Why Libya?

[dib8rman]

Mr Khan said:

dib8rman said:

Mr Khan said:

 

Similar to what Rath said below, this is a matter of scale as far as human rights violations goes. I also think the call to action was pretty clear given their imminent complete destruction, Qaddafi had no reason to negotiate because if he could've sacked Benghazi, then it there would have been no rebellion and no-one left for Qaddafi to deal with in any Western-sponsored negotiations.

It was an ideological and public relations bind, pure and simple. I mean we've let massacres that could fairly easily have been stopped go on before (Rwanda) but that falls to a matter of people not caring what goes on in random African countries, which is unfortunate, but the combination of ideology, visibility, and the tactical situation on the ground meant that inaction would have been a long-term diplomatic nightmare. Our action poses certain diplomatic problems, but nothing too outside the norm (pisses off the Russians and the Chinese and makes the Indians frown, but those are all fairly normal)

If the US can or should or must start invasions because the public want's to use her military to satisfy their concience or convenience then I think it's time for the US to reinstate the draft or for the UN to begin one. Again what's the point of helping people that want to bring in a form of radicalism that will make Khadafi seem tame and timid.

For all Libya was we could always say at least it wasn't as bad as Afghanistan or Lebanon.

*wasn't,* certainly. Qaddafi had become a stabilizing force in the region after the Libyans disavowed WMDs, but currently it isn't stable, and people are dying, people with whom we are, to a certain extent, aligned, whether we wish it or not.

It's a trap, but one we could not avoid

Don't give me that crap, the rules of the conqueror may be old but they aren't forgotten, it's the conquered’s duty to remain subjugated or remove their conqueror. The international community has laws set in place to recognize this one fact, when Madison said the cost of freedom is war he didn't mean American blood had to be spent for the world to have it's freedom.

There would be no objection if these people wanted a democracy but as it stands they don't, they keep saying they do but they don't. I will probably go to the grave not being able to understand why folks can't see centralizing power as the cliche of totalitarianism, why folks refuse to see that the world view they hold is flawed for that reliance on theocracy - democratic or not.

I honestly believe a draft is needed again proving Friedman's presumptuous wrong about societal rationality.

But what get's me is that American dollars are being spent on a issue we should have been finished with over two hundred years go.

Unless Obama comes clean and explains how this is in American interests then it's callous burden on the tax payer.