The question on this premise should be clear: NATO's intervention makes the inherent impossibility of starting budget. The slyly alluded Western altruism itself is imperialist, and as such must be condemned. But the conflict has led to confusion on the left that has made him oddly confuse internationalism with meddling. To put it in more prosaic terms, what are the trees that can not see the forest?
The first thing I see is the one pointing the "big difference" in Iraq: humanitarian casus belli. The idea that the intervention is to prevent a massacre. Asked the right war in 2003 and calls for war in 2011 left (the confusion) will produce a contradiction. It follows the historical parallel-nonsense and nonsense "of the English civil war as a means of coercing consciences. We know that history is a powerful weapon when it wants to defend the indefensible. But to say that such a war is nothing (and not), I would not be allowed into the discussion. And that lack of moral legitimacy by those who for decades sustained the dictator and looked the other way when repressing its people with sensitive harder than the course triggered the conflict, is absolute. And this is too much to allow that it is they who today call for his head.
surprising to see many the "benefit of the doubt" granted to NATO under the one thing to argue on humanitarian grounds. The suspicion toward it and not leave the remote and recent history, "that the body hoards nor who is behind it, not even by the interests they may have actually in Libya. But because they bring people to war is a sensitive issue as important and serious, not even a parliament should have the empowerment to do so. Is not a subtraction of popular sovereignty, as essence of democracy, media campaigns, fallacious arguments, half-truths and omissions of information in order to convince the people that support a measure so unpopular as to convince the fairness of the justice of arms? Fighting dirigisme information, feel isolated, almost crazy for holding a contrary opinion is too heavy when everyone seems to handle the opposite, since the division of opinion, despite what is in conflict-is never fair, because what is pursuing-and-forward is approval by action or apathy, of something that requires consensus. Again, democracy dies a little starvation. Convinced of the correctness of sending people to death, or to accept the death of another, is not it a despicable form of coercion? otherwise, accept even the death of the Other requires its prior dehumanization (which are going to kill supporters of a madman, a bloodthirsty, Libyan wrong in the best and mercenaries in the other.) The "dogs of war" does not deserve, unlike the U.S. Marines (pe) - not the gift of life, whatever their circumstantial constraints.
An invasion is an invasion. The reasons are alleged, which are and strength (apparent) they have, are rejected by everyone to keep a bit of humanity and, hence, for anyone who also do not get caught painted indefensible logic of humanitarianism. It's what he knew to the left, not without difficulty and schisms, first in Prague in 1968, but more appropriately in 1979 with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of "exporting socialism." To bring it further, is the justification serves an anti-capitalist to defend the American cause in Vietnam? If we used any parameter, if it all, the answer is obvious.