rickyp wrote:As for Obama's "days not weeks, I think if you scroll through this board 's earlier comments, I was wondering why everyone expected a sudden military solution in Libya.
Its a little childish to expect a foreign intervention that can magically end a military dictatorship with a modicum of effort and no sacrifice . . .

Um, Richard, did you just call our President "childish?" I am offended!

After all, he did say "days, not weeks," which you now describe as "a little childish."

Okay, you're not an absolute Obama flunky.

I do have a question: why would the dictator step down? Who is taking him? Will he be protected from international tribunal? If not, why would he resign? Because he cares about the lives of others even at the expense of his own?????

Well, lets see what happens in Libya after Gadaffi is gone.
If things go smoothly, I am still not 100% behind taking sides in a civil war but it certainly was better having more support from others, even so, do we have 100% support? Never gonna happen. Is this only about civilian casualties and such? Of course not, it's because they have oil. Syria and Yemen are similar situations we want nothing to do with. The reasons are hollow at best. Acknowledging it was about oil, how much different was this than Iraq? I guess the dictatorship doesn't matter when a Republican is President and does matter when a Democrat is president?

How much different is this than Iraq:

in years ........... 8
in cost .............. about a trillion
in lives .............. priceless

so far
at this time in Iraq, how much different was it?
...not much

yay! oil!

tom

I guess the dictatorship doesn't matter when a Republican is President and does matter when a Democrat is president?

You have any idea how many nations in the middle east are democracies? None of them, cept Israel and to an certain extent Palestine.
If the US only decided to intervene when democracy was at stake there would have been no Gulf War I. That war was fought to free Kuwait from Iraq and make it safe once again for a monarchy. (Dictatorship with a nicer name).
If you want to try and compare the past and other present situations with Libya, at least try and be fair about the comparison.
About two months into the invasion of Iraq there were 125,000 American British and other forces on the ground in Iraq. Already US troops were being killed by "insurgents" (About 45 casualties by this time, I beleive) and the populace was becoming restive under the occupation. And the hunt for weapons of mass destruction was three months old and fruitless....
And ex-parts were returning to Iraq from Iran and other places to later take over the governance of Iraq and form a lasting relationship with Iran.,...
They still hadn't found Saddam but about now they'd found and killed his sons. And billions had already been siphoined off by contractors hoping to make a fortune from the occupation... And the oil fileds weren't producing, and when, 6 years later, they did. The US didn't end up benefitting much. Certainly did get paid back for its investment in the invasion.
Things were just swell two months in, and the future was rosy.

Ummm, Ricky
Do you have any idea that Democrats had nothing good to say about Iraq
but now, when the same issues arise in Libya, suddenly they support Obama?

and we are already one billion dollars into this Libyan civil war, it has not been free either.
You want to compare current events to hindsight of another event
Libya could still go ok, no doubt
But it is not inexpensive nor do we have any idea what will result from this, the situations are remarkably similar yet the Obama faithful can find no fault with their guy.
Seems to me what I said was correct

Tom, what about the strategic argument that by invading Iraq we strengthened Iran? I don't really see a comparable there in the Libyan intervention. Do you?

Ray Jay wrote:Tom, what about the strategic argument that by invading Iraq we strengthened Iran? I don't really see a comparable there in the Libyan intervention. Do you?

Monte, isn't this just another example of the hindsight comparison that Tom was talking about. Was it clear in 2003 when the Iraq war started that it would strengthen Iran? Or was it discussed at the time that having a democratic pro-west Iraq might weaken Iran?

yes, in hindsight, part of the reason that invading Iraq was a bad decision is that it strengthened Iran.

But I don't see that dynamic with Libya. Do you?

Mind you, I think there are several other important differences as well, but we've discussed those already.

Is this identical? Of course not
Is it very similar? no doubt about it.
so why the drastic differences?

this is what confuses me so much

Oh, and from my own position
I was for the Iraq invasion
I am not 100% behind this Libyan one
so it would appear I too am part of the same problem

But I was for the Iraq invasion for various reasons, it then dragged on and I soured on it, I wanted out a long time ago and still do. I actually LEARNED something from it and do not want the same thing in Libya (or not a similar thing in Libya). Can the supporters of Libya actually claim they learned something from Iraq and that's why they want to support this Libya issue? (I don't think so).

Is this identical? Of course not
Is it very similar? no doubt about it.
so why the drastic differences?

this is what confuses me so much

How many ground troops were in Iraq at this stage of the war?
What was the US commitment in Iraq at this stage of the war?
Did the Arab League endorse the US action in Iraq?
Is Iraq a desert enabling an air war?
What was our stated rationale for going into Iraq (WMD)?
What is the population density of Iraq? What is the population density of Libya?

I'm confused by your confusion.

Here's yet another demonstration as to why Obama is headed towards a 2nd term despite significant opposition to his policies.

On Wednesday, 74 days after U.S. forces joined the military operation in Libya, President Obama seemed to run out of goodwill on Capitol Hill.

A group of both liberals and conservatives — defying the leaders of both parties — threw their support behind a bill to pull the U.S. military out of the Libya operation. That prospect led GOP leaders to shelve the bill before it came to a vote.

That episode signaled how abruptly the politics of U.S. warmaking have changed, as the intervention in Libya follows a bloody, weary decade in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, a Democratic president has asked the country to support a new military action and missed a legal deadline that required him to get Congress’s authorization.

In response, an antiwar movement has appeared in an unlikely place: a House dominated by the Republican right.

“We are in control in the House, and we want something on the floor,” said Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), one of a number of conservatives who called Wednesday for a showdown with Obama. “Put a resolution up, and let us express . . . to the president that ‘you no longer have the authority of this Congress to conduct military operations in that country.’ ”

Well, Iraq started as enforcing a no fly zone
The Libya situation was stated as such but immediately started targeting the military
so on that account, this is further advanced than was Iraq.

Did the Arab league endorse Iraq? No, but they also didn't mind seeing an end to Sadaam and they hardly spoke up in the least. And in Libya they supported it only to one week later start complaining that what we were doing was not what they supported, so all in all, kinda the same huh?

Both support an air war easily, especially when using high tech guided cruise missiles.
I see no major difference

Going into Iraq, we had the reason of WMD's
We know Iraq had them, they were used on their own people
They did not prove the destruction of them
so we had good reason to both think they were still available and we were protecting the innocents from their government. Gee, again, somewhat similar huh?

So your real differences are in population densities? You support one over the other because of a difference in population density only? Based on your position, then we should be invading Darfur to protect the innocent people there. I see no real differences using your own logic (or lack thereof)