GMTom wrote: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?

Really? I seem to recall that more Democratic Senators voted for the war than against. Do you mean 'all Democrats', or do you mean 'the Democrats I'm thinking about, hoping to imply all Democrats' ??

And Iraq did not 'start' as a no-fly zone. If you want to pre-date the invasion of 2003, then you need to go back to the original war. That was started because the US and others wanted to push Iraq out of Kuwait after the 1990 invasion.

Following the defeat of the Iraqis, and uprisings in Kurdistan and the southern marshes, the no-fly zones were imposed by the US, UK and France. Enforcement peaked some years before 2002 (when the push for war started). but 9/11 came a long and so did the reprised claims of WMDs.

A good sign I must be right, I have one of those "on the other side" now reverting to nit-picking. Can't win by reason, then change and start picking on non-issues.
Democrats STARTED all for Iraq, yes, But how long until they were all against it and complaining they were misguided? Yeah, they were for it until things got tough, suddenly they complained for years and years and years, now you want to claim something else??? Yes, I am referring to ALL democrats, you might find one or two who supported it still but that number is so slim I'm fine with my "stereotyping" here.

Iraq didn't start as a no-fly zone?
Sure, you want to go back to the Kuwait war that nobody had a problem with, maybe you want to go back to when the British drew the political borders? No, the whole current war started with the time after that war ENDED (so it really can't have started before that time?) and they had a whole host of issues including a no fly zone we had to enforce ...just like now in Libya.

GMTom wrote:A good sign I must be right, I have one of those "on the other side" now reverting to nit-picking. Can't win by reason, then change and start picking on non-issues.

get over yourself, luv. You must be right because someone disagrees with your blanket airily declared facts?

And by the way, when it comes to supporting the military action in Libya, I'm closer to your 'side' than I am to that of ricky and RJ. I'm 'picking nits' because you are trying to turn this debate into a partisan one that is all about US domestic politics. I thought it was about Libya.

Democrats STARTED all for Iraq, yes, But how long until they were all against it and complaining they were misguided? Yeah, they were for it until things got tough, suddenly they complained for years and years and years, now you want to claim something else??? Yes, I am referring to ALL democrats, you might find one or two who supported it still but that number is so slim I'm fine with my "stereotyping" here.

Well, I'm pretty sure that Senator Clinton was supportive for quite some time, as were Reid and Biden. Indeed, it wasn't until 2005 that a Senator (Feingold) called for full withdrawl. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00831.html

The disillusion among those Democrats who supported the invasion was not immediate. Those who opposed the war vocally always had done (and bear in mind that much of the anti-war movement was from groups outside the Democrats).

Iraq didn't start as a no-fly zone?
Sure, you want to go back to the Kuwait war that nobody had a problem with, maybe you want to go back to when the British drew the political borders? No, the whole current war started with the time after that war ENDED (so it really can't have started before that time?) and they had a whole host of issues including a no fly zone we had to enforce ...just like now in Libya.

But Tom, the no-fly zone didn't come about out of nothing, it was a direct result of the 1991 war. And it was in place for over ten years before invasion. It was a key part of the post-war settlement, as were the WMD inspections. Either you start at the beginning, or you see the 2003 invasion as a significant departure. You can't with much credence start in the middle and say that's where it started out.

haha, but the partisan politics is indeed what this is all about. From the second posting on, it has been almost nothing but partisan politics, now after 13 pages you want to say its something different? And your example of Dems who supported the Iraq war? Wow, you got up to 2005? 6 years of disagreement and I'm wrong?

and your claim about no fly zones being a direct result of the 1991 war, sure a war that was OVER
and that war was directly a result of the way political borders were drawn up before that, maybe we should blame Britain for drawing it that way? (pretty sure it was Britain ...whoever drew it that way can be blamed I suppose?) You continue to nit-pick while ignoring the very similar situations and pointing to how vastly different the two are, not really very different at all.

David Halberstam had a line about these things, and I won't be able to get it exactly right; he said something like once it becomes labeled military issue, everything swings in the favor of the generals and in the favor of more and more commitment.

Tom said:

Based on your position, then we should be invading Darfur to protect the innocent people there.

Yes, I think the West should have intervened in Darfur years ago.

Tom said:

I see no real differences using your own logic (or lack thereof)

I don't understand why you have to initiate a personal attack. We disagree. I've provided my view. you've rejected it.

You think I'm a blind Obama partisan, but I've posted my view on Libya before the US intervention complaining that Obama was not intervening. In other posts I complain about Obama's economic policies.

How would you feel if I said I've presented substantial differences between this intervention and the one in Iraq, but Tom has been unable to see them using his analytical capabilities (or lack thereof)."

I was responding to both your individual comment as well as many others, I did not mean to make you feel this was a personal attack, none was meant. However, I do not see the logic when any wish to approve of Libya but can not support Iraq (at the start) and to not learn from past mistakes learned from Iraq.
If you stated you presented substantial differences, I would say I presented reasons why they are not so different at all.

RJ, I've got to ask on what basis do you assume that NATO's intervention is altruistic?

Tom, fair enough. We just disagree.

Neal, I think there is a component of altruism. By recollection, Qhadafi said he was going to kill his own people. He said he would get crazy and show no mercy. He used helicopters and planes to fire on civilians. He has killed innocents before with no remorse.

There are other components as well.

Tom, just to expand on our disagreement. I launch into this because I think it is helpful for people to understand patterns of debate and discussion. These patterns manifest themselves everywhere and especially on these pages. I think we can all benefit by observing these patterns and trying to rise above them.

So, to summarize the discussion: I've offered several reasons why I think they are different. You've offered your own reasons as to why my reasons are invalid. That's all fair. Let's assume that this an be about any issue, and either one of us can be right or wrong, or what is more likely in the vast majority of debates, which is that there is an element of truth in both of our positions. (In this particular debate I think that is true, by the way, and I suspect you do as well.)

Where I think the conversation goes off the rails is what happens next. You took the additional step and said that since you don't see the validity of my position, therefore, I must have an ulterior motive (either understood by me or not) for my view. You then looked into my soul and said that I must be a partisan hack and a blind Obama supporter. In other words, you've now assumed that our differences of opinion are the result of some psychological or intellectual weakness on my part. No doubt if we have a difference of opinion it could not be something else.

You don't have any evidence for your last assertion. You don't know me, and you don't know how my brain works. You've surmised, which is allowed. But you've surmised on something that I know about (how my brain works) and which you probably know less about. You just take it as an article of faith that if you don't agree with me, then by definition I am illogical, and therefore what is driving me is "X".

Of course, I could equally plausibly argue that since you don't see my arguments, it must be that you are biased. Maybe you have an intellectual weakness or psychological bias. For example, I could look into your soul and surmise that the reason for our disagreement is that you hate Obama, or hate people who criticized Bush but then support Obama. In other forums (Redscape and otherwise) this is where we start calling each other names.

Anyway, I just figured that I would get into all of this. It's not particularly directed at Tom. I think it is just a human pattern of debate. My life experience is that we can all get to be a lot smarter and wiser if we assume that other people know what they are talking about and try to follow their logic on its own terms without impugning their motives or capabilities, just because they disagree with us.

we can all get to be a lot smarter and wiser if we...

well from my side, there is nothing BUT room to get a lot smarter, I find it's pretty easy when I start so low.

haha, but the partisan politics is indeed what it is all about. From the second posting on it has been almost nothing but partisan politics, now after 13 pages you want to say its something different?

Well, I prefer to refer to the [b]first[/i] post in a thread when asking what it is all about. Silly me.

Min X posted some pretty clear stuff there about how he wanted to discuss Libya and the effects of the conflict there. Then followed two posts from Steve, one from you and one from Randy – all partisan (notice a pattern?). Then Min X again tried to turn it back to the original topic, and we did for a few posts, and I was one of those who on page 1 was trying to argue that we should not make this all about US politics (again). Just because you and your pals like to hijack the threads and make it all partisan doesn’t mean that I have to meekly let you do so without comment.

And your example of Dems who supported the Iraq war? Wow, you got up to 2005? 6 years of disagreement and I’m wrong?

Well, you are very impressive when it comes to moving goalposts. We are a few months into Libya. We were comparing Iraq at the same point, not after 2 or 8 years, and while there were problems arising a fair number of Democrats were supportive still (and a fair number were in opposition). You started with none, then went to a few, now they have to have been supportive for the whole of the past 8 years? There are holes all over the pitch and even the goalkeeper isn’t sure which end he’s playing at.

As for going back in time, well, yes we could go all the way back to the destruction of Babel. But when you talk about Britain ‘drawing the borders’, you are literally correct but also somewhat wide of the mark in terms of effect. The division of the Ottoman Empire was decided by treaty at Sevres and then by the League of Nations at San Remo. The mandates were based on the pre-existing ‘Vilayets’ of the Ottoman Empire, and Iraq was formed from Mosul, Baghdad and Basra (Syria from Syria, Deir ez-Zor and most of Aleppo; Lebanon from Beirut, . What happened later was that Britain made an accurate map of the Western and Southern desert borders (and that was the 'drawing the borders' part). But betwixt 1920 and 1991 a lot happened, not least of which were the 1958 and the 1963 coups (in the latter of which the US gave support to the Ba’athists against the Soviet aligned ’58 coup leaders), the rise of Hussein in the late 70s, the war with Iran (when Iraq was backed by both Cold War blocs, which is quite good going) and the invasion of Kuwait. We (by which I mean ‘the West’) were less happy with Hussein after the putting down of the Kurds in the late 1980s, but did nothing more than weak (and breached) arms embargoes until Kuwait. But still, it took over ten years for the no-fly zones to ‘develop’ into anything else, and it was little to do with the enforcement of them that led to the 2003 war. That was apparently down to other breaches of the 1991 settlement (WMDs). Again, I’m not sure how it’s comparable to Libya directly, unless we have recently fought and won a war against them to evict them from another nation and you are predicting an escalation in 2013.

Look, there are similarities and differences. But you want to make it all about partisan attitudes and how ‘ridiculous’ it is that ‘Democrats’ opposed Iraq and support Libya. Hence your need to highlight the similarities and get all snide whenever the differences are highlighted (or the fact that in order to draw similarities you are ignoring massive factors).

My point is that this is not the partisan issue you so desperately want to make it (or rather, it should not be). And the examples are on this thread. Dr Fate opposed both. I opposed both. I am sure there are people who (at the time) supported both, and are from all both ‘sides’ of the US political divide. So yes, we are back to page one, when you and your fellow travellers decided to ignore Min X’s pleas and make it all about your political opponents in the US. It’s not, it’s about Libya.

So, can we discuss Libya without it being all about the US?

Right, so, going back to the OP, the rebellion has not melted away. On the ground it seems that there’s not been much movement since the large back-and forth along the coast of the Bay of Sirte. However, there are still signs of cracks in the regime. A tribe based in the area to the south of Tripoli have rebelled. Defections of military and government figures continue. There were large protests in Tripoli at the weekend.

On that first example, the Warfalla clan are in the area around the city of Bani Walid. This is in the same province as Misrata, but some way inland. Between there and the Tunisian border are the Nafusa Mountains, which have a lot of rebel activity and a lot of the towns have been changing hands. If the rebels gain control in Misrata, Bani Walid and in the Nafusa, and they also take or block the city of Gharyan, then the Tripoli coast will be cut off from the rest of the country. However, it’s clear that the regime know this and they are pushing hard. Which is probably why things towards Benghazi are relatively quiet compared to in March.

Now, the Western rebels aren’t all associated with the ‘transitional’ government in Benghazi, but they are probably more pivotal at the moment to the outcome. If they keep going, then they could tie up loyalist forces for some time. If they are defeated, then the regime will have more materiel free to move East. What is additionally significant about the Warfalla is that they are one of the tribes that have been long-term allies of Gadaffi.

A stalemate would not result in two contiguous sub-states, but a more complex situation which would likely not be stable. A successful rebellion will possibly have different factions vying for control and the mantle of ‘liberators’ (imagine if the Western rebels march into Tripoli while the transitional government are still stuck east of Brega!). A failed rebellion will not be easy to quell and so the process would probably increase pressure for external intervention.

RJ should consider refuting his prior position, condemn NATO's intervention, and disown Obama's un-Constitutional use of the military.

It’s a story CNN won’t report. Late at night there’s a pounding on the door in Misurata. Armed soldiers force young Libyan women out of their beds at gun-point. Hustling the women and teenagers into trucks, the soldiers rush the women to gang bang parties for NATO rebels—or else rape them in front of their husbands or fathers. When NATO rebels finish their rape sport, the soldiers cut the women’s throats.

Rapes are now ongoing acts of war in rebel-held cities, like an organized military strategy, according to refugees. Joanna Moriarty, who’s part of a global fact-finding delegation visiting Tripoli this week, also reports that NATO rebels have gone house to house through Misurata, asking families if they support NATO. If the families say no, they are killed on the spot. If families say they want to stay out of the fighting, NATO rebels take a different approach to scare other families. The doors of “neutral homes” are welded shut, Moriarty says, trapping families inside. In Libyan homes, windows are typically barred. So when the doors to a family compound get welded shut, Libyans are entombed in their own houses, where NATO forces can be sure large families will slowly starve to death.

NATO appears to be on the cusp of crushing Tripoli, and then NATO will own Libya and it's problems. The law of unintended consequences will prevail.

The article seems strange and unreal. Do you know anything about the author?

In her book, "Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq" and in a radio interview on No Lies Radio she claims to have had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks.[11][12] She also claims that her alleged CIA handler Richard Fuisz had detailed foreknowledge of the attacks.
[edit] ArrestLindauer was arrested on Thursday, 11 March 2004 in Takoma Park, Maryland and charged with "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government". The indictment alleged that she accepted US$10,000 from Iraqi intelligence services in 2002. Lindauer denies receiving the money, but admits taking a trip to Baghdad.[1] She was released on bond on March 13, 2004 to attend an arraignment the following week.[2] In 2005 she was incarcerated in Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas for psychological evaluation then moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.[10]
[edit] Unfit to stand trialIn 2006, she was released from prison after Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and could not be forced to take antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[3][10]
In 2008, Loretta A. Preska of the Federal District Court in New York City reaffirmed that Lindauer was mentally unfit to stand trial.[4][13]
On January 16, 2009 the government decided to not go ahead with the prosecution saying "prosecuting Lindauer would no longer be in the interests of justice."[3][14]

above is wikipedia
remember there's no scholarship on the Internet.