How Many Of You Are Supporting The Action With Libya,

And Your Stance With Iraq?

..."Intervention, but only in places that Bono has visited, like Darfur. So we know it's not all about the oil."

せんそう? いいえ、けっこです。
(war? no thanks..)
I am Buddhist.

I'm wondering about governments like Nazi Germany, would being Buddhist prevent one from fighting back?

I seriously don't know which is why I'm asking.

However, you may remember, the Shaolin Buddhist monks of China did learn Kung Fu to protect themselves. But they never used it offensively, aggressively against anyone. During the Vietnam war, some monks
set themselves on fire, in protest.



The Dali Lama:


http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war

...and in broad harmony with, inter alia, the Just War tradition of western Christianity.

It's a fallen world. There is violence, and strife, and while their occurrence must be minimized, they will never be eliminate. Their actual and potential consequences must be dealt with until the millennium comes.

War may sometimes be just, but it is never good.

The war on terror is a FARSE

Much could be said about all this. But 1 thing that should give everyone pause is the unequivocal support of this by the crypto-fascist Neocons.

:toast:

invading Canada (War Plan Red).

I think you are a bit confused. He is a dictator. Does not control anything outside of his own country. Imperialists such as the U.S. and Britain and other former European Empires, control vast areas of the world, mostly for their resources. They do it by backing dictators who will be compliant as far as their 'interests' go including oppressing their own people who might not, should they gain power, be as willing to sell their countries out to the highest bidders.

The U.S. eg, is currently supporting nearly every dictator in the Arab and Muslim world. Qadaffi was accepted into the dictator fold when he decided the Imperialists could have access to his country's resources. But he was always difficult to deal with, being that he despised the very people he was dealing with and delighted in using their lust for oil to make bargains they would have preferred not to make. But, he read them well, and for the most part they proved him right and complied with his demands.

So, logically speaking if you do not support Imperialism, you would not be supporting this Imperialist intervention.

I have really had it with so-called progressives/liberals/leftists who decide we can't take action against a murderous dictator, who's known for his terrorist acts, *just because* we are "the west" and "the west" is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! No, we should let the Libyans die, just so we could pat ourselves on the back over our outdated pacifist ideals?

So, logically speaking if you do not support Imperialism, you would not be supporting this Imperialist intervention.

Oh my God, please take off your tinfoil hat! This is not an imperialist intervention. You should really have left that outdated hollow rhetoric where it belongs: in the 1970's or in Qaddafi's state-run television programs.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

How naive can you be?

I have really had it with so-called progressives/liberals/leftists who decide we can't take action against a murderous dictator,

Wow, that's exactly what rightwingers used to say to me! This is getting so weird. Leftists are now FOR war in oil rich countries! Whoever thought we would be the mirror image of Bush supporters when our team were the ones going to war?

And it's not progressives/liberals/leftists who were his BFF right up to about one month ago, was it? It was our president, our SOS, our former SOS and president and our allies, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Cameron, Blair. Were you screaming about those alliances with the 'terrorist' one month ago, or was it all right THEN to see our President embracing this 'terrorist' just months ago, a great photo for business purposes and contracts etc. What did you say back then?

Please, I am so sick of the hypocrisy on the left. Not a word on this board about the 'terrorist' Qadaffi as he was wined and dined by our elected officials such a short time ago. Your cries of outrage ring hollow.

But now it's a Democrat going after a 'brutal dictator' to 'liberate the people' so it's different. Okay, I get it. :eyes:

You have got to keep up: the situations are not comparable in the least. The fact that you think they are, just shows how black-and-white and naive your world view is. Like all Arab countries are alike... that's a conservative point of view.

- Hussein wasn't murdering 6,000 people a month
- No popular uprising against Hussein
- Iraqis not asking for international intervention
- No UN consensus on Iraq

Need I go on? Or do you want to continue to pat yourself on the back for letting Libyans die just because of your unrealistic ideals. Why do you think everything the West ever does is always bad?

We have gone from '3,000' to '6,000' murders eg with no links to back up the sudden jump in numbers. Frankly ONE murder would be enough to make your point. But tossing numbers around just shows a willingness to make stuff up in an attempt to bolster your argument.

Iraqis WERE asking for help, or have you forgotten the Iraqi organization dragged out to show how much the Iraqis needed our help?

Would you have supported the Iraq War if there had been a UN consensus on Iraq?

More importantly there was a Congressional Consensus on Iraq, sadly, but has there been a Congressional Consensus on THIS war btw? And what is more important, a Congressional consensus or a UN consensus?

I'm sure we'll get Republicans and Joe Liebermann on board, but what about Democrats? Do we even know if Congress was asked about this?

And the 'old' you want to 'let a brutal dictator torture his own people in Iraq' rightwing garbage being dragged out here on DU when people dare to question these decisions? Seriously?

Again, there were many attempts in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, all successfully suppressed, another argument used to get support to 'help the Iraqi people' at the time.

You want to let the people in Bahrain die? Yemen, where over 40 people were shot by government snipers this week for demonstrating against another of our dictator friends? How about the slaughter in the Ivory Coast, you don't mind letting them die either?

Two can play that ridiculous game. :eyes:

Need I go on or do you want to pat yourself on the back for letting all those people die?? Why do you think everything the West does when it's a Republican doing it is bad?

is that we have a major naval base (home of the 5th Fleet) in Bahrain and had an FOL that Yemen agreed in January 2010 to allow the USA to expand to a amjor naval and AF base on an isleand Soetero sp?) at the mouth of the Red Sea. Also we have already done bombing runs with the OK against rebels in Yemen.

glad I read down thread a bit more...you did a fine job....thank you!

if you think we are involved in that action to "help people".

There is no substance to your post. If this was a war about oil, the west would've sided with Qaddafi from the beginning. Our corporations had very lucrative dealings with Libya; all the profits from their oil were flowing back to us. If we wanted the oil, we would have let Qaddafi crush the rebels, as he had almost succeeded. You have a very naive, black-and-white worldview, in which everything the US does is automatically wrong, because "all wars are the same" and more of that unsubstantiated nonsense.

Question: what would you have done instead? Letting the Libyan people, who begged for our help, get massacred?

Here is your substance - I posted several articles in the threads as well for informational purposes. It is about the oil. Western corporations have been making quite a lot of money, but that is threatened when Qaddafi decides he might want to deal with China, India, and Brazil outside of the normal bidding process.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x696576

Please do your homework before making accusations.

Yes, Libya has a shitload of oil! We ALL know that! But you haven't READ my reply. If we wanted their oil, it would be in OUR interests to NOT meddle, since we had GOOD DEALINGS with Qaddafi. Do you really wanted to believe your country is evil soooooooooo badly that you're willing to discredit the effort to stop a known terrorist from slaughtering his own people?

I offered. We had good dealings but he threatened that by talking to China, India and Brazil about contracts outside of the bidding process. Do you not understand how that threatens our corporations?

We idly stand by and let people be slaughtered when we have no economic interests in the region - evidence Rwanda.

You are so eager to support Obama that you are ignoring the facts.

vote was 10-0 with 5 abstentions: China, Russia, Brazil, India, and Germany.

For a good number of reasons, including Afghanistan, indefinite detention and supporting the coup in Honduras.

So, try again without personal attacks.

But just saying Libya is in the top 10 of oil producing countries doesn't mean shit. It just means *that*: it's in the top 10. Why aren't we invading Venezuela? They've got lots of oil! Oh, I know! No dictator there who massacres his own people.

Comparing it to Iraq is to draw a false equivalence; if you want a comparison, the comparison is to Somalia and Kosovo.

How committed are we to following through on our commitment beyond the scope of military intervention? Can we do better? Are we fully exploring our nonmilitary options?

As Iraq was becoming an issue there was a HUGE propaganda campaign by the Bush administration and the media that if we didn't act fast Saddam Hussein, who the BA implicated with 9/11 would soon nuke us with missiles made from yellowcake uranium Saddam supposedly bought from Africa. It was also apparent that if we didn't support the troops (war) we were traitors. The people of Iraq were not standing up to Saddam or publicly begging for help and he was not using Iraqi military jets to bomb his own people. Ultimately the US and the UK went into Iraq, but not the other "Axis of Evil" nations for some reason, even though THEY now are working on nukes, pretty much alone with the US in charge.

In this case all of those things are different. I'm hoping that if this is led by the UN, not the US, we'll see less of (hopefully none!) the corruption that the government now has a chip on its shoulder for Wikileaks for revealing.

- Saddam Hussein wasn't killing 3,000 of his own people in a month
- There was no popular uprising against Saddam Hussein
- Iraqis didn't ask the international community for intervention
- The Iraq war wasn't the result of international consensus in the UN Security Council
- War against Iraq included boots on the ground

There had been many attempts by the Iraqi people to oust him, always stopped by the U.S. who, as in the case of Qadaffi, supported him for a long time, in fact they helped install him.

Libyan revolutionaries do not want interference in their country and have said so adamantly over and over again. They asked only for Qadaffi's air capabilities to be restricted, but made it clear they want no foreign troops in their country.

The British PM stated this past week, that it 'may be necessary to put boots on the ground in Libya, as a peace-keeping force'.

We already have Special Ops there, for several weeks now.

Anyone who believes the U.S. will simply walk away from this, is dreaming. The Neocons are all for it, Bremer, Cheney, Abrams et al.

When will we learn? Even with the same forces behind this people still refuse to see the writing on the wall.

Not all Arab countries are the same. Surely people on a liberal forum would know this, contrary to their conservative counterparts who think they're all the same. There wasn't any popular uprising against Saddam Hussein in 2003, when the Iraq War started. To say there was, is just not true. There were no rebels who were taking almost all of the country (until they got pushed back). There were no Iraqi diplomats turning against the regime, as has happened in Libya. The comparison in invalid.

If you followed the news, you would've seen that the Libyan rebels have begged the international community for help the last couple of weeks. No, indeed, no boots on the ground, but that isn't what's happening at all! There are a lot of leftists ego-centric isolationist fearmongers on DU who try to convince us that the US is getting into another war, but that isn't true. The UN resolution specifically states there will be no occupation of Libya. I saw the news today and the rebels in the city of Benghazi were cheering and celebrating upon learning that actions against Qaddafi had started.

Anyone who believes that everything the US *ever* does, is *always* evil and that the neo-cons are *always* behind *everything*, like you seem to do, is not only full of self-hatred against his own country, but also paranoid and a conspiracy theorist. If this really was a war about oil, like many on DU insist it is, we would've backed Qaddafi from the beginning, because we have very good dealings with him. Our corporations are now taking the profits home. To get rid of Qaddafi is *risking* these revenues.

Seriously, I understand why people take the positions they do when I realize how uninformed they actually are.

I am fully aware of the differences in countries all over the world, and don't appreciate your implication one bit. Nor do I appreciate your insinuations of 'self hatred' especially since you know nothing about me. Not a thing.

I have friends in the UAE, in Jordon, and did have friends in Iraq who I lost contact with a while ago. I also have friends who work in ME and African nations, including family members and have a lot of imput from them regarding the role of the U.S. in any of their countries. Let me put it this, NO ONE WANTS in their countries.

One thing I do know, when someone makes such wild assumptions about another person they know nothing about, it puts in question their views and assumptions about everything else, it shows a propensity to make stuff up with not a shred of evidence to back it up. I would never make such outrageous assumptions knowing how easily I could be proven to be wrong. You would be very surprised at just how wrong you are actually.

So now, I don't particularly take much else of what you said very seriously. Sorry, but it's hardly worth the time to take apart your comment which, like your other assumptions is completely based on your own opinions. I see no facts there, and since you are entitled to your opinion, I will not bother presenting the obvious facts you are ignoring.

Nothing but attacks on me ("uninformed") and a gut feeling.

The West allied with Qaddafi up until a few weeks ago. He was invited to the Elysée; he met Berlusconi on official state visits. It would have been MUCH easier for the West to let him in power, if they wanted his oil. Because nobody knows what will happen once he's gone. The west is putting their oil at RISK here.

Question: what would you have done? Let the Libyans die, even though they asked for our help?

or Libya.

Do you actually know what's going on?

"American imperialism!" That's what they're saying in this thread. And that's Qaddafi's language. That's his 'defense'. They're siding with him. With this murderous maniac, this "mad dog", this known and proven terrorist. But I bet many here believe that was just a set-up; that we have demonized poor Muammar.

It's like "the enemy of my country is my friend" on DU.

If it's wrong, and the money is the only reason to not do it, that's far from the strongest reason to not do it.

People need to get that through their thick skulls and get over the fact that their last shitty president started a war based on lies. He's not in charge anymore. Take of your tinfoil hat.

There is more in the world than black and white.

and spending the money on war and scams for the wealthy.

We have no health care.

45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health care - because we "can't afford it".

And they are cutting back the programs we do have.

If only the world was that easy...

Now excuse me while I go watch the people of Benghazi celebrate the West answering their plea to help them get rid of 42 years of brutal dictatorship.

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

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

I don't think it's too much to ask that we tax the wealthy & corporations to pay for the military effort.

Action against Libya is not responsible for people's death of cancer. That's one of the ugliest, most malicious and dumbest forms of demagoguery I've ever seen.

the disabled, the uninsured, the teachers, the infirm, the poor, and ESPECIALLY the war on those who are or will be sooner or later, dependent upon government service and programs.

These conflicts and occupations are being given as much or more funding as the MIC requires and demands. There are NO debates, no special Presidential commission studying how to cut, control or contain its skyrocketing costs, ever-escalating expansion, or unimpeded growth. As long as domestic terrorism is permitted to continue in the form of outsourcing, off-shoring and debt-reduction through cuts to repair or improve our infrastructure and economically attacking/threatening almost every US citizen earning less than 6 figures, I cannot fully support ANY military operations.

1) We have cause. Gaddafi is actively butchering what was a peaceful rebellion. This isn't vague hints about WMD from an untrustworthy Iraqi intel agent named "Curveball" or lies about trailers of bioweapons in the desert, this is documented, visible shit.

2) We have an actual coalition that doesn't consist of us, a used paper towel roll, and a box of kleenex. The UN has given their approval, as has the Arab League. Canada, France, and Great Britain are with us. At best, we are in a supporting role this time.

3) They asked us to help. Not just us, in fact--they asked the WORLD to help. And the world has responded.

1) A great deal of this is also hype by the Pentagon to support another war. There are other countries that are doing the same thing as Gaddafi, and we aren't doing anything about them (as we shouldn't). What happens in Libya is also none of our concern, as our troops should only be to defend America and our allies. You can't trust a word the rebels say. They'll lie right now to get us involved, and then 5 years down the line they'll be screaming "Death to America" and stabbing us in the back.

2) This "coalition" is already dying out. America will end up fighting the whole war by themselves, pretty much. We are already taking the lead. Another war that European countries support, but just sit back and let Americans do the dying and killing.

3) Our future enemies, just like Al Qaeda. We couldn't let the Soviets butcher those poor innocent people - we had to help! It's the same thing, different day.

which I was against.

I could conditionally support UN intervention in Libya if there was a clear exit strategy and a strong possibility that the government replacing Ghaddafi would likely be better than business as usual.

I do/did not support the unilateral US invasion of Iraq.

If agressively confronted, I am prepared and willing to fight back to defend myself and family by whatever means necessary, whatever I have at hand toward that end. But I am also very much against agressive behavior, certainly violent behavior.

I am happy to be wrong and say so out loud. But my gut tells me this has nothing whatsoever to do with leveling the playing field for Lybian Rebels. Given our history, we never enter into "military conflicts" for Humanitarian Purposes, even though that is generally the propoganda we are fed..

I voted NO against both Iraq and Lybia.

Much remains to be seen. It's too early to be completely sure whether or not we're operating on the same mode as per usual or not.

We'll see..

that is something to reflect on everywhere you go......

Therefore, I either hate or love vegetables.

Not real sold on the idea that the US should be participating in this intervention though.

So I'm simultaneously a murderous warmonger and a Ghadafi-sympathizer.

take out Qaddafi and so avoid the deaths and civil war that subsequently ensued. Now, we have a mess on our hands that will be even more bloody and protracted with no end in sight - typical US/UN/EU stupidity IMO.

I'll wait and see if this is acutally going to be just patrolling a no fly zone and supressing anti-aircraft (which I'd support) or if it's going to be regular ground and cruise missile attacks against pro-Ghadaffi forces (which I would not support).

The military geeks in that five sided building were jumping for joy when they saw they could hitch up with France.

Half of their job was already done, all they had to do is jump on the train

I Supported Iraq From The Run Up To The Beginning, Then Realized The Lies And then Supported Libya, then realized the lies and now support (fill in the blanks)

I Still Support Iraq And Support Libya and support (fill in the blanks)

I Supported Iraq And Don't Support Libya, and may or may not support (fill in the blanks)

I Never Supported Iraq But Support Libya, and will support (fill in the blanks) depending on current President's political party.

I Never Supported Iraq And Do Not Support Libya, and do not support (fill in the blanks)

you start to wrap around into libertarian ideas :)

as long as they could stand on top of Mt. Idealism, and stay above it all.

Lesson learned: pay more attention to the players involved. In Libya's case, we have not the slightest clue who these rebels are. As much as I want to see Qaddafi gone, that doesn't mean I want Hitler taking his place. Since we have no clue who would be taking his place, we genuinely do run the risk of helping put another Hitler into power here.

Mush, MUCH better idea for us to stay out of this one. Step back, let the locals handle it, do what we can diplomatically, but otherwise keep our hands clean.

I do not support an invasion.

US pull out troops and stop the bombs!

or interfering. Now that would be an immense humanitarian contribution.