Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Manipulative Pro-War Argument in Libya
Advocating for the U.S.'s military action in Libya, The New Republic's John Judis lays out the argument which many of his fellow war advocates are making: that those who oppose the intervention are guilty of indifference to the plight of the rebels and to Gadaffi's tyranny:
A Libyan rebel patrols the frontline of the outskirts of the city of Ajdabiya, south of Benghazi, eastern Libya, Monday, March 21, 2011. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
So I ask myself, would these opponents of U.S. intervention (as part of U.N. Security Council approved action), have preferred:
(1) That gangs of mercenaries, financed by the country’s oil wealth, conduct a bloodbath against Muammar Qaddafi’s many opponents?
(2) That Qaddafi himself, wounded, enraged, embittered, and still in power, retain control of an important source of the world’s oil supply, particularly for Europe, and be able to spend the wealth he derives from it to sow discord in the region?
(3) And that the movement toward democratization in the Arab world -- which has spread from Tunisia to Bahrain, and now includes such unlikely locales as Syria -- be dealt an enormous setback through the survival of one of region's most notorious autocrats?
If you answer "Who cares?" to each of these, I have no counter-arguments to offer, but if you worry about two or three of these prospects, then I think you have to reconsider whether Barack Obama did the right thing in lending American support to this intervention.
Note how, in Judis' moral world, there are only two possibilities: one can either support the American military action in Libya or be guilty of a "who cares?" attitude toward Gadaffi's butchery. At least as far as this specific line of pro-war argumentation goes, this is just 2003 all over again. Back then, those opposed to the war in Iraq were deemed pro-Saddam: indifferent to the repression and brutalities suffered by the Iraqi people at his hands and willing to protect his power. Now, those opposed to U.S. involvement in the civil war in Libya are deemed indifferent to the repression and brutalities suffered by the Libyan people from Gadaffi and willing to protect his power. This rationale is as flawed logically as it is morally.
Why didn't this same moral calculus justify the attack on Iraq? Saddam Hussein really was a murderous, repressive monster: at least Gadaffi's equal when it came to psychotic blood-spilling. Those who favored regime change there made exactly the same arguments as Judis (and many others) make now for Libya: it's humane and noble to topple a brutal dictator; using force is the only way to protect parts of the population from slaughter (in Iraq, the Kurds and Shiites; in Libya, the rebels); it's not in America's interests to allow a deranged despot (or his deranged sons) to control a vital oil-rich nation; and removing the tyrant will aid the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Why does that reasoning justify war in Libya but not Iraq?
In Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt argues that "liberal interventionists" and neocons share most of the same premises about America's foreign policy and its role in the world, with the sole exception being that the former seek to act through international institutions to legitimize their military actions while the latter don't. Strongly bolstering Walt's view is this morning's pro-war New York Times Editorial, which ends this way:
Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.
Wasn't all of that at least as true of Saddam Hussein? Wasn't that exactly the "humanitarian" case made to justify that invasion? And wasn't that exactly the basis for the accusation against Iraq war opponents that they were indifferent to Saddam's tyranny -- i.e., if you oppose the war to remove Saddam, it means you are ensuring that he and his sons will stay in power, which in turn means you are indifferent to his rape rooms and mass graves and are willing to stand by while the Iraqi people suffer under his despotism? How can the "indifference-to-suffering" accusation be fair when made against opponents of the Libya war but not when made against Iraq war opponents?
But my real question for Judis (and those who voice the same accusations against Libya intervention opponents) is this: do you support military intervention to protect protesters in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies from suppression, or to stop the still-horrendous suffering in the Sudan, or to prevent the worsening humanitarian crisis in the Ivory Coast? Did you advocate military intervention to protect protesters in Iran and Egypt, or to stop the Israeli slaughter of hundreds of trapped innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon or its brutal and growing occupation of the West Bank?
If not, doesn't that necessarily mean -- using this same reasoning -- that you're indifferent to the suffering of all of those people, willing to stand idly by while innocents are slaughtered, to leave in place brutal tyrants who terrorize their own population or those in neighboring countries? Or, in those instances where you oppose military intervention despite widespread suffering, do you grant yourself the prerogative of weighing other factors: such as the finitude of resources, doubt about whether U.S. military action will hurt rather than help the situation, cynicism about the true motives of the U.S. government in intervening, how intervention will affect other priorities, the civilian deaths that will inevitably occur at our hands, the precedents that such intervention will set for future crises, and the moral justification of invading foreign countries? For those places where you know there is widespread violence and suffering yet do not advocate for U.S. military action to stop it, is it fair to assume that you are simply indifferent to the suffering you refuse to act to prevent, or do you recognize there might be other reasons why you oppose the intervention?
Read the full article at Salon.com
116 Comments so far
Show AllHello President Obama, this is General Betray America. I have just been informed that we have to get rid of some of our old munitions, in particular Tomahawk missiles. I suggest you use the excuse that we have to protect the innocent civilians in Libya. I know you will help us. Thank you, Mr. President.
Barry is just envious of Dubya.
Dubya got to hang Saddam and keep his gun for the W museum.
Barry wants a legacy too.
Plus a war is good for his election campaign and enriches his war-profiteer buddies.
It is interesting that he uses avoiding a bloodbath as his primary motivation.
Causing far larger bloodbaths in the past has never bothered him in the least.
And he looks the other way as his dictator buddies massacre people in Iraq and other countries.
Surely it has nothing to do with oil...
Says it all.
I am sick and tired of the cliche the interventionists use ----- "He's killing his own people". What people is he supposed to kill? I am also sick and tired of the all powerfull comic book villain cliche. A dictator cannot dictate without the consent of those being ruled. It is the responsibilty of the people to overthrow the dictator. If they fail, it is their own fault. "When you strike against the king, you must kill him". Simply blaming the leaders absolves the people of their responsibility to prevent evil.
You see, he's not allowed to kill his own people. That's our job!
We kill them to bring them freedom and democracy. That is our job alright!
Yes, we are killing civilians in order to protect civilians. Besides which bad dictators do we hate and which bad dictators do we hate?
And when Americans rise up against our own dictators will it be ok to kill
us, as well?
Is our MIC and national security state ruling with our consent?
And what of a dictator who has been supplied weapons by US/France/UK
and Russia? Are citizens also expected to withstand them?
When we are being bombed -- chased down by drones -- threatened with
nuclear bunker busters, is that what you will say?
When the scenario you have suggested occurs, who would you look to...what country,
bloc or organiztion...to intervene against the US government on our behalf?
Chomsky mentioned manufactured consent in the fascist, corporate media. America has also had fascist, manipulative, manufactured threats for a long, long time to keep the corportocracy, war business, in business.
I don't understand the confusion. What we need is a force of arms which could be deployed anywhere in the world at the drop of a toilet seat where a tyrant (as defined by the wealthy and influential) resides, topple said bad boy and similtaneously establish democracy (as defined by those wealthy influential persons or companies). The force is to be called Tyrant Intervention and Toppling Strike force, or TITS for short. Thus we can look forward to a day when we can watch a talking head on the One Global Network tell us 'This just in from our man in Oilystan, we have confirmation our TITS are on the ground.
Thank you marlborough! While it's true, this isn't a funny matter, the release of negative tension gave me a needed jolt, as much as any tirade. George Carlin would be pleased.
That wise old sage... George Carlin said it all in '92...geez, that's almost 20 years and nothing has changed.
Who woulda thunk?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY
I was against the iraq and Afghanistan wars, since they were US invasions and attempts to occupy those places with a ground force, that would be very prolonged and expensive. In those cases there was no popular uprising uinder way at the time, it was a unilateral action of US conquest, not support of a homegrown revolution.That is not what is going on or planned in libya.
Look, Gadaffi is not a nice guy, he suppresses dissent, is involved with torture, ruthless, kills citisens, etc. By the way, I am also opposed to Bush's acts of torture, his mass survelllance, violation of legal rights, and complicity in the corporate plutocratic fascism taking over america by the Corporate right wing fascist dictatorship, so I am not being a hypocrite here. Libya already has its own revolution going and all we are trying to do is give them a little help. If we did not act against Gadaffi, Libyas popular revolution would have been crushed by Gadaffi. If we had not taken action, there would have been a bloodbath, Gadaffi was expected to carry out a massive reprisal that could have result in a mass killing. We are not looking at the US administering Libya, we are looking at aiding their own established, homegrown revolution, by taking out Gadaffi.. In iraq, the goal was occupation, the enemy was anyone who opposed US occupation. In the Libya situation, we are not trying to have involvement in running Libya, we are simply stopping Gadaffi so Libyas people can establish a new government. There are big differences between that and trying to occupy a country like we did in Iraq. At most we are looking at air strikes, and even supplies of arms to the rebels should be considered, to assist a home grown pro-democracy revolution in Libya. I think in general action in Libya by the west is important, Gadaffi is a sociopath, he is ruthless, and he would kill many people. He cannot be trusted, his main objective is to, try to trick people into thinking he is going to act responsibly when he is under international pressure, until, he hopes the international community looks away, then its back to his same old torture and suppression of dissent.
What we are looking at here is not another iraq war. The US is not going to attempt to invade and occupy Libya. What should have been done is right away, when the revolution got started, to support the revolution, was to incapacitate gadaffi, target his military installations. This would specifically avoid rebel and civilian targets. This would help give the Rebel groups the upper hand and give them a better chance of winning. The goal is not to have the US get involved with nation building, it is to help get gadaffi out of the way so Libya's own popular uprising can be successful.
It is sort of hypocritical that many who were all for the iraq war would condemn libya action, when the libya action will not be anywhere near as expensive, this is not a US invasion of libya. We are not talking about an 8 year trillion dollar ground invasion here. We are talking about some fly overs to take out some Gadaffi installations by air strike, an operation that takes few resources, few personel, and is not very expensive to do, taking a few weeks.
Both of you are missing the entirety of US hypocrisy. Until the second week of this month the US had a deal to sell the Libyan military (Ghaddaffi) $77 million worth of equipment. Was Ghaddaffi not an evil dictator two weeks ago? Was he a dictator when Bush opened relations with him?
Our government ignores those in Bahrain and Yemen seeking democracy. Why, because those dictators, like Mubarak etc are our friends they allow us to have military bases from which to launch wars of aggression. In Bahrain over the weekend a gov't sniper killed 46 unarmed protesters. Now the Saudi military, armed by USA has moved into Bahrain to assist their dictator friend.
Libya has oil, Bahrain and Yemen do not.
We will abandon the rebels in Libya just like we did those in Iraq in the 90's.
We have no money for these adventures and US gov't gives not one shite about Libyans. It is all in the name of self interest and potential profit for Raytheon and other war profiteers.
Yes -- US - France -- UK -- Russia -- our global warms dealers have a grave
responsibility in this situation where these weapons are being used by
Gaddafi to kill his own people who have risen up against him.
No head of a nation has the right to kill people opposed to their governing!
And let's hope that there will be no US troops used -- this is already
complicated enough --
Libyans long asked for a "no fly zone" -- but they have always said NO TROOPS!!
May the courageous Libyans win their peace, freedom, liberty!
Good post!
Thanks.
It is stunning to hear Democrats and liberals talking exactly the way Bush supporters did in the run up to the invasion of Iraq - the same logic, the same justifications, the same lines.
Your opinion would be wrong.
Your ongoing arrogance and condescension are noted. The image that comes to my mind is that of a frightened little boy trying to compensate by bullying others.
"You say "our government ignores those in Bahrain...Yemen". Your implication being America must come to the rescue there, too. Talk about being hypocritical: you are taking two positions at once: you are criticising USA for only enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, and on the other hand you're mad that the USA is not sending in the troops to help Yemen and Bahrain. DCNative, you can't have it both ways at once. You are contradicting yourself.
"
In that case, do you support intervention in Bahrain, Yemen? Yes or no?
"I am glad to, for once, find myself supporting the USA in the Libyan instance. It is obviously entirely different from Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was unilateral invasion and occupation by USA/UK armed forces. The USA has already ceded leadership to France/UK and NATO. It is obviously not a repeat of Iraq, and the USA clearly doesn't want to get involved.
"
Why does this make it better? One imperialist is better / worse than another imperialist?
"Come on you guys, get a clue. Don't be such knee-jerk liberals. Understand the subtleties being played out here. Read up on each Arab countries unique situation so you aren't "blame America first without questioning or thinking".
"
The funny thing is that it is mostly liberals that support the bombing.
"Come on you guys, get a clue. Don't be such knee-jerk liberals. Understand the subtleties being played out here. Read up on each Arab countries unique situation so you aren't "blame America first without questioning or thinking".
"
Intervention in Bahrain. Yes or no?
Another new screen name to spread the Gospel of Americana.
The United States of America used fighter planes against Civilians in Iraq in Yemen, In Afghanistan. They used them in Libya years ago. They used them in Bosnia and Kosovo and Vietnam and Laos.
In all those cases they killed innocent civilians but only when a Libya does it is it somehow warranting intervention? Only then has a boundary been crossed?
You are one sick puppy.
LOL ROFL ha ha ha ha wheeeeee!
It is so much fun, isn't it, mocking and ridiculing those opposing this latest military action? They are reading too much Chomsky, they went to liberal arts colleges, they are naive and unrealistic, they are immature...
Of course your "side" in this will "win" - because your side has the missiles and warplanes and bombs, you are siding with power and then puffing yourself up as though it is you that has the strength and power. You get to feel tough and pragmatic and strong - you are on the winning team! You contemptuously brush away any questioning the war mongering propaganda like so many insignificant gnats.
You probably have no sense whatsoever that your post illustrated what the other poster said.
It is all so much fun for you. Almost as much fun as pulling the wings off of insects. or tormenting domestic animals.
Your posts sicken and disgust me. The arrogance, the belligerence - your posts are everything that is ugly, cruel and murderous about the US and those who defend the worst, most horrific actions by the ruling class. What do you get out of this? What is in it for you? Where do you think your thinking is going to lead?
"Where do you think your thinking is going to lead?"
To war... constant war.
But don't forget 2A, the liberal interventionists' reasons for war are better than the rightwing warhawks' reasons for war.
duplicate post
So clever.
ervadaras:
"The goal is not to have the US get involved with nation building, it is to help get gadaffi out of the way so Libya's own popular uprising can be successful."
*****
On a variety of levels, your understanding of US foreign policy lacks both sophistication and historical perspective, but I will limit my comment to only one aspect of your post.
The US agenda in Libya, or anywhere for that matter, is not to support a successful democratic/social revolution, but to instead crush it. US foreign policy will not allow the independent development of any successful, independent democratic or economic alternative to the capitalist model. Any "democracy" that emerges from Libya will be carefully monitored to make certain it aligns with US state/capitalist, neoliberal, ruling class interests.
With regard to Libya, and based on US/CIA's history of subversion, I remain suspicious of this particular "social uprising" and cannot help but wonder if the US/CIA chose Libya as an opportunity to capitalize on the genuine social uprisings taking place across the middle east to conspire with "the rebels" (Gaddafi's former henchmen) and create this coup for the sole purpose of bringing about regime change. We may never know.
In any event, regardless of whether the rebellion is genuine or inspired by US subversion, any suggestion that the US is on a humanitarian mission in Libya to assist "the rebels" in achieving democracy is both farcical and specious; it simply defies decades of historical evidence to the contrary. Libya is simply another resource-rich target of a muderous, evil empire in its quest for world hegemony on behalf of the transnational ruling-class oligarchy.
As always, "humanitarianism" is simply the pretext--to sell the assault to reliably gullible and unfailingly incurious US citizens, who, like you, REALLY, REALLY want to believe that THIS TIME WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING (We're the GOOD GUYS!!! Hooray for US!!). Again, such an assertion is ludicrous and flies in the face of more than a century of US foreign interventions.
The US could not care less about civilian deaths in Libya any more than it cares about civilian deaths, which take place on a daily basis, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen at the hands of its own US/NATO soldiers and CIA-controlled Predator and Reaper drones. The toll of civilian deaths resulting from US aggression in the middle east over the past ten years numbers in the tens of thousands. Clearly, the US is not a nation that cares a whit about innocent human life.
As in Iraq, the goal in Libya is regime change. Upon removing Gaddafi, the US has no intention of allowing the Libyan people the freedom to independently develop Libya as a democracy or to allow Libyans to use Libya's rich oil resources for the benefit of Libyans. Democracy is antithetical to neoliberal capitalism, which is why the US consistently backs dictatorships such as Egypt, Saudi Abrabia, Jordan, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc....
To arrive at a better understanding of US foreign policy, I highly recommend you read the following authors:
Noam Chomsky - www.chomsky.info
Edward S. Herman - http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political.htm
Michael Parenti - www.michaelparenti.org
William Blum - www.killinghope.org
Ad hominems and strawmen. What a great argument.
"Stop making the USA out to be "the evil empire". Please, it is not so bleak as this. There are times and instances when the USA does good in the world. Maybe when you get out of your angst-ridden 20's (probably at a liberal arts college? I was once there too--great years! Enjoy them) when we all "hate the establishment", you'll change....mature...and see the world differently.
.."
No. Nation states do not do "good". Nation states act in their own selfish interests. Especially, empires. Essentially, international policy, especially that of empires, tends to be conducted along the lines of do what you want, as long as you can get away with it.
No one hates their country. We hate what the ruling class is doing.
I am forced to conclude that since you repeatedly misrepresent the arguments of others in order to make your points -that is called using the "straw man fallacy" - that you do not in fact have a legitimate counter-argument to make.
Nation states are not the only way to organize societies and are a relatively new development - the US is one of the oldest.
Your points are all bullshit - baiting and taunting, as you display the arrogance that comes from siding with the powerful and basking in their "glory" and pretending their power is your power. That is abominable - truly disgusting.
Let's look at your "points" -
- "So what way forward then?"
Forward to where, and by whom?
- "Do we dissolve all nation states?"
Absurd and ridiculous. Who is this "we" that has the power to do any such thing? In any case, it is a non-argument, it is merely a taunt. One could have with equal validity argued in favor of slavery this way - "what way forward than> Do we dissolve all slave plantations?" The arguments defending power and justifying and rationalizing away the suffering of others never change.
- "They are here, they've been here, and they aren't going away because you don't like them."
Again, the same thing could have been said, and was said, about slavery and every other form of oppression.
You then go on with more mocking and taunting, which is simply a way of saying "f you" to any and all critics, with the only strength in your argument derived from the fact that you are defending the powerful.
"Are you going to just hate everything, all countries from now on?? for the rest of your life? Good luck with that, mate ;-)"
Shameful behavior on your part. You taunt people who hate injustice and suffering. Shameful.
"Its not as black and white as you make it out to be."
This is a common argument by those defending the powerful and oppression. It suggests that we can never say anything clear and unambiguous about anything. Yes, sometimes things are clear. You wish to confuse people and make things unclear. That insures that the current conditions will continue.
Again, this is an argument that has been used throughout history to fight against social progress. The Abolitionists were taunted with this, as were the Labor organizers and Civil Rights fighters.
The "lefties" do not ever ignore the good that is done by the working class people of the US. It is a lie to suggest otherwise. What you are saying is that we are not sufficiently grateful and subservient to the rulers. Again - shame on you for yet another disgusting attack on the people here.
I don't expect you to ever speak the truth to any of us here, but it is difficult if not impossible to indefinitely lie to yourself. I dare you to look into the mirror tonight and read aloud the things you have written here and feel good about yourself. Even if you don't do this - you are so frightened that you are afraid of yourself, and that is the truth you are desperately trying to avoid by playing mister tough guy - what I have said here -and you are certain to read this, just as a moth is drawn to the flame - will haunt you, as well it should. You will catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror and wonder "am I a phony? Am I trying to compensate for my own fear and weakness by siding with the powerful?"
You can strut and posture here, bully and belittle others, but you cannot escape yourself and that will make you miserable. Count on it.
But who knows? Miracles can happen, and I never write anyone off. Perhaps your life will change. It has happened. Meanwhile, you have my compassion and sorrow, and I sincerely hope that you will stop living a lie - for your sake as well as those with whom you come into contact. Bullying and lying do not make you a "winner." The sooner you learn that, the happier you will be, and the less duress those around you will experience.
Unbelievable.
You hear that folks? You are reading too much Chomsky and Parenti.
Stop making the USA out to be "the evil empire".
That would require the US to stop being an evil empire.
Let's all stop reading two of the best thinkers and authors America has to offer and all listen to Zamboni fahrer, he's an interwebs genius... ain't that right "boy"?
Zamboni fahrer:
Hmmmmm, lemme think about this..... Zamboni fahrer or Chomsky?
Parenti or Zamboni fahrer???? Dilemmas, dilemmas.....
Speaking of unsophisticated... after reading your reply, I am not impressed, nor am I moved to alter my reply to Evaderas, whose comment, like yours, was ridiculously sophomoric, devoid of erudition, and absent critical-thinking.
Thanks, but when I need to seek critical analysis of political or social relevance, I'll stick with Chomsky and Parenti.
Oh, but just so we're clear:
1) I am not a "dude;"
2) I am not your "dear boy;"
3) I am not your "friend;"
4) I am neither "angst-ridden," nor in my 20s; and
5) I did not attend a "liberal arts college."
Agree -- and think Greenwald is a bit off of it here --
Afghanistan and Iraq were greeted with THE LARGEST ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
EVER -- and totally ignored by politicians.
PLUS, the excuse for going into Afghanistan was 9/11 -- not that it was ruled
by a dictator -- though Hussein excuse may have just been icing on the cake.
Libya is also NOT a "civil war" -- any more than the American Revolution was
a Civil War. These protesters are simply trying to remove a dictator who has
held power for more than 40 years!!
Libya is an uprising -- a rebellion -- by citizens.
And citizens are so against Gaddafi that he has had to import 50,000 and more
mercenaries to keep him in power! Last I heard, they were still being brought in!
What if Americans rise up now against our own corrupt government?
Will that be called a "Civil War"?
You are merely repeating the propaganda, the justification for military action.
Funny how we are being asked to believe that what is happening in Libya is just like Egypt, but US intervention is nothing like Iraq. That is exactly backwards, but after carefully prepping people for days and days they have people believing exactly what they want them to believe, no matter how absurd and illogical it may be.
Can you not here the exact same rationals being used for this intervention that were used for the Iraq intervention? Can you not see that the same interests, the same ruling class agenda is at play in both cases? Can you not see that you are being played, that sympathy for the protesters in Egypt has been transferred to Libya to be used to gain your support for intervention in Libya? Can you not see that you have been brought to the same place that Bush brought his supporters to before the Iraq invasion?
"The really, really evil man has to go." Check.
"He is killing his own people." Check.
"We cannot stand by and do nothing." Check.
"This is about democracy." Check.
"The really bad man has poison gas." Check.
"The world will be better off without this really bad man." Check.
"Pay no attention to where the oil is.". Check.
"Pay no attention to the fact that the really bad man used to be 'our friend.'" Check.
"War is bad but this time it is justified." Check.
"Other countries agree and there is a coalition." Check.
GIOVANNA & Two Americas: Your Keen analyses are better than half of what is posted by the "professional" writers that CD selects. Great work.
That is a clever bit of dishonest and misleading fluff. I did not say that the various conflicts are the same, I said that the lying double talk being used to support US involvement are the same.
The main reason the US is intervening in Libya is because the imperial PTB have never been able to control or even work with Qaddafi. Libya's very strategic location is also a big plus for the US to gain a foothold--wow Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. Look at the map. This is a golden opportunity to get rid of Qaddifi and install a "friend" like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gadaffi is not your friend. He is violent and routinely violates human rights, and butchers his own people, and rather mercilessly suppresses dissent. he runs a dictatorship, not a democracy.
The fear over corporate influence is valid, and imperial ambitions. But Gadaffi himself is a state-capitalist overlord who exploits the oil wealth for his own self enrichment.
The US involvement has not been to attempt to occupy libya. It was to stop a bloodbath massacre of Rebel groups, to give those groups an upper hand. Huge difference between this and The US iraq war which i completely oppose which was a total US occupation.
A single term of a sitting US President will see..MORE peoples imprisoned under that President, more peoples murdered world wide on that Presidents orders and more acts of terrorism committed by that President and under that Presidents orders then the sum total of all of the "atrocities" attributed to "madmen" like Ghadaffi.
There is not a single President of the US either current or in the past that does not have more blood on his hands.
They dropped a freaking atomic bomb on CHILDREN for Gods sake and in one instant killed more innocents then 40 years of Ghaddafi.
del
As DCNative challenged you before, ervadaras, how long have you been for the making of war on Libya to violently remove Gadaffi from power?
What matters here is:
Why did Gadaffi suddenly need to go?
Who will replace him and why?
What will happen to the people and wealth of Libya as a result?
Team Obama's foreign policy-- and domestic policy, for that matter-- is rooted in the noble traditions established by Amerika's iconic predecessors and supreme leaders.
Not Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln, silly! I'm talking about P.T. Barnum and Charles Ponzi!
And regardless of which faction of Elected Misrepresentatives are dominating Amerika's national political institutions, there are no end of shills, hustlers, useful idiots, and earnest dupes clustering on street corners to endorse the latest scam.
Glenn Greenwald certainly knows that the U.S. did not try to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a "humanitarian" intervention, and that Saddam did not have "a history of supporting terrorism." Those are ridiculous claims.
Here are a few important differences between Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011:
1) In Libya, a popular, pro-democracy movement had spontaneously taken to the streets following successful pro-democracy revolutions in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. There was no such uprising in Iraq.
2) Libya's dictator ordered his mercenaries to kill unarmed protesters (they did so), and promised "no mercy" as they prepared to massacre citizens in a city of 700,000, creating a humanitarian emergency. There was no such emergency in Iraq.
3) As the slaughter in Libya began, Libyans pleaded for international intervention. There was no plea for intervention from citizens of Iraq.
4) Justifications for the Iraq invasion and occupation in 2003 were lies: a link between Iraq and 9/11, and a "mushroom cloud" threat of WMD. The justification for the Libya intervention is true: to prevent a genocide.
5) Gadhafi's Libya has a history of supporting terrorism. Saddam's Iraq was a bulwark for the West against Islamic terrorism.
Greenwald's argument that the international community should not intervene on behalf of pro-democracy movements seeking to depose dictators in any country, unless it does so in every country, is illogical. Every journey begins with a first step.
It should also be obvious that we lack the capacity to simultaneously depose every world dictator. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
We intervened in Tunesia, then Egypt and now Libya. The Libya intervention includes a military component only because Gadhafi was verging on a genocide.
I am sorry but you lost all credibility in your first paragraph.
And where was Barry when the Iraqi puppet government massacred 29 innocent protesters last week while 50,000 of our troops just stood by and did nothing?
And where was Barry when the genocide in Gaza was taking place?
Unfortunately none of us know what is really going on in Libya. One thing we know for certain is that our government, the media, and tweets all have an agenda and will not hesitate to lie. And while Gadhafi is not a nice guy, neither are Gadhafi's former henchmen who are now the leaders of the rebels. However it is clear which side the CIA is on and what the prize is.
Naturally, the rebels in Libya are pro-democratic? How do you know that?
Further, since there's no democracy in Libya, the rebels will have to establish one, assuming that they intend to do so at all. So will your freedom fighters vote one into existence, provided that they prevail in battle?
If so, how would they do that without presupposing the existence of a democracy in which to conduct the plebiscite needed to chose from one of several possible varieties of electoral democracies?
So many unanswered questions.
By the way, some of you may not have heard that the Libyan central bank has a large cache of gold that they never shipped to to NY, London, or Switzerland for storage, as so many other central banks have done.
How much gold? A lot. Supposedly more than 100 tons of the stuff.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/lesson-from-gaddafi-about-gold.html
"Naturally, the rebels in Libya are pro-democratic? How do you know that?"
Because everyone from Al Jazeera to CNN to Robert Fisk is reporting it. Because I have seen and heard Libyans say so repeatedly to live cameras and microphones.
Robert Fisk, March 19, 2011: "And after Tunisia, after Egypt, it's got to be Libya, hasn't it? The Arabs of North Africa are demanding freedom, democracy, liberation from oppression."
Robert Fisk, March 22, 2011: "What is not in doubt is the extraordinary tempest passing through the region, the spectacular break-up of the Arab world which most of us have known for most of our lives and which most Arabs have known for most of their lives. From the mildewed, corrupted dictatorships – the cancer of the Middle East – is emerging a people reborn. Not without bloodshed, and not without much violence in front of them as well as behind them. But now at last the Arabs can hope to march into the bright sunlit uplands. Every Arab friend of mine has said exactly the same thing to me over the past weeks: "Never did I believe I would ever live to see this."
Readbetweenthe_lines says,
"Have you heard from the lips of the majority of LIbyans that they are pro-democracy?"
WTF?
So now unless a person hears from 1/2 the population of Libya they can form no opinion? Exactly how many million people would have to declare their position to us western oafs before we get to have an independent thought about the situation? Ludricrous argument.
Listening to Al-Jazeer, Mosaic, Democracy Now, all of which have been reporting Libya in depth should be enough to form an opinion. Guess if it's not the same as his/hers, you get dissed.
I wish the snooty sneerers would try reading Joe Bageant's "Deer Hunting with Jesus". Good for getting some understanding of the basic intelligence of ordinary people.
Well, what I get out of these diatribes is the understanding of why ordinary folk despise the left. No room for dissent or any form of disagreement without tremendous condescension, not to mention the smug, superior tone.
And like Noam's never been wrong? Ha!!! Noam's a good guy, but he just don't always get it right. Who does?
Juan Cole's got some stuff up on Informed Commet that gives the beginning of an outline on how Libya '11 differes from Iraq '03. Course why check out a differing opinion if you already know everything? And Juan *does* speak Arabic fluently, which I very much suspect readbetweenthe_lines does not!
You say - "so now unless a person hears from 1/2 the population of Libya they can form no opinion? "
It is a big leap from "forming an opinion" to cheer leading war. The point rbtl made is that you don't know if the US is supporting a pro-democracy movement or not. What is "pro-democracy" anyway? Pro US corporate interests?
Do you think we have democracy here? Is that the sort of democracy that we are bombing Libya to support?
Who said Chomsky is always right? No one.
What does "speaking Arabic fluently" have to do with anything? Nothing.
Yes, Cole is working on "the beginning of an outline." Many people have been working on such an outline,. in order to get people to support this aggression.
I suggest you re-read Bageant. You are mangling his point of view pretty badly here.
You are trying to flip reality on its head by portraying the skeptics and critics as close-minded, while portraying those spouting the propaganda line from the rulers as the reasonable ones.
The burden of proof is on you, as a war supporter, as the one repeating claims from the rulers, not on the critics.
Perhaps this will provide some insight into the bizarre hostility of these two (Venezuelan?) pro-Gadhafi "leftist" posters. It's the Gadhafi/Chavez connection. The translation is a little rough, but the points come across.
http://iransnews.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/chavez-gaddafi-and-the-left/
The funny thing with your assertion that (the majority of) Libyans might no want democracy, is that, that is the assertion often used by imperialist right wing / neo liberal types too: that Arabs do not want democracy, that Arabs like their tyrants.
But, you of course are an expert on what Libyans want. The person who is only capable of screaming sockpuppet and gringo at anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.
You are hilarious.