Because I really don't know. On one hand, the rebels will most likely lose if we don't help. On the other hand, we have had a bad run of intervening like this in the last ten years.
Gaddafi orders storm of Benghazi; U.N. meets | TPM News Pages
_________
Oh, and just so you know, I am still waiting for a Republican to explain to me why the poor should pay the highest price for the recession, and the rich should be asked to sacrifice, well, nothing. Just in case you were wondering.
3 comments:
If the world is going to pick sides, it seems we are all on the correct side. The world has failed to intervene in the past and Governments have moved from fighting rebels into genocide.
The technical superiority of the U.S. and other air forces can probably eliminate Libya's air force in a matter of days or weeks without loss of life from the international forces.
I would like to see Arab countries dedicate significant and visible aircraft to the fight, so Gaddafi (however he spells his name) cannot say this is just the west intervening.
While I have no desire to continue our mid-East nation building tour, I agree with Bob in that preventing genocide is a justifiable use of our military power. For a relatively light commitment, we could have stopped the Rwandan genocide.
The UK and France have pledged aircraft. The UN Security Council gave their approval, as did the Arab League. This looks like the beginnings of an international effort, so I am cautiously optimistic. My immediate concern is that the Colonel will just try and wait us out and then go back to his usual tricks.
Funny, within minutes of the UN's decision, The Colonel calls a cease-fire. Yeah, no kidding, yutz. You don't like that Brit/U.S. ordinance that much, eh?
Enough chest-thumping. Steve said it best: minimal involvement in Rwanda coulda stopped genocide.
Post a Comment