Hell, McCain would have invaded Belgium. Or Canada. Maybe Belgium by way of Canada.
Who the hell invades Belgium by way of some place else? Belgium is the place you conquer on the way to whatever it is you were planning on conquering.
Meanwhile, we don’t give a shit about what’s going on in Bahrain. All you have to do to keep your absolute monarchy alive in the ME is offer us a base and at least pretend to be fight the WoT with us.
Well, for what it may be worth, it appears that U.S. support is luke-warm at best.
CNN report
*
“We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone,” the president said in a nationally televised statement about U.S. military action.
“The president chose his words deliberately and carefully, and you should be guided by them,” the official said. “He is very sensitive that this not be a U.S. operation. We are part of it. And of course, we by nature of our superior capabilities have a lead and leadership role to play. But we are part of it and expect a lot from our partners,” the official said.
Asked about the “unique capabilities” the president talked about contributing, the official said that at least for now, they would not involve combat fighters or bombers but instead would include AWACS, intelligence-gathering drones and other intelligence assets, and refueling and air traffic control.*
Maybe Frank, just maybe, you are seeing things as they really are for the first time. When it comes down to it, it doesn’t really matter who is in the white house. This country is and has been run by power brokers that seem to drive the country in whatever direction serves their purposes. Democrats have just as much to lose as Republicans. When you are speaking of the uber-rich, they all have the same goal. Keep their wealth, and whenever possible, increase it.
Democrats and Republicans, at the top, are the same people. They are the wealth holders of this country. And neither side is going to enact policy that will hurt in any way the property of the elite, ruling class. That’s the tragedy that our country is suffering from. Because when a two party system is in reality a one-party system, what is it that we have, really?
How does the Libyan operation serve the interests of the power brokers, again?
That remains to be seen. We have to wait a while to see what anybody has in mind.
Libya does have oil. Iraq has oil. We hate Iran and they are evil. They have oil. We hate Venezuela, they have oil. Pure coincidence.
See also Yemen.
On the matter of “all means necessary”, I point you here, a former British ambassador’s take on the actual text of the UN resolution.
Wasn’t one of the ignition points for the rebellion the defection of Lybian jet pilots who flew to Malta rather than opening fire on their own countrymen? At that point, it was only protests, not a full blown civil war. While it may not amount to genocide, Colonel K/Q/G was ordering the slaughter of civilians who hadn’t taken up arms.
The day before the UN resolution, the Colonel and his sons were vowing to massacre any remaining rebels. Again, not genocide, but not exactly humanitarian either.
You may disagree with US involvement with the no-fly zone, but please understand where it’s coming from.
Please don’t forget the history of US hatred for Canada. They have oil. And Saudi Arabia. And Qatar, Nigeria, and Angola. Don’t forget Russia (okay, maybe we do still have a little hate-on for them).
I don’t see much correlation between who has oil, who the US invades, and who we have bad relationships with.
This is amusing stuff: so Wilson and Roosevelt started the world wars. Who knew? You do realize that both presidents kept us out of those horrors as long as was possible, right? Who got us into Vietnam in the first place again? Oh right: Eisenhower. Please do go on.
So far I haven’t heard anything about US intervention. Was watching CNN this morning and they were saying that the French have already started flying over Libya, and it seems their ROE includes ground strikes against Libyan military units attacking civilians (though unless they have spotters on the ground I can’t see how they will tell the difference between pro-Kaddafi and rebels). From what I’ve heard the UK, France and Canada will be providing assets for this.
I see this as the potential for a huge slippery slope, and I’m not sanguine about the outcome here. I don’t know what can or should be done, but once the UN passed it’s resolution (with US approval) I’d say that the die was cast at that point. I don’t blame Obama for this…in fact, he seems to have kept us out of it (for now) and is letting the French take the lead.
-XT
That’s right. Gaddafi initiated the killing. Frank calling it “perfectly valid” is kind of sickening, really–puts him in a class with Commissar, around here.
Erhh… Didn’t Lybya’s government declare a ceasefire, then violated their own ceasefire, at this point?
Yes, I should have mentioned both because of the similarities.
Well, it does look like the French and British are taking the lead so far, but I still am given pause by the idea that the UN can intervene in the internal affairs of a country. Not that I worry it could happen to a “real” power, like the US, but it does seem to violate the UN charter.
Look into the concept of R2P - responsibility to protect.
The Ghadaffi regime’s behavior is not genocide, which is the only time the international community is obliged to intervene in another country’s internal affairs (which so far they have done a pretty poor job at), but it is clearly a violation of human rights, which falls under Responsibility to Protect. R2P is a norm and not a law, but it does have a lot of sway in the international community, including in the UNSC.
The ones like Canada and Russia who don’t upset the oil supply lines are tolerated. The ones that threaten the oil supply lines or cost stability ,have to go.
\ We all know what a repressive money grabbing place Saudi Arabia is. Why do you think Bush was holding hands with their leaders? They do not threaten the supply lines.
That just looks to me like a legalistic fig leaf to give the great powers the ability to disregard sovereignty when it is convenient to do so.
Yeah, there are all sorts of places we could be intervening under that fig leaf, but we have the good sense not to. Would that that good sense had held sway with Libya.
Do you folks think that the rebels took Benghazi bloodlessly?