Oh, I woulda had no problem with a retaliatory attack after Lockerbie. No doubt about that.

But this present UN intervention thing is cynical, poorly conceived, and ultimately too late anyway.

O'bama knows it is wrong...otherwise he would not be withholding attack aircraft. (USA role will be surveillance and logistics)

I think this is the first time I've completely agreed with you in a political thread.


Karma + 1

Oh, I woulda had no problem with a retaliatory attack after Lockerbie. No doubt about that.


I think I've seen our biggest difference of opinion on this one - I'm just thinking of this as a payback time that's 23 years overdue.  This is something we've wanted to do for a Very Long Time, and it's only been through dumb luck that the political winds have made it feasible.

Back in the day, we cut a deal with the guy - as did the Brits - and we had to hold our noses and stick to it, especially after Gulf War II when Daffy saw the writing on the wall and turned over most of his toys (there are some interesting rumors regarding what happened to those toys with respect to last year's goings-on in Iran, and I hope to live long enough to see 'em Wikileaked in a couple of decades) to Bush II. 


But this present UN intervention thing is cynical, poorly conceived, and ultimately too late anyway.


Cynical only if the UN expects that they delayed long enough to permit Gadaffi to win.  (That was my opinion until today when the bombs started flying.)

It's actually pretty well-conceived.  Gadaffi probably thought his fake ceasefire on Friday would be accepted at face value - it only had to buy him another 48 hours and he'd have crushed the rebellion.  The UN, to my surprise, didn't fall for it. 

Too late?  Yeah, that's what I'd have said if it was written as a "no fly" zone.  But the UN, also to my surprise, passed a resolution calling for the defense of civilians.  That makes any Gadaffi-loyalist forces a legitimate target, and not just his air force.  With that kind of scope, the jury's still out on "too late".

What's the alternative?  Establish a precedent that when a dictator wants to bomb his own civilian population, he's free to do so?  That's what I'd expect the UN to do.  That's what the UN usually does.  Is that really the road you want the world to go down?


O'bama knows it is wrong...otherwise he would not be withholding attack aircraft. (USA role will be surveillance and logistics)


Wrong?  Right?  What do those words have to do with geopolitics?

We're doing what we're best at: using our high-tech gadgets to tell coalition forces where to go hunting, and lobbing high-tech-toys at (presumably) enemy SAM sites so that other coalition air forces can more safely get some target practice on Gadaffi's ground forces.  We go in, and we give Daffy and Chavez the propaganda they want: that the Damyankees are tryin' to take his oil. 

We support the international forces that are providing air support for the rebellion, and when the dust settles, we get to say something like "Hey, post-revolution Libya!  You saw how badly we messed up in Iraq trying to take their oil, so when you asked the world for help, you made it really clear you wanted us to stay out of it, so we respected that and stayed off your turf.  Congrats on winning, and now that you know we're not just trying to take your oil, would ya mind if we bought some of it?"

Meanwhile, an F-22 against any ground or air target?  No contest.  A Rafale against ground target protected by a bunch of ZSU-23s?  There's a lot of French export markets that'd pay good money to find out how that plays out in the real world.

What's the alternative?  Establish a precedent that when a dictator wants to bomb his own civilian population, he's free to do so?  That's what I'd expect the UN to do.  That's what the UN usually does.  Is that really the road you want the world to go down?


It is happening all over the world.  Dictators  oppress their citizens.  Are we going to bomb Baharain?  Send special forces into Syria?  Establish a no-fly zone over Iran? Invade Uzbekistan?  Free Tibet?  Invade the Congo?  Remove the regime in Burma?

At the end of the day the intervention in Libya is wrong for one major reason... it will PROLONG the violence, result in MORE deaths in the long term, and further FERTILIZE Libya for Islamic terrorism.

By the way, if one thinks that Quadaffi is the only one killing civilians in Libya, they are naive.  both Quadaffi's forces as well as the rebel forces are killing civilians... it happens in war.  And now the foreign invaders are also killing civilians.