There are some significant differences between Libya and Iraq/Afghanistan. 1) The people of Libya have started this revolution on their own. 2) Aid would only involve air support - No bases, no ground troops. 3) The action is a legitimate action of the UN, and not a bogus US led coalition of the bribed and bullied.

To say this is 'no different' is incorrect.

It sounds to me like George Will opposes this because there is no money to be made and no power to be gained. Perhaps his statements here would hold more weight if he had opposed Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 - when it mattered.

There are a few differences, the Iraq war was originally billed as taking out Saddam's WMDs and Terrorist training camps. When these things didn't materialize the dialogue morphed into 'liberating' the Iraqis. This time the dialogue is solely about stopping A dictator from actively killing civilians. Its also a UN action, as opposed to US and Pals.

Some liberals love the save the oppressed angle, while some conservatives are wringing their hands over getting the US a foot hold in an oil rich nation who's leader has embarrassed us several times in the past with his open defiance of our will.

As a liberal I would normally be in support of such an action if I could actually believe
A.)We're actually doing what the vast majority of Libya's 6 million+ population wants and not just handing control of the country over to a thousand or so militants because they're more friendly to us (for the moment).
B.)There won't actually be any ground troops, therefor greatly reducing cost and possibility of US casualties. And that instead of spear heading the effort, we're just helping to level the playing field for the militants.
C.)This was actually about helping the civilians of Libya rather than spending billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars so some corporations can make billions off exploiting Libya's resources and our military and then have the gall to bitch about how high taxes are.

I suppose the problem is we've been lied to so often by both sides, exploiting our fears or noble intentions, nobody believes them. When was the last time our involvement in a conflict actually went as planned? WWII?

I'd go as far to say the No Fly zone over Kosovo, that was to stop genocide in the Balkans.

How come he doesn't mention that the US is handing over the command of this operation to NATO and are pulling out as the main head in a few days? That was part of the original deal. The US hits Air Defence systems, runs the preliminary few flights, and then hands it over to the UN/Nato countries for the rest of the mission.

We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.

You're giving Obama too much credit. The left claims he's a puppet doing the bidding of the military-industrial blah blah, but it's apparent that any "president" LESS decisive than the fking UN is a fraud. Obama's only real wars are on the Constitution and American Exceptionalism.

Not to oversimplify, but fk it, I will anyway: the USA is the only nation in the world that is also a moral force for good. We are forced into the role of World Policeman by an admixture of hostile, backward nations and apathetic, do-nothing, spineless First World nations who pretend not to know better.

Gaddafi's a POS, but as in Egypt, keeping muslims from taking over more governments trumps the antics of puppet dictators.

The Libyans are liberating themselves, the UN is just evening the odds. The French helped us liberate ourselves from King George. Why the hand wringing? Do you not want the Libyans to succeed in overthrowing their dictator? >> ^blankfist:

We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The Libyans are liberating themselves, the UN is just evening the odds. The French helped us liberate ourselves from King George. Why the hand wringing? Do you not want the Libyans to succeed in overthrowing their dictator? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.



http://videosift.com/video/Bombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya?loadcomm=1#comment-1173178

http://videosift.com/video/Bombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya?loadcomm=1#comment-1173277

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The Libyans are liberating themselves, the UN is just evening the odds. The French helped us liberate ourselves from King George. Why the hand wringing? Do you not want the Libyans to succeed in overthrowing their dictator? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.


http://videosift.com/video/Bombs-for-pea
ce-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya?loadcomm=1#comment-1173178

Swallow your propaganda whole do you?
>> ^quantumushroom:

the USA is the only nation in the world that is also a moral force for good. We are forced into the role of World Policeman by an admixture of hostile, backward nations and apathetic, do-nothing, spineless First World nations who pretend not to know better.