GMTom wrote:I can't recall any here who "clamoured" for US involvement. Obama's handling of the situation was called in to question no doubt, but I can't recall any who suggested we intervene.

I think Ray Jay was the most in favour. A centrist by US standards, former Liberal now moving right on economics.

Whoever says that it's the 'left' or the 'right' backing the intervention is a partisan hack who is ignoring reality.

Oh, I see
The UN matters when enough western powers agree with one another
But the UN doesn't matter when you flaunt their sanctions over and over, when your allies (France) ignores the sanctions, the UN matters only when they side with your own opinion I suppose?

and Ricky, seriously, I'm a bit confused. You have several times now posted the reason for this Libyan intervention is useful to bring democracy to the Libyans. But you have been dead set against Iraq, wasn't bringing democracy to them important?

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:popular in a poll?
Iraq was very popular in the early polls as well.

Why is it the US must join in a western alliance in Libya but France, Germany, etc were no big deal not taking part in Iraq?

The similarities are astounding yet ignored.

Umm, the obvious one is that Iraq was not agreed to under the UN, but Libya was. Thus allies are easier to come by.

Or . . . not:

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

[Source: US State Department]

Coalition - Libya - 2011

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate

I'll be waiting on the retraction.

Beyond that, Bush went to the UN--and had more authority to do what he did than Obama does. How does a "no-fly zone" morph into attacking ground troops in a few days? Resolution 1441 (summary, Wiki) :

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions

So, 0 for 2. Nice.

rickyp wrote:x

Why do we like the ideas of self determination, democracy, representative government, and elections? Answer: because we see them as the best method in most cases to ensure that people get to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what about those rare cases when an electoral process produces a result that causes a net decline in freedom and happiness? Do we sacrifice the interests of the people simply because ballot boxes were involved?

Would you explain to the people of the middle east why they can't have democracy?

From what I wrote and you quoted you infer that I want to deny democracy to the people of the Mideast? Wow. What I'm saying, Ricky, is that democracy is about more than elections. "Democracy is not so much a form of government as a set of principles." -Woodrow Wilson

Without having embraced the principles, employing the outward forms of democracy doesn't accomplish anything. If all you want to achieve is the holding of an election, nation-building would be easy. Take Iraq for example. Remember the purple fingers? Great stuff, right? But the Iraqis are still working on embracing the principles to which I think Wilson was referring, and the purple-finger moment, as wonderful as it was, was a mere baby step on that journey.

When you distort my posts like this I feel compelled to correct you so others won't be misled. That almost inevitably leads to a series of back-and-forth nonsense that neither interests or informs anyone. It's very frustrating, and a waste of time. I don't know what to do in lieu of engaging in this silliness with you except to either walk away from these forums or to silently absorb your ill-aimed barbs like St. Sebastian. Shall I change my username from Minister X to Martyr X?

GMTom wrote:Oh, I see
The UN matters when enough western powers agree with one another
But the UN doesn't matter when you flaunt their sanctions over and over, when your allies (France) ignores the sanctions, the UN matters only when they side with your own opinion I suppose?

It seems you have understood the place of the UN in the world. It's entirely optional, but it makes for easier and better PR if you can point to a UN resolution or some such when you move ahead with the thing you always intended to do anyways. That is if you are an importan enough country.

GMTom wrote:and Ricky, seriously, I'm a bit confused. You have several times now posted the reason for this Libyan intervention is useful to bring democracy to the Libyans. But you have been dead set against Iraq, wasn't bringing democracy to them important?

I would suggest that the war in Iraq was sold on an entirely different theme, the WMD stuff. I would further point to the oppositions current uprising in Lybia which was looking to go the way of massacre. In Iraq you guys let the Shia rebells be killed after Desert Storm without so much as blinking.
So i think with a little obejctivity you can spot big differences between the two.

Faxmonkey wrote:In Iraq you guys let the Shia rebells be killed after Desert Storm without so much as blinking.

That's not entirely fair. More than a few voices here were raised in outrage. On the other hand, I don't recall any of our European allies complaining.

x

Ricky says "And the Muslim Brotherhood was considered a huge threat, but with Mubarek gone there's less talk about the organization as a threat to security or democracy." Yet HERE is a story in yesterday's Wash. Times headlined "Rumsfeld worries Brotherhood will hijack Egyptian revolution".

X, you may be the only person in the world who still finds Don Rumsfeld credible. And the Washington Times? really? The Rev. Sun's gift to skewed reality?

But you are correct. Where I said "everyone on the right" I should have said "many on the right".Or "A large number of critics, primarily on the right."
I'll point again to Newt Gingrinchs pretzel like statements on Libya as a great example of critics who simply take a position in opposition to Obama no matter what Obama's position is...If you'd like a video compilation of the televusion pundits flip flopping all over this this have a look at the daily show's compilation. Pundits on fox and CNN are all over the map, taking issue wiith whateveer was done and wasn't done... (I'd link you to it but I'm geoblocked...) Frankly a lot of these people would take issue with Obama if he walked on water.

As for the pursuit of democracy and the example of the difficulties in Iraq. All true. Buts lets assume that people tend to figure things better out for themselves then with foreigners occupying their country. If it didn't feel like an imposed system to the Sunni minority or Khurdish minority when the elections in Iraq ocurred I'd be surprised.
When democracy is an expression of the people themselves and not the result of a foreign occupation then the commitment to it is greater.
The intervention in Libya is not an occupying force. As long as the coalition can avoid that there is a chance for a Libyan created result.

minister

From what I wrote and you quoted you infer that I want to deny democracy to the people of the Mideast?

You asked a rhetorical quetion. I answered with a rhetorical question.
I interpreted your question as rhetorical.
Why is it that you then take a rhetorical statement as a direct attack rather than a response to your rhetorical question? Does this indicate less neutrality and more more affinity for the position represented by the rhetorical question ? Just asking.

If you think that answering your rhetorical questions distorts your posts than stop using rhetorical questions.

rickyp wrote:I'll point again to Newt Gingrinchs pretzel like statements on Libya as a great example of critics who simply take a position in opposition to Obama no matter what Obama's position is...

Meanwhile, Democrats have always been so principled. Please, do tell, who was it who said Bush should be impeached if he dared attack Iran (not Iraq, Iran) because we had no national interest there?

Also, who was it who opposed the invasion of Iraq, the surge in Iraq, etc., said we had no business being in Iraq because "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

Answer 1: Then Senator Joe Biden

Answer 2: Then Senator Barack Obama.

I mean it's not like they were reflexively anti-Bush or anything . . .

Also, I would note you've yet to learn your lesson. Let's see if MX deigns to waste more of his time correcting you.

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:I can't recall any here who "clamoured" for US involvement. Obama's handling of the situation was called in to question no doubt, but I can't recall any who suggested we intervene.

I think Ray Jay was the most in favour. A centrist by US standards, former Liberal now moving right on economics.

Whoever says that it's the 'left' or the 'right' backing the intervention is a partisan hack who is ignoring reality.

Perfect ... it's nice to be correctly interpreted. Throw in social liberal who is all for liberal drug rules and marriage laws and any footware that is comfortable and you've gotten me.

I'm still in favor of the Libyan intervention but there's a small part of me that is concerned that in a year I'll be shown to be a fool.

I think you have to take a step back to evaluate Obama's performance in the Middle East. If you can build a continuum of success and failure, I would describe success as:

1. greater democracy
2. decline of Iranian power (which is the key to israeli cooperation in the West Bank)
3. reduced blood shed
4. flowing oil
5. better relations between the west and the Muslim world
6. Limited cost for the west (given our budgetary situations)

And I would describe failure as the opposite of these 6 and

1. increased opportunity and desire for terrorism.

Let's evaluate our intervention in Libya and the rest of this on a bigger picture. If you were to evaluate Iraq on these dimensions, at best we are 1 or 2 out of 7.

I don't see too many differences, try as you like to differentiate the two, they are remarkably similar. And as Steve pointed out with the list, I said "Western" agreement seems to matter more than actual numbers.
The difference? Basically France, Germany and Canada. These inclusions seem to mean more than South Korea, Turkey and the Philippines I guess?

Enforcing UN sanctions matter less than enacting special sanctions that immediately morphed into something they were not? (a no fly zone does not attack ground forces, it does take out antiaircraft batteries on the ground but tanks?

and I am not saying I am against this Libyan intervention, I am very up in the air about it but not sold on either position (wishy washy I freely admit) But the reason I am undecided is because I did learn a lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan and I can see the similarities and have no problem letting others get involved, why must the US take part in everything? Let Canada, France and Germany take their turn. Have at it folks....

GMTom wrote:
and I am not saying I am against this Libyan intervention, I am very up in the air about it but not sold on either position (wishy washy I freely admit) But the reason I am undecided is because I did learn a lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan and I can see the similarities and have no problem letting others get involved, why must the US take part in everything? Let Canada, France and Germany take their turn. Have at it folks....

The last part is very interesting. Obama's dithering has demonstrated the reality that England, France, Germany, Italy, and Turkey were all unable to do this without the US because of the 4 C's:

cruise missiles,
command and control, and
courage,

even though Libya is just a few miles from Europe and a 5th rate military power. For better or for worse, the US is in the position of leading the west.

NATO can do it no problem, and just as Turkey (part of NATO) wants nothing to do with this, so could the US.
Cruise missiles are nice but not absolutely required, certainly not for a no fly zone only (as was the original intent)
Command is trying to be handed off to NATO so that's a non-issue
Courage? that's simply stuff of Presidential speeches, aside from France, their is plenty of courage to go around without the US taking part. That part is downright insulting to the other nations! (again, except France of course)

I find France's hawkishness on Libya very interesting. When was the last time France was hawkish? I date it back to Algeria or Dien Bien Phou. But then, Total (the oil company) is a huge player in Libya and the company is much bigger to France than ExxonMobil is to the US. Can even the cheese eating, socialist, French be so swayed by easy access to oil?

geojanes wrote:Can even the cheese eating, socialist, French be so swayed by easy access to oil?

With Sarkozy many things have changed or are changing in France. Besides, they're not so socialist, given that the extreme right-wing (Le Pen) is very voted and popular. What defines them the most is that is a country of extremes, at least lately.