The "we" refers to the North American free and democratic nations, namely, the US and Canada. Britain is welcome to join, but I don't think the EU has the will to do so. If nothing else, at least impose a no-fly zone and provide some supplies to the freedom fighters.
Again, NO. Go away with that sentiment and if you want to get involved, please go to YOUR government and petition for action. As an American, I am sick and tired of the US getting involved in any and every petty internal crap that goes around the world and then Liberals ringing their hands about "why do they hate us" when some extremist, for whatever logic, decides that America was at fault. May I remind you what happened just a few days ago in Germany? Or you can do your own google search on KOSOVO extremists yelling ALLAH AKHBAR while shooting at US military? You know? Kosovo, the land with no oil that we went to help against Serbians? ENOUGH interventions.
Canada cannot do it, anymore than Canada, Britain, and the Soviet Union could have defeated the Nazis in the Second World War. Only America can do it. Yes, America will be the scapegoat, which is why America should take a harder line against anyone who takes a poke at it; but I'm no liberal, as you know, and I do think America has a role to make the world safe for democracy.
According to Wiki, his best moment was when he said there were no American tanks in Baghdad, even as American tanks were maneuvering behind him. I'd like to see that video.
The Economist is ambivalent about intervention, but it has also rightly said that, if Qaddafi starts massacring thousands of civilians, the civilized world must intervene. The civil war, meanwhile, is seeing mixed results, as both sides make gains, which means both sides also lost ground. Dammit, at least provide some supplies - medicine and food, if not ammo. We can't just sit by and let this go on.
I read somewhere that a no fly zone would be almost impossible considernig how thin we're stretched in the region. I would hope that there is a way to provide non military aid.
Swampy, one thing to consider while you're calling for US intervention... We had much more at stake and much more right to go after Saddam the second time around, than we do with Libya. Let's examine our motives - Iraq - Had aggressed its neighbors Had thwarted UN inspections for over a decade Had already used WMDs on its own people, and so was thought to still have WMDs Had violated the no-fly-zone treaty by targeting and shooting at American planes Had an oil interest Had a human rights interest Libya - Has an oil interest Has a civil rights interest That's IT! Now what did the loonie leftists go all apeshit about after Gulf War 2? "NO BLOOD FOR OIL! NO BLOOD FOR OIL! DOWN WITH BUSHITLER!" Including Obama! Obama's hands are tied. If he makes a single move into Libya, he will get raped by the right wing, as payback for all the abuse he and the leftists have dealt.
I haven't been following the thread. Right now my personal situation priorities in general trump any potential interest I have in Libya, with one exception: It really aggravates me how just because a country that provides us with less than one percent of our oil, (and that one percent is being made up by increased Saudi production), allows the oil companies and the traders or speculators to screw us over and drive us, literally, to the poor house by jacking up the price of gasoline and petroleum products. Probably some Neo-cons right now are arguing and lobbying that we invade Libya to make them a democracy so that we and the rest of the world would be safer and better. (God save us from them.)
The New American said it best in this quote: If moral obligations were our reason for meddling in the lives of others, then why did we not do anything in Sudan? There, nearly a half million people were victims of genocide while another 2.7 million were displaced. The West sent only relief workers to aid the afflicted and no military might to quell massacres hundreds of times greater than those that may be occurring in Libya. There was no “morality” because Sudan and its people are insignificant to the West — that is, they have no economic importance to us. Whether or nit they are right on the last part is irrelevant as perceptions from the rest of the world, including middle east and africa, will have us seen as just that. By the way, how about the Hollywood actors ad on bus stops for Sudan? That was effective, huh?
In reply, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said, just because we can't intervene everywhere doesn't mean we don't intervene anywhere. IOW, if we can intervene in only one place, we do so; if we can intervene in only two, we do so.
My point was that Sudan was not just another point of intervention, it was the perfect example. But they didn't have oil.
Now there's a question that should have been asked a long time ago! I also think that people who live in countries that aren't providing any assistance should quit telling the United States that it has a moral obligation to do so. It's not impossible for these countries to help, either. They'd just rather sit back, let us do it, then complain about how we are doing it. I think I better stay out of this thread altogether before I talk myself into UIF.
Such a delineation is, of course, lost on Kerry. After all, there's not much room left in his Lurch-like noggin, after every criminal engagement of Vietnam was seared into his memory. And I don't think there were planes coming after the Shia, since we insisted they be grounded as part of the ceasefire. Of course, Schwarzkopf and Co. elected to ignore language specific to attack helicopters... SM
