Soxbadger

No of course not, we do not live in absolutes. But if there are some good people out there and they ask the international community to even the playing field because a dictator is going to massacre them, Im inclined to even the battle field. A long time ago there were some brave fellows we call revolutionaries, they stood up to the British. But the British had a lot more firepower and manpower, those brave revolutionaries were caught in quite a pickle and asked for some help from some friends. Lets not forget that we too were once where the Libyan revolutionaries were, and that we too needed some help.

And of course most Arab countries are going to be flighty about their support in this. Most of them are no better than Gaddafi, they now realize that they are next on the list and maybe they should have supported Gaddafi killing his citizens instead of siding with the west and giving the people freedom. To late now, Middle Eastern Arabs are getting to taste freedom and many of them will realize that they have the power to free themselves.

Im surprised, usually when you are counting how much money the US spends you include all of the logistics. Yet when using the Japan figure, you limit to only the money donated to the Red Cross, which does not include any of the money the US spent in helping Japan. Must be hard to always frame arguments in your favor. Not to mention they are completely different situations, its not like the tomahawks could have been used for the Japan relief. Im just glad we are on the right side for once, its been a long time, and it feels good.

I assume that Balta is referring to me, and not even coming close to anything Ive suggested. Ive said that air strikes would level the playing field which would allow the revolutionaries to press forward. Im not sure how that equates to "believing airstrikes alone can bring down a government. ", or anything even remotely close. As Libya clearly is not airstrikes alone, there were massive uprisings and revolutionaries taking cities from Gaddafi without our interference. Airstrikes alone must apply to some fictitious conflict where the Libyan people didnt rise up on their own and didnt take on Gaddafi by themselves. I dont care if people have a different opinion than me, but at least have the courtesy to quote me if you are going to say that it is my position. At least if you are going to use my words against me, let them be my own words. That is all I will say, Im actually quite content leaving my position in the other thread as is. I have made my argument, some people will agree, others will not.

Where did I refuse to accept that things could go wrong? I 100% percent accept that things could go wrong. But that is an "if". Gaddafi was attacking civilians, Gaddafi was marching towards Benghazi. I guess I just assume that people understand that there are always going to be massive risks involved in any international decision and that despite our best efforts we could make mistakes every single time. But we cant be afraid to make the right decision, just because bad things may happen as a result of that. I do not think that anyone believes that Gaddafi taking Benghazi was going to end well, so if we can try and stop that, Im going to be out there saying we should try and stop it. Furthermore, what does the capability of a civilian govt in warfare have to do with whether or not its a govt? If you took away Obama's generals and military, do you think he could operate anti-aircraft weaponry? Oh so does that mean we arent a govt because we as civilians cant operate weaponry?

If Hardaway can get it going in the second half Duke is definitely going to have its hands full. The fact they couldnt really push the lead out with Morris on the bench is going to give Michigan a legitimate shot at this game.

Yeah but down 4 with the crowd seemingly getting more angry isnt the worst place to be.

Michigan at least has the crowd behind them. Hopefully it will prevent the refs from being completely in Dukes favor.

Refs not liking that Michigan is keeping it close against Duke.

While Powell's doctrine may have been good policy 20 years ago, that is like the French building the Maginot line after World War I. The first mistake of military action is to use the principles of the last war. We live in a modern time where the world is changing at a much quicker pace than any point in history. Some people will say that history moves 4x faster, it could be 10x, but regardless the Gulf war criteria must be constantly reevaluated. And here is where the Powell doctrine loses me immediately. National security interest is not the end all be all. I am not even going to lie and make up arguments that I can call anything a national security risk. (Instability in Libya leads to oil crisis in Europe leads to crisis in US) The reason Im not going to make up fake lie like a politician, is because some times doing the right thing wont help you at all. I do not think that military action is any different than human action, and I do not believe we as humans should only act in our best interest. I mean we can, everyone has that choice, I just choose not to. I choose to try and do things that help other people that may never help me, maybe even hurt me, because I can do something that will make a really big difference in some one else's life at a very small price to me. So I would change #1 to a less self motivated: 1) Can we prevent a grave injustice at a small cost and small risk to ourselves? The answer in Libya is yes. American losses will be minimal. Unlike Iraq where we intervened on our own behalf, there is already a nation that is recognized by countries who can take over once Gaddafi steps down. 2) Clear attainable goal, of course. Stop the murder of civilians, Gaddafi steps down. 3) The answer to this is always questionable. If you were to ask that question for every action since World War II, our record would be deplorable. Do I think that the risks and costs are minimal, yes. 4) Gaddafi forced this position by threatening to kill innocent civilians. We tried to get Gaddafi to step down, accept cease fires, but instead he lies and continues to kill people. What more can we do? 5) Yes, Gaddafi steps down, transitional Libyan govt turned over to Benghazi govt. Arab League provides ground force protection until govt can take over protection. 6) Yes, at least in my view. 7) This one is some what questionable. The US people have taken isolationist positions previously that I find unacceptable. If Pearl Harbor never happened and the US never is declared on by Germany, would we accept it as okay if the US never declared war on Germany because the US population was against it? I personally cant agree with that. While I would hope that the American people would always be virtuous and just, unfortunately many seem to be more interested in themselves than trying to help others. As long as there is some support I think you have to weigh the good and the bad. 8) We have support from the countries who I trust. When we come out on the other side of China and Russia, 2 countries who see this intervention and worry about what will happen if they brutally crack down on protesters and I know that we are doing the right thing. I question Germany's intention here, I think they are trying to re-establish themselves as an independent actor on the foreign stage and keep distance from US, UK and France. I think they are going to try and use this to their advantage in the future. I admit things because Im not part of any of the US military branches so therefore I have absolutely no direct information on the nuts and bolts of the operation. Its pretty clear from the situation that the revolutionaries had made significant gains without international interference. It was only when Gaddafi started using heavy arms that he made significant gains. The international community has evened the playing field and now it seems that the revolutionaries may have a fighting chance against Gaddafi. This isnt our war, it will never be, but hopefully we gave the people of Libya a fighting chance against Gaddafi, and hopefully they will prove the international community right and make Libya a better place for everyone. There is no certainty in life, all you can do is try and help the most people you can with the limited time you got. Today I support the revolutionaries in Libya, because they stood up to Gaddafi on their own, they died for their right to be free and because they asked for my help.

1) I can say the first statement with a straight face because that is absolutely what is going to happen. I dont even think that the new Libyan regime knows who is going to run it. All they know is that they cant stay under Gaddafi after he threatened to kill them all. 2) I dont know what you are talking about in that quote. The pretext for the Iraq war was not to stop Saddam from killing Kurds or to stop him from killing peaceful protesters. The pretext for the Iraq war was that Saddam had WMD that posed a threat to the US. That was false and I stated from the beginning it was false. Now if the UN was attacking Gaddafi because his military posed a threat, Id be arguing against it, the same way I argued against Iraq. But the difference is the UN is attacking Gaddafi's forces because he continues to threaten civilians and stated that he would massacre the people of Benghazi. If a leader threatens genocide, I will advocate intervention. I know that its not the same for most people, but I do not accept genocide.

Lugar is losing all legitimacy with that statement. He supported the war in Iraq, where there was clearly no imminent humanitarian crisis and yet opposes trying to help the people of Libya escape genocide because the US needs to watch its money better? We arent supporting anyone in Libya, we are trying to prevent Gaddafi from massacring civilians. Once again he uses the horrible argument that since we cant help everyone, we should help no one. If you really believe that, fine. But otherwise dont use the argument because its just nonsensical. Its like arguing that I dont have the follow the law because the US doesnt prosecute every criminal. I wonder how far that would get me in court... Oh yeah the first thing that they teach you about the law is that they cant catch everyone and non-prosecution of another crime does not mean that you can use it as a defense. That argument infuriates me.

Well I dont agree with this, my standpoint on immigration has been clear on this board, anyone who wants to come here, should legally be allowed to. No immigration quotas, we do not have a monopoly on freedom or the "American dream." Bit of hyperbole, but its a great point. If you look earlier in this thread and much more in the Iraq threads years ago, you will see my arguments against intervening on sovereign soil. The comparison I used was Japanese internment camps and that being used as a pretext to attack the US. At some point might does make right, if China was doing something like Gaddafi our ability to help would be severely restricted because China can fight back. I dont get into moral equivalences. Just because we didnt do the right thing in the past, should not preclude us from doing the right thing today. Furthermore the difference is that in this case the UN has approved the action. This is not unilateral US intervention, this is a UN security mandate that the US is enforcing. That is a huge difference, even though it may be entirely superficial. What makes this different is that the international community is the one who said that there needed to be intervention. The US is merely the tool that will be utilized to intervene.

You dont have to call the first foul as it was a pretty small foul and one that often goes uncalled (body checking a guy near the the half court line), it wasnt nearly as bad as it looked because the Pitt's guy momentum was going out of bounds, so even a light touch looks far worse. The Butler guy should have never come close to him, but I could have easily seen them not call the foul, as they have done on numerous other late game shots.

Once the refs called the foul on Mack, they had to call the rebounding fall. Id rather that they let them both play, but they set the precedent on the first call. I think OT would have been the fair result, but the Pitt player was just so stupid. It wasnt even close, it was a legitimate foul.

I really liked Wisconsin's draw from the beginning. Pitt losing really opens up their chance at a final 4. As much love as Taylor gets, Leuer is the guy who needs to step up and take Wisconsin to the next level.

The problem with the argument that you dont accept killing Libyan people to stop the killing, is that there is no other solution. The US, the UN, etc asked Gaddafi to step down. They asked him to accept a cease fire so that the killing stopped on both sides. Gaddafi continued to advance and threatened to massacre the people of Benghazi. In terms of money spent, can you put a price on doing the right thing? Those weapons were already built. If they dont use it, eventually it will need to be replaced by a newer better version, might as well use the weapons to do some good in the world and justify the price the US already paid.

Maybe Im not a liberal anymore, because I thought liberals were supposed to want to help other people. Not create reasons why we shouldnt intervene because we havent intervened elsewhere. The US cant help everyone, its just like me giving money to charity or the homeless. I cant give money to every charity or homeless person, but since I cant give to everyone, does that mean I should give to no one? The answer is no, that just doesnt make sense. We play the hand we are dealt, and this instance we have been dealt a hand where the UN has authorized us to help. I do not believe there has been UN authorization to interfere in Iran, Congo, Burma or Yemen, but who cares about facts when you are writing a smear campaign. The article is entirely dependent on moral equivalences, that some how if you dont act one way one time you are precluded from acting differently another. I find this absurd because I believe that as humans we will make mistakes, we will make bad decisions, and that our only hope as a civilization is that we learn from our past mistakes. Moral equivalences would create a society that I refuse to live in. To take Sullivan's nonsensical point to the extreme, the US should not interfere no matter how bad the genocide is, no matter how many are killed, because the US did not stop, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. So the US should never intervene because we didnt in the past, so there would be "no rational way to reconcile" our different actions. That argument is bogus, its absolutely nonsense. When you read the article, Sullivan takes the cowards approach, he does not take a side. If he was Obama, what would he do? The implication is that he would sit on the sidelines and let Libyans get massacred by Gaddafi, because we let other people get massacred. Sorry that is not I perceive America, I dont think of us as a country who is going to sit idly by while civilians get massacred. This isnt Iraq, where we were told we were intervening because "Saddam posed a threat to the US" which was a bulls*** line. In fact Sullivan's own article shows why the Iraq war was detestable, whereas the Libyan war will be righteous. This statement should be, unlike Bush who lied to the US about Iraq's capabilities to trick the US into fighting him, Obama has been open and honest about our intervention being entirely for the people of Libya. It saddens me that people are willing to let innocents die, just because in the past we let it happen. We should strive to prevent it happening everywhere, but at the same time we must realize our limitations that we can not help everywhere. There is no reconciliation needed, its just the honest truth. We cant help everyone, we cant take on regimes that have far more influence and sway in political matters than Libya, so we help where we can. But to argue that doing nothing is better than helping some, is preposterous. Seems that this Sullivan is always on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to me.

Let me be clear, Muslims or followers of Islam deserve freedom and Democracy as much as I do. When we have a Democratic society or Democratic nations, there are going to be differences of opinion. It is my opinion that every country and every person is entitled to their opinion. Let me change the quote for some fun: What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war….A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Adolf Hitler . He is a brutal man….He’s a bad guy. The world, and the German people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Hitler poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, that the German economy is in shambles, that the German military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. Oh wait... As stated before comparing Iraq to Libya is no better than comparing Libya to Germany, both of them are strained comparisons at best. The reality is that many of the people of Libya asked for Inernational assistance against alleged war crimes of Gaddafi. Unlike Iraq, where to the best of my knowledge, there was no ongoing rebellion or actual protests or cities that had fallen that Saddam was going to eradicate. Unlike Iraq, there is an actual crisis occurring right now. People can say that Saddam did similar things to the Kurds, but our intervention in 2001 was not because of Kurds asking for our help, it was for entirely different reasons. So we can keep up with this irrational "Libya= Iraq" comparison that has no basis in fact, or we can look at Libya and ask ourselves: "As a Democratic society, should we strive to ensure that all people have the same rights we believe to be inalienable." If you answer the question yes (like me), then you support the US and UN trying to ascertain the situation and stop Gaddafi from killing more civilians. If you answer the question no, then you shouldnt support it and you would be on the same side as previous US isolationists.

Part of the delay was the fact that the it appeared Gadaffi may fall without outside intervention. We hoped that they could do it alone. Over the past few days it became clear that was not going to happen. Im sure that during the time of discussions the US has been moving personnel so that they could be quickly deployed.

Wisconsin looked good, hopefully they keep it up.

You cant just authorize military action without ascertaining the facts. The US was wise in the long run to take their time and make sure that we got universal approval. The US is trying to learn lessons from Iraq, Kosovo, but at the same time not forget that we can hopefully help other people for the better. The US did not have the political capital to act to quickly, that is just the sad reality. Not only that, but there are still people who are going to be against our intervention. Germany, Brazil, India, Russia and China Those 5 countries didnt even vote. You can say Obama had no balls, but we once again are going to be the first ones in. We have to be realistic about our ability to intervene, we still are doing far more than anyone else.

That statement is entirely opinion, one that I completely disagree with. Thousands of civilians dieing are nothing compared to the mass genocides that I was referring to. When I say mass genocide, we are talking hundreds of thousands. One thousand is a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, the difference of Serbia being backed by a super power (Russia) and Libya having no support should not be ignored. The reason that Libya is not analogous is that you are talking about a country that is isolated, versus Serbia that was very much supported by Russia. While no one likes civilian casualties, the reality is you have no idea how much worse things could have been if there was not intervention. You only have guesses and your opinion, which is really not fact. The problem with history is that you can never go back and say "What if", because there is no certainty in the if. So if given the option of: A) Sitting on the sidelines and hoping for the best or B ) Limited interference to try and stop the war. I go with B. But that is just my opinion, it cant be in anyway supported by fact.

im not going to get into moral equivalencies. If you do not agree that the UN should help the people of Libya, that is fine. But I dont see how this has any relevance to Kosovo or Iraq. This is not history repeating itself, this is the UN potentially creating new history. If anything the US reaction to Libya has been entirely based on our previous engagements and trying not to go down the same path again. This has nothing to do with Iraq, Iraq was attacked for reasons that had nothing to do with revolution. It was attacked as a scape goat for a terrorist attack on 9/11. The first war in Iraq was over Iraq's engagement with Kuwait. Both of those situations are entirely distinguishable. As for Kosovo, as soon as there is a clear indication of genocide, Im not sure what you want the world community to do. It sounds like you guys want to leave the people to be exterminated, but I do not agree with this position. We are post World War II, our neighbors problems are our problems. Furthermore, unlike Libya, Serbia had Russia support which goes back to the days of panslavism and the entire messed up nature of the Balkans. So no, I remember the term "history repeats itself", I just dont use it when its not apt, nor do I use it as a shield to hide behind making tough decisions. Not to mention anyone can use it, I can say that you apparently dont remember the term "history will repeat itself" based on what has happened in other instances when other countries did not intervene. I could name countless genocides where the world stood idly by. But I dont try and fit square pegs into round holes. If you study enough history, you realize that while there may be repeatable themes, that almost every situation is unique and must be treated as such. I am of the belief that we must treat our decisions with a fine pen, not a broad sweeping brush. We must tailor our response to Libya, based on Libya.

1) Its not free, but I am not going to put a price on stopping a potential genocide. If you think billions arent worth spending to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people, that is a perfectly legitimate view. I disagree, I think that lives are more valuable than money. As for where we will get the money, same place we always do, borrow it. 2) This isnt true. Military has said a "No Fly Zone" wont stop Gaddafi, but I assure you that if we start bombing tanks and Gaddafi's troops, this war will end quickly. Libya fighting the US is the equivalent of the rebels fighting Libya. Theyll be at a gun fight with sticks. 3) Rebuilding financially? Libya has billions of assets that will be turned back over once Gaddafi steps down. Further they have a lot of oil. The air strikes arent gong to destroy infrastructure, its just going to prevent Gaddafi's troops from moving into the cities. Libya is wide open area between cities, it will be extremely easy to destroy military positions that are not in cities. Libya's army isnt big enough to hold the cities, so most likely they will retreat from their advance positions to Tripoli. Or many will defect knowing that the end of Gaddafi is soon. Allegedly this is going to be part of the UN resolution (if passed); Basically its going to green light every form of attack besides for actual ground troops.