Wars are good when someone with a "D" next to their name starts them

Think about how well we did in that Vietnam thing! Hoo-rah! We sure showed them!

And Kosovo - we taught them who's the boss! Go JOE!

I just wish all those pesky innocent civilians wouldn't keep getting in the way every time we try to spread freedom dust

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Yes Quadaffi is a murdering dictator

But why are we in Libya and not North Korea?

You want sick and twisted? North Korea can out-Hitler ANY other country on the planet. But Libya has "evil-doers." Libya has oil...er...I mean Libya has...well shit they are BEGGING us to come in. Those pictures of that one guy holding up one sign - that means ALL of them want us there. Just like ALL of those people cheering the takedown of the Sadaam statue.

DOES NO ONE IN THIS FORUM HAVE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS??????

I would guess the reason is they are not certain if NK has nukes, but that is just a wild guess.

None of those counties have nukes to worry about. They're all countries that the UN could authorize military action to protect civilians, but hasn't.

Who the hell knows why the UN hasn't authorized military action in these other areas? It does seem very hypocritical to pledge support for one particular group, but completely ignore the slaughters going on elsewhere.

I am trying to figure out the actual arguments of the various sides of this complex issue.

Unfortunately, not many of the pro-war crowd really seems to give a shit about it. All too willing to sweep it under the rug, saying stuff like "oh well, we can't be everywhere, but we can sure as hell go after Libya".

Because it makes it look like we don't give a shit about people dying in sub-Saharan Africa and other places?

I'll ask you the opposite question, why do you think inconsistency is good?

attacks. The pro-bomb side is pretty clear about its reasons, I am trying to figure out the anti-bomb side's various reasons.

I think both the anti-bombers and the pro-bombers on DU have the same ultimate goal; helping the people of Libya.

Representatives of each country's government doing the bidding of their respective governments. They aren't a bunch of neutral judges. The West are the heavies at the UN and can usually get whatever the fuck they want. The West (particularly Europe) wanted this intervention in Libya because Europe gets nearly all of Libya's oil, and Libya houses the billions it makes from selling that oil in European banks. Gaddafi was a "friend" of these European nations who rely so heavily on it's oil and the billions of dollars of that oil money in their banks makes a stable Libya VITAL to their economies. Italy even had a "Friendship Agreement" with Libya from 2008 which they broke in order to get involved in this military intervention once they realized how far off the rails Gaddafi had gone. France came right out and said that if the unrest doesn't stabilize very soon they will have to start dipping into their oil reserves. Britain immediately requested a block on Gaddafi's billions in Europe's banks, not because they wanted to make it harder for him to use that money for more weapons to keep up the fight against his people, but because his taking it out of their banks would totally crash their economies.

NO country's government gives shit one whether or not some dictator is blasting away at its people, and history and even current events bare that out. They care about how such unrest affects their own country. In the case of Libya it is detrimental that the western countries that rely so heavily on Libya's oil and the billions of dollars involved that can wreck their economies have a stable Libya to continue the oil flow and the lucrative oil contracts. It is also detrimental that these countries get another leader that will do the same for them as Gaddafi did and they hope even better. Therefore, military intervention is about regime change to not only stabilize Libya but install a new leader that will be favorable to these western countries concerning the oil and the billions of dollars attached to it (and they want an even MORE "friendly" leader). They will not give shit one if that new installed "friendly" leader is just as much of an evil dictator nasty to his people than Gaddafi ever was.

the screen names

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

Let's see...Human rights violations by Hussain? Iraqi people who have begged us to assist? The fact that the UN started this? The fact that the UN resolution says there will be no armed occupation?

Really? For fuck's sake, really????

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 apologize. Poor choice of words on my part. It just pisses me off to see the President now being trashed for
acting on something that so many were trashing him for not acting on just two weeks ago.

And I can just imagine what we'd be hearing if Obama had refused to support the UN resolution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=696362&mesg_id=708601

Not saying he's guilt free, but wars like this aren't started alone. even when bush was prez

Of course the war-mongers find rationales for their war, that is what they fucking do for a living.

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

because i'm pretty sure that the current war du jour was started by a bunch of libyan guys fighting amongst themselves and, at some point, the united nations decided that it was the duty of decent people to take a stand and stop one side from shooting the shit out of the other side

those of us with "D" next to our name didn't START this war but are we supposed to sit around on our hands after the nations of the world have agreed that this can't continue?

i'm not pro-war, i feel like washing my hands of the whole mess, but this isn't something obama or clinton dreamed up, it was pretty much agreed upon by the entire world that something had to be done

sometimes a crazy whack dictator doesn't stop killing people just because you ask nicely

etc. Since we are ALREADY involved in a lot of war shit in two other countries in the region how about Europe for once pick up some of the fucking slack and take this one on itself? That's my MAIN complaint. It's totally tangential to whether it's justified for us to be doing this. The point is - fuck it - we're in two major wars already. We've got a whole bunch of troops, resources and $$$ tied up there. Let fucking France et al handle it.

PB

Think. Don't parrot kooky isolationists.

:shrug:

PB

...or talking in doublespeak

Why does this sound so familiar??

Then again, it's not like they have much left.

PB

The playbook I referred to here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=635941&mesg_id=635962

The playbook still works.

That explains your one-liners and your oversimplifications that it's "all about the oil." Yeah, makes real sense, to destabilize the regime that was selling it to us. :eyes:

The world changes. Try moving along with it.

Hey - here's an idea. If you REALLY want to help the Libyan people, why not hop on a plane and start kicking ass and taking names!

Just so you can pat yourself on the back for holding on to your meaningless ideals that don't help anybody.

The mothers of the dead will be relieved to know their children didn't die in war, because the death was rained on them from the sky.

Like the 6,000 he has already murdered. You may want to look at that avatar of yours. As a Dutchman, I'm sure glad as hell FDR didn't think it was wrong to intervene in Europe and the Pacific.

Is it a war, well that depends on how far you take your doublespeak.

We have always been at war with Libya. We are making peace in Libya.

It remains to be seen what direction this thing goes and what sort of support he'll get down the road. I suspect his most loyal supporters will have to really stretch if this thing begins to get out of control.

And meanwhile, the Defense Industry wants more and more money

is Libya's place on the PNAC target list.

Next, Syria.
Then Iran.

Though, true, Eisenhower started that one.

Nobody is saying this is "good". Some people are saying it is necessary. Let's hold the argument on realistic terms.

Hillary is just a better manipulator of the truth than Bush.

and point to them for absolution. What a racket.

The Arab League is nothing but a Saudi foreign policy tool.

Makes me well up inside (sniff)

and by the monopolistic extension, the world economy.

Watch how the stock markets and the price of oil follow the actions of the US military. The UN is the corrupted gate-keeper to the money and conflict flows in this financial world of power.

investigators. You can prove it to yourself by googling fbi kosovo genocide

What did you think of the audacity of expecting the Kosovo Serbs to sign the Rambouillet accord when Appendix B was worded the way it was? And added at the last minute?

What? You've never heard of Rambouillet Appendix B?

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

"... it would also have guaranteed representatives in the Yugoslavian judiciary, which would have no jurisdiction over Kosovo. Furthermore, NATO would have free and unrestricted military access to the country. According to Appendix B:

NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.

After the war the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo led by Richard Goldstone investigated the Appendix issue and concluded that it had by accident been copied from other peacekeeping agreements such as those for Bosnia. However, the British politician, Lord Gilbert, said in an inquiry by a House committee "I think the terms put to Milošević at Rambouillet were absolutely intolerable; how could he possibly accept them? It was quite deliberate."<1>

***

Repeat: There was no genocide in Kosovo. It was a lie. Now there is a 1000 acre military base there.

Do the math.

:eyes:

-Gullibility

-Emotional inability to process that the person they trusted is in fact not who he appeared to be

-Lack of knowledge of middle eastern/north african history of the past 100 years, specifically in regards to western powers neocolonial maneuvers

Gotta cut those basic services, defund education, etc.-- but another war? No problem!

It's like telling the family you can no longer afford to pay the power bill, because we have to buy a new sportscar for rich uncle Joe.

I'm anti-war, trust me, but a proxy war against Communism, an attempt to prevent ethnic genocide near NATO territory and an invasion based on lies are NOT the same thing as what's happening in Libya.

Tunisians revolted. Government capitulated without much of a fight. Egyptians revolted, Army took their side and ensured a mostly-peaceful transition. Government capitulated.

Libyans revolted, Libyan government fired back with weapons that vastly-overpowered the demonstrators. Because the Arab revolts have been in the news, people demand international involvement in the conflict. UN authorizes a NFZ to protect the Libyan civilians.

Tell me, what part of the US involvement in Libya compares even in the slightest to Vietnam, Kosovo, or Iraq?

If Sierra Leone or any other countries facing genocide or oppression were in the news, the UN would be more likely to intervene. But a NFZ was never going to stop the SL Civil War, and putting boots on the ground in the Congo wouldn't have improved things, because those countries weren't facing threats from a regular military force, but insurgents, guerrillas, and warlords.

Killing your own species is the very definition of insanity in my book.

Add to that the quaint legal systems that focus more action on protecting the bonuses of Wall St executives than on the lives of collateral damage from oil drilling or drone assassinations and it's more like angel dust fall-out rather than a freedom dusting.

Taking the profit out of war and treating the acceptance of killing as a mental illness and even a crime would be a good start.

War is unacceptable, it is nuts. It breeds nuts. Stop it.

Hey, at least everyone who's all betrayed and bent out of shape by others here having strong opinions would be happy. Think of the sanctimonious harmony, the joy, the righteous oneness of our loving cyber home. Ah, certainty: the source of all our glee.

I'd have a lot easeir time taking you seriously if you and others would quit trying to paint those who are supporting the actions in Libya as "pro-war." Or war Cheerleaders. Or that we think war is good.

No war is good. However, there are times when war is justified. As long as ground forces don't become involved, I think that using air strikes and naval blockades to prevent what looked to be becoming a slaughter of rebel forces is justified.