Difference between Iraq and Libya?

[AndyZ]

I'll start this off that I haven't looked into things very much.  I wanted to post this actually to let people educate me who feel strongly one way or another.

When we went to war against Iraq, I heard a lot of arguments about how we had no business over there, congress didn't really authorize the war, that we're only there for oil, and on the other side that Saddam Hussein was a complete tyrant that had to be dealt with.

Looking at Libya, it seems identical to me, but only the Ds and Rs have switched.  Are there any significant differences here or is it just the same thing and the pot and kettle?

I also welcome posts that agree with this assessment who can inform me more from that perspective.

[Oniya]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I can think of one likely reason:  Americans are currently more focused on what's going on at home (and I mean that in the literal sense, not the generic) instead of what's going on out in the world.  It's hard to muster up outrage at how people halfway around the world are being treated while ones mind is occupied with whether or not the electric bill is more important than groceries.

[Ironwolf85]

in Iraq the US tried to affect regime change from the otuside by invading and toppling Saddam without any plan for what to do next, the white house (I'm looking at you def. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld!) assumed we could go in, squash a brutal dictator, have troops patrol around in armored transports and tanks, and completely ignore the people's needs while a democratic, fantatic free, friendly government, (who would not object to the vigerious securing of their oil fields by private armed forces) magically sprouted up from the ruins we created.

In Lybia the US has turned over command to international NATO leadership, as it was a U.N. decleration to protect civilians that the US was enforcing this time, and not fighting for it's own reasons with a war on two fronts and internal issues, the US could not afford to play police officer alone this time.
on top of all of this, the rebels are a major factor, there was no rebellion in Iraq at the time, and these rebels are slowly forging themselves into a real fighting force intent on removing their dictator and installing a democratic/republic-style of government.
and in Lybia we are not at war, we are doing supporting actions to an international effort which the president is actually authorized to do (the senate can still pull the plug at any time, checks and balances after all.) in fact most of the guys in the air are French and Itialians, with U.S. support of course, most of them have never flown combat missions before so they are a bit sloppy.
basicly the US removed the Lybian anti-air defences, and turned the rest of the combat over to a NATO task force headed by the French. we also aren't shy of providing support to the task force, but for the first time in a while, our military presence is actually minimal.

[Sure]

Ultimately the main difference is that we currently have no intention of putting boots on the ground. So long as we don't, that's a huge difference, but we'll see whether that lasts or not.

Anyway, saying there's no real difference is not correct but the two wars are more similar than Democrats will admit.

Moreover:

in Iraq the US tried to affect regime change from the otuside by invading and toppling Saddam without any plan for what to do next, the white house (I'm looking at you def. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld!) assumed we could go in, squash a brutal dictator, have troops patrol around in armored transports and tanks, and completely ignore the people's needs while a democratic, fantatic free, friendly government, (who would not object to the vigerious securing of their oil fields by private armed forces) magically sprouted up from the ruins we created.

This is flatly false.

In Lybia the US has turned over command to international NATO leadership, as it was a U.N. decleration to protect civilians that the US was enforcing this time, and not fighting for it's own reasons with a war on two fronts and internal issues, the US could not afford to play police officer alone this time.

Nato is in Iraq, and additionally NATO leadership has a lot of American officers and is mainly an organization of American allies. The UN resolution was a shady thing at best. We told the Arab League we would make a no-fly zone, but nothing more, and then passed a resolution which they objected to because it went far beyond that. On top of that, the US had a UN resolution going into Iraq.

on top of all of this, the rebels are a major factor, there was no rebellion in Iraq at the time, and these rebels are slowly forging themselves into a real fighting force intent on removing their dictator and installing a democratic/republic-style of government.

In order: Yes there was, not anymoreso than the aforementioned, and we don't know that.

and in Lybia we are not at war, we are doing supporting actions to an international effort which the president is actually authorized to do (the senate can still pull the plug at any time, checks and balances after all.)

No he's not. The President is banking that this will be over before he needs Congress to officially declare war, until then this is a police action in the vein of Vietnam and the like, the sort of thing the War Powers Act was meant to restrict.

in fact most of the guys in the air are French and Itialians, with U.S. support of course, most of them have never flown combat missions before so they are a bit sloppy.
basicly the US removed the Lybian anti-air defences, and turned the rest of the combat over to a NATO task force headed by the French. we also aren't shy of providing support to the task force, but for the first time in a while, our military presence is actually minimal.

The French aren't heading it, though they want to last I checked, and it's being controlled from one of our CNC ships. And we're doing more than removing anti-air defenses, we're actively bombing enemy positions and so on. Minimal is not the right word for our presence either.

[Asuras]

In Iraq we invaded the country with ground forces, aerial assaults, everything. There was no rebellion, there was limited international support.

In Libya we are supporting a no-fly zone, which we did for more than a decade over Iraq (1991-2003). There is a civil war already occurring. There is broad (but not total) international support for what the US is participating in in Libya.

I think those differences are large.

[gaggedLouise]

Agree a vital difference this time is that it's not being run with the US alone holding the reins (that was essentially the case in the Iraq war, the *political* influence of other countries, including Britain, on what would happen once the war had begun and after it, was nil: it was a US show). And there was no real planning for how to build a post-Saddam, democratic and civil Iraq.

Another vital thing about Libya, which ties in with this (as Asuras is on to) is that the opposition to Khadaffi had *initiated* the struggle and they have remained centre stage throughout. It's their fight, even though we don't have much of a clear idea of what they want politically beyond throwing the dictator out. They have already secured a major share in the dues for Khadaffi's exit, if that should happen, as I think it will in not too long. In Iraq there were secret groups of opposition to Saddam but they were sidestepped by the invasion, they were never really brought to the table and the regime change thing was dropped in their lap, though the US military and its buddies remained the real focus of power. They were merely supposed to be grateful, even as their country was once again occupied and sent into civil war and anarchy.

This time, there's been two revolts that have managed to displace old, established autocrats and these revolts were the work of the people of Tunisia and Egypt themselves: no foreign troops. That's set an example that Arab nations can actually free themselves from dictators and that (especially in Egypt) they may be on the path to real democracy, formulated by themselves and not just borrowed from a textbook. A living democracy can't be built simply from textbooks or lists of rights, it takes real human and institutional support. I think thre example of these rebellions is hugely important to how the conflict in Libya will be read and what forces will be able to come across as legitimate to their own people and to the wider world, in that country after Khadaffi has been unseated.

[Callie Del Noire]

The amount of planning and the specific roles of the outsider nations were directly effected by the mistakes of the Iraq reconstruction. The Bush administration (specifically looking at Cheney and Rumsfeld) had a clear idea of what they wanted and weren't too eager to hear any dissent or opposition. The mind boggles at how many good military leaders were 'retired' for arguing with Rumsfeld in anyway). Corporate action and their role in nation building was overdone and this time the folks in charge are letting the people in teh country start up things and have a role in the process.

Wether that stays that way we'll see. I think that the refusual to work with the in-house factions slowed reconstruction in Iraq and cost needless lives. Of course there would have been a need for reform, but that was needed anyway. As it is, I honestly don't have a lot of hopes for the government of Iraq lasting 5 years past American withdraw. Insurgents and Iran have had time to dig in and set up routes, and I'm sure that other neighbors will turn a blind eye to trouble heading across the border into Iraq.

[Sure]

In Iraq we invaded the country with ground forces, aerial assaults, everything. There was no rebellion, there was limited international support.

Ignoring my comments in no way changes the fact that there was a rebellion, admittedly a less successful one, and that International Support was high at the very beginning, it tapered off sharply later.

In Libya we are supporting a no-fly zone, which we did for more than a decade over Iraq (1991-2003). There is a civil war already occurring. There is broad (but not total) international support for what the US is participating in in Libya.

All of which we had in Iraq at the beginning, as I already said. Please don't ignore my comments.

that was essentially the case in the Iraq war, the *political* influence of other countries, including Britain, on what would happen once the war had begun and after it, was nil: it was a US show). And there was no real planning for how to build a post-Saddam, democratic and civil Iraq.

No, it wasn't. There were international forces there fighting alongside our troops, and there was a plan for how to rebuild a post-Saddam, democratic, and civil Iraq. The problem was it wasn't based on a counterinsurgency policy but instead was focused on a counter-SPS strategy, the sort of which has worked in many, many states. Afghanistan and Iraq are not two of those states, granted.

Another vital thing about Libya, which ties in with this (as Asuras is on to) is that the opposition to Khadaffi had *initiated* the struggle and they have remained centre stage throughout. It's their fight, even though we don't have much of a clear idea of what they want politically beyond throwing the dictator out. They have already secured a major share in the dues for Khadaffi's exit, if that should happen, as I think it will in not too long. In Iraq there were secret groups of opposition to Saddam but they were sidestepped by the invasion, they were never really brought to the table and the regime change thing was dropped in their lap, though the US military and its buddies remained the real focus of power. They were merely supposed to be grateful, even as their country was once again occupied and sent into civil war and anarchy.

We intervened in the earlier stages and are letting the rebels, for the moment, do more of the heavy lifting, granted. And there were similar groups who were thoroughly invested in ousting Saddam Hussein who we supported when we invaded, and who were fighting even before we came in violently, the difference being that after we put them in charge it turned out they weren't as large a majority as we thought, that they didn't resonate well with certain audiences, and that certain factions were still engaged in a guerrilla war. The same thing could happen here. It also could not happen. We don't know.

This time, there's been two revolts that have managed to displace old, established autocrats and these revolts were the work of the people of Tunisia and Egypt themselves: no foreign troops. That's set an example that Arab nations can actually free themselves from dictators and that (especially in Egypt) they may be on the path to real democracy, formulated by themselves and not just borrowed from a textbook. A living democracy can't be built simply from textbooks or lists of rights, it takes real human and institutional support. I think thre example of these rebellions is hugely important to how the conflict in Libya will be read and what forces will be able to come across as legitimate to their own people and to the wider world, in that country after Khadaffi has been unseated.

Egypt is under a military government for the moment, we'll see what happens. And two popular revolts and a wave of popular unrest is certainly a factor in why we went in, and why it's not exactly the same, but does not fully differentiate them. As to how people view it, I have to say we're hearing basically one side, the rebels, not the general populaces nor Ghaddafis (not that I would give the last much weight).

[Ironwolf85]

I see.... that is actually a bit informative, thank you

[MasterMischief]

I have been against a premature pull out of Iraq for a long time.  To be perfectly honest, I could not define what I mean by premature.  I just think if we pull out too often, Iraq will collapse in on itself and give it a year or two and another charismatic dictator will rise.

However, given the financial state we are in I think we need to consider putting defense cuts on the table.  At let's be honest, it is not really 'defense'.  Can we continue to afford to enforce our will on the rest of the world while we write off our poor, elderly and less fortunate?  Has this country lost any sense of compassion?

[Oniya]

A sudden withdrawal would be bad, and probably lead to exactly that situation.  We could probably stand to start ramping down gradually, though.

[Sure]

Entitlements are the number one most expensive thing the government has in its budget. The Department of Defense makes up less than 20% of the budget, entitlements make up more than 55% (more than 40% of the budget being Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security).

Further, cutting the entire Department of Defense would not eliminate the deficit. If we cut the entire DoD, we would still be short half a trillion dollars, and I doubt anyone would seriously suggest eliminating the entire DoD.

Defense cuts might be a part of the solution if we are willing to cut across the board, including entitlement programs, but they are not a solution on their own. On their own, they will do nothing significant.

The government either needs to take in more money, or seriously scale back entitlement programs (possibly including DoD etc). Those are the only two ways to solve the deficit without giving up things our nation cannot survive without. This is basically the argument going on in the Congress. The Republicans want cuts to the entitlement programs, the Democrats want tax increases (or, as Obama put it, 'spending reductions in the tax code').

[Oniya]

I don't even pretend that I know what would be best budget-wise.  I do think that there comes a point where we have to move to a more advisory presence than a 'peacekeeping force'.  Staying longer doesn't necessarily make the area more stable, any more than wearing a full leg cast longer than necessary makes the limb better.  At some point, it needs to move on to physical therapy.  The key is 'gradually' - just as you wouldn't saw off that cast and then go run the Boston Marathon, it can't be a precipitous withdrawal.

[Asuras]

In Iraq we invaded the country with ground forces, aerial assaults, everything. There was no rebellion, there was limited international support.

Ignoring my comments in no way changes the fact that there was a rebellion, admittedly a less successful one, and that International Support was high at the very beginning, it tapered off sharply later.

I cannot find the comments I have ignored.

And the war I am speaking of is the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was no rebellion, and international support for the US-led invasion was limited.

In Libya we are supporting a no-fly zone, which we did for more than a decade over Iraq (1991-2003). There is a civil war already occurring. There is broad (but not total) international support for what the US is participating in in Libya.

All of which we had in Iraq at the beginning, as I already said. Please don't ignore my comments.

The difference is patent. Implementing a no-fly zone is entirely different than overthrowing a country with ground forces. This contrast is evident between Iraq 2003 and Libya today.

[Vekseid]

I think Sure is referring to the Kurds, which did have an uprising in the early 90's (that got squished) and later assisted American forces during the invasion (though Turkey's assistance came with the requirement that the US not establish a Kurdistan, although dividing Iraq is probably the only solution). The uprising in Libya is also tribally based, although it is far more powerful.

[Sure]

At the time of the Iraq invasion, coalition forces were assisted by more than seventy thousand Peshmerga troops. No rebellion indeed.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, coalition forces were a coalition of about fifty nations, or more than a quarter of the world's nations. No international support indeed. Fun fact: The Arab League and various other nations have objected to what is being done in Libya and the UN Resolution supporting it is a Security Council Resolution, meaning it has the support of ten nations. The only General Assembly action was to remove Libya from the Human Rights Council.

And I've already said that so long as we don't have boots on the ground there is a difference, but that in no way changes the fact most of your assertions that 'differentiate' them are untrue.

You are correct, however, that you did not ignore my comments: You simply declared them untrue without citing any evidence to the contrary.

[Vekseid]

At the time of the Iraq invasion, coalition forces were assisted by more than seventy thousand Peshmerga troops. No rebellion indeed.

You claimed there was a rebellion. Now you admit that at the time of the invasion, there was not.

Are you seriously claiming that the Kurdish contribution to the Iraq war effort is comparable to the scale of the uprising in Libya, compared to the tasks involved?

At the time of the Iraq invasion, coalition forces were a coalition of about fifty nations, or more than a quarter of the world's nations. No international support indeed. Fun fact: The Arab League and various other nations have objected to what is being done in Libya and the UN Resolution supporting it is a Security Council Resolution, meaning it has the support of ten nations. The only General Assembly action was to remove Libya from the Human Rights Council.

According to Wikipedia, the list is forty nations, which wasn't built on a dime and involved many nations getting various sorts of perks for their trouble. On top of known lies regarding the reasons.

More importantly, compare the size and scope of the Iraq protests with the Libyan protests (and considering what Gaddafi pays for his image, I'd be skeptical of their legitimacy).

And I've already said that so long as we don't have boots on the ground there is a difference, but that in no way changes the fact most of your assertions that 'differentiate' them are untrue.

Asuras made the following claims
1) No boots on the ground - you agreed to this
2) The massive civil uprising in Libya is unlike anything in proportion to what has ever happened in Iraq under Saddam's reign - this is true
3) That there is broader international support for the action in Libya. From a hard power perspective, at least in proportion to hard power, France is eagerly participating in the effort. From a soft power perspective, Asuras is certainly correct - people - and Libyans - are more supportive of the operation in Libya around the world, even if Americans are nervous. And the Obama administration is well aware that America's ability to throw around hard power is severely hampered.

You are correct, however, that you did not ignore my comments: You simply declared them untrue without citing any evidence to the contrary.

You claim Asuras is making untrue statements, without citing any evidence to support your claim - or to support any claim of yours at all in this thread - and then make this line.

How many more times am I going to see lines like this, Sure?

[Sure]

My last post was a bit harsher in tone that I would have liked, before I continue I'd like to apologize to Asuras for that.

You claimed there was a rebellion. Now you admit that at the time of the invasion, there was not.

Are you seriously claiming that the Kurdish contribution to the Iraq war effort is comparable to the scale of the uprising in Libya, compared to the tasks involved?

I believe you are mistaken. Saying coalition forces were supported by the Peshmerga in no way implies there was not a rebellion before the Coalition arrived. That said, you could show me evidenced to the contrary, but saying I am contradicting myself is simply not true.

Actually, if you want to talk terms of scale, the Peshmerga were more numerous than most estimates for Libyan rebels (70,000 Peshmerga, 17,000 Libyans). In terms of the contributions to the effort, though, I've actually stated the opposite.

According to Wikipedia, the list is forty nations, which wasn't built on a dime and involved many nations getting various sorts of perks for their trouble. On top of known lies regarding the reasons.

More importantly, compare the size and scope of the Iraq protests with the Libyan protests (and considering what Gaddafi pays for his image, I'd be skeptical of their legitimacy).

Admittedly a biased source. Forty eight or forty nine is still about fifty, I would think. And it really doesn't surprise me the US pressured nations to support the war, but pressure is a normal part of diplomacy and building international consensus, like it or not.

I'm not sure which Iraq Protests you're referring to. I think you're talking about the anti-war protests back when the war started, in which case yes, there is more popular support for ousting Ghaddafi than Hussein in the West. I'm not denying that but its really irrelevant in terms of international support, particularly because 'not objecting' does not mean 'supports' and 'international consensus' does not equate to 'popular consensus'.

Asuras made the following claims
1) No boots on the ground - you agreed to this
2) The massive civil uprising in Libya is unlike anything in proportion to what has ever happened in Iraq under Saddam's reign - this is true
3) That there is broader international support for the action in Libya. From a hard power perspective, at least in proportion to hard power, France is eagerly participating in the effort. From a soft power perspective, Asuras is certainly correct - people - and Libyans - are more supportive of the operation in Libya around the world, even if Americans are nervous. And the Obama administration is well aware that America's ability to throw around hard power is severely hampered.

As I see it, Asuras made the following claims:
1.) There was no rebellion in Iraq in 2003.
2.) The current Libyan operation is not US lead.
3.) There was little international support for the invasion of Iraq.
4.) International support for the Libyan Intervention is widespread.
5.) We do not have troops on the ground.
6.) There is a major difference between the Libyan Intervention and the Iraq War

The underlined ones I take issue with and assert are false. Therefore, if what I say is true, the majority of Asuras assertions are demonstrably false.
1.) Do you want me to cite the existence of the Peshmerga? Nitpicking about what constitutes a rebellion is not relevant in my opinion. If you are asserting that the Peshmerga did proportionally less work than the rebels, I don't disagree with you, but if you are saying there were no rebels in Iraq...
2.) The US started in command and then later gave it up to NATO.
3.) Cited above.
4.) One, in addition to what I said before about the Operation of the Security Council and General Assembly, which I can cite if you want me to. Admittedly, this is less an assertion it is widely criticized and more an assertion that the majority of the world has not been wholly supportive nor condemned the intervention.

As to hard power, there has been more contributions from foreign powers, and proportionally the contribution of the US to Libya as opposed to Iraq is smaller. However, the US is far more than any other nation, France is in third place in terms of contributions at best. Sorry for all the Wikipedia, but it's easier than tracking down news articles.

Further, current estimates of rebel numbers are at about 17,000 rebels out of a population of six million. For comparison Kosovo, with a population of less than two million, mustered about 20,000. The only other number I know off the top of my head is the American Revolution, about 130,000 from a population of four million. So they're actually a relatively small group as far as such groups go. Once again, citations upon request.

You claim Asuras is making untrue statements, without citing any evidence to support your claim - or to support any claim of yours at all in this thread - and then make this line.

Upon being asked to cite my claims I have. In turn I would point out you have cited one out of four of your claims. However, except for the point about there being a rebellion in Iraq and the widespreadness of support for the Libyan intervention, I don't disagree with what you've said.

How many more times am I going to see lines like this, Sure?

For clarification, do you mean from me specifically or in general?

[Callie Del Noire]

I keep thinking of the amount of rebellion is different too for a reason. Qaddafi never used gas warfare on his own country.  He's always had a bit of an issue with tribal dissent but from what I've read he's always been more savvy about dealing with it 'off screen' or pitting rival tribes against each other. Whereas a LOT of the dissenting folks in Iraq remember what happened to folks that were looking for us to roll across the border in the First Gulf War. Saddam shot a HELL of a lot of folks and put even more through sheer hell in prison.

By the time Bush 2.0 rolled in they had gone through what.. 8 years of horrible repression calculated to crush their will. A skill that Saddam honed over the years. A lot of potential rivals before the invasion of Kuwait were put on the front lines in the Iran-Iraq war.

Both men have had a LONG time to hone their skills and neither are a saint. Saddam should have been handled back under Bush 1.0, popular opinion was a prime reason for us shutting down early. I've talk to a lot of Saudi and Kuwaiti Airforce/Navy men.. a lot of folks in their countries wanted Saddam taken care back then

[Vekseid]

My last post was a bit harsher in tone that I would have liked, before I continue I'd like to apologize to Asuras for that.

I believe you are mistaken. Saying coalition forces were supported by the Peshmerga in no way implies there was not a rebellion before the Coalition arrived. That said, you could show me evidenced to the contrary, but saying I am contradicting myself is simply not true.

Are you asking me to prove a negative? The Kurdish uprising was in 1991.

Actually, if you want to talk terms of scale, the Peshmerga were more numerous than most estimates for Libyan rebels (70,000 Peshmerga, 17,000 Libyans). In terms of the contributions to the effort, though, I've actually stated the opposite.

Your point? Ignoring that you don't even cite a source for the 70,000 figure, the numbers have to be taken into the context of the size of the force they are opposing. The Libyans actually outnumber Gaddafi's loyalist forces. Compare to the size of the Iraqi army before the war, at between 350k-400k.

This also ignores the fact that the Kurds are the redheaded stepchild of the region - they could provide significant control over a Kurdistan, but not over Iraq as a whole. While tribal politics is involved in the Libyan uprising, the fact remains that the Rebels managed to gain control over nearly every major city short of Tripoli itself. Gaddafi is going to win Misurata not by conquest of the people within, but because the entire city is being evacuated.

Admittedly a biased source. Forty eight or forty nine is still about fifty, I would think. And it really doesn't surprise me the US pressured nations to support the war, but pressure is a normal part of diplomacy and building international consensus, like it or not.

Some of the countries found out they were on the list through the news. Like the Solomon Islands.

I'm not sure which Iraq Protests you're referring to. I think you're talking about the anti-war protests back when the war started, in which case yes, there is more popular support for ousting Ghaddafi than Hussein in the West. I'm not denying that but its really irrelevant in terms of international support, particularly because 'not objecting' does not mean 'supports' and 'international consensus' does not equate to 'popular consensus'.

It's extremely relevant. Soft power is your long-term political support.

The massacres in Libya became national headlines. People learned about the suffering of individual civilians on a personal level, and unlike say, Darfur, nearly the entirety of Libya's population is concentrated along the coast, there is a coherent opposition with a structured leadership, chain of command and area of influence - territory to be defended.

And it matters what the people of Libya think, too. They curse when NATO does not act and cheer when it does.

As I see it, Asuras made the following claims:
1.) There was no rebellion in Iraq in 2003.

As far as you have demonstrated, this is true. There was only assistance from the Kurds, as expected, after the invasion began.

2.) The current Libyan operation is not US lead.

Charles Bouchard is Canadian. Politically speaking, this action was driven by France and the United Kingdom.

And if you've been paying any attention at all, the drop in effectiveness when the United States pulled from its leadership role was very palpable.

3.) There was little international support for the invasion of Iraq.

As I referenced above, there was a lot of political bribery, outright lies, tortured confessions - literally - and massive unpopularity for the war effort.

4.) International support for the Libyan Intervention is widespread.

Again, in terms of soft power support, the Libyan intervention is far more popular.

The underlined ones I take issue with and assert are false. Therefore, if what I say is true, the majority of Asuras assertions are demonstrably false.
1.) Do you want me to cite the existence of the Peshmerga? Nitpicking about what constitutes a rebellion is not relevant in my opinion. If you are asserting that the Peshmerga did proportionally less work than the rebels, I don't disagree with you, but if you are saying there were no rebels in Iraq...

They were a regionally limited, long-oppressed local population that provided assistance concurrent with the US invasion. They did not rise up on their own, they would not have provided that assistance without the guaranteed support of boots on the ground, because, simply, they tried that already and got squashed.

Add to that, you dismiss the difference in scale - Gaddafi now faces a home-grown rebellion with an army larger than his own. 'Proportionally less work' - Who took Basra? Who took Mosul? Who took Baghdad?

Who took Benghazi? Who took Misurata and held it for three months?

2.) The US started in command and then later gave it up to NATO.

The operational commander of which is a Canadian.

4.) One, in addition to what I said before about the Operation of the Security Council and General Assembly, which I can cite if you want me to. Admittedly, this is less an assertion it is widely criticized and more an assertion that the majority of the world has not been wholly supportive nor condemned the intervention.

Did you read the Russian propaganda campaign against the Iraq war? I'm not sure what you're getting at when referring to the complaints of the BRIC block. The BRICS have a lot of political bones to pick with the West.

As to hard power, there has been more contributions from foreign powers, and proportionally the contribution of the US to Libya as opposed to Iraq is smaller. However, the US is far more than any other nation, France is in third place in terms of contributions at best. Sorry for all the Wikipedia, but it's easier than tracking down news articles.

Further, current estimates of rebel numbers are at about 17,000 rebels out of a population of six million. For comparison Kosovo, with a population of less than two million, mustered about 20,000. The only other number I know off the top of my head is the American Revolution, about 130,000 from a population of four million. So they're actually a relatively small group as far as such groups go. Once again, citations upon request.

It's not a good idea to compare pre-mechanized military numbers to post-mechanized military numbers. Do you think Gaddafi would be able to control so many people without mortars, heavy armor and artillery?

The relevant figure, of course, is that this uprising stems from Eastern Libya, about a million people, primarily in Benghazi. The revolts in Tripoli were crushed and Misurata is being evacuated. Despite this, Gaddafi's forces are still outnumbered. There were reports of as many as 30,000 protestors in Tripoli, but they are hard to verify, and rumors of mass graves being dug for them.

Upon being asked to cite my claims I have. In turn I would point out you have cited one out of four of your claims. However, except for the point about there being a rebellion in Iraq and the widespreadness of support for the Libyan intervention, I don't disagree with what you've said.

You're asking me to prove a negative - 'prove there was not a rebellion underway prior to the invasion of Iraq'. It is your responsibility, as the claimant, to prove that the rebellion was taking place before the invasion.

For clarification, do you mean from me specifically or in general?

It's your warning. I understand things get fast and loose, here, but that was bald hypocrisy on your part.