3 ms·

I just want to chime in and say that public opinion on this is completely different in Europe compared to the US. We don't view this as a US-led incursion on p

I just want to chime in and say that public opinion on this is completely different in Europe compared to the US. We don't view this as a US-led incursion on par with Afghanistan or Iraq. It's a humanitarian action undertaken by France, the UK and allies, and the US is lending its support.

OpieCunningham 16y ago
Then it just goes to show that when the propaganda is home grown, it sinks in a lot more. This explains why the U.S. was generally more supportive of the Iraq war than most other countries. The benefit therefore of an international coalition is that you'll get a much wider distributed group of people to accept the propaganda (and referencing TomOfTTB elsewhere in this thread, this points to the "wisdom" of Obama's scheme vs. Bush's scheme). Of course, this assumes the only "humanitarian" portion of this current situation is the label of the fabricated excuse. Which must be true, see: Ivory Coast.
anamax 16y ago
> It's a humanitarian action undertaken by France, the UK and allies, and the US is lending its support. That makes sense only if Europe has changed its view on how much civilian slaughter is unacceptable, it values Libyans more than it did Iraqis, or it didn't know about Saddam Hussein and knew about Gaddafi. After all, Gaddafi is far less of a monster than Saddam was. Yes, on both relative and absolute scales. However, we will get to see how Europe handles the aftermath. Right?
- wlievens 16y ago
  Arguably, the difference is that Iraq (in 2003!) didn't have a democratic opposition movement with a fighting chance. There is a world of difference between 'nudging' the direction of a civil war, and nation-building from scratch. Especially in the case of a far larger country than Libya.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Arguably, the difference is that Iraq (in 2003!) didn't have a democratic opposition movement with a fighting chance. That's a pretty weak argument. Shouldn't one give more help to the opposition that doesn't have a chance without help? Otherwise, you're rewarding tyrants who are more effective at crushing their opponents. As to "democratic", want to take a bet as to whether libya or iraq will have more elections in the 10 years after "liberation"? Face it - the real difference is that you folks didn't like Bush and you really want to like Obama.
    - wlievens 16y ago
      Obama didn't argue for this intervention in the first place. At least not in public discourse. Europeans argued for it, the US decided to support it later. Also do note that I'm a firm supporter of humanist interventionism, you just need to have a pretty solid plan (or aspiring-democratic opposition) in place to fill the vacuum. A sizable portion of the population should support said invasion. Those are two criteria that make a world of difference in this situation. But it's all moot since this thing is still ongoing. I'm curious to see how it works out.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Also do note that I'm a firm supporter of humanist interventionism, you just need to have a pretty solid plan (or aspiring-democratic opposition) in place to fill the vacuum. Yes, but the question is still, why Libya and not Iraq? One answer is that Iraq has shown that it's plausible. Another answer is that the Euros think that they thought this one up. (No, I don't think that Obama thought this up - he's getting dragged along.)

OpieCunningham 16y ago

Then it just goes to show that when the propaganda is home grown, it sinks in a lot more. This explains why the U.S. was generally more supportive of the Iraq war than most other countries. The benefit therefore of an international coalition is that you'll get a much wider distributed group of people to accept the propaganda (and referencing TomOfTTB elsewhere in this thread, this points to the "wisdom" of Obama's scheme vs. Bush's scheme). Of course, this assumes the only "humanitarian" portion of this current situation is the label of the fabricated excuse. Which must be true, see: Ivory Coast.

anamax 16y ago

> It's a humanitarian action undertaken by France, the UK and allies, and the US is lending its support. That makes sense only if Europe has changed its view on how much civilian slaughter is unacceptable, it values Libyans more than it did Iraqis, or it didn't know about Saddam Hussein and knew about Gaddafi. After all, Gaddafi is far less of a monster than Saddam was. Yes, on both relative and absolute scales. However, we will get to see how Europe handles the aftermath. Right?

wlievens 16y ago
Arguably, the difference is that Iraq (in 2003!) didn't have a democratic opposition movement with a fighting chance. There is a world of difference between 'nudging' the direction of a civil war, and nation-building from scratch. Especially in the case of a far larger country than Libya.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Arguably, the difference is that Iraq (in 2003!) didn't have a democratic opposition movement with a fighting chance. That's a pretty weak argument. Shouldn't one give more help to the opposition that doesn't have a chance without help? Otherwise, you're rewarding tyrants who are more effective at crushing their opponents. As to "democratic", want to take a bet as to whether libya or iraq will have more elections in the 10 years after "liberation"? Face it - the real difference is that you folks didn't like Bush and you really want to like Obama.
  - wlievens 16y ago
    Obama didn't argue for this intervention in the first place. At least not in public discourse. Europeans argued for it, the US decided to support it later. Also do note that I'm a firm supporter of humanist interventionism, you just need to have a pretty solid plan (or aspiring-democratic opposition) in place to fill the vacuum. A sizable portion of the population should support said invasion. Those are two criteria that make a world of difference in this situation. But it's all moot since this thing is still ongoing. I'm curious to see how it works out.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Also do note that I'm a firm supporter of humanist interventionism, you just need to have a pretty solid plan (or aspiring-democratic opposition) in place to fill the vacuum. Yes, but the question is still, why Libya and not Iraq? One answer is that Iraq has shown that it's plausible. Another answer is that the Euros think that they thought this one up. (No, I don't think that Obama thought this up - he's getting dragged along.)