War time/NK's "sacred war" threat...merge

[Coito ergo sum]

The US and Europe both have oil interests in Libya.

As does the rest of the world. Your point?

Since there was no humanitarian crisis prior to the intervention, and the crisis was only alleged to be something that might happen if intervention didn't happen, it's as reasonable to infer that the Libya intervention was a non-altruistic intervention to further those interests rather than something truly being done for alleged humanitarian reasons. I.e., it's another "war for oil". And, the allies are murdering civilians -t hey killed 700 per that article from the bbc I posted, all to save the lives of civilians who the allies CLAIM Qadafi was going to shoot.

And, in 2003, there were no "failed" policies in Afghanistan. WTF?

Relevance?

You said that one of the real reasons we went into Iraq was to cover the failed policies in Afghanistan. At least you strongly implied it.

Obscure references are obscure.

You brought it up, not me.

That doesn't help the discussion. If you have a point, please state it explicitly.

I did. There was far more reason to go into Iraq than there ever has been with respect to Libya, and yet the left leaning folks and Obama supporters swallow whole the Libya foray, but think Iraq was a war crime. They are hypocrites. How many times do I have to say it before you get it?

And, either the humanitarian issue existed, or it didn't. The fact that other issues may also have been present which in someone's opinion would not in and of themselves justify the war, the humanitarian issues still remained and were among the reasons offered.

Yes, the humaniarian issues existed and were given as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. We agree on that. Your point is?

IT'S HYPOCRITICAL FOR ASSHOLES TO SUPPORT THE LIBYAN FORAY WHILE OPPOSING THE IRAQ WAR. TO CALL THE LATTER A WAR CRIME AND NOT THE FORMER MAKES NO SENSE.

[FBM]

Let's simplify: It seems to me and a lot of others that Bush used humanitarian reasons as a smokescreen to simultaneously divert attention from his failed policies in Afghanistan, that is, his failure to get Bin Laden and his emperialist approach in general, to opportunistically let Halliburton and his other buddies get their profits, and to try to gain control over Iraq's oil so that his Texan buddies could stretch out their profit margin over the long term. There were sufficient humanitarian reasons to intervene long, long before Bush decided to take action there, so the timing makes the whole fiasco look suspicious.

In contrast, Obama reluctantly agreed to suppport NATO's intervention in Libya in light of an international call to action in light of the evidence of ongoing atrocities that Kadafi was commiting. Obama reluctantly sided with the Yemeni regime for the larger goal of eradicating Al Qaeda. That's just the lesser of two evils.

Bush instigated. Obama reluctantly agreed. Bush tried to prove he had a massive phallus by occupying whole countries. Obama has committed the least necessary force to accomplish the objective. I never said anything about war crimes, and NO MATTER HOW YOU SHOUT WITH ALL CAPS, it doesn't change the facts. You're entrenched in your version of reality, and I'm entrenched in mine. It'll be interesting to see how history records it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's simplify: It seems to me and a lot of others that Bush used humanitarian reasons as a smokescreen to simultaneously divert attention from his failed policies in Afghanistan,

You agreed that in 2003 there weren't any failed policies in Afghanistan, didn't you? The Bush Admin expressed its intention to take military action in Iraq in 2002, and that was the whole purpose of all the UN activity in 2002. So, what "failed policies" were being covered up?

that is, his failure to get Bin Laden and his emperialist approach in general, to opportunistically let Halliburton and his other buddies get their profits,

Failure to get bin Laden? in 2002 and '03? Nobody was calling him a failure then. He had huge approval ratings, and most everyone thought his handling of the response to 9/11 was right on target.

Moreover - Halliburton is not "his buddies" - who do you think is doing the contracting under Obama too? Could it be that there are only a few companies that are able to do what Halliburton does? You think Halliburton is out now? Nobody uses Bush's buddies? Or, you think Obama - the President - is forced to use Bush's buddies?

and to try to gain control over Iraq's oil

So, we occupied the whole country and failed to gain control over their oil? Come on...

so that his Texan buddies could stretch out their profit margin over the long term. There were sufficient humanitarian reasons to intervene long, long before Bush decided to take action there, so the timing makes the whole fiasco look suspicious.

So, finally the right thing was done. The humanitarian issues were addressed. That's Christopher Hitchens' argument on Iraq. It's the "it was about time" argument, suggesting that intervention in places like Kosovo, Bosnia, and even Iraq were actually causes of the Left, and the normally more isolationist right "finally" got on board when it came to Iraq.

In contrast, Obama reluctantly agreed to suppport NATO's intervention in Libya in light of an international call to action in light of the evidence of ongoing atrocities that Kadafi was commiting.

Stop it now. There WERE NO ONGOING ATROCITIES. Nobody even alleged any. The tense is important here. They suspected he would engage in atrocities.

Obama reluctantly sided with the Yemeni regime for the larger goal of eradicating Al Qaeda. That's just the lesser of two evils.

No imminent threat.

Bush instigated.

You just, essentially, said it was "about time" we got involved in Iraq because there had been reasons to go in for years before Bush got involved....I mean, dude, either you support it or you don't.

Moreover, all the other reasons for war were proferred in part because the humanitarian reasons alone were insufficient. Remember - humanitarian reasons WERE NOT ENOUGH, and there had to be an "imminent threat" to justify war. That was hammered home by the same douches who now support Libya when they were opposing Iraq before. If humanitarian reasons would have been enough to get a coalition together and take action, then they would have just relied on the humanitarian reasons. The whole point of having to have other reasons was that the humanitarian interventions was deemed insufficient cause, because there were so many tyrants that to say that we needed to intervene in Iraq was HYPOCRITICAL because there were plenty of other places more gravely problematic. And, the same is true for Libya - in the scheme of potential crises, Libya was small potatoes...

Obama reluctantly agreed. Bush tried to prove he had a massive phallus by occupying whole countries. Obama has committed the least necessary force to accomplish the objective. I never said anything about war crimes, and NO MATTER HOW YOU SHOUT WITH ALL CAPS, it doesn't change the facts. You're entrenched in your version of reality, and I'm entrenched in mine. It'll be interesting to see how history records it.

We shall see.

However, given that Bush only sent in a few thousand troops into Afghanistan, and otherwise just bombed, and the biggest complaint about Bush's Afghan plan was that there weren't ENOUGH boots on the ground, I have no idea what your gripe is. Bush didn't use ENOUGH force in Afghanistan, let alone the "least necessary." Folks seem to want it both ways -- we somehow sent in too few forces such that bin Laden got away into Pakistan, but at the same time we sent in too much and overwhelmingly occupied the country.

[FBM]

2003: In steps that help the country emerge from isolation, Libya acknowledges responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, agrees to pay up to $10 million to the relatives of each of the 270 victims, and declares it will dismantle all weapons of mass destruction.

2009: Libya holds celebrations marking Qaddafi 's 40 years in power. Al-Megrahi is released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds because he has prostate cancer. He is given a hero's welcome in Libya.


Feb. 16, 2011: Riot police clash with protesters in Libya's second-largest city, Benghazi. Marchers set fire to security headquarters and police stations in two other cities. Qaddafi 's government seeks to allay unrest by proposing to double the salaries of government employees and releasing 110 suspected Islamic militants.


Feb. 17, 2011: Protesters defy a crackdown and take to the streets in five cities. At least 20 are killed in clashes with pro-government groups. First reports of Internet services being disrupted.


Feb. 18, 2011: Security forces clamp down on escalating protests. In Benghazi, 35 people are killed as protesters try to march on one of Qaddafi 's residences.


Feb. 19, 2011: Pro-government forces fire on mourners leaving a funeral for protesters in Benghazi, killing at least 15 people. Special forces also attack hundreds of demonstrators, including lawyers and judges, who have camped out in front of a courthouse in the city. Authorities cut off the Internet across Libya, further isolating the country.


Feb. 20, 2011: Protests spread to the capital of Tripoli. At least 60 people are killed, bringing the overall death toll in five days to more than 200. Moammar Qaddafi 's son, Seif al-Islam, proclaims on state television that his father remains in charge with the army's backing and will "fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet."


Feb. 21, 2011: Deep cracks open in Qaddafi 's regime, with diplomats abroad and the justice minister at home resigning, air force pilots defecting and a fire raging at the main government hall after clashes in the capital Tripoli. Protesters claim control of Benghazi after some army units side with them. New York-based Human Rights Watch puts the overall death toll at 233.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/ ... z1PB8U5Plz

[FBM]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Libya-rev ... 67319.aspx

* THURSDAY, February 17:
Calls go out on the Internet site Facebook for a "Day of Rage" against Gaddafi's regime.

* FRIDAY, February 18:
Clashes reported spreading outside Benghazi.

* SATURDAY, February 19:
At least 12 killed as the army fires on a crowd in Benghazi. Clashes spread closer to Tripoli.

* SUNDAY, February 20:
Protesters sack the state television headquarters in Tripoli and set government buildings on fire. In Cairo, Libya's envoy to the Arab League resigns to "join the revolution."

* MONDAY, February 21: Gaddafi's son Seif al-Islam warns that Libya faces "rivers of blood." Gunfire heard in the capital for the first time. Diplomats including Tripoli's ambassador to India and the deputy ambassador to the United Nations renounce support for the regime.

* TUESDAY, February 22: In a defiant TV appearance, Gaddafi orders his forces to crush the uprising.

* WEDNESDAY, February 23:
Gaddafi opponents appear firmly in control of Libya's coastal east, with soldiers defecting to join the uprising.

Thousands of Libyans and foreign workers head for Egypt and Tunisia. Several oil groups suspend their activities.

US President Barack Obama calls the repression "outrageous."

* THURSDAY, February 24:
Gaddafi says the revolt is being directed by Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, which he says has fed young people with drugs to make them rebel.

Witnesses say Gaddafi loyalists have deserted Zouara, 120 kilometres (75 miles) west of Tripoli.

Some 23 people are reported killed and dozens wounded when pro-government forces attacked the strategic town of Az-Zawiyah.

More than 30,000 Tunisians and Egyptians have fled Libya since Monday, according to the International Organisation for
Migration. The European Union seeks naval back-up in a bid to rescue up to 6,000 trapped Europeans.

* FRIDAY, February 25: Forces loyal to Gaddafi open fire on protesters in Tripoli, witnesses say. Thousands of people have been killed, Libya's deputy UN ambassador says.
Seif al-Islam Gaddafi admits the regime has lost grip of eastern Libya.

The UN Human Rights Council recommends that Libya be suspended from the body.

NATO and the European Union join forces to rescue stranded foreigners while EU governments gear up for a possible no-fly zone. The European Union agrees to impose an arms embargo, assets freezes and travel bans on Libya.

Gaddafi opponents move to restore normality and order in Benghazi, appointing a city council to get public services up and running again.

Gaddafi says in a speech in Tripoli's Green Square he will throw open the country's arsenals to his supporters, telling hundreds of cheering supporters to prepare for a fight.

The White House says the United States is to impose unilateral and multilateral sanctions on Libya. The US embassy in Tripoli suspends operations for security reasons.

* SATURDAY, February 26: The UN Security Council embarks on an urgent debate on how to sanction Gaddafi for his deadly offensive on opposition protesters.

The International Organisation for Migration says between 40,000 and 50,000 migrants fled across Libya's land borders this week.

Many countries including China, the United States and EU members continue to evacuate their citizens.

Seif al-Islam Gaddafi said protesters trying to topple his father are being manipulated and the situation had "opened the doors to a civil war," while denying African mercenaries had been recruited to attack demonstrators.

[Coito ergo sum]

2003: In steps that help the country emerge from isolation, Libya acknowledges responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, agrees to pay up to $10 million to the relatives of each of the 270 victims, and declares it will dismantle all weapons of mass destruction.

2009: Libya holds celebrations marking Qaddafi 's 40 years in power. Al-Megrahi is released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds because he has prostate cancer. He is given a hero's welcome in Libya.


Feb. 16, 2011: Riot police clash with protesters in Libya's second-largest city, Benghazi. Marchers set fire to security headquarters and police stations in two other cities. Qaddafi 's government seeks to allay unrest by proposing to double the salaries of government employees and releasing 110 suspected Islamic militants.


Feb. 17, 2011: Protesters defy a crackdown and take to the streets in five cities. At least 20 are killed in clashes with pro-government groups. First reports of Internet services being disrupted.


Feb. 18, 2011: Security forces clamp down on escalating protests. In Benghazi, 35 people are killed as protesters try to march on one of Qaddafi 's residences.


Feb. 19, 2011: Pro-government forces fire on mourners leaving a funeral for protesters in Benghazi, killing at least 15 people. Special forces also attack hundreds of demonstrators, including lawyers and judges, who have camped out in front of a courthouse in the city. Authorities cut off the Internet across Libya, further isolating the country.


Feb. 20, 2011: Protests spread to the capital of Tripoli. At least 60 people are killed, bringing the overall death toll in five days to more than 200. Moammar Qaddafi 's son, Seif al-Islam, proclaims on state television that his father remains in charge with the army's backing and will "fight until the last man, the last woman, the last bullet."


Feb. 21, 2011: Deep cracks open in Qaddafi 's regime, with diplomats abroad and the justice minister at home resigning, air force pilots defecting and a fire raging at the main government hall after clashes in the capital Tripoli. Protesters claim control of Benghazi after some army units side with them. New York-based Human Rights Watch puts the overall death toll at 233.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/ ... z1PB8U5Plz

And, you think THAT'S sufficient for military action against a country? Really?

Shit - who know that all the Bush administration had to do was come up with a few hundred anti-Saddam folks who Saddam took out, and then everyone would have been four-square behind the Iraq War! All this talk of needing an "imminent threat" and that there were many more far more serious humanitarian crises around the world...all that wasn't necessary. Had Bush just said, "Several hundred Iraqis were killed by pro-Saddam forces. We are therefore going to take out his defenses and pursue regime change" well, there would have been a UN resolution approved in no time! Right?

You really don't see the hypocrisy?

Taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power" The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentat­ion on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis.

[Ian]

Coito, first of all, FBM is right. Qaddafi wasn't just fighting against armed rebels. His forces were also attacking and driving out civilians who might've been disloyal to the regime, and most importantly his troops were no more than days away from reaching Benghazi when NATO intervened.

Your earlier post asked him to prove that Qaddafi was slaughtering civilians and threatening to do more. FBM obliged. Now, you switch to "So what? Isn't that the same thing as the unjustified (or at least now unpopular) invasion of Iraq?"?

I'm not really picking sides here - if you recall, I wasn't terribly enthusiastic about the idea of intervention in Libya - but foreign involvement wasn't simply a case of NATO backing one armed side over another. A humanitarian disaster was already underway, and from all the information I've seen I have zero doubt that it was about to become far worse.

And the Iraq War should not even qualify for comparisons; they're far too different. Iraq had its dissidents and they were brutally suppressed under Saddam, but Iraq wasn't in the midst of a full-scale civil war with the Republican Guard about to charge into Karbala. Libya's situation three months ago was vastly different to that of Iraq in 2003.

So I don't see the hypocrisy. I think you're just defensive that Bush was derided so much for invading Iraq and Obama has gotten something of a pass from the public over assisting NATO with Libya. But no matter how much you try to dress them up as "six of one, half dozen of the other" they're vastly different situations.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, first of all, FBM is right. Qaddafi wasn't just fighting against armed rebels. His forces were also attacking and driving out civilians who might've been disloyal to the regime, and most importantly his troops were no more than days away from reaching Benghazi when NATO intervened.

So? We can intervene in any civil war then? Got it.

And, "attacking and driving out civilians?" A few hundred? That's a series of pileups on the freeway, not a "humanitarian crisis."

Look - we were specifically told, over and over again, that Saddam's murders - by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS- were not sufficient. There had to be an imminent threat to the US, or intervention was not proper.

Your earlier post asked him to prove that Qaddafi was slaughtering civilians and threatening to do more. FBM obliged. Now, you switch to "So what? Isn't that the same thing as the unjustified (or at least now unpopular) invasion of Iraq?"?

Your right - there weren't "0" civilian deaths in the internecine Libyan conflict. I should have been more careful, and to that extent, FBM did oblige. But, to call a couple of hundred deaths a "humanitarian crisis" of such proportions that we couldn't possibly delay action and we just HAVE to intervene is to ignore the reality that a couple hundred civilian deaths is nothing compared about a dozen other places around the world where we don't intervene at all. While any death is serious - you can't possibly suggest that the test for military action against a country is now whether the government kills a couple of hundred civilians (allegedly)? Is that it, really?

And, we went for 7 years in Iraq with calls that the humanitarian reasons didn't matter? For 7 years we've been hearing how we absolutely need an "imminent threat" and that domestic problems with dictators are not sufficient, and now the rule is that couple hundred deaths not only justifies intervention but also makes intervention a moral imperative?

I'm not really picking sides here - if you recall, I wasn't terribly enthusiastic about the idea of intervention in Libya - but foreign involvement wasn't simply a case of NATO backing one armed side over another. A humanitarian disaster was already underway,

No - 200 people is not a humanitarian disaster. The incursion was to prevent the disaster. It wasn't underway. Darfur - now, that was underway. Somalia? Nigeria? Zimbabwe? Sierra Leone? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Now far more civilians have been killed in each of those countries by the governments there, putting down uprisings, etc. No intervention. No moral imperative to intervene.

Libya has oil. Saudi Arabian government is on our side.

Where is the smug, "oh, I don't know....maybe it's because they have ......OIL????" and the implication that the "real" motivation is the Libyan oil....?

and from all the information I've seen I have zero doubt that it was about to become far worse.

...from all the assertions of the powers that wanted to intervene....

And the Iraq War should not even qualify for comparisons; they're far too different. Iraq had its dissidents and they were brutally suppressed under Saddam, but Iraq wasn't in the midst of a full-scale civil war with the Republican Guard about to charge into Karbala. Libya's situation three months ago was vastly different to that of Iraq in 2003.

Yes, more civilians were dying in Iraq every week....the brutal oppression of the regime prevented a civil war BY KILLING ALL OPPOSITION. The situation in Iraq was far worse than Libya.

So I don't see the hypocrisy. I think you're just defensive that Bush was derided so much for invading Iraq and Obama has gotten something of a pass from the public over assisting NATO with Libya. But no matter how much you try to dress them up as "six of one, half dozen of the other" they're vastly different situations.

Yes, and the difference on a humanitarian level point to a far worse situation in Iraq.

And, in Iraq, the hue and cry from the Left opposing intervention was that there had to be an "imminent threat."

Now, there doesn't have to be an imminent threat. The whole year long argument over is there or is there not an imminent threat in 2002-03 was just a complete irrelevancy. All they ought to have done was point to a few hundred civilian deaths and say "humanitarian crisis," and the Left would have jumped on the band wagon. LOL

[Robert_S]

Obama has not sent ground troops and, as far as I know, has not decimated infrastructure and that's a good thing! Also, not setting up bases to still be there 20 or 30 years later because of historical reasons is a good thing. Low US casualties is a good thing. US troops not misbehaving in somebody else's country is a good thing. US troops not coming home with PTSD, missing parts, great big fucking holes in them and other major medical issues to an underfunded VA is a good thing. The US playing a supporting role rather than "taking the lead", which often reads as "Imposing our will", in a region prone to anti-US and anti Western sentiment is a good thing.

It looks so far like Obama is smarter than Bush. But maybe Bush had good reasons for ground invasions that I and others have been too biased to notice.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking for signs of intelligence in his predecessor because it is apparent to me that Bush is a dumb ass. If Bush does not want to appear to be a dumb ass, then he should learn to speak proper American English and drop that Texabonic dialect. You don't gain any confidence from me by saying "newkyuler".

About sending more troops to Afghanistan, it looks to me like he saw the positive results of the Iraq surge which he opposed, and instead of stubbornly opposing it on some doctrine-based justification, learned and adapted to new knowledge.


Oh, by the way, does anyone remember the name of that general who got dismissed because he said that the troop levels for the planned Iraq invasion were far too low?

[Svartalf]

I'll post pics.

how far are you from Pyongyang? because if the kims unleach a nuke, I expect that what will fall there will make Fat Man look like a 98lb weakling.

[FBM]

I'll post pics.

how far are you from Pyongyang? because if the kims unleach a nuke, I expect that what will fall there will make Fat Man look like a 98lb weakling.

Outskirts of Seoul (read: future Ground Zero). With a stiff wind at my back, I could just about spit on Pyongyang. Thanks for reminding me. Pal.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama has not sent ground troops and, as far as I know, has not decimated infrastructure and that's a good thing! Also, not setting up bases to still be there 20 or 30 years later because of historical reasons is a good thing. Low US casualties is a good thing. US troops not misbehaving in somebody else's country is a good thing. US troops not coming home with PTSD, missing parts, great big fucking holes in them and other major medical issues to an underfunded VA is a good thing. The US playing a supporting role rather than "taking the lead", which often reads as "Imposing our will", in a region prone to anti-US and anti Western sentiment is a good thing.

Sure - but, since when is it legal to just bomb other countries because you don't like one side in a civil war?

We can wage air wars without an imminent threat?

The whole anti-war opposition for 8 years from 2001 to 2009 was all about how the wars were "illegal" and "war crimes." Now, it's o.k. to wage war as long as you don't put "boots on the ground?" Bomb the fuck out of a country, but it's illegal to send in ground troops?

It looks so far like Obama is smarter than Bush. But maybe Bush had good reasons for ground invasions that I and others have been too biased to notice.

Well, I think so. Ground invasions in Afghanistan as really the only way to go cave-to-cave and root out Al Qaeta, and to ensure they were killed. Moreover, regarding "I and others" - did you oppose the ground invasion of Afghanistan? Almost nobody opposed it, and almost everyone was under the impression that it was justified and necessary. I'm not suggesting you're biased, but I am suggesting that you're in the vast minority of folks who would make the charge that the ground invasion of Afghanistan (a couple thousand troops, no armor, a few helicopters - mainly special forces - perhaps 10 or 15 times the number that raided the house bin Laden was holed up in in Pakistan) was over the top. In fact, I'm going to stress this, most of the "opposition" to the Afghan campaign claimed, quite consistently, that the ground invasion was TOO SMALL, not too big.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking for signs of intelligence in his predecessor because it is apparent to me that Bush is a dumb ass. If Bush does not want to appear to be a dumb ass, then he should learn to speak proper American English and drop that Texabonic dialect. You don't gain any confidence from me by saying "newkyuler".

Newkular is not the way I was taught to speak either, but it is not an uncommon dialect and not an indication of lacking in intelligence. It's very common in the military as well.

About sending more troops to Afghanistan, it looks to me like he saw the positive results of the Iraq surge which he opposed, and instead of stubbornly opposing it on some doctrine-based justification, learned and adapted to new knowledge.

Most folks who opposed Iraq said that Bush had fucked up by not putting enough troops in Afghanistan. That was the "he took his eye off the ball" argument from the so-called anti-war folks.

Oh, by the way, does anyone remember the name of that general who got dismissed because he said that the troop levels for the planned Iraq invasion were far too low?

I don't remember, but obviously the troop levels for the invasion itself were not too low. The issue was that there was uncontrolled civil unrest after the fact that required more personnel. It's not clear that the US had enough troops anywhere in the world to be sufficient to handle that aftermath and prevent looting and whatnot. Ultimately, though, the troop levels were not badly estimated. When troops were needed, a "surge" took place, and now Iraq is getting up on its feet. I am sure, you can bank on this, that Obama will, prior to the 2012 election, make a big show of the US "handing over the keys" to Iraq and "stable, democratic government." He's going to take some credit - and I will add, where credit is due. He is finishing the job.