So you’d be okay with this mission if we were attacking Bahrain too?
Does Bahrain or Saudi Arabia have the exact same conditions as Libya did? Specifically a guy who is poised to commit tens of thousands of civilian murders and the backing of the international community including strong regional support?
But that isn’t necessarily our military goal. The removal of Kahdaffy is, officially at least, being undertaken by sanctions and governmental pressures.
You mean like how every US President and Secretary of State for 40 years has been saying Castro has to go?
I don’t think you can draw a distinct line between the two. Do you really think Kadaffi would go without the military action?
I’m have no idea how you got that from my post.
I actually was being facetious. My point is that Saudi Arabia is supposedly one of the key countries asking us to do this, but in the meantime, they’re just another Kadaffi in the region, even if they might be slightly more benign than MK.
Can you provide me a quote of either Obama or HRC saying that Castro must go while we were bombing Cuba?
I’ve got the news on right now, and Diane Feinstein is saying “Kadaffi has got to go”.
I’m sure both are necessary. But if the military can provide pressure in the form of leveling the playing field for the rebels, I assume that the sanctions and whatnot lever the force pushing him out.
I thought you were saying, why are we attacking Libya when Bahrain was just as bad.
Yeah, but there isn’t a regional and international call for toppling Saudi Arabia. Besides, they bought off their protesters with money, that’s the free market at work. 
What does that have to do with it? They say whatever they say. The fact that we’re bombing somebody doesn’t mean we’re more or less serious about it; it just means we have international support for it (usually).
We would have bombed Cuba decades ago if we thought we could get away with it, but no other country would support armed action against Cuba purely on the grounds that they’re filthy Commies.
You’re kidding. You really don’t think saying “You must go” has a little more oomph to it when we’re bombing your country?
If I stand outside your house yelling: Get out of the house, that’s the same as if I yell: Get out of your house while I fire a machine gun into your windows?
As for Bombing Cuba, what makes you think we restrained ourselves? We’ve bombed plenty of places w/o UN approval.
France, encouraged to do the right thing by its 10% voting arab population, has placed a bet on the protesters turned rebels and the US and Britain have followed with all the allies they could because there is Oil Europe depends on and Qaddafi was being very, very unreasonable with the scale and style of his repression. His grandiloquence and fiery rhetoric were a PR nightmare for the West.
This was easy because almost everybody (rightly) hates and despises Qaddafi. Qatar’s emir most of all, perhaps.
The solution to the US to this dilemma is to avoid dead soldiers and keep civilian casualties reasonable so attack with minimum force and maximum precision. The Libyans are grateful, Obama’s cred with the Arab Street goes up. The mantra is no boots on the ground. Without dead soldiers, there is no national outrage and lost elections.
This is my take on the situation, here in Morocco.
Sure it has more oomph. That doesn’t mean we’re that into it.
Let me ask you this: which of the following would you most like to remove from office: (1) Kim Jong-Il; (2) Mahmood Ahmedinejad and/or Ali Khamenei; or (3) Muamar Gaddhafi?
The Libyan madman or any of the other despots (save for the Saudis) could be the one smart enough to make a deal to keep their ill-gotten gains and get out. So it’s not impossible. But the fact that they haven’t is a sign that megalomania is more of motive to these bastards than personal wealth. Maybe if the rebels can maintain control of some eastern cities and oil fields, the UN will recognize a partition, and a stalemate enforced by international aircraft will succeed. But I think the best bet is for everybody’s favorite (this week) psycho dictator to die as a result of collateral damage from a strategic air strike against the French Embassy… no wait, I meant a milk plant… no that’s not it… oh yeah, a military target.
I would vote (4) All of the Above.
In reality, we only have the opportunity to remove one of those at the moment, so Gaddhafi is this week,s lucky winner. We aren’t in there just because he is a bad guy. We are there because he is a bad guy who is currently facing a homegrown rebellion that could succeed with our help. when that happens in NK or Iran we can talk about the others.
What is the Emir’s particular beef with Kadaffi? Just curious.
We’re only bombing one of those countries, so I think that’s all that matters. Ahmedinejad, btw, could leave tomorrow and it wouldn’t make much difference. The real power in Iran is with the Council of Guardians.
Maybe we could send all three guys tickets to a Justin Bieber concert, and kill everybody that shows up. (I don’t believe that JB and his fans literally deserve to die, but hey, it’s just collateral damage).
Jesus Christ. Just answer the goddamn question, people.
It’s not a question relevant to the military action being taken in Libya.
2, These people are crazy and think the 12th Imam is coming which will involve great upheaval. I reeeeaaaaaallllly don’t want Iran to get nukes.
Sure it is. The point is that our policy depends on what we can get away with, not on what we actually want.
Yeah, and now we think we can get away with regime change in Libya. We’re just going about it differently than Bush would have.