NATO intervention in Libya

[SmartyPants]

Any thoughts on foreign involvement in Libya?

[MikeW781]

I support it. Despite a preference towards limited involvement in other countries' affairs, as Obama said, it would be wrong of us to have the ignore the massacre of so many innocents when we have the ability to prevent it.

[Ertxiem]

Yup.

Here is my view.

Nobody (well, USA and western countries in Europe, let's call them just western countries) wanted to take action in the beginning based on 2 things:
1. If western countries took action, it might reinforce the fundamentalist Islamic movements.
2. Things were looking good on the rebels side.

But things didn't come out as expected because Kadafi had more resources than expected and the rebels spreaded over a large territory.

When Kadafi start conquering back Libya, everyone (i.e. the western countries) got worried because they supported the rebels and might be hard to trade with Kadafi after that. Oh. And the human rights too, how could I forget (this is sarcasm).

The solution was to do (too late, in my opinion) what should have been done in the beginning: give support to the rebels. Another reason for this not to be done before was because Russia and China didn't gave their support in the United Nations. In my opinion because they probably had more to loose than to gain.

Don't get me wrong, Kadafi made terrible things (as most dictators do) and I do prefer democracy to any other kind of regime. But don't come to me speaking about human rights now in a country that is a dictatorship for more than 30 years. I agree that he should go away (as long as he's not replaced by another dictator, puppet of somebody else).

It's always about the economics. And if protecting the human right can be thrown into the issue, even better because that side can look better in the public opinion.

(It seems that I'm a bit cynic today!)

[ArtDrake]

Yes, but then why did they support the rebels in the first place, if they had been supporting ياء قﺩﺩف (Gadhafi) for so many years?

Edit: Hmmm... AP's accepted spelling is Gadhafi. Yes, the dh is doubled, but trying to get Americans to actually double the sound is like trying to eat ice cream in The hot place.

[Steelfist]

I'm all for it; we can't allow the slaughter of civilians, after all. However, I really hope we don't get bogged down in this conflict for an extended period of time.

BTW: I've always seen it spelt Gaddafi.

[SmartyPants]

I think Obama made the right choices when it came to Libya. (The fact that it took him two weeks to make a decision that should have taken two days and the fact that he is ignoring the Constitution by not even attempting to get congressional approval for committing armed forces to military action are two different issues.)  The no-fly zone was a no-brainer, because the bombing of civilians needed to be stopped and Eastern Libya needed to be protected so they can attempt to make a democracy like Tunisia, Egypt, and Iraq.  I also don't like the idea committing ground forces into another country, while we are already in debt from two other wars and two years of increasing domestic spending.  I also don't think we shouldm't arm the rebels when we know so little about them (The US armed the Mujahideen which later became the Taliban).  I too think that Europe should take the lead in the attacks, since Libya is right in their backyard.

[Zackirus]

So... We are going to help out the Rebels, who want to get rid of their dictator, and replace it with democracy. Then we are going to leave the Rebels, probably with some arms and financial support, so they don't get taken over by another country.

Sounds... Oddly familiar. I think that it happened in the 1980's and it was in Pakistan. Also, Something about fighting the Soviets. The American government gave support to both Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and... what was it... al-Queda? I wouldn't know though...

[SmartyPants]

Zackirus, I don't recall anyone arming the rebels.

[Zackirus]

Giving the Rebels Military Support... I assume that they are also giving them better technology to fight with.

[SmartyPants]

No one has given the rebels any tech to use for warfare.

[ArtDrake]

They provided that for themselves...

[SmartyPants]

There is arms embargo both sides of the war.  The weapons the rebels have they either stole from military munitions or they owned before the war began.

[Zackirus]

I was watching a report on CNN when McCain was in Libya and he said (along these lines), "We should felicitate arms and trainings to the rebels". It might not happen, but if it does, history might repeat itself.

[SmartyPants]

I was watching a report on CNN when McCain was in Libya and he said (along these lines), "We should felicitate arms and trainings to the rebels". It might not happen, but if it does, history might repeat itself.

It wasn't just arming the Mujahideen that was the problem.  The biggest issue was that we gave tons of money to Afghanistan for weapons, but none for nation building or eduacation.  That is what allowed the extremist element to flourish.  Afghanistan was actually more modern in the 70s and 80s, but the Taliban brought Afghastian into the dark ages.

Lawmakers mock Obama claim on Libya hostilities
According to Obama, dropping bombs to kill people isn't considered "hostilities".  If congress isn't allowed to vote on going to War in Libya before Monday, then I think congress should vote on Obama's impeachment.  Nixon proved that the President isn't above the law, so if President Obama ignores the War Powers Act of 1973, then he needs face the consequences.

[SmartyPants]

House rebukes Obama but won't halt funds for Libya
Does anyone else think it is bull s**t that the bill that gives President Obama the authority to wage war against Libya, while forbidding him from using ground forces was rejected with a vote of 295-123.  I seem to disagree with Obama's actions and ideas alot, but when it comes to foreign miltiary actions, President Obama seems to make the right choices.  He made the right choice by continuing the withdraw of troops from Iraq that was agreed upon between the Iraq government and President Bush.  He made the right choice by offering a delay in withdraws if the Iraqis decide they need Americans stay around longer.  He made the right choice by listening to his generals when they say they need a surge to get things done in Afghanistan (even if it took him an unreasonably long time to do so).  He made the right choice when decided to support an allies-lead no-fly zone over Libya, while refusing to arm the rebels or put forces on the ground (even if it took him an unreasonably long time to do so...again).   

Who made the the wrong choice?  It would be the Isolationist Republican and Democrats who vote against giving Obama the power to support the rebels in thier fight for freedom and democracy.