If the US can't stop innocent civilians from being killed everywhere, does it mean we don't

intervene anywhere?

...if someone else does it, pays for it, or hopefully both.

Checkbook pacifism.

...with consistent, principled, non-interventionists.

But there aren't a lot of them, or they're hiding behind a lot of second-order arguments.

...phenomenon.

when many of us protested the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons given are always some confection that is used to sway public opinion but has little to do with the actual motivations for the actions.

when people are going "Why not Darfur? Why not....?"

We don't take action for purely altruistic, humanitarian reasons -- no country could do that.

iraq and Afghanistan are in a category by themselves, IMO. I understand (and HATE) the reasons for going into Iraq, have never understood what we hoped to gain by plunking down in Afghanistan. And now, I don't understand why we continue a presence in either place. (Kind of got sidetracked there.)

then our government should stop claiming that it is so people don't have to point out counter examples.

To be fair, the government said it is also for "American insterests" but that really means, Wall Street.

But overwhelmingly, the administration is using the humanitarian line so we shouldn't be gobsmacked when people point out how thin that is.

he didn't address the realities, too. He's the President, and I'm sure all the Leaders who are participating are playing up the humanitarian aspect to make it more palatable to their citizenry, don't you? It's politics, after all. Maybe with Obama more than others, because of the views of Iraq and Afghanistan, he wanted to stress that aspect more, to reassure Americans we're not going to become the major (only?) player.

It was announced yesterday that the US gave the rebel "leadership" permission to enter into oil contracts.

So, it isn't very reassuring to be told we're not the major play when we are, either.

to us for guidance and the US is taking advantage of it for perhaps future loyalties. It kind of surprises me, though, because I thought the British and the Europeans had the majority of business interests at stake. It could be that's part of the deal that Obama struck in order to participate (although I think he pretty much would have had to anyway).

It's not really hiding the facts, not presenting "truth" that is at odds with the reality, and it's not lying to us. I think how he's "talking" to us is acceptable. If people are interested they'll look further as we do, if not, I'm not sure what he says makes any difference either way.

we are there for humanitarian reasons and for our own interests when he went in to secure stability of the oil fields for multinational corporations. It definitely is.

We shouldn't be investing any more in oil, in the first place. In the second place, as a government that tortures and that supports torturing, raping, murdering governments, it's pretty embarrassing to claim we are in Libya for humanitarian reasons. I don't see a way to say that more softly.

whenever our government decides to go in anywhere.

Obama's message -- first of all because I didn't interpret it as you (and lots of people) did. I never felt his message was that it was solely a humanitarian effort. I guess since we differ on that basic point, we'll never come to an agreement.

And although we shouldn't be investing in more oil, we still live in a world with other powers with whom we need to co-exist. If we don't join their "coalition", if we just dig in our feet and say fuck the rest of you, we're going in another direction, there goes our support. We become the USSR or China.

But anyway, again, I think lots of people outside the political followers don't care either way. As a matter of fact a guest on Ratigan said he went home to SC over the weekend and not one person even mentioned Libya - topics were the cost of gas, the cost of goods. The people with whom I work, live and see on a daily basis -- this isn't even in their consciousness (as much as that frustrates and angers me) so I doubt Obama even made any difference by what he said.

Such is life, but consistence is vital.

Who needs them anyway?

If we cannot help everyone, we help no one. Fair is fair.

cut by a lot -- a lot.

then let's talk 'intervene'.

other trouble spots--better intel, better grasp of what's happening, etc. Maybe we would simply have a higher probability of success, and less cost to our own country, in intervening HERE vs. THERE. Maybe we can get better international cooperation by intervening HERE instead of THERE. Just throwing it out there, I'm sure there are various factors involved and it's not just oil or degree of bloodshed.

We have our biggest naval base in Bahrain. It is home to the 5th fleet and the navy's Central Command. We give Egypt the biggest amount of foreign aid of any country. I think we are pretty familiar with those countries.

The difference is not in how bad the dictator is, but how slim the chance of replacing him is.

and the people want our help. Simply it's easy picking as international interventions go if this was Iran we would probably not get involved even with a request for help. But this is OP point even though we might not be able help everywhere why shouldn't help Libyans since we have a chance

with it's citizens & with the world.


A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

snip...

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

* making the world safe for American corporations;

* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;

* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

~listing at link

An interesting aside: bin Laden recommended that the American people read Blum.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001971.html

in many places- but not in dramatic Military ways.

Many of the ways that people who oppose the action in Libya cite as being 'better ways to deal with this'- are being attempted and done in situations where genocide and atrocities are happening. Sanctions, food and medical aid, putting pressure on the groups doing the killing and their allies.

:shrug:

and its support for homocidal regimes like those in Indonesia, Colombia and Honduras.

to figure out where we do intervene. Whether it be x amount of civilians already killed, or x% of the population. Do we use measurements of displacement and resettlement or do we consider those lives safe and not in danger?

The problem that people have with this is that there is lack of consistency from the administration. It's easy throw around words like "morally obligated" and "collective conscience" when they have fuzzy definitions at best.

So just 'fess up from the get-go and embrace being a pacifist. It's principled. It has brand names (Gandhi) associated with it. You'll make some friends, and lose some friends, but it will be a wash.

Too much "If Bono visits there, and there is no oil, so our humanitarian bona fides can't be questioned on capitalist and hydrocarbonist grounds, and if we can find someone else to pay for it, then it's ok" interventionism floating around....

Darfur where over a million people were displace and an actual genocide took place.

What we are doing in Libya is based on might, possibly, could with no solid facts to back up the threats.

Now THAT would be a real humanitarian contribution. Anything else is hypocritical in the extreme.

And we had participated in creating the problem, since Dubya made Ghadddafi his poster child for the "reformed terrorist" -- one with lots of oil.