Let Muslims speak for Muslims. There is no need for others to google phases and pretend to speak for Muslims. Qaddafi is no hero of Islam nor of the Arabs.
John, I’m happy to compare the net totals of the lives Obama has *saved *in Libya with the ones Bush *destroyed *in Iraq.
How does human morality get any more basic than that? :dubious:
We’ll never know how many lives were saved, but I’ll just say it’s a bit early to be doing a body count. The fat lady isn’t even in the theater, much less having sung.
And Obama being better than Bush isn’t the issue here.
Then what is, John?
Well, the first boat of Libyan refugees is already approaching Italy.
No doubt there will be a significant influx of refugees and/or immigrants to Italy, when the fight will be over, regardless of the situation. If only because Libya blocked one of the main “roads” to Europe for sub-saharian Africans (Libya being close to southern Italy and very very close to the island of Lampedusa), at the request of Italy and others EU countries.
With the unavoidable transition period, it will be wide open at least for a time. And it might include Libyans, along with other migrants savy enough to jump on the boat at the right moment, after the fighting will be over and before the borders will be more closely watched.
That said, I couldn’t care less, regardless of Berlusconi’s opinion on the matter.
Well…we’ve had some good news coming from there recently, didn’t we?
I’m not sure of the relevance on this topic, but anyway, Insha’Allah is mostly a catch-all sentence pronounced essentially automatically when anything lying in the future is mentionned “I’m going to visit my family during the vacations, Insha’Allah”
The problem with this is once the rebels win (assuming they do), it is going to look like the West installed a regime. The rebels admit they could not have retaken the land they lost unless the no fly zone and the bombings had taken place.
If you look at other places installing a regime usually doesn’t work out. In Congo, it was Rwanda and Uganda that was instrumental in throwing out Mobutu who was replace by Kabila.
The war continued after Mobuto’s overthrow because Kabila was seen as a puppet of Rwanda and Uganda. This lead to even a bigger war that only ended when Kabila was killed and his son took over.
Same in Uganda in the 70s when Tanzania overthrew Idi Amin. War contintued till the Tanzanias left. Overthowing the dictator did nothing as his replacement was seen as a puppet of Tanzania
In the Central African Empire the French overthrew Bokassa and replaced him with David Dacko. Dacko was overthrown in the years earlier by Bokassa. But Docko didn’t last long as he was seen as a puppet.
OK so when Gadaffi goes, whoever takes his place will be seen as put their because the West intervened. Which is the case. The rebels could not have lasted without the intervention.
Unlike Egypt and Tunisia this happend only due to the West physically helping them.
What this means is the other dictatorships in the Mideast (and perhaps elsewhere) are going to be more brutal BEFORE any public protests can be seen. And more and more smaller nations will be angling for nukes. Do you really think the West would take on a nuclear armed Libya?
I would note that all your examples involve a dictator being replaced by another more convenient dictator. Hopefully, it won’t be the case in Libya. And even if it were the case, it’s highly unlikely that this new dictator will be propped up by the west.
again, what is the strategy? What is the stated goal? Who are we supporting?
Prior to this the convicted bomber of Pan Am flight 103 was welcomed home as a hero. There are Al Qaeda fighters who use to fight US soldiers on the front line. We went through this before in Afghanistan and look where it got us.
Strategy will be up to military planners. Judging from the mission parameters, I’d wager it’s “bomb shit”. The stated goal is from the mission parameters, it’s “protect civilians”. And again, who says we’re supporting anybody in particular? We’re opposing and containing Quadaffi, as per the letter of UNSC 1973.
This seems to be a specious argument. Can you please elaborate on not only the connection, but what exactly you see as the ramifications?
Sigh… You can wager all you want. The President attacked a country without addressing Congress or his constituents. He has not specified a clear cut strategy. There is no clear coordination of what is going on.
We can only pray that the fundamental pillars of the Republic are not shattered forever. Woe.
And that informs the question how, exactly?
Of course there will be people leaving the country in times of conflict. The question was why someone would believe that there will more of them created by preventing planes from bombing civilian centers and tanks from rolling in all the orders that said go house to house drag out the traitorous protesters and kill them. Maybe if everyone is dead no one will be able to run away? Is that the logic?
Interestingly, like most criticisms of this President’s political competence, most of your declarative statements in that post are inaccurate:
“The President attacked a country without addressing Congress…”
Congress Pushes Tougher Libya Response (Wapo report March 7)
Obama consults with congressional leaders on Libya (Wapo story, March 18)
Letter from the President regarding the commencement of operations in Libya, March 21 (official address)
“…or his constituents.”
Remarks by the President on Libya, March 19
“He has not specified a clear cut strategy.”
Letter from the President regarding the commencement of operations in Libya, March 21 (offered again for limited-strategy mission description)
And finally, a statement that is legitimately arguable, but meaningful only as a criticism of the public relations coordination rather than military coordination:
“There is no clear coordination of what is going on.”
Libya: What Next? (analysis by BBC News, March 24, offered for analysis of communication failures of participating countries)
and yet in the region no one who will not say it no matter what is saying this.
Unless the West sends troops or commits great massacres in indiscriminate bombing, it will not be the perception. Not any more than Americans see themselves as installed by France.
That was by direct interfrence and by troops.
Unlike Egypte and Tunisia, the regime has shown willingness to use its armies and airforces against the population. That is why unlike the Tunisians and the Egyptians they call for help after the regime used tanks on them.
And this was true without intervention, it amazes me that this is presented as an argument.
Did you read your own cites? Seriously? He met with some congressional leaders on Friday and launched weapons on Saturday the 19th. He then held another closed door session the following Wednesday (23rd).
His address to the nation is tomorrow the 28th.
Misrepresenting those cites doesn’t win your argument, Magiver. The President consulted with Congress and informed the nation regarding what we are doing, why we’re doing it, what the limits of our commitment are and he cited his constitutional authority while doing that.
Disagreement with the intervention is valid. Assertions that Obama has articulated no strategy or hasn’t defined our mission are ignorant and inaccurate. Assertions that the POTUS kept the country in the dark or failed to obtain the advice and consent of the Congress are untruths.
So he advised Congress of what he was going to do ahead of time. Now they have until 60 days are up to come up with their position and potentially stop military action.
What was the vote?