Skip to main content

View Diary: Ghosts of March 2003: REALLY, Dems? (93 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Way different from 2003 (6+ / 0-)

    In 2003, the US wanted to create the New Middle East starting with Iraq. In 2003, the US initiated the action based on false pretenses.

    This time, the US is not initiating the change. The Arab masses, the Arab street that many have derisively called a dead end street, started the change. And unlike 2003, this time the US started with its closest and most loyal ally: Mubarak. Yesterday,  Egypt had its first true democratic referendum in decades.

    In 2003, there was no UN resolution. The French opposed. The British foreign secretary resigned. Not the case here. Even China and Russia did not veto.

    In 2003, there was no push by Saddam at the time, although he had done it before, to go killing on large scale mode that Gaddafi threatened to do in Benghazi. Had Gaddafi been left to invade Benghazi, it would have been a bloodshed. And the US and the West would have been accused of letting him stay in power in return for oil.

    One thing is common and it definitely creates anxiety regarding US intervention : It is a difficult situation, and no knows for sure how it ends.

    •  NO UN Resolution??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SadieB, Simplify

      How about 1441?  
      "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. . ."

      Funny enough, the French opposed that line too.  China and Russia did not veto there either.  Knowing the U.S.'s posturing at the time, allowing "Serious consequences" to remain in the resolution effectively paved the way for the U.S. taking the lead in 2003 under supposedly international auspices.

      Remember: the U.S. and Britain themselves drafted BOTH U.N. resolutions in question--in 2002 and 2011.

      •  Note--the U.N. Resolution was in 2002 (0+ / 0-)

        not days before the invasion in 2003....that was a planned, manufactured campaign. 2011 was a genuine emergency.

        Now, you may be against all armed interventions overseas, and there's certainly a good argument for that. There's an excellent argument for cutting U.S. military expendures in half, and half again after that....the degree of U.S. involvement in the fight over Libya is entirely due to having the largest military in the world by a ridiculous amount.  

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 02:02:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site