives on here haven't chimed in yet to defend you. I mean it is an inconvenient truth brother, but Hitler was conservatism taken to a new level.

          replyreport
15. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    I thought the Hitler problem was already solved(?)
    Oh well, one less thing for us world-savers to have to cross off our to-do list!

    replyreport
16. 59

    dingdondingdonposted 13 years ago

    I'm very conflicted about it. On the one hand Gaddafi has been slaughtering his own people and calls from the UN for him to stop have had no effect on him. On the other, the attacks by the coalition are only provoking him more. He is killing more civilians, and now we are too. We also do not know precisely how much firepower Gaddafi has access to, and are possibly putting the safety of our nations in danger. What's more, the already crippled Western economy will surely take another hit as a result of this, as it will be the little people who are punished to try and "make up" the funds we have lost.
    
    I do not think what we are doing is right, but I can't think of an alternative way to stop what Gaddafi is doing to his people either.

    replyreport
17. 59

    readytoescapeposted 13 years ago

    As a Constitutional Conservative I have no idea how to respond to Habee’s initial query into the “thinking” of liberals. I would however like to add my take.
    
    Now I am not so sure I support this Action, but not for reasons so mundane as the excuses of protection of civilians or ousting Qadaffi or the rationalized and forward thinking Liberal reasoning of a Big Corporate oil grab which liberals believe is behind all US Military Actions, like when a soldier simply breathes.
    
    I am not in support of theses actions because the question of just WHO are we supporting or protecting in Libya has not been answered. Protestors? Rebels? Civilians? The Muslim Brotherhood invoking the term Democracy in Jihad?
    
    One thing I do remember about all these “folks” now begging for our help is that they were all cheering and chanting in the streets in response to the attacks of 9/11.
    
    So the question is has the President just aided and abetted our self sworn enemies in their bid to establish theocratic rule throughout the greater Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Asia or was he duped?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I will clarify it for you then: we are (attempting to) protect civilians. Gaddafi is a dictator, and he has crushed innocent people (who had no part in 9/11) under his regime for a long time. Finally a majority of Libyan citizens began to rebel. Gaddafi responded by gunning them down in the streets. This is the West's reaction.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Well that was the type of bleeding heart non-thinking response I expected. Qaddaffi has been doing what you say for more than four decades and seven Presidencies. If this is the reasoning why wasn’t it done sooner?

          replyreport
          1. 59

             dingdondingdonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I'm very sorry you feel caring about people in other countries is "bleeding heart".

             replyreport
             1. 59

                readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I’m not so sure I said anywhere I didn’t care about people. However I will clarify it for you. I care more about us than I do them. I care more for the men and women in our Military that risk and sacrifice everything than I do them. I care more for the American Family that has been economically burdened by the actions of others and paid that cost in blood and treasure than I do them. I care more for our friends than I do our enemies.

                replyreport
          2. 72

             Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             "Qaddaffi has been doing what you say for more than four decades and seven Presidencies."
             Well, he's been a dictator for that long, but has he really been dropping bombs on his citizens for that long? Nope. But then again, his citizens haven't been in open armed revolt for that long, either.
             
             "If this is the reasoning why wasn’t it done sooner?"
             You mean like under Reagan, during the Line of Death thing in the Gulf of Sidra? Well, we did do an air strike, and I seem to remember the conservatives of the day celebrating it....
             
             "I’m not so sure I said anywhere I didn’t care about people. However I will clarify it for you. I care more about us than I do them. I care more for the men and women in our Military that risk and sacrifice everything than I do them."
             I wish more people would remember, as you do, that when "we" invade or attack some other country, real Americans are put in harms way. Yes, they're soldiers who volunteered to fight for the US, but as such, we bloody well owe it to them to only send them into action when the US is actually threatened. Not US commercial interests, not even US prosperity, but the US, its sovereignty, and the lives and liberties of its people.
             But since so few American actually serve in the military, it has unfortunately become easier, or at least less politically costly, to send in the troops.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Apparently you missed my initial post where I wrote I was not so sure I supported this action. And apparently you have missed the reporting of the reasons why the rebels in Libya say they are in revolt. This is the beginning of a civil war that the US has no business being involved in.
                
                It is also an escalation of what appears to be a growing trend or coordinated plan by parties unknown to overthrow all the governments in the region and take control of the entire area and in so perhaps the world economy. Somebody, (let’s just say our President) should be a little forward thinking and consider what the endgame is here.
                
                Ask this question, lets just assume all these upheavals throughout the Middle East break out into civil war like in Libya or worse yet succeed in the overthrow of these nations, Like in Egypt then what?
                
                The same type of protesting and revolts are happening in western friendly countries against pro western governments, who do we bomb then?
                
                And when it’s all over do they become peaceful members of the world community (doubtful) or do they become a conglomerate of Muslim theocracies bent on the destruction of the west?
                
                As the father of two current American Serviceman as well as another son who aspires to be in the military, I’d rather not be assisting our enemies to set the stage for World War III.

                replyreport
    2. 88

       Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       You think some syndicated footage of a few hot-heads celebrating is representative of the whole Middle East?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          NO I think 70 years of hostility and terrorism targeted against the “West” is representative of the Middle East.
          
          I think 1300 years of turmoil and war in the region by a people that cannot cooperate with themselves let alone others is representative of the Middle East.
          
          I think a religion based on the concept of intolerance of others is representative of the Middle East.
          
          I think a culture that believes peace is only a temporary lull in which you take time to reconstitute your fighting abilities between battles is representative of the Middle East.
          
          I think a political structure that believes in deception during negotiations is representative of the Middle East.

          replyreport
          1. 88

             Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             OK, I won't attempt to change your mind. I see it would be a waste of my time.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Then perhaps you should look into the veracity of the statements above and change your mind. That would be time well spent.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Caladhielposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Before advising him on how ignorant he is about Middle Eastern culture, perhaps you should read his profile.

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Your assumption that I believe Paraglider is ignorant on this issue or on anything else is woefully inaccurate. I’ve read many poignant, acute and enlightened posts in the forums composed by him and I view him as a fellow hubber in high regard. On this issue we disagree.

                      replyreport
                      1. 88

                         Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Thanks   I'd be the first to admit that there is a lot to criticise in the Middle East. After all, I've carved a living here for 9 years, so I've seen plenty. I just felt that there was little point in following up that particular discussion.
                         After all, there will be more...

                         replyreport
                         1. 59

                            readytoescapeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            Point taken and agreed. And your welcome.

                            replyreport
          2. 60

             DTR0005posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Readytoescape- I can see and understand where you are coming from. I just ask you consider the following. And this is not in an effort to change your belief systems, but more in an effort to let you know about some things you may or may not have been aware of.
             
             During the 19th Century, Britain and Russia fought many wars and played lots of territorial "games" with what is now Afghanistan and Iran. These western powers used these countries as a chess piece in order to insure each others' interest in the region and, for the British, to protect their cash-cow, India from takeover by the Russian Empire.
             
             France, up until the 1960's, held Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, in North Africa as colonies. As late as the early 1950's, Libya was a colony of Italy. The British and French mainly held control of Eqypt until well into the 19th Century. WIthout drowning you in history, Africa, North Africa, and Middle East have been pawns in a big game of chess for hundreds of years.
             
             When these countries gained their indepence, the West wanted to make certain that they weren't "too independent." In other words they wanted pliable leaders who could keep the peace, at any cost, and keep things stable. If they were crappy, brutal leaders - so be it. The West didn't care - in fact we still don't really "care." When oil was added to the mix at the turn of the 20th Century in Iran, well things just got more complicated.
             
             These "people" you talk about and their relistion, Islam, were actually fairly peaceful - no more so, no less so than Christian Europe. Islam, unlike Judism, is somewhat of an evangelical religion - just like Christianity. So we both spread the faith. Now the Catholics in Northern Ireland could bomb the hell out of cars, shots, bars, restaurants, train stations, etc. etc. And they could do this all in the name of independence from their perceived oppressor, Great Britain. There were and still are "nationalists" who want their indepedence from what they perceive as an oppressive foreign power. But we don't call them terriorists; in fact they are just that. But they look like us, they talk like us, they dress like us, and they are Christian so that makes it easier to "stomach."
             
             As far as religious tolerance goes, neither Europe or American has a very good record. We have the fights between the Protestants and the Catholics and expulsion of the Jews from nearly every country abroad and the oppression of the Moroms here in the mid 19th Century.
             
             And Europeans don't have a very good record to stand on when it comes to peaceful coexistance. From the fall of the Roman Empire to the start of World War I, there was likely not 50 years total when a war wasn't being waged somewhere - either on the Continent or elsewhere.
             
             I am not an apologist for the West, but what the West has done does have bearing on the mess we have now.

             replyreport
18. 71

    maven101posted 13 years ago

    My question is why isn't this matter left to the Arab League? They were the ones that wanted action taken, and it is in their backyard.
    
    No one has any idea what kind of government or leadership will emerge after Qaddafi is gone, other than it will be anti-Israel, tribal, and theocratic...Again..
    
    So what do we have to gain by backing his opposition? If for humanitarian reasons where was the US during the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, the murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt ( still ongoing ), or the slaughter of Buddhists And Christians in the former Burma, now Myanmar...Reports from Burma indicate that between 500,000 and 600,000 people have been killed in the genocide so far, and over 4,300 villages have been wiped out. Children are being used as mine sweepers, women are raped, men are killed, and yet the international community has remained suspiciously silent.
    If humanitarian relief and regime change are the mission of Operation Odyssey Dawn, where was the US during these other extreme human tragedies...Maybe if these countries had oil there would have been " humanitarian " assistance...

    replyreport
    1. 72

       Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       "My question is why isn't this matter left to the Arab League? They were the ones that wanted action taken, and it is in their backyard."
       At least one Arab League member is participating in the no-fly zone. Granted they only sent like four planes (I think), but there you go. But to answer the real question of why more or most of the Arab League aren't participating, well, I think it has to do with who has the most to lose or gain from the situation. As others have observed, the nations of Europe get a lot of their oil from Libya, and a stable oil supply is pretty important for Europe. Hence the very active and vigorous participation of France, Great Britain etc.
       "No one has any idea what kind of government or leadership will emerge after Qaddafi is gone, other than it will be anti-Israel, tribal, and theocratic...Again.."
       Anti-Israel, really? Seems to me that a new government trying to establish itself in an unstable region will have more pressing needs than making trouble for a neighboring nuclear power... But long-term, you're probably right. Tribal? Probably, since Libya is still pretty tribal. In fact, by most accounts, Ghaddafi has stayed in power mainly by shrewdly playing one tribe against another, turn and turn about, for the past however long he's been in power. Theocratic? Possibly, but not necessarily. And certainly not again, since Ghaddafi, though Muslim, did not run a theocratic regime or anything close to it any more than the officially Christian (Church of England) United Kingdom is a theocratic regime.
       
       
       "So what do we have to gain by backing his opposition? If for humanitarian reasons where was the US during [list of many human rights abuses in places with no oil] and yet the international community has remained suspiciously silent. "
       What do we have to gain? The goodwill of our European allies who want a stable supply of energy.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Alexander was perhaps the greatest warrior of all time ...quoted War solves nothing
          
          The only thing better with Libya war than Iraq, is it's UN approved

          replyreport
19. 84

    kerrygposted 13 years ago

    I'm a liberal, and opposed. If I were confident that it was a genuine humanitarian mission, I might feel differently, but frankly, if this turns out to be a genuine humanitarian mission, I will personally boil my best jeans and eat them for dinner.
    
    habee, thought you might be interested in some of the discussions taking place at ontd_political, a LiveJournal community I watch. It's overwhelmingly liberal, but with a broad range of liberal philosophies from centrist to socialist, and there are some interesting debates going between supporters and opponents of this latest move. I think you'll find liberals as divided there as they are here. We don't have a monolithic perspective on things like this.
    
    http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_p … 19616.html

    replyreport
20. 62

    pisean282311posted 13 years ago

    Iraq and Libya are very different scenarios...Iraq didnt have mass destruction weapons and two people (bush and blair) lied about it to the world..United Nations didnt support USA/UK's operation out there...If brutality of saddam is what made bush blow iraq , we have similar brutality in many middle east countries , we have human rights issue in china , north korea, bhutan to name few...
    
    Bottom line Iraq was imaginary crisis created by bush...
    
    Coming to libya , usa didnt start uprising...it was fueled by libyans themselves...united nations approved no fly zone thing ...it is backed by entire world barring few...

    replyreport