Rage over Lybia

[Stalins Organ]

Since the rebels are now asking for help it would seem like a good time to supply it - as opposed to, say, what happened to the Marsh Arabs & Kurds in Iraq.

Can "we" please get it right....just once...PLEASE??!!

[Vanir Ausf B]

"We" are busy. Send Wikileaks.

[Affentitten]

I'd say it's too late now anyway. The Benghazi Handicap has been run again.

[abneo3sierra]

For the most part at least it seems nobody is being hypocritical on this board....really, anyone who says we should be there, really has no business complaining about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and anyone who thinks those are a bad idea, really to be fair better think this is a bad one also.

That said, I do keep expecting that "we" will step in, and am somewhat surprised that has not happened yet.

[Affentitten]

For the most part at least it seems nobody is being hypocritical on this board....really, anyone who says we should be there, really has no business complaining about the Iraq and Afghan wars...

Yes, it's really a great idea to lump every single case together in a black or white worldview.

[abneo3sierra]

Yes, it's really a great idea to lump every single case together in a black or white worldview.

Sarcasm duly noted Af..however, the point I made earlier, still stands.

This case has LESS imperative for western action, than the 2 cases I mention in my post..so no, I am NOT "lumping them together" I am stating, quite openly, that this case deserves intervention, less(on a magnitude) than the other two cases....so saying that, anyone who is in favor of this(less deserving)case, really would be hypocritical if not in favor of the other two(more deserving)cases.

Does that explain my position better? Really not sure where you got that I was lumping them together.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would say that Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are all different situations and it's perfectly logical to be in favor of invading some but not all. For example, I supported going into Afghanistan but not Iraq since one was self-defense while the other was not.

If something is to be done it really should be the EU that does it. It's too bad they have cut back on defense spending so much that they are no longer capable doing much of anything on their own.

[abneo3sierra]

I would say that Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are all different situations and it's perfectly logical to be in favor of invading some but not all. For example, I supported going into Afghanistan but not Iraq since one was self-defense while the other was not.

If something is to be done it really should be the EU that does it. It's too bad they have cut back on defense spending so much that they are no longer capable doing much of anything on their own.

On your first paragraph, I can understand, this being from a national interest viewpoint. My point here is that most of those desiring us(by which I mean the US ) to "step in and help the poor downtrodden...whatever" in Libya, better have thought the same about the poor, downtrodden in Iraq, for example..in Libya, the dictator is flying (very few) a/c sorties against his people...in Iraq, the dictator bombed his people with nerve gas..in Libya the people are stepping up to revolt, without the promise of US aid (brave of them, I may add here) while in Iraq after the first war, we established a no fly zone, encouraged the people to revolt....then bailed on them when they did, allowing them to be summarily destroyed by Saddam.

On your second paragraph, I guess it is easy to cut defense when every time anything happens, they look to the US to provide it. I say that even from a European background myself.

Ron

[Stalins Organ]

I'd say it's too late now anyway. The Benghazi Handicap has been run again.

I don't think so - Gaddafi has firepower....but very limited numbers. KO some tanks, artillery and a/c and suddenly he's not got any advantage at all.

And even with his firepower advantage his numbers of actual fightnig troops has to be a problem simply keeping combat-ready garrisons in newly retaken towns.

And the 2nd biggest oil company is now funding the rebels......dunno what that means in terms of money....but it means some.

[noxnoctum]

Maybe I'm naive but why doesn't France just send a few jets over and bomb the crap out of wherever Gaddafi's hiding. Kill the head of the snake and it's over. Or better yet, an Arab country with modern jets.

[abneo3sierra]

Maybe I'm naive but why doesn't France just send a few jets over and bomb the crap out of wherever Gaddafi's hiding. Kill the head of the snake and it's over. Or better yet, an Arab country with modern jets.

Remembering that France refused to allow US aircraft to overfly in the 1980s, to strike Ghadafi.

As for the Arab nations, none of them will be very keen on establishing a precedent that can as easily be applied to their own regimes,not one of whom is much more "compassionate" than is Libya.

[Affentitten]

I would say that Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are all different situations and it's perfectly logical to be in favor of invading some but not all. For example, I supported going into Afghanistan but not Iraq since one was self-defense while the other was not.

Exactly my points. Like many I thought that Afghanistan had some justification but Iraq was a retarded idea based upon a faulty world view and badly executed to boot.

You can certainly be against intervention in Iraq and pro intervention in Libya (not that I am at this point). To say that you must be for intervention OR against it in all cases is childish.

[abneo3sierra]

Exactly my points. Like many I thought that Afghanistan had some justification but Iraq was a retarded idea based upon a faulty world view and badly executed to boot.

You can certainly be against intervention in Iraq and pro intervention in Libya (not that I am at this point). To say that you must be for intervention OR against it in all cases is childish.

Again, for the third time..

I am not saying in all cases, I am saying the Iraq case was better than this one, so if you are for this one, by definition you would have to be for another with a better case..

If A is a better case than B, it does not mean that those who support A must support B, but it does mean that those who support the weaker B, must support the stronger A, at risk of being hypocrites.

I will however agree that Iraq was poorly handled, unfortunately often the case when civilians override professionals in matters military.

Really, all I am saying, is that the very facts argued in favor here, were even stronger, in Iraq.

[noxnoctum]

France is in favor of a no-fly zone last I heard... Dont' forget, they've got a pretty far right guy in charge.

U.S. intervention would be a terrible idea... we've pissed off too many Arab countries too much already. It's gotta be handled by the Europeans or the other Muslim countries.

And abneo, a committee of 30 Muslim countries came together and condemned Gaddafi and essentially demanded his resignation, as well as supporting the movement for a no-fly zone.

It'd be great if Egypt could do it, would I'm sure be encouraging to the freedom fighters in Libya, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc... but they've got a lot on their plate already.

[Pak_43]

If A is a better case than B, it does not mean that those who support A must support B, but it does mean that those who support the weaker B, must support the stronger A, at risk of being hypocrites.

I weary of the argument that the US (and the UK) is in Iraq for the betterment of the Iraqi people. They are there for the security of the US and the UK.

The only reason there is any effort to introduce a stable democracy in Iraq is because it is the perception of the US and UK governments that this will provide the best security for these nations and they don't want to give that part of the region over to islamic fundamentalists.

Tony Blair is on record as saying before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam could give his WMD back and eradicate his programme then he could remain in power. If Saddam had co-operated fully with the WMD enquiry, given up whatever (if he had any) WMD and cowtowed completely to the US-Anglo pressure then he would still be there murdering and oppressing his people. Of course like many other people in government he's now realigning his historical view of the invasion to suit his new "moral code"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/retreat-in-downing-street-blairs-spokesman-says-saddam-can-stay-in-power-if-he-is-disarmed-598030.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry

Please don't fall for the vested interest masquerading as a moral crusade..

(Also please don't read into the above any criticism of such "realpolitiks", I'm perfectly comfortable with the concept that nations behave in their own best interests, I just wish the relevant governments would credit their people with a little bit more realism when assessing their motives)

[abneo3sierra]

I weary of the argument that the US (and the UK) is in Iraq for the betterment of the Iraqi people. They are there for the security of the US and the UK.

The only reason there is any effort to introduce a stable democracy in Iraq is because it is the perception of the US and UK governments that this will provide the best security for these nations and they don't want to give that part of the region over to islamic fundamentalists.

Tony Blair is on record as saying before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam could give his WMD back and eradicate his programme then he could remain in power. If Saddam had co-operated fully with the WMD enquiry, given up whatever (if he had any) WMD and cowtowed completely to the US-Anglo pressure then he would still be there murdering and oppressing his people. Of course like many other people in government he's now realigning his historical view of the invasion to suit his new "moral code"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/retreat-in-downing-street-blairs-spokesman-says-saddam-can-stay-in-power-if-he-is-disarmed-598030.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry

Please don't fall for the vested interest masquerading as a moral crusade..

(Also please don't read into the above any criticism of such "realpolitiks", I'm perfectly comfortable with the concept that nations behave in their own best interests, I just wish the relevant governments would credit their people with a little bit more realism when assessing their motives)

I entirely agree with you PaK... that is part of the reason it is a "better case"..but not to mention,that the Iraqi regime was much worse to it's people, than Libya was to theirs.

[Pak_43]

Well, only if you accept that Saddam Hussein *was* actually a threat, otherwise it's an expensive and costly war for nothing, but that's an entirely different debate...

[abneo3sierra]

Well, only if you accept that Saddam Hussein *was* actually a threat, otherwise it's an expensive and costly war for nothing, but that's an entirely different debate...

But still, even for reasons of "realpolitik"....we removed a worse person in Iraq, than Libya has, so even if the reasons were wrong, we saved a lot more people from a lot worse ruler...my point is that those desiring us to step in in Libya (which, by the way, would also be for reasons of realpolitik,or oil, else we would never risk anything...see N Korea, Darfur, most of Africa, etc etc etc) So those who want us to step in, in Libya, against a person who is not really a threat (according to most Europeans who were willing to deal with him for the past years) but who is a total a$$ to his people(as Saddam was, as many others also are) then it is hypocritical of them to be entirely for this one, while entirely against another,with, as I said, a better case.

[Affentitten]

"..but not to mention,that the Iraqi regime was much worse to it's people, than Libya was to theirs.

On what basis do you make that call? The way you toss off subjective assumptions as facts is ridiculous. And that is exactly why I oppose statements like "The case in Iraq was even stronger than Libya..." Or "people in Iraq are better off..." or "Prisoners in Guantanomo are better off..."

You seem fixated on the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in the Anfal campaign. Fine. But Gadaffi has arguably got an even worse human rights record in the long term and arguably has a far more oppressive (and effective) state security apparatus than Saddam ever had. Partly that's because of the particular mechanisms of the Jamahiriya system and partly it's because of the greater isolation of his people that Gadaffi has been able to enforce.

On top of that, Gadaffi was vastly more active in the sponsorship of international terror than Saddam was and did have a WMD program.

So no, the cases are not parallel and are not similar. They are different, both in terms of the extant regimes and the situation with the citizenry at the time of intervention (or potential intervention).

[abneo3sierra]

Af...what do you base YOUR subjective assumptions on?

Saddam killed,not only the gas attacks on Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south, but every day, rounded up civilians and killed them...his sons, in only the better publicized accounts, tortured soccer players who underperformed, led "rape attacks" against neighborhoods in Iraqi cities, etc etc.

edit:

For the record, my "assumptions" are backed up by many sources you can find if you look. However, I know that in general your normal method is to slam any sources that disagree with you, in the same manner as you slam Faux news...that is fine..so my secondary source is the actual people of Iraq who have personally thanked myself and others for liberating them from the a-hole who was in charge there. You, I believe, are a journalist...go there, interview the people who had the "best seats" to the last dictator's methods...I have been there, and have done that.

[Affentitten]

I'm not a journalist.

I base my assumptions on several years of research, including publishing research papers on Libya and the particular mechanisms and processes of Gadaffi's power.

I really object to you continually lauding yourself as some sort of reasoned debater who loves informed discussion. Yet you never actually show any evidence of that. You just toss off the party line. You've been told for years that Saddam was the worst guy since Hitler so that for you has become fact, based also on the fact that you've been to Iraq. All the the things that you say happened in Iraq happened. Yet they also happen in Libya too, and probably on a more comprehensive basis and the link with world terror is demonstrably greater.

Hence my strenuous objection to the glib assertion that Iraq was worse or a better case for intervention.

Saying that you have been personally thanked, have heard from witnessess, blah blah blah....sorry, but it doesn't make an "informed debate" because you have no data from the other side of the assertion you are trying to make.

[abneo3sierra]

I'm not a journalist.

I base my assumptions on several years of research, including publishing research papers on Libya and the particular mechanisms and processes of Gadaffi's power.

I really object to you continually lauding yourself as some sort of reasoned debater who loves informed discussion. Yet you never actually show any evidence of that. You just toss off the party line. You've been told for years that Saddam was the worst guy since Hitler so that for you has become fact, based also on the fact that you've been to Iraq. All the the things that you say happened in Iraq happened. Yet they also happen in Libya too, and probably on a more comprehensive basis and the link with world terror is demonstrably greater.

Hence my strenuous objection to the glib assertion that Iraq was worse or a better case for intervention.

Saying that you have been personally thanked, have heard from witnessess, blah blah blah....sorry, but it doesn't make an "informed debate" because you have no data from the other side of the assertion you are trying to make.

Apologies for lumping you in with journalists, not sure where I got that thought.

As for the rest of this bunk...I do not "laud myself as some sort of seasoned debater.." I HAVE said, I enjoy debate.

Your several years of research, still count for nothing, because everything that disagrees with your preconceived notion of the Iraq war, you disregard. I can guarantee you that if you look, you will find many many references to the examples I listed, as well as to many other examples I did not list...the only problem is you are apparently too closed-minded to acknowledge any view from the other side that contradicts you, no matter the data backing it up.This is fine, I probably am about the same way in regards to some things. This is why I fall back to my own personal experience, which actually IS part of the data which you are referring to, as my unit conducted interviews as a regular part of our day to day duties. Excuse me, but I would trust face to face interviews much more than I would trust people who have never been in the place those brave people have been. And, I do understand that what I HAVE seen and heard, means nothing to people who have not seen or heard it...not much I can do about that however...except chuckle some at people who seem to think they know, without ever having been anywhere where they were able to know,anything more than what they were...for lack of a better word...spoonfed...in most cases, by others who do not know.

For what it is worth also, on topic...Germany joins the list(probably leads the list) of opposition to NATO involvement http://news.de.msn.com/politik/politik.aspx?cp-documentid=156497944 It is in German, but probably a good argument against involvement in Libya.

[dieseltaylor]

" we saved a lot more people from a lot worse ruler "

Reaching figures as to who killed more is a rather macabre way of justifying an invasion and then to rationalise the damge. I have been looking at various gigures but time is gainst me now .. but to make it brief

In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying "dual-use" equipment and vehicles. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.[56] President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."[57] President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982. The Security Council passed Resolution 552 condemning attacks on commercial ships in the region.

He sure was an evil man and think how many lives we saved .....

ANd for fun and something I did not know:

This war also saw the only confirmed air-to-air helicopter battles in history of warfare with the Iraqi Mi-25s flying against Iranian AH-1 SuperCobra on numerous occasions. The first instance of these helicopter "dogfights" happened when on the starting day of the war (22 September 1980), two Iranian SuperCobras crept up on two Mi-25s and hit them with TOW wire-guided antitank missiles. One Mi-25 went down immediately, the other was badly damaged and crashed before reaching base. The Iranians pulled off a repeat performance on 24 April 1981, destroying two Mi-25s without incurring losses to themselves. According to some unclassified documents, Iranian pilots achieved a 10 to 1 kill ratio over the Iraqi helicopter pilots during these engagements and even engaged Iraqi fixed wing aircraft.

[abneo3sierra]

diesel, you are in the first instance implying (correctly) that the US aided Saddam, and in the second instance implying(also correctly)that Iranian forces used US made weapons against him(hell of a kill ratio, btw)...other than that, I am not following you.

[dieseltaylor]

I can undwerstand that - it was very time-constrained. Essentially I am trying to differentiate between Libya and Iraq. They are not equivalent for the very obvious reason there is a popular uprising in Libya that could be supported simply by providing aid to the rebels. In the case of Iraq it was an invasion pure and simple.

I see that there is a feeling that the US is being constrained by the DoD and the Saudis who do not wish for the concept of popular rule to apply to the Saudis or there client sheikdoms. You can see the problem. Gaddafi winning is not as daft as it seems and the use of Facebook and Twitter as weapons of freedom may actually be a way to get killed.