So there are millions starving in Somalia where the Al-Shahab movement is stopping aid.  They are causing the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

Where is the righteous American congress and President who so valiantly 'rallied' to 'protect "innocent" civilians' in Libya?

IN Libya we decided to support a movement which will serve to destabilize North Africa, and in Somalia we are allowing an undisputed destabliizing force, the Al Shahab, to more or less work unfettered (other than a drone attack every couple a months).

Hey... I am not advocating that we get involved in Somalia.  Just pointing out the additional evidence that our involvement in Libya is a cynical approach that history will show as folly.

In the '80s we had USA for Africa.  Now it's time for USA OUT of Africa. 

It's not our world,
They're not our children,
We shouldn't stick our fingers in their pie,
'Coz it's not our business!

::)

In the '80s we had USA for Africa.  Now it's time for USA OUT of Africa. 

It's not our world,
They're not our children,
We shouldn't stick our fingers in their pie,
'Coz it's not our business!

::)


Wrong 80s politically-correct tribute song.

"Our government tells us we're doing all we can,
(sarcastic)Constructive engagement(/sarcastic) is Ronald Reagan's plan,
Meanwhile people are dying and giving up hope,
Aaw, this playin' diplomacy ain't nothin' but a joke!"

I support NATO's actions in Libya (but concede, in the form of a karma point to LyricBoy, that he was right about the timeframe, if not the outcome), I have to laugh at the fact that I didn't have to change a single line!

I support NATO's actions in Libya (but concede, in the form of a karma point to LyricBoy, that he was right about the timeframe, if not the outcome), I have to laugh at the fact that I didn't have to change a single line!


As to the outcome that remains to be seen.  Things certainly look bleak for the Quadaffi regime, for which I hold no sympathy.  But my expectation for an outcome is a fractious, destabilized and destabilizing entity called Libya.  The so-called "civilian" rebels have already assassinated their military leader.

Like him or not, in recent years Quadaffi was a stabilizing influence in North Africa who saw militant Islam as a threat to his regime and a common enemy of of both him and the United States. Out of his own self-preservation interests he suppressed Islamic terrorism.  Now thanks to the U.S. and "Nato", Islamic terrorists have a decent chance of getting a beachhead in Libya (and a stronger beachhead in Egypt).

In any event, whether I am right or wrong in my assessment of the ultimate outcome, O'bama's timid involvement in Libya betrays its cynicism and faulty basis in strategy.

Like him or not, in recent years Quadaffi was a stabilizing influence in North Africa who saw militant Islam as a threat to his regime and a common enemy of of both him and the United States. Out of his own self-preservation interests he suppressed Islamic terrorism.  Now thanks to the U.S. and "Nato", Islamic terrorists have a decent chance of getting a beachhead in Libya (and a stronger beachhead in Egypt)


On that front, I'm still betting on "roll the dice, let the people living there determine their own fate" over "well, he's a dictator, but he's our dictator" as the superior foreign policy.

We've got a couple more "wait and see" years before we can tell how Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Qatar, Libya, (and everywhere else I've forgotten) turn out. 

On that front, I'm still betting on "roll the dice, let the people living there determine their own fate" over "well, he's a dictator, but he's our dictator" as the superior foreign policy.


Actually he's not OUR dictator, he's THEIRS.  When MuÊ¿ammar al-Qaá¸�á¸�Ä�fÄ«  staged his initial coup in 1969, the American government stayed on the sidelines. 

By intervening in the way that we have in 2011, we expressly have NOT been "let the people living there determine their own fate".