Mark P: “I was amused earlier in the thread when D_D and EamonnCork tried using the old Bush with or us with Saddam stunt earlier in the thread in the Libyan context.”
Amused and confused. When the US aggressively invaded Iraq I opposed that without supporting Saddam. When there was a war between Iran and Iraq I was neutral, or oposed to both sides and their slaughter. When the Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi, and the Syrian people (‘with all their prejudices’) rose up against Assad, I supported them against Gadaffi and Assad. I think all that is a fairly common, though not universal, position on the left.
An external imperialist invasion is different (the opposite?) to an internal civil uprising. Claiming the Libyan war was a NATO conquest is confusing the latter with the former.
It is perfectly possible to be against the US conquest of Iraq without supporting the Saddam regime. How it is possible to oppose the Libyan upsrising against Gaddafi, and portray it as a NATO conquest, and not support Gaddafi in that particular conflict, is outside my understanding of logic. But logic isn’t everything; a simple indication of opposition to Gaddafi and Assad in both conflicts would possibly clear this up.
I would like to hear from our very own Ed on this. He conducted a staunch debate with the formidable Pham Binh, on the ‘North Star’ site I think, from within the ‘support the rebels’ camp. If I remember correctly, and I hope I am not misrepresenting them, Ed was for supporting the uprising but did not go all the way with Binh’s outright call for (and strong arguments for) Western arming of the rebels.
Did anyone take up my reference to The Aud?