[Wheatfield]

Really?

Let's see, it's hard to remember a fight where we invited international support and the British did not accept.

The French? They were our predecessors fighting in Vietnam. They were one of four countries to offer substantial support in Afghanistan (where they still have 4,000 troops); What could you be talking about? Iraq, I suppose. Were they wrong?

Mike just doesn't know what he's talking about....
again.

[Rondec]

The biggest question in Libya is not if Gadaffi needs to go, but what is there to replace him? Look at what happened in Iraq after Saddam was removed. I just see Libya degenerating into tribal/sectarian violence for years, followed by corrupt oppressive regimes.

[GeneV]

The biggest question in Libya is not if Gadaffi needs to go, but what is there to replace him? Look at what happened in Iraq after Saddam was removed. I just see Libya degenerating into tribal/sectarian violence for years, followed by corrupt oppressive regimes.

That is the problem all over North Africa. On the other hand, do we just watch him kill his own people? This is a very tough call.

[Pentaxor]

The biggest question in Libya is not if Gadaffi needs to go, but what is there to replace him? Look at what happened in Iraq after Saddam was removed. I just see Libya degenerating into tribal/sectarian violence for years, followed by corrupt oppressive regimes.

fact is, Libya is already run by a corrupt oppressive regime for over 40 years. every massive change had always started with some sort of anarchy, so that is to be expected. the difference that I see here is that the Libyans aren't anti-west (only the current regime is). I did a little bit of digging about Libya and from what it appears, the current regime is no different from an oppressive monarchy. actually, one must think why an ordinary citizen would take up arms if there isn't really any oppression that is existing? I can't even call it an organized delusion. replacing Gaddafi is necessary and let them not worry about the future because as long as that person is in power, they have no future at all to worry about (good as dead).

anyway, I would think that Gaddafi and anyone who is associated with him would certainly be not part of any new government.

[jolepp]

It seems that events are currently rolling in the direction of Ghaddafi's demise, what happens after that (if that happens) is the really important thing. I suppose siding with the anti-regime forces was the only sensible thing to do; simply reacting to situations where the civilian population is under fire has a higher change of creating a stalemate / long lasting civil war / anarchy as an end result. With things as they are one can only hope that the Libyans get rid of the current regime and proceed to replace it with something much improved ASAP.

[Pentaxor]

It seems that events are currently rolling in the direction of Ghaddafi's demise, what happens after that (if that happens) is the really important thing. I suppose siding with the anti-regime forces was the only sensible thing to do; simply reacting to situations where the civilian population is under fire has a higher change of creating a stalemate / long lasting civil war / anarchy as an end result. With things as they are one can only hope that the Libyans get rid of the current regime and proceed to replace it with something much improved ASAP.

true enough. the worst case scenario is that any foreign support bailing out would result to a witchhunt and persecution by the regime especially to dissidents if it is already known how ruthless Gaddafi is. the allies should know better that Gaddafi will never ever back down especially what is at stake. any sort of compromise would be futile considering Gaddafi is a known liar or does not really respect any agreement or treaty. I somehow blame the allies due to the fact that they were worried about oil, and most of the arab neighbors as passive. well, passiveness would had probably been a result of similarities. they are all headed by hypocritical shieks and kings.

[Rondec]

fact is, Libya is already run by a corrupt oppressive regime for over 40 years. every massive change had always started with some sort of anarchy, so that is to be expected. the difference that I see here is that the Libyans aren't anti-west (only the current regime is). I did a little bit of digging about Libya and from what it appears, the current regime is no different from an oppressive monarchy. actually, one must think why an ordinary citizen would take up arms if there isn't really any oppression that is existing? I can't even call it an organized delusion. replacing Gaddafi is necessary and let them not worry about the future because as long as that person is in power, they have no future at all to worry about (good as dead).

anyway, I would think that Gaddafi and anyone who is associated with him would certainly be not part of any new government.

I agree with you. However, the issues in Iraq and Afghanistan don't really result from anti-West sentiment. They result from ineffective politicians gaining power, corruption rampant in all levels of government, etc. And in the background, an insurgency from those who have been pushed out of power. Surely, one can see similar seeds present in Libya now. I hope for the best, but don't really expect much more than the demise of Gaddafi...

[GeneV]

I agree with you. However, the issues in Iraq and Afghanistan don't really result from anti-West sentiment. They result from ineffective politicians gaining power, corruption rampant in all levels of government, etc. And in the background, an insurgency from those who have been pushed out of power. Surely, one can see similar seeds present in Libya now. I hope for the best, but don't really expect much more than the demise of Gaddafi...

Perhaps more like Iraq than Afghanistan. The latter has never had a history of strong central government. I do not know that Libya has the level of issue between a majority and minority sect that is present in Iraq.

It is somewhat ironic that the uprising comes as Libya appeared to be moving away from its history under Gaddafi of overtly supporting just about any terrorist act on the planet in the 80s and 90s.

[Pentaxor]

Perhaps more like Iraq than Afghanistan. The latter has never had a history of strong central government. I do not know that Libya has the level of issue between a majority and minority sect that is present in Iraq.

It is somewhat ironic that the uprising comes as Libya appeared to be moving away from its history under Gaddafi of overtly supporting just about any terrorist act on the planet in the 80s and 90s.

well there is definitely a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has a rich history of violence as long as father time could remember. it is mostly tribal conflicts but more evidently a feud between the majority Shiites and Sunnis. Iraq was already in a worse situation brought about by Saddam's preference for Sunni Muslims, it became even much worse when Iran got into the fray and release it's rabid dogs to destabilize Iraq even further thus putting the country into a stalemate civil war.

Afghanistan is a different scenario since it never was a Muslim state. basically, it was the fault of the U.S. since they allowed their pet terrorist project (Bin Laden) run amok. if I were to say it, I would had disposed of that loony decades ago and be done with radicalism. another thing is, that the perpetrators of the Afghan war are outsiders, not really Afghans. part of the blame goes to Pakistan as well who allowed these thugs to flourish, rebuild and extend their influence on their borders.

I do agree that there is quite a bit of irony of what is happening to Libya right now. I would probably say that people are starting to wise up and think as opposed to being mindless zombies. I believe this worries China and other Arab countries that has a dictatorial regime as well. it would just be a matter of time before they follow the same route.

[GeneV]

I do agree that there is quite a bit of irony of what is happening to Libya right now. I would probably say that people are starting to wise up and think as opposed to being mindless zombies. I believe this worries China and other Arab countries that has a dictatorial regime as well. it would just be a matter of time before they follow the same route.

The Soviet Union fell under Gorbachev rather than the more conservative Brezhnev, so there is, perhaps, some consistency in the way these things come about.

[Pentaxor]

The Soviet Union fell under Gorbachev rather than the more conservative Brezhnev, so there is, perhaps, some consistency in the way these things come about.

looks like it. the only criticism I have with Russia right now is it's passive action concerning the situation in Libya. although I'm not really surprised considering the ties it has with Libya. I don't care what China has to say, as they have their own controlling problems with their own citizens so they should probably just shut up.