[stevewig]

It is ironic, however, we are going to end up being the villain and blamed by the world (especially the Canadians ) for all of the evils that will result from either course of action, so at least we can save some American lives and a great deal of money by staying out of it.

1) If Gadhafi and his thugs are permitted to re-establish their dictatorship of the country this will be the fault of the democratic world (including the USA) and that will be a FACT. It boils down to a morality issue and I am well aware that that "m" word is now old fashioned and obsolete.

2) It is well known that UN action is impossible because of Russia and China (at least) but this at least leaves the possiblity of NATO action (with US support) preventing Gadhafi and his Airforce from completing the military massacre of all opposition.

It is understandable that the Western world is sick and tired of involving themselves in other peoples problems when they have no economic reason to do so but this is the price of years and years of propping up/collaborating with dictatorships whilst it was advantageous for the West to do so.

I am talking here about the whole of the "democratic" world not only the US.

Moral leadership is required and that will not come voluntarily by public opinion - here on this forum or anywhere else.

[Coeurdechene]

It boils down to a morality issue and I am well aware that that "m" word is now old fashioned and obsolete.

It's not..
It's just that in states matters it's never considered (not even in the "holy" crusade of WWII). Political class and military will not decide in terms of morality but much more in terms of diplomatic relationships and short- term, middle term benefits.

preventing Gadhafi and his Airforce from completing the military massacre of all opposition.

.
Nato and high instances in US do not care about opposition being crushed..they fear unstability (better old known than new, possibly less inclined to concede, to come...). Reminds me as how opposition was left all by it's own ,after the first gulf war, to be crushed and slaughtered when the U.S got what it needed.
The U.S. and european country's are just "democracies" in name, power lies elsewhere, and it's that elsewhere interests that will dictate the course of action.

Moral leadership is required and that will not come voluntarily by public opinion - here on this forum or anywhere else.

If it's a moral issue..it should be us that went there...just as, long ago, people would go far away to fight foreing battles ( may it be Byron in Greece or the Lincoln column in the spanish civil war...) because there were principles at stake. You can not demand "moral" leadership from places where "moral" is only considered for election speeches and not for policy making...
And just another thing...there is a great risk that if western democracies get involved they will ask something in exchange, they will impose economic recepies,I believe that in the same line that the ones that are causing the rates of unemployment, and plundering that got all this agitation in the middle east started....

(There's no solution...And we live better but in places as corrupted as those that are in deep sh**...our decay and corruption is just much more subtle.)

[ihasa]

Is it conceivable that the West's complete failure to act upon the situation in Libya has emboldened Bahrain's crackdown on protesters?

[Ratmagiclady]

Is it conceivable that the West's complete failure to act upon the situation in Libya has emboldened Bahrain's crackdown on protesters?

Bahrain's responsible for what Bahrain does.


If we wanted Bahrain to be thinking about us in that way, the time to say so was when Bush was blowing our mystique.


If the international community had had a spine about Libya enough to ask when it mattered, we could deny the airspace in our spare time, actually. But without that asking, it'd just turn a popular revolt into 'Unilateral American.'


It's not 'The West.' It's 'The world.'


It's not like we're the only ones in the world who can take a Mirage F1. Never mind whatever the Hec they're using for 'close air support.'


Fact is, the world loves to get down on America for being 'the World Police,' and after GWB, I don't blame you for not liking the swagger. But *after* all that berating cause of Bush, someone else actually has to freaking dial 911. On record. Put their name on it. Or do it themselves. We are not the only ones with a Mediterranean fleet. Blame Russia for holding up the UN on it, never mind sending in the MiGs.

Fact is, with a lot of this, it's too freakin *late.* Five or six days ago, *no one* in a cockpit was necessarily ready to die for Der Kommissar there. *Italy* could have flown in and said, 'Hey, I heard there was some disputed airspace, don't mind if we paint you like a barn door, do you? Didn't think so, arrividerci.'

Meanwhile, it may not have been guaranteed air supremacy, but those planes wouldn't be hurting anyone *else,* either.


After all that'd gone on in the past decade, someone had to *call* or whatever happened would not have belonged to the rebels on the ground, and you *know* a hundred other interests would use that.

No one called.

And nothing was stopping *a lot* of countries from doing something about it. Was there? Or is blaming *us* exactly what the most of that region has propped up dictators by in the first place?


Told ya Libya would be a messy one.


But while Ghaddafi's auditioning for 'Dancing With the Stars...' Can't help but notice he's no longer got a lot of neighbors all that interested in the previous status quo.

You got our number, right?

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 03-16-2011 at 02:04 PM.

[Wheatfield]

Is it conceivable that the West's complete failure to act upon the situation in Libya has emboldened Bahrain's crackdown on protesters?

Probably, but remember that the West includes a lot more than the USA.
I've seen as many RAF units sent to Libya as USAF units, for example.
At some point, other countries, perhaps countries that are actually closer to the hot spot have to get involved.
The USA has enough on it's plate at the moment.

[jolepp]

The no-fly zone is a reality: BBC News - Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi.

[les3547]

The no-fly zone is a reality: BBC News - Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi.

It is awesome; also, if all goes well, Obama's restraint and determination to wait for the rest of the world to agree will prove to be a wise approach (not that it will silence his critics).

[creampuff]

All this is not new. Years back in 1986 the US bombed Tripoli and in recent years it has also imposed a no-fly zone in Iraq. The US already has a precedent in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the former on the flimsiest of pretexts so doing the same in Libya should be no different, except that it will further bankrupt the US taxpayer. Hopefully all the dithering over military action whether limited or full scale is over.

[les3547]

All this is not new. Years back in 1986 the US bombed Tripoli and in recent years it has also imposed a no-fly zone in Iraq. The US already has a precedent in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the former on the flimsiest of pretexts so doing the same in Libya should be no different, except that it will further bankrupt the US taxpayer. Hopefully all the dithering over military action whether limited or full scale is over.

It is new in the sense of the US not arrogantly doing its own thing despite what the rest of the world thinks.

Furthermore, it is not proper logic to equate all military actions . . . invading Afghanistan was distinctly different from invading Iraq.

[stevewig]

I am very happy that the UN has finally done the "right thing" but afraid that it may be too late!

[jolepp]

With Afganistan pretty much everyone was eager to get on with the program from solidarity to the US after 9/11 and as the country desperately needed an intervention. In retrospect that should have included disarming the warlords and replacing them with a substantial international ground troops and commencing nation building which would have been doable back then.

[ihasa]

It's not 'The West.' It's 'The world.'

It's the EU and America - the West - who have been the key drivers in responding to these revolutions. This isn't how it *should* be, but unfortunately it's how it is. The African Union met during the Libyan protests, I don't think they even discussed it.... I guess they have their own protests to deal with

Fact is, with a lot of this, it's too freakin *late.* Five or six days ago, *no one* in a cockpit was necessarily ready to die for Der Kommissar there. *Italy* could have flown in and said, 'Hey, I heard there was some disputed airspace, don't mind if we paint you like a barn door, do you? Didn't think so, arrividerci.'
Told ya Libya would be a messy one.

Italy? Ah ha ha haha! Berlusconi was probably praying that the protests would be quashed extra quickly, so Libya could remain its 'airlock' against African immigration....

[jolepp]

Actually, from the BBC piece it seems that the British and French would be doing the fighting at least initially. Not much of that might be needed as the Libyan pilots have not been exactly eager about attacking their own people even without serious opposition. Besides the first thing is probably bombing the runways out of shape.

[Ratmagiclady]

The no-fly zone is a reality: BBC News - Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi.

Good. A little *late,* on the UN's part, but it might yet do.


I don't think they actually need to bomb airfields, just start painting targets. Or at least so it would have been last week. If they were letting gals like me fly back when I had 20/2 (not a typo) vision and serious reflexes at the time, that's what I would have been glad to be training for just to get out of town.

(But, it was before there was *even* DADT and I didn't much care for the Commander in Chief at the time. )


Anyway, over Libya, all they have to do is not bomb airfields, *maybe* nullify some ground-air missiles, but apart from that, just a little aerial brinksmanship would mean that whatever that Libyan air force is doing, it's not hurting anyone else. If the conditions of victory aren't 'Destroy The Libyan Air Force,' but rather, 'Don't Let The Libyan Air Force Provide Close Air Support to Cadaffi's Ground Troops...' anything else but letting *them* achieve their objectives will pretty much do. France could do that, or Greece, or Turkey, or the British Navy. All we need to do is take their time.

Not that hard. Can be done.

Would have worked better last week, though, under any flag but the American.

[eddie1960]

it seems to have given him pause to think a little anyway'

BBC News - Libya: Pro-Gaddafi forces 'to observe ceasefire'