The same suspect hacks who showed up for the illegal invasion

[malaise]

and occupation of Iraq are all over M$NBComcast today.
The propaganda is sickening. :puke:

[louis-t]

1. Criticizing Obama for not invading Libya, I suppose.

:eyes:

edit to add: "He's committed cuz he said 'regime change'!11!!1!1"

[hlthe2b]

2. Malaise, I wish you could see that there are reasons why there

are two sides of this debate on DU. I can understand your qualms and share many of them. I was as vehemently opposed as anyone here against the invasion/occupation of Iraq and remain so. If our course in Libya began to follow that same trajectory, I'd be out there protesting, just as I did against the Iraq war.

I also acknowledge that the US is never "pure" in its decisions when/if to assist countries where the population is seeking to overthrow a dictatorial government. But, I do see a very clear distinction between assisting those in rebellion seeking to establish democracy, versus invading a country to force our own agenda on the people. The latter was clearly the case in Iraq. As long as we remain in a support role with Arab collaboration, Libya would be quite a different scenario and one that many are able to support.

I know damned well, that had the Egyptian army chosen to viciously and violently put down the Egyptian peaceful revolt, I would have wanted them to receive some form of western support. I truly wish we had supported Iranian resistance over the past two decades. Would I have supported US/NATO invasion of either country in either scenario, as occurred in Iraq? Hell no.

[Aerows]

4. Oil is the reason

There is no other reason for us to be getting involved. Otherwise, we would be in Darfur, the Ivory Coast, and everywhere else there are massacres. Since we aren't, I can only conclude that oil is the reason, since no one was concerned until an oil refinery was destroyed. Then there was a huge hue and cry to get involved.

Let's at least be honest about what we are doing over there.

[hlthe2b]

6. I understand the cynicism....

I truly do. I certainly share it when I look at the actions of the Bush* administration and I likewise fear it under Obama.

But, I do believe HRC had been very much influential in pushing for multi-national intervention, having shared Bill's continued regret over not having gotten involved to stop the horrendous genocide in Rwanda. I think for her, at least, the reasons are more altruistic. For others, I couldn't say. Foreign policy is rarely "clean" and often weighs some very unsavory motivations against a desired endpoint. We shall see.

But, to suggest those who disagree with you are dishonest, is highly offensive-- at a minimum. Arrogant, if continued.

[Aerows]

16. Intellectual dishonesty

is intellectual dishonesty. If pointing it out is "arrogance", so be it.

[hlthe2b]

17. You don't get to call someone dishonest simply because they

disagree with you. THAT is dishonest.

[L. Coyote]

15. Ding, ding. BINGO! And France gets more oil from Lybia, hence they are leading this one!

Finally, we have transparency in governments :rofl:

[Aerows]

3. And there are plenty here that have been fooled, too

What are they going to say if "Iran" "attacks" one of our allies? That will be just the excuse they need for war in Iran, too.

Wars have been started by false flags before, and they will pull that card out, too, if they see an opportunity - they being our corporate overlords and the PTB.

That's cynical, I realize it, but history also has repeated itself enough for me to realize that the war machine seeks to perpetuate itself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Well, intervening in civil wars have worked ever so well. Vietnam and Iraq come to mind.

All for a "good cause" of course.

[hlthe2b]

7. Revolutions need to come from the people...

that does not mean they don't need assistance. Our own revolution would not have succeeded without assistance from the French, ironically enough. Sending in western troops in a misguided attempt to fight a war on behalf of the revolting people (Vietnam/Iraq)is folly, I agree. Developing a coalition that includes Arab nations to provide assistance to the civilian population in revolt is different. Whether or not it will work is an open question, I do agree on that. However, I remind you that the "no-fly" zone did work for many many years with Iraq.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The no fly zone and sanctions killed a helluva lot of Iraqi civilians.

All wars, and all sides, claim to have God on their side and are jampacked with good intentions and justifications. Gaddhafi, to some Libyans, is fighting the good fight.

The hypocrisy of bombing Libya to "save" lives while bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan to save face is all too evident.

Ironically, in our own civil war, the French and Brits aided the south with trade in arms and came close to intervening on the side of the south.

[hlthe2b]

9. Yes.. a sad fact from the technological advances of war...

Had our revolution occurred in current times, who knows what the course of our own would have been. The issue isn't black and white and I can readily play devils advocate for those opposing and those favoring current action. The truth is that some civilians are going to die--quite a few by Gaddafi's hand if unopposed. Whether or not aiding the civilian rebels to try to "even the playing field" is the best way to stop a massacre of civilians, remains to be seen. But, the issue is not so clear to delineate as you suggest. Even for this lifetime pacifist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. A 4 year stint in the marines led me to pacifism.

When I joined up, Fidel Castro was the Gaddhafi of the day. And, we were told we should be eager to kill Cubans because they were commies and, (I'm not kidding) "...Castro has a smelly beard." Which, even at 17, seemed a pretty piss-poor reason to kill people.

To me, the justifications for killing, no matter how noble (sounding) the reason, are just justifications for killing. Whether it's Gaddhafi ranting or Obama invoking justice.

[hlthe2b]

14. I understand where you are coming from...

I truly do. ;)

[Modern_Matthew]

10. We shouldn't even have a military large enough to bring about this debate. nt

[hlthe2b]

11. Fair point...

:shrug:

[Shagbark Hickory]

13. I don't watch msnBS anymore. what are they saying?

[malaise]

18. I turned them off early this afternoon

I could not take one more minute of that crap.

Here's Andrew Sullivan's take and I'm no fan of this one but he makes more sense than the hacks on M$NBComcast..

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/the-imperial-president.html
<snip>
The Imperial President
The president's speech was disturbingly empty. There are, it appears, only two reasons the US is going to war, without any Congressional vote, or any real public debate. The first is that the US cannot stand idly by while atrocities take place. Yet we have done nothing in Burma or the Congo OBAMA0318AalexWong:Gettyand are actively supporting governments in Yemen and Bahrain that are doing almost exactly - if less noisily - what Qaddafi is doing. Obama made no attempt to reconcile these inconsistencies because, one suspects, there is no rational reconciliation to be made.

Secondly, the president argued that the ghastly violence in Libya is destabilizing the region, and threatening world peace. Really? More than Qaddafi's meddling throughout Africa for years? More than the brutal repression in Iran? And even if it is destabilizing, Libya is not, according to the Obama administration itself, a "vital national interest". So why should the US go to war over this?

None of this makes any sense, except as an emotional response to an emergency. I understand the emotions, and sympathize with the impulse to help. But I can think of no worse basis for committing a country to war than such emotional and moral anxiety. One fears this is Bill Clinton's attempt to assuage his conscience over Rwanda, rather than Obama's judicious attempt to navigate the Arab 1848. And as Obama said things like "Qaddafi has a choice," did you not hear echoes of Bush and Saddam?

[Shagbark Hickory]

20. This is different than Rwanda and mass killing of civilians.

As far as I can tell, the Quadaffi forces have fired on "rebel" forces.
REbel forces may have been peaceful protesters at some stage but now this is a civil war and these two forces are not civilians.

[EFerrari]

19. Instead of watching those idiots

I've been talking to and debating activists in the ME via twitter. The cable presstitutes can go whistle.