Why Libya?

[Rath]

Games4Fun said:

Rath said:

The honest truth of the matter is that the USA - and the rest of the world - had to intervene. It seemed extremely likely, indeed almost certain, that Gadaffi was going to commit one of the most awful massacres of the last few decades should he have taken Benghazi. To simply stand by and let it happen would not be acceptable. The international community had basically done that with the Srebrenica massacre. For the politicians in charge (Obama in the case of the US) it was both morally and politcally the only course of action.

Simply put, this is not Iraq. This action has immediately saved lives in the tens, possibly hundreds of thousands. For the international community not to have done these actions would be to essentially give approval to these atrocities.

I see thank you for the info. I dont keep up a lot with all this stuff anymore because it can drive me nutty pretty fast. But, who is going to actually get control do you know? Because according to what I did find the rebels NATO are helping or not going to be any better.

We don't know at the moment. It's a major worry really, the rebel leadership seems to be a very very varied bunch comprised of everything from liberals to Islamists and the future of the country is going to be at least a little chaotic no matter what from here on out.

However the immediate aim was to stop what was clearly going to be a horribly massacre and that seems to have been acheived. I don't think this coalition action was performed with too much thought towards the future. I get the feeling that the thought process was something along the lines of 'Theres going to be a massacre, lets stop that and what happens afterwards is tomorrows problem'. It's actually a thought process I agree with, the immediate action really was needed.