Well, the topic of the day is Libya, so it’s about time I formed an opinion one way or another. I’m not real thrilled that Obama seems to be following the Bush doctrine of let’s drop bombs on the poor, brown people who are living on top of the oil.
However, it did seem like a bloodbath of Rwandan proportions was pretty darned imminent and the no-fly zone seems to have prevented that. The thing is, unless the rebels win and Gaddafi is deposed (or killed, but that sort of implies deposed. Deposed rather emphatically) then we really haven’t prevented a bloodbath at all, just delayed it.
Muamar Gaddafi
So the mission, pretty quickly, goes from preventing the slaughter of innocents to making sure the rebellion succeeds. If that takes years and ground troops from western nations, how is it any different from Iraq or Afghanistan? If Gaddafi is eliminated quickly, how is it any different from Chile? It is, indeed, a pickle.
But it was pretty necessary, it seems like everybody (on the side that’s not Gaddafi) is trying to keep it limited, and humanitarian, and the American team is not being managed by a retard. So, I’d say that the no-fly zone, and putting pressure on Gaddafi’s people to defect, and soft pressure like that is probably a good strategy.
It’s a bit like an American election. Nobody ever actually likes either candidate (2008 was an exception. Come 2012, that Hope and Change rhetoric is going to sound pretty hollow), they vote for “the lesser of two evils.” In Libya now, Obama could be doing nothing, or he could (as he is) be doing something. I think he has chosen the lesser of two evils.
Sure hope it works out.
www.gurukalehuru.com 
Ok, you make a good point. However, if it’s that critical that we intervene, here, why not in other countries that aren’t located on top of oil? And I am aware that Libya accounts for only 1% of the world’s oil.
I don’t expect you to have an answer, but the hypocrisy – on the world’s part, and the US in particular – is sickening.
As far as 2012, I’m not voting for Obama unless the alternative is worse. But, given the R’s, it probably will be.
It’s not for the oil, Khadafi was selling us that and we could have let him massacre the people and still had access to all the oil we wanted. But Khadafi has just been such an asshole for years that everyone wants to see him gone (except his supporters, of course). Now that we’ve started we better get him (and his sons,they’re as crazy as he is) now or we’ll regret it.
As for the next election, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that the republicans will have a worse candidate than Obama. If you want to have a lot of stupid laws like poor people can’t have more than $20 in their pocket, let them win, but I think they’re really dangerous.
There are about 200 countries in the world, give or take 50 depending on how you count. Hypocrisy is a bad thing, but rigid consistency would be even more foolish.
I’m not following on the “rigid consistency.” Isn’t it just as worthy to stop the atrocities in, say, Rwanda, as it is in Libya? Why the concern for one and not-so-much for the other?
Absolutely it’s a worthy ideal to stop the atocities in Rwanda and beyond. But we have to live in the real world and that means we have to pick our battles, just as one picks their battles with their kids. And we have to consider what battles stand a chance of being won. It would be ludicrous for us to try to solve all the world’s problems all at once.