I'm Finally Going On Record About the Intervention in Libya. And I Am Recycling an Old Argument.

Granted, I first used the argument to show why the invasion of Iraq was wrong/unjustified. Now I use it to argue why the intervention in Libya is justifiable.

It goes something like this. Well, I have dolled it up a wee bit. The core dynamic and logic remains true.

Ok. So you see your neighbor in the street wailing on his wife. It's going on there, right before your eyes. Under these circumstances trying to protect the wife would be a noble thing (even if risky.) At least, if one were not willing to get in the middle of that shit, one should call 911. At least. Get someone in there to protect the wife.

Now compare that to the other situation, where you see some guy who you pretty much know beat his wife ten years ago. Under these circumstances, trying to go after him might not seem as clearly noble as the other circumstances. Hell, even the call to 911 might not make much sense.

"911. What is the nature of your emergency?"
"I see the wife beater. Out in front of my house."
"Sir. What is that? Are you saying someone is beating their wife in front of your house?"
"No. But he is a wife beater."
"Sir. What is he doing now?"
"He's eating a bag of pork rinds."
"So how do you know he's a wife beater, Sir?"
"Everyone knows he is. He did it ten years ago."



Ya. not a convincing case there, to scramble a cruiser to investigate.


Thing is, the Iraq war (particularly as the whole WMD thing was a lie, was from the start, and some of us -- me me me included, knew that from the start) came down to a justification based on bad reputation/history. It really was not about preventing on going slaughter.

Libya is about preventing on going slaughter. That's not only its justification, but the major ethical difference between this adventure and Boy Bush's invasion of Iraq.

And How About a Libyan (Related) Quickie.

I'm not all that obsessed with the goings on in Libya, but I am following it, insofar as it is still above the fold news.

What I am finding more interesting are the following two tangents.

One the one hand, it's lots of fun to see how views in favor or against the 'intervention' are not neatly lining up in partisan fashion. (I really think that's cool.)

But on the other hand, I'm amused -- in the way I would be if I saw someone I really despised completely drunk and acting like a total dick wad in public -- by the reaction of some wing nuts. They are taking way too much borderline psychotic pleasure in the fact that many Dems do not necessarily agree with P. Obama's choice to participate in the UN sanctioned intervention.

Stop the Presses! Dems do not follow their Dem President in a Knee Jerk Fashion!


Now who would be surprised to learn that, but for the fucking morons who embrace the lie that Dems always follow their Dem Presidents in a Knee Jerk Fashion?