I dunno. I just don’t know who we supported in this. We sent in the cavalry in Kosovo and there was a pretty clear mission statement. It’s not about Obama (as this thread suggests). This was a loosely organized NATO party and a bit of a hot potato at that.
It would be nice if democracy and peace breaks out in this region for a host of reasons. Here’s hoping it does.
Maybe the Libyan rebels will be nice folks…maybe not.
The real question is: what happens to the stockpiles of weapons belonging to the (former) Libyan army? Suppose it gets sent to Hezbollah or the Taliban?
That would not be good.
Ah, so you’re a psychic and know what other people think. Great, then you know what I’m thinking about you now.
This isn’t anything but a civil war. There are a number of them going on in the region. How should we proceed with Syria and Egypt and other such countries?
We are all humans. Humanity is our business. More specifically, supporting the development of democracy is a responsibility of democracies.
Our responsibilities do not end at our own borders; that attitude has been just as unrealistic as it is irresponsible for generations now.
:rolleyes: And why would they do that? Why presume they are more likely than any other random nation to do that?
As for what will happen, presumably they’ll keep the weapons for their army. If anything they are going to have a shortage thanks to all the destroyed and expended ammo and equipment.
What do the Libyan rebels have in common with the Taliban or Hezbollah that would make them want to give them weapons?
Nope. Just pointing out the way your sour-grapes Democrat-denigrating act comes across. I could also point out how childish your retort to it comes across, too, if I thought it would make any difference.
Who ever said it wasn’t? Now, if we’d sent ground troops in, like you (now) say NATO should have done, then it would be something different. If we’d tried to “control” the rebellion, like you (now) say you regret we didn’t, it would have been something *completely *different.
Egypt *already *took care of their own dictator, but didn’t need outside help because he didn’t/couldn’t fight back much. Perhaps you didn’t hear. Now the Syrians are working on their own, as you also maybe didn’t hear. How about we use a proven strategy there, too? Sound reasonable to you?
Most of it is already in the hands of the TNC army, which, as you might have surmised, is largely *composed *of the (former) Libyan army, whose defecting members brought their armaments with them. There are plenty more weapons that were quietly transferred to them by NATO and Arab allies, too, but the world is awash with that stuff already.
Suppose you tell us why that would happen?
I see no indication that we are supporting democracy in Libya; we are merely supporting the removal of Qaddaffi.
I’ve been around the block once or twice, bub, I’ve seen how the United States has supported “democracy” in such places as Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Iraq.
So, Syria next? Zimbabwe? China?
A precondition for democracy, at any rate. And the TNC has said it wants UN-supervised elections within 8 months.
One important difference is that in Libya we’re clearly supporting the more popular side.
I am far more pragmatic than this-if something helps remove an anti-American dictator who murders his own citizens with minimal American casualties than why not? If it works, its fine with me.
I’m annoyed by how neo-isolationist most of the Tea Party is-they’re returning to a almost pre-Pearl Harbour mentality.
They’re not really returning to anything. Throughout the Bush years, there were a lot of Republicans who only wanted to invade other countries so they could smash them and then go back to ignoring the rest of the world. Bush and some of his inner circle apparently thought you could really spread democracy through war that way, but a lot of the people who voted for him just wanted to kill their enemies and get back to domestic issues forever.
Putting words in other people’s mouths is not a debate point. It’s your personal bullshit bias projected on others.
And what political strategy would that be again? they’re all civil wars. Why did we go into Libya? Seriously, what was the criteria?
We didn’t like Qaddafi and wanted to see him gone?
I note you’re not disagreeing or clarifying. :dubious:
Supporting the democratically-oriented insurgency.
Perhaps you could start by explaining why you think that is a meaningful point of some kind.
You really haven’t been paying attention at all, have you? First, what makes you think we’re “into” Libya? Second, did you really not know that Khadafy was on the verge of destroying the insurgency in Benghazi and that NATO then made the decision to give them the means to defend themselves against a bloodbath? Did you really not hear about that, even on Fox? If so, that would explain why you weren’t aware that the insurgency became able to overthrow Khadafy, and that supporting it was therefore good policy, even for US interests?
The President you despise took an opening and succeeded when the Presidents you admire did not. Fact.
Frank, you’ve been wrong all along, and for all the wrong reasons. Consistency in staying wrong is not a virtue.
I guess a Ghadaffi being ousted from Libya just isn’t fun enough without plane-loads of flag-draped coffin’s to cry over.
What assurances do you have that a democracy will arise? They have no political parties . Nor do they have an educated class that can run the country. There will be a contentious and dangerous period that will follow ,if Kadaffy is gone. They had no voting or political parties. Kadafffy has been in charge over 40 years.
I saw an interview with some of the rebels who think tribalism will return. There are no national structures in place. Local rivals will want to assume the power ad control the oil.
By the way, our borders are where our responsibilities end. We have no treaty with Libya.
Nothing wrong with tribalism. If the country splinters into a bunch of satellites, so what?
No assurancces of course.
That is completely not true. Libya has many educated cadres. They are not living in caves, it is not Afghanistan, whatever superficialities Americans like to promote.
Now Al Jazeera has camera inside. They are in fact inside, in the middle of the compound.