Attack on Libya imminent?

Hmm, well, that's not surprising, you see, I've identified your problem: the public discourse of arguments with respect to the politics of military intervention (from either side) are far more complex and nuanced than the simple "war is bad" distillation you have made (or war is good, or anything that idiotically absolute).

In making this distillation, you are generally exhibiting the cognitive skills of a none-too-bright three-year old.

So, your confusion is very understandable in light of this circumstance.

 

Very early on a sunday PM to be going full r****d, my friend. Why don't you show us your "special" math - I mean the 100,000 dead brown civvies from Iraq up on the wall in Crawford are a tough score to match.

 

Not exactly accurate. Most on the left including most Democrats were in favor of military action in Afghanistan. They were in favor of it from the minute it happened. Also from the minute it happened most on the left were against the war in Iraq. I'd say the left got it right both times.

 

Well, what else are they supposed to say?

"We are evil. Our goals are unjust." ?

 

Yellow cake.

 

I forget which one was authorized by SC vote at the UN and which one was some John Wayne routine.

 

yes, indeed.

"I've taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone. Our goal, to crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women is focused. Our cause is unjust. And our coalition is...there. Somewhat."

You reach, I teach

 

I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, and I don't support the attack on Libya. But if we are justifying it based on relative offensiveness of the dictators, which makes a lot more sense than the support of a fickle body like the UN, Saddam Hussein was much worse to his people than Qaddaffi has been to his.

 

You can't be that dense.

 

Thanks Obama

 

to be fair then, the scale of the operations have been immensely different. To deal with Saddam, the United States went completely overboard. For Qaddafi, it seems like America is just content to lob a few missiles and form a part of a multilateral coalition.

The thing is though, one can always point to things like how the US propped up Saddam when he was doing his worst and was the one who supplied the WMD that allowed him to massacre his own people---but I think it's better applauding when America has "good intentions" rather then focus too much on the "bad intentions" of the past.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for one or the other based on the offensiveness of the dictators. The opposition for the Iraq War came primarily from the idea of invading and occupying the country. That's part of why there was pretty universal support for Gulf War I - and why Bush Sr specifically chose not to attack Baghdad at the time.

Besides which, while Saddam was certainly more horrendous overall, he certainly wasn't at the time of our invasion. His worst transgressions were in the 1980's (when we actually supported him) - 10 to 20 years before we invaded to remove him from power. By the early 2000's, he was really no different from the many other dictators we have befriended over the years.

 

CometsWin just got majorly PWN3D

 

I agree with part of it, but we have no clue how bad Libya's going to be. No one is calling for a ground war today, but remember that Vietnam started with a few military advisors. And Saddam's worst atrocities were putting down the Shia uprising, and the mass executions that followed, after the first Gulf War. Those deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands (millions according to the Ba'ath Party records).

Here's a link to a long article that chronicles some of the fall-out of the wars that we consider successes: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/the-littlest-invasions/ I'll save you the space of posting it, but it's an enlightening read.