4 ms·

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 'n

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.)

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.)