For those who oppose military intervention...

Some of you perhaps have no idea what Afghanistan was like under Taliban before the invasion. Where women were getting executed in soccer stadiums or seasonal wars and many refugees as a result. Are things perfect in Afghanistan? No definitely not. But they are a lot better than what they used to be. At least now every summer you do not have thousands upon thousands of Hazaras getting butchered. Sure there are civilian deaths taking place and that is very unfortunate but please do put things in perspective.

I really wish we had intervened in Iraq a lot earlier when Saddam was using chemicals on Kurds or butchering the shiites and not for some bogus WMD reason.

As for Libya I see the term rebel used a lot. The country is consisted of many tribes many of which have turned against Ghaddafi. He is using guns, tanks, jets, artillery, ships, mercenaries,... against his own people and killing them in droves. I read somewhere that the number of refugees leaving Libya have actually came down since the start of strikes. Are you suggesting the International community should stand idle and let this butchery take place? What suggestion do you have for intervening without having to actually go to war? Or maybe it is not out business anyway. Not ours and nor the international community's.

Why should I care if the Libyan government is killing their people in great numbers, as long as those gas prices do not go up. :sarcasm:

The USA has become engaged in a civil war.

That's what the USA did in Viet Nam.

The USA is not the world's policeman.

about earlier conflicts, but in this case we are part of a UN force.

Every time that a ruler kills people who are rising up to overthrow him?

Where were we in China during Tiananmen Square, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain.........

We are not the World's Police Officer. It is not up to us to save anyone/everyone. We've got problems here and we're broke, but we gladly spend billions to bomb other countries.

Hopefully you see my position

I am fine with war in self-defense, but we need to mind our own business, period.

are you John McCain?

Afghanistan is a better place today for women? Perhaps it's better for women in the capitol where the US exerts some control, but everywhere else it is no different.

You want to help women? There are plenty of other countries where women are stoned to death, suffer honor killings, are murdered by family members for being raped. Shall we send our military there as well?

You want to help the innocent? Why aren't we in Sudan?

You want to sway the outcome of a civil war? Why aren't we in the Ivory Coast?

Well excuse me but we are a part of a coalition working under a UN mandate. Are you guys against UN now? Or are you just not keeping up with the news?

Korea was fought under a UN mandate.

It was still a terrible mistake.

Why does the USA have to be the enforcer for the UN?

Why do our bombs have to rain down on Libya?

Did the entire General Assembly of the UN get to vote on this war? Or just the rich and powerful countries that lust for oil?

What is your point is asking such a question?

I suppose poorer and weaker countries lust for oil, too.

And just how many of those poorer and weaker countries supported the illegal war in Libya?

So the USA is bombing Libya in order that the poor and weak countries can have access to oil?

And when the poor and weak countries are able to get that oil (after, of course, the rich and powerful countries get all the oil they need), then the poor and weak countries will be able to support illegal wars, too?

This is laughable.

So what about Darfur? The Congo? Zimbabwe? Ivory Coast? They've all got brutal dictators and civil unrest, indiscriminate killing and raping going on now for quite a while. So why is it that we only "help" those whose country also seems to have strategic natural resources we need and want -- and in order to make the rich richer?

And as for Ghaddafi "using guns, tanks, jets, artillery, ships, mercenaries,... against his own people and killing them in droves." The American government used cannon, repeating rifles, small-pox diseased blankets, Gatling guns, dynamite and everything else but the kitchen sick against almost every Native American tribe who possessed little more than bows and arrows, sticks and spears. And yet I hear no cries about this nor calls that we rectify was was done.

- I'm sorry, what was your point again????

Sorry, but neither I nor anyone else for that matter did live back then.

So are you saying that the Libyan strikes are a good thing and we should do the same in those other countries you mentioned?

...who are still living RIGHT NOW with the results of those decisions. And so while those impacts may not be part of your reality because it's all ancient and everything, it still doesn't negate its importance. If for no other reason than to learn from our mistakes rather than repeating them. Like we seem to be doing once again.

So what I'm saying is this: "we should follow our own laws." One of which says that only Congress can declare war. And which, coincidentally, Barack Obama once agreed with himself.



- I know, I know -- it's a novel idea, but it could work.....

wiseguy, respectfully....

who helped create the Taliban in the first place?

3 letters for you CIA



and us intervention now? here's an example of it

http://boingboing.net/2010/12/07/report-wikileaks-cab.html

Taking action carries risks; doing nothing carries risks too. Simplistic black-and-white answers are immature.

These dictators (somewhat created by "us" btw, used as a general term) are dinosaurs. They need to go. When a nation gets enough courage to rise up against them, I think we should help if we can. And if they're being murdered en masse, we should step in multi-laterally if we can. Situations are different, and timing matters.

I've been very critical of Pres. Obama and our government and our military on a lot of issues. But this time, I think they did the right thing. I see nothing to criticize (yet).

...come out against the League of Nations, but only mildly so, because it was toothless; against the United Nations in '45, this time a bit more aggressively, because the UN is mostly toothless, and would have endorsed Bob Taft over Eisenhower, and over Stevenson, in the '50's because of his adamant refusal to commit US forces in any scenario except an attack on the Homeland.

and women are not doing so well in Afghanistan now. Yes, it's slightly better but that's about all that can be said. And Afghans have the right to determine their own future. We've been there for ten years. How many years more do you think we should stay. Oh, don't tell me: "until the job is done".

And we may end causing more Libyans to die and suffer than had we not gone in. That's still undetermined. It happened in Iraq.

I think it is time for the international forces to start drawing back their troops and let the country sort their problems out.

judging by the numerous links in this thread.

Are you saying they are lying? Or that you know better than they do?

Just trying to get a grip on this.

Lot of questions in this thread...

A limited intervention in Afghanistan might still have allowed Northern Alliance and others to defeat the Taliban. On the other hand, they were not that much better re women. And Bushista incompetence and malfeasance meant that whoever comes out on top there will be not that much better.

In Iraq, Saddam was defeated but Poppy Bush (wisely) refused to complete the job because he didn't want to get bogged down there. Unfortunately, the U.S. then encouraged both Kurds and Shia to rebel against Saddam but didn't come to their aid when Saddam bombed them -- using weapons the U.S. had supplied. But then, all along, Saddam used U.S.-supplied weapons (including chemical weapons) on his own people. However, later the NFZ DID work in Iraq, allowing the Kurds effective control of their areas because Saddam could not defeat them on the ground, without air support. So, ultimately a limited intervention in Iraq DID work. That ended only when Dubya invaded, and we've seen the mess that caused.

infrastructure, social security, health care, on and on, but we seem to have unlimited funds for killing people and getting involved in other countries problems.

It must stop.

They need your help.

Possibly the targeting of Kurds and Shiites in Iraq were acts of genocide; other than that, nothing in your post is a legal basis for military intervention.

Are you kidding me?

It is an armed conflict not of an international character. It is tragic, absolutely. It is not cause for military intervention by the UN, NATO, or any other nation/coalition.

You really think we went into Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons? If 9/11 hadn't happened, or if the Taliban had turned over Bin Laden, then chances are very good that we would never have gone in, that the Taliban would still be in control.

North Korea is every bit as oppressive a regime as the Taliban were; they may very well be one of the most repressive regimes on earth. Yet I don't hear ANYBODY even suggesting military action to relieve the North Korean peoples' suffering.

This is an acute event. Do not compare apples to oranges.

And I was not arguing about using military intervention against every abusive regime. But this is a case where you have acute violence and barbaric acts being carried out against civilians in a very short amount of time.

Some people use Afghanistan to point out how military inventions do screw things up but that country is better off than what it used to be.

It's okay to round up innocent people and throw them into concentration camps, torture them, starve them, execute them.

Other countries can use machine guns and artillery against their own people.

Just as long as you don't drop bombs from planes on them.

Hussein was a few romps in bed away from a coronary and would have died soon anyway. The Kurds were gassed, but the northern no fly zone allowed them to rebuild their society and thrive, they were better off under the NNFZ than they are now. But right on for the rest, you're dead right.

They don't seem to share your sunny outlook regarding the 2001 invasion...

http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/05/07/lets-rise-against-the-war-crimes-of-us-and-its-fundamentalist-lackeys.html

...who are currently being led by some of the same former generals and government ministers who ordered and/or carried out some of those atrocities of the Kadaffi regime?

As you pointed out: it's a tribal thing. It's someone else's internal civil war. We've got no business deciding which side is right, especially when both sides are being led by people who were working closely with one another, doing terrible things to their own people, just a month ago.

And is anyone so naive as to think that regardless of which of the three main Libyan tribes wins, the tribe(s) who loses is won't be treated pretty poorly?

I oppose US military intervention

I know from the recent CIA memo that they are floating that as a reason now to stay there but not when we first went in there. Also like others said, there are countries that are really bad when it comes to Women's rights. Congo and Saudi Arabia off the top of my head.

As Joya says, "Dust has been thrown into the eyes of the world by your governments. You have not been told the truth. The situation now is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban for women. Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords. what your soldiers are dying for."

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/malalai-joya-the-afghan-woman-who-refuses-to-be-silenced-14448417.html#ixzz1HMnYcFZx