For those comparing Libya to Iraq, explain this:

"AP Interview: Libyan rebels plead for no-fly zone"

(AP) BAYDA, Libya (AP) — A rebel leader pleaded Saturday with the international community to approve a no-fly zone over Libya as Moammar Gadhafi's forces gained strength in the east, securing a key port city and oil refinery.

Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the head of the opposition's interim governing council, also expressed disappointment over the failure to act by the United States and other Western countries, which have expressed solidarity with the rebels in their fight to oust Gadhafi but stopped short of approving any military action.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/12/ap/world/main20042435.shtml#

Does anyone recall Iraqis pleading with the U.S. or anyone else to invade Iraq? I didn't think so.

ETA great article thanks to Bluerthanblue which states more ways Libya is not Iraq: http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html

that the majority of rebels he spoke to didn't know why they were fighting. he said that many thought it was because Ghadaffy was a Jew. The bottom line was that there is no unified reaso to revolt.

This has all the earmarks of a CIA scripted revolution.

not one read like that... nice cherry picking

they were fighting, but he observed that they didn't coordinated, didn't seem to have a plan, etc. ONE person he spoke to said he thought they were fighting because Qaddafi is Jewish.

Seems like a coherent reason to start another invasion.

that the rebels were exuberant that we finally started the no fly zone and they don't want us to STOP.

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_rachel_maddow_show/52/MSNBC/Tuesday_March_22_2011/573349/

There is more at the link above. Including a discussion on Yemen.
Rachel: Do you see a strong difference between this, the character of this american intervention, and the other ones we just talked about, richard?

Richard: Well, I was sort of surprised. In the last several months, been touring the middle east, covering these revolts, and suddenly I woke up one morning, found myself covering an american war in libya. And it sort of came out of no place. I didn't see it coming. And I still look around and say how did I end up here covering an american military action in libya.
I understand why it happened. There was this probably very real need for protection for the city of benghazi. Gadhafi's troops were right on the edge of this city.
They were going to go in, they were going to go hard, they were going to kill people.
Walking around today, there was tremendous sense of relief. People no longer feel terrified, don't worry gadhafi's troops will come in and slit throats for support.
The rebels are now completely dependent on foreign military intervention.
Once you've given them air and ground support, and they believe they have an alliance with the united states military, how do you take that back without exposing them to the same sort of fear and real danger that they were exposed to before.

Rachel: Richard, what kind of impact is the western intervention having on gadhafi's forces?

Richard: The strategy, at least the declared strategy is to make things safe enough for the rebels that they can win on their own.

Rachel: Do you see anything like that happening?

Richard: That's going to be a tough one. These rebels are divided into two groups. They are the volunteers, and these rebels have really no military experience, very little sophistication, very little education. A lot of bravado, but we were with rebels that didn't know how to load weapons. They were dropping round of ammunition on the ground.
A lot of them are fighting for weird conspiracy theories. One in five of the rebels today told me they are fighting because they think gadhafi is jewish.
So they do not have the same ideals that americans think they do have.
The other group of the rebels is people, units that defektd from gadhafi's army. If we're waiting for these defected units to go and storm the frontlines, we may have to be waiting a bit longer.
I went looking for one of the top commanders here, actually the top commander, and we went to the military base and knocked on the door. He decided to take the day off. And I was shocked at that. You would think if the U.S. military had just joined your revolution, after two plus days, that this wouldn't be the time to go home and spend time with the family.

Rachel: Unbelievable.


On Edit: Richard was in Tobruk, Libya

I sit corrected-it was "one in five" and not "one." But Engel has also reported that the rebels are now very optimistic, they have hope now as compared to BEFORE we got there.

just trying to get the info out. He seems to think there are problems that may or may not be overcome by the opposition. It's interesting to hear his point of view.

It makes me wonder if the fighters in other parts of the country, like Tripoli are pretty much the same or if they may be more sophisticated (to use his term).

but the anti-obama DUers dont really care about that.

Exiles Say Iraqis Desperate to Escape Saddam
Thursday , March 27, 2003

NEW YORK —

Iraqi families who have relatives in America paint a bleak picture of what it's like to be living in Saddam Hussein's grip.

Iraqi exiles, now U.S. citizens, talk to their families in Iraq by phone. Their relatives tell horrific stories of the situation in Basra, saying their loved ones want an uprising but they remain afraid of Saddam's regime.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82339,00.html

for me? Thanks in advance!

along with sanctions of all kinds.

Looks very similar to me even if the exact sequence of events is not identical.

and I don't know ANYONE living in Iraq who wanted the U.S. to "shock and awe" them and invade their country with ground troops. Bush didn't go in there saying he wanted to help the people take out Saddam. He went in to find the non-existent WMD.

was making

excellent article-

please give it a read, it debunks several poor comparisons.

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

I was going to try and make it an OP

:hi:

I'd like people to say why Juan Cole is wrong.

that would be great!

Bush Sr. ignored their pleas.

This was an exile organization with much support from the US.

The were also sanctions and a NFZ in Iraq for a decade or so.

This is a very slim argument to hang your hat on. What you're positing is that any time any civil war breaks out, where a smaller rebel force is being hammered by their government and military, the United States should feel morally obligated to foment a new war on the rebels' behalf.

This is a shocking standard for American military intervention. Under this standard, Bush was completely justified in Iraq.

C'mon. The Iraq war is less than 10 years old. Surely we should be able to remember basics.

You must be joking. Bush invaded Iraq, without UN and Arab League approval, in order to "rid Saddam of his WMD." He LIED. Apples and oranges.

You asked if anyone could remember people in Iraq asking for American invasion. I answered your question concretely. You're ignoring the fact you are wrong. Very well.

in Saddam's Iraq? Didn't they consider themselves citizens of "Kurdistan"? And no matter what, did Bush have the support of the Arab League and the UNSC?

Because that seems to me to be a far more important factor when a President is making decisions on waging war.

Or are the Arab League and U.N. now morally and legally superior to the duly elected representatives of the People of the United States?

That seems to be what you're arguing. A President is now no longer accountable to the American people as long as some amorphous international group of people tell him it's ok to go to war.

How frightening and sad.

And yes, the Kurds live in Iraq. That tends to make them Iraqi. Just as the Sunni and Shia are Iraqis, too. Do you realize that Libya also has tribal factors in play, with different groups in different regions motivated by various goals?

Here's a good primer:

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/04/stories/2011030464611300.htm

to the rest of the world which used to be against us under Bush. And Bush would never have gotten approval from Congress if he hadn't lied about why we were going in.

OK-so the Kurds wanted us to go in. That was nothing compared to the situation in Libya where not only the people want us helping, but so does the Arab League among all the others.

A President of the United States is not accountable to the elected legislature of the American people if "the rest of the world" asks him to do something.

This is unAmerican. It is a deep, fundamental violation of American democracy. Full stop.

And you support it.

he had the right to do what he did, and he DID it. Not to mention he DID meet with members of Congress before he left for Latin America. They didn't seem to have a problem with it. Neither does the majority of the American people, including me.

Since we don't need actual votes or anything. Meet with a few people, take a poll, and that's all you need to make a war.

A Congress invested with specific powers in making war? A quaint relic no longer required. We just need the President and nothing more.

Let's just have an emperor. As long as it's one we like.

At least, that appears to be the argument you're putting forth.

I know you have seen the many threads showing that what Obama did was Constitutional. Here's one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=635737&mesg_id=635737

As this poster did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=635737&mesg_id=636014

...to take out a cruel dictator and save the Iraqi people from oppression, IF that was the official argument used to sell it and IF the American people and the US Congress still bought what he sold, then he WOULD have been justified. I'm not saying that it would have still been sold to me personally, it likely would not have, but if the American public as a whole knew he wanted to go in for that particular reason and approved of the going in based on that, then we would have a different story on our hands.

Thats not what happened though. Bush sold us the Iraq war based on the fear that Hussein was basically stockpiling any WMD he could get his hands on with the notion that it would be used on American interests that he could reach. And it was based on lies. We never found what we were going in for. It wasn't there. And that was just the beginning of how things went wrong with Bush and Iraq.

Thus far, I don't think we are being lied to about Ghaddafi. I think its true that he has had thousands killed over the past few weeks. I think its true that he will kill thousands more. That the violence will push people fleeing from Libya into the countries that surround it which are all in the middle of their own civil uprising problems. I think that dynamic will destabilize the middle east even moreso and will lead to a massive humanitarian crisis. I think we can stop that from happening by stopping Ghaddafi. I think we can do it without putting troops on the ground.

Of course we can't respond to every possible humanitarian crisis in a military fashion. Of course we haven't always responded to one when we could have and of coruse there are similar problems in other countries that we aren't responding to. None of that cancels out the fact that its a good thing to stand between Ghaddafi and mass genocide, at this moment, while we actually have a chance to intervene in a way that matters. Its not a damn thing like Iraq in the least.

It wasn't the main purpose - Bush more heavily relied on lies intended to provoke fear rather than an American impulse to help others. But the justification was there. Saddam's mass graves received quite a bit of play in the run up to war. This was only eight years ago. Our memories should be fresher than they seem to be.

My argument is not that Bush would have been justified in his invasion - even on humanitarian grounds. I simply answered the OP's question on whether or not anyone could recall any Iraqis asking for and supporting an American invasion.

The answer is yes. The Kurds did so. One could very easily argue that the Kurds were far more abused by Saddam than the Libyan rebels have been by Qaddafi to date. And the implications remain the same. If any aggrieved group asks for American intervention, is that justification enough for war? The OP seems to imply that it is. "Hey, this group over here wants us to invade, so it's ok!"

That's an endless supply of potential wars around the globe that suddenly become justifiable by relying on that as your gold standard for war-making. Find some rebels being crushed by their government, have them ask for American assistance, and boom. We can change any regime we don't personally like using those rebels as all the moral justification we need.

That's potent stuff. Would we want Republicans running around armed with that thinking?

I'm actually agnostic about the Libyan intervention. A liberal case can be made for it, just as Clinton's intervention in Kosovo was justified. But the how and why are important, and both are so thin that we're forced to rely on lazy Republican justifications for invasion, justifications that we laughed at when put forward during Bush's reign.

It's gobsmacking to see all these little Iraq justifications coming out for a fresh airing in order to defend a Democratic president.

But if said group is in the middle of possibly facing genocidal consequences, thats a different story.

Going back to the Kurds and Iraq, if we could have/would have stopped Saddam AS he was carrying out the genocidal actions against the kurds that he carried out, there is no way in the world I would have been against taking that action at that moment. The key difference here is taking action at the time that it matter to prevent the massive deaths from ever occurring versus going in to punish a leader for genocidal activity AFTER its already been done. If we are going to take action, we should do it when we can save lives, not after the lives are already lost, then its just vindictiveness and thats not very helpful.

Also you just said "One could very easily argue that the Kurds were far more abused by Saddam than the Libyan rebels have been by Qaddafi to date."

And I say, YES, thats the point. We don't want the Libyan rebels to end up suffering that way or worse, thats why we took action during the fact and not after the fact. Its a very fine line, I realize.

When humanitarian intervention is on the table, it is best that we act to prevent a genocide rather than retroactively punish the perpetrators. On this, you and I agree.

The Kurdish Oppression, however, was an ongoing problem in Saddam's Iraq. When people think of the Kurdish genocide, usually what comes to mind is the failed uprising after the first Gulf War after the western powers agitated the Kurds into rebelling and then abandoned them to their fate. However, the Kurds were slaughtered and abused right up until Saddam was removed from power. We had genocide, then a big genocide, and then a slow motion, trickling genocide over time.

You're right that it is a very fine line to be tread very carefully when deciding whether or not military intervention is warranted for humanitarian purposes. "A group of people asked us to come in" isn't nearly justification enough, and that was my objection to the OP, that Libyans asked for help when others hadn't.

Other oppressed people ask for American aid all the time. All the time.

Well, anyway a lot of people on DU didn't think so at the time... if nothing else, it's an interesting conversation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/31305.html

Its a situation where the government is being truthful as to why its taking a certain action and selling the action based on that rather than pushing a bunch of obviously faulty intelligence and then selling it based on something it knows stands a good chance of not being true at all. Maybe I should have said "the selling of it would have been justified even if the action itself was not a good action to take".

He can try to take his old boss' job on his own.

But he's the leader, as Gaddafi is the leader of the Tripoli-based state. The agenda for "no fly zone" was set by this committee, which claims sovereignty over all Libyan people. There isn't a monolithic perspective of course.

And here, the United Nations voted to authorize the no-fly zone in Libya.

and he also went back on his promise to take a final vote in the UN. He knew France was going to veto it.

I agree with him.

He was an Iraqi politician. He was interim oil minister in Iraq<2> in April-May 2005 and December-January 2006 and deputy prime minister
from May 2005 until May 2006.

n/t