[cloa513]

 Gerben42, on 2011-March-21, 12:02, said:

Libya is not Iraq.

A big difference between Iraq and Libya: before the 2nd Gulf War Iraq was in peace. Libya is completely the opposite. For me, this war is about a country on Europe's doorstep in civil war. Crete are not THAT far away!

Think about it: How would the USA react if it was Cuba in civil war? It won't be about cigars.

A country already divided by a UN mandated No Fly zone and effectively split into a de facto Kurdistan and northern alliance and where the central government gases villages and ignores UN security resolutions -not the rediculous UN general council resolutions is not a country in peasce.

[andrei]

 Gerben42, on 2011-March-21, 13:17, said:

I don't care what "they" would be saying if Bush or Obama did something. You should stop listening to "them" anyway.

 Gerben42, on 2011-March-21, 12:02, said:

A big difference between Iraq and Libya: before the 2nd Gulf War Iraq was in peace.

Apparently you didn't stop listening to "them" either.

 nigel_k, on 2011-March-21, 12:58, said:

If that's your definition of peace then Libya would be in peace too if they would just leave Gaddafi to go about his business for another week or so.

As for the media, can you imagine what they would be saying if Bush authorized air strikes without Congressional approval or any threat to the USA and then took his family to Rio on holiday? The main lesson from this and Kosovo is that it's ok if a Democrat does it.

Talking about double standards. Everybody was up in arms about Iraq. Everybody is "torn" about Libya.
Wondering how a Sadam's Iraq would look today with all this turmoil in Arab world.

[luke warm]

 andrei, on 2011-March-22, 08:40, said:

Talking about double standards. Everybody was up in arms about Iraq. Everybody is "torn" about Libya.

yeah, passing strange that

[kenrexford]

Isn't the "them" that we are talking about Mr. Obama himself?

I find it rather humorous, or sad, that Obama wanted to talk smack about prior decisions, now that he has continued in both prior decisions and has started up his own battles on top of the first two.

No weapons of mass destruction talks here.

Smaller number of nations in the coalition.

Fewer days to discuss the merits of the action.

Less involvement of Congress.

Maybe Mr. Obama should talk with Mr. Obama.

[hrothgar]

 andrei, on 2011-March-22, 08:40, said:

Talking about double standards. Everybody was up in arms about Iraq. Everybody is "torn" about Libya.
Wondering how a Sadam's Iraq would look today with all this turmoil in Arab world.

I wouldn't trust Bush to wipe his own ass, let alone manage a major war...

I have a lot more faith in Obama
The military action is much more constrained
Obama has categorically rejected ground troops

And hey, cruise missiles might not be the most effective form of stimulus spending, but something is better than nothing

[nigel_k]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-22, 16:34, said:

I wouldn't trust Bush to wipe his own ass, let alone manage a major war...

I have a lot more faith in Obama
The military action is much more constrained
Obama has categorically rejected ground troops

Back when Bush was in charge, Obama said the following:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

So, like other politicians, he says what is politically convenient and then does as he pleases. Why should we believe him when he now says there won't be ground troops?

[Winstonm]

What is it they say about absolute power?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." - Senator Obama

"***** it. Let's bomb his Libyan ass." - President Obama

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-22, 16:34, said:

I wouldn't trust Bush to wipe his own ass, let alone manage a major war...

I have a lot more faith in Obama
The military action is much more constrained
Obama has categorically rejected ground troops

And hey, cruise missiles might not be the most effective form of stimulus spending, but something is better than nothing

I had hoped a less partisan view from you, Richard.

I doubt anyone holds Bush/Cheney in more contempt than I do, but at the same time to whitewash Obama's upholding of the Bush/Cheney legacy simply because he is a Democrat is not much of a response.

Isn't it time to hold all in power accountable, regardless of party?

[kenberg]

The headline in the Washington Post today is
"Allied airstrikes fail to halt Gaddafi’s attacks"
Yeah. Duh.
What we do now, Kemo Sabe?

[helene_t]

 andrei, on 2011-March-22, 08:40, said:

Talking about double standards. Everybody was up in arms about Iraq. Everybody is "torn" about Libya.

The argument for the Iraq war was some "evidence" for MDW which Blair and Bush probably knew was fabricated.

Unlike Sadam, Gadaffi actually has large supplies of mustard gas, although he may not have the aims to deploy it. Anyway, the argument for the Libya war was an ongoing genocide.

Fair enough if that difference seems irrelevant to you. You may nevertheless acknowledge that it is relevant to some.

[andrei]

 helene_t, on 2011-March-23, 07:51, said:

The argument for the Iraq war was some "evidence" for MDW which Blair and Bush probably knew was fabricated.

Unlike Sadam, Gadaffi actually has large supplies of mustard gas, although he may not have the aims to deploy it. Anyway, the argument for the Libya war was an ongoing genocide.

Fair enough if that difference seems irrelevant to you. You may nevertheless acknowledge that it is relevant to some.

Really, was Sadam as innocent as you are trying to portrait him? There is an ongoing genocide in Libya, but there was no genocide whatsoever in Iraq under Sadam? Give me a break.

I am not naive, it was about oil in Iraq. They have 15% of the total oil reserves and other 40% in their close proximity, so stability is needed in the region. If they succeded or not only the history will tell, but with the recent turmoil in Arab world the situation looks pretty good. And you get down a dictator like Sadam in the process too. Libya, oil again. There is a genocide going on for a few years now in Darfour (just to give an example) and there are no troops or planes deployed there. US can't go and make peace everywhere, they choose to go wherever their interests dictates.
I know it is not fair, it is cynical and people don't like it and I don't like it.

But, this still does not explain the Republicans-Democrats double standard.

[helene_t]

 andrei, on 2011-March-23, 08:55, said:

but there was no genocide whatsoever in Iraq under Sadam? Give me a break.

Did you actually read what I posted? I was referring to the arguments given for the interventions.

Here in Europe, lots of left-wingers hate Blair because of the Iraq war. And Blair is in the Labour Party. Now we have a conservative government (as do the French). One could amuse oneself by pointing out that mainstream media are more favorable towards a war fought by a conservative government than one fought by a socialist one. Personally I don't think it matters that much.

[andrei]

 helene_t, on 2011-March-23, 08:57, said:

Did you actually read what I posted? I was referring to the arguments given for the interventions.

Here in Europe, lots of left-wingers hate Blair because of the Iraq war. And Blair is in the Labour Party. Now we have a conservative government (as do the French). One could amuse oneself by pointing out that mainstream media are more favorable towards a war fought by a conservative government than one fought by a socialist one. Personally I don't think it matters that much.

As you say:

France did not participate in Iraq, but all left-wingers (mainstream media included) were opposing it vehemently.
France (with a conservative goverment no less) goes to Libya and the "anti-war" left-wingers are favorable.

Does this make sense? No, it doesn't.
Except that it does. Iraq was started by Bush/Republicans and Libya by Obama/Democrats.

[luke warm]

 helene_t, on 2011-March-23, 07:51, said:

Anyway, the argument for the Libya war was an ongoing genocide.

you might be right there helene, but i don't recall that argument being made over here... if it had, and the genocide was ongoing, it seems that it should have been made before now... besides, the u.s. has had many opportunities to oppose genocide with armed conflict and hasn't done so... our gov't is and has been hypocritical for some time

even so, there is a decided media slant in this country (can't speak for other countries) when it comes to who does what, when

[kenberg]

If we, perhaps with fingers crossed, accept that humanitarian motives are at least part of the driving force in our intervention in Libya then I think Somalia might be a more useful comparison than Iraq. No doubt we did some good in Somalia but it was temporary. When American soldiers began dying the reaction, at least as I recall it, was "What? American boys getting killed and dragged through the streets trying to help someone? The hell with that, where's the exit?".

I do hope that we know what we are doing. "Mission accomplished" became the infamous mis-assessment during the Bush II years, but "Home by Christmas" comes from post D-Day optimism, "The Yanks are coming" from WWI, and so on. MacArthur was more than a little optimistic about the ability to deal with the Chinese coming into the war in Korea. The Bay of Pigs did not go as planned, and I think Johnson had absolutely no clue about the magnitude of what he was stepping into. It's so easy to underestimate what will be required that it seems to happen more often than not. We can all hope this will be different, and maybe it will.

I am fine with helping the Libyan people. I just think that these things often turn out to be a lot more difficult than expected.

[ggwhiz]

 andrei, on 2011-March-23, 13:17, said:

Does this make sense? No, it doesn't.
Except that it does. Iraq was started by Bush/Republicans and Libya by Obama/Democrats.

This was not started by the U.S. in any way. They simply have the wherewithall and willingness to get it underway quickly after getting the go ahead from the U.N. which was driven by lobbying from England and France.

Wouldn't be happening without (reluctant and maybe temporary)support from the Arab League.

Wringing your hands about U.S. involvement in yet another war is misplaced and misguided.

[helene_t]

 luke warm, on 2011-March-23, 15:50, said:

you might be right there helene, but i don't recall that argument being made over here... if it had, and the genocide was ongoing, it seems that it should have been made before now

Well that's the whole point of the UN resolution. It was made after massacres had taken place in Zawiya and it was the thread on Bengazi that pushed it through. The mandate is solely to protect civilians. The American and British political and military leaders are very clear that they are constrained by the mandate. The French seem more aggressive, though.

I concede that this could easily just be something they say in public in order to get the Chinese and Russians to abstain from vetoing, and maybe behind closed doors they work on ways to get more directly involved in ousting Gadaffi while not upsetting the Chinese and Russians too much. But even so, comparing this to Iraq is just absurd. As Kenberg notes, a comparison to Somalia (which was a lot more popular among politically correct opinion makers) is more apt. A comparison to Bosnia, Kosova (I refuse to spell it "Kosovo") and East Timor may be apt, too.

And as for the significance of the fact that US happens to have a democrat president at the moment: Until a week ago Obama was very reluctant to getting involved. He may have been the last person on this Earth to make his mind up. Not blaming him for that, just saying that he can't have influenced many, certainly not outside the US, and certainly not influencing people to be in favor of the war, as he was reluctant while his allies were more pushy.

[kenberg]

With regard to left wing and right wing and all that jazz, I suppose Republicans find it easier to support Bush and Democrats find it easier to support Obama, but for me and I think for most people party affiliation is not determining.
Browsing around for internet news, I found the following from NPR.
http://www.npr.org/2...-Update?ps=cprs
This looks to me like a serious attempt to describe a complicated situation as best one can. All this stuff about liberal bias seems to me to be just that. a lot of stuff. I regularly listen to Diane Rehm. I am sure she has liberal leanings but so what? She gets good people on her show to discuss important issues and actually lets them talk in paragraphs without interrupting or yelling. Even when she had David Axlerod on she let him talk. He sounded like a moron, but she let him talk.

Anyway, I suppose this is a bit off-topic, but I think filtering everything through left/right is a mistake.

[Fluffy]

 helene_t, on 2011-March-23, 08:57, said:

Did you actually read what I posted? I was referring to the arguments given for the interventions.

Here in Europe, lots of left-wingers hate Blair because of the Iraq war. And Blair is in the Labour Party. Now we have a conservative government (as do the French). One could amuse oneself by pointing out that mainstream media are more favorable towards a war fought by a conservative government than one fought by a socialist one. Personally I don't think it matters that much.

In Spain the goverment that won the elections thanks to the terrorists bombing the day prior to elections in 2004 and that inmediatelly retired the troops from Iraq since "no to war" was their slogan are the ones who are sending troops to Libya now.

But they are suposed to be left wing, not conservative (they took power over the conservatives on 2004). Well they are the ones who are giving all money to banks and the rich and starving the people, so one wonders why they call themselves socialist.

Anyway, I am happy that for once, Spain is sending troops to a country to fight for our own interests. Fuel has raised enormously here due to the Libyan civil war, so to stop it will serve for a purpose for us I hope.

[Fluffy]

Also, ain't nobody surprised that every day about 10x people on Ivory coast are dying compared to Libya and nobody is saying anything about intervention there?