No, I said if Americans had interest. That would be a completely different political landscape. We're talking complete different dimensions here, not a few different politicians -- but different kinds of politicians. The only reason the politicians serve themselves and their corporate overlords, is because we aren't making them serve us. We don't watch them. We elect/reelect them based on how catchy their advertisements are; not their positions or voting records. People that say democracy doesn't work are often people who don't help to make it work.
well let's keep in mind that this is actually sanctioned by the UN, so it isn't just america going off and ramboing terrorists in the name of freedom. but still, what the hell is the UN thinking? let them resolve it themselves. if the rebels want to call for allies to help them then that is a different matter.
Hmmm. Is the title of this thread a bit premature? So far the United States has deployed no military forces. Even the statement that they would be there "any minute now" turned out not to be quite accurate, since a day has already gone by. But no doubt they will be deployed soon, in keeping with the Arab League and UN resolutions. Meanwhile, Gaddafi is making impressive headway in using his thugs and African mercenaries to regain territory lost to the rebels, at enormous loss of human life of the rebels and any civilians that get caught in the way. As "aggressors" go, the United States certainly has been dragging its feet on this. So how might we rephrase this? "United States Commits Aggression Against Aggressor? United States Interferes With Massacre"? "United States Sides With Upstarts Wanting Freedom from Tyrant"? I don't think anyone accuses the U.S. of fomenting this uprising. Even Gaddafi blames it on al Qaeda putting hallucinagens in the rebels' coffee. As for the oil angle, it's certainly there. There are massacres by other tyrants, in Ivory Coast, for example, that don't even make the front page of the daily news. The United States is being criticized by Egyptians for not having gotten more involved there. The United States doesn't want to be on the wrong side of these revolutions that are sweeping a region that contains the lifeblood of western economies. And I do agree that the U.S. should not rush into these things (it hasn't), and that our intervention could ultimately turn out badly for us. We're already fighting two wars in the region, and its killing us--literally and economically. But this is much more like Bosnia and Kosovo. Misguided humanitarianism and the pressure of public opinion can kill as many people and do as much damage as greed.
If the U.S. and others do something about Libya, some will complain. If we allow a genocide of sorts to occur, of course people won't like that either. Because Libya is part of the Mid-East region, where democracy seems to be growing recently, and the people in Libya seem to want that and are fighting for that, it makes it actually easier than going into a country where people are not indicating that.
Moammar Ghadaffi is like Napoleon Bonaparte. But he IS old. The good democracy of the west is not working for the changeable means of production, and the middle class does not want to let go of the principles of changing the supervision for the financial development of commonwealth.
UPDATE: Plane shot down at Benghazi! It's not clear yet who shot down the plane, or even whose plane it was. Here's the great pic of the plane half a sec before it crashes! It looks like Benghazi is still being attacked by Gaddafi's forces. The plane in the pic above was apparently attacking Benghazi despite the supposed Libyan cease-fire and no-fly zone. With French planes now enforcing the no-fly zone it was either rebel anti-aircraft guns that brought down that plane, or the French themselves. UPDATE: Rebels admit this downed plane was one they had stolen and was defending Benghazi from Gaddafi's forces. Gaddafi's forces are fighting rebels at the University and Gaddafi's tanks are coming into the city and blasting away.
It would be scarier if Obama were to cry: liberty, fraternity, equality. As much as you 'all don't believe me.
Come on; the great opportunity of this War is the areligious nature, which was unlike the one against Saddam Hussein.:sunny:
CNN reporting that French warplanes have opened fire on Libyan ground forces. Edit: That is one fine looking fighter.
Say what? Of all the stupid reasons for the U.S. war against Saddam, religion wasn't even in the top 50--unless you consider protecting Israel or G.W.'s delusions that all of his big decisions were guided by God religious.