Sure ... I certainly don't expect that Libya will become a mature Democracy with human rights and economic prosperity. But I do think this is better than the alternative. A possible massacre has been prevented ... the US has stood with its allies who are near Libya (and probably owe us for the next time) ... we've accommodated the Arab League (and probably gained some influence with Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the process) ... the US has shown that it is indispensable for combating evil ... we've created some influence with the rebels ... a Libya split in two is not the end of the world ... we may stalemate on the ground, but politically Gaddafi will slowly lose any backing ... the rebels are getting better at fighting ...I don't think we will land boots on the ground... I'm hopeful that we can use our influence to keep al Qaeda out ... I'm open to many possibilities, but so far it is going okay.

Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are much more worrying ...

Ray Jay wrote:Sure ... I certainly don't expect that Libya will become a mature Democracy with human rights and economic prosperity. But I do think this is better than the alternative. A possible massacre has been prevented ... the US has stood with its allies who are near Libya (and probably owe us for the next time) ... we've accommodated the Arab League (and probably gained some influence with Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the process) ... the US has shown that it is indispensable for combating evil ... we've created some influence with the rebels ... a Libya split in two is not the end of the world ... we may stalemate on the ground, but politically Gaddafi will slowly lose any backing ... the rebels are getting better at fighting ...I don't think we will land boots on the ground... I'm hopeful that we can use our influence to keep al Qaeda out ... I'm open to many possibilities, but so far it is going okay.

I hope you're right, but I just don't. I think we are likely to not accept a stalemate. Obama will say he represents an unacceptable obstacle to peace, a risk to regional stability . . . pretty much the Bush line about Saddam.

And, I wouldn't mind that--if we'd just go in, grab the guy and leave. But, we won't.

I think we're heading to a foreign policy cliff. If we come out well (and I hope we do), it will be blind luck--or the actions of one of our allies.

Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are much more worrying ...

And, unarguably, more important with the exception of Afghanistan. If we left and the Taliban/AQ took Afghanistan back, we could flatten it a thousand times over. I think Libya is a distraction we can't afford since we have no compelling national interest and no idea what we're doing.

I recently read this article where the author posits the threat of a massacre in Lybia was over blown. The entire basis of the claim of avoiding a massacre was Ghaddafi's comment of "We will have no mercy on them". This was taken to mean he would indiscriminately kill civilians in the areas held by the rebels. However, Obama has offfered no proof this would actually happen. The article claims that, as a matter of fact, the exact opposite has happened. Specifically the article cites three different pieces of information.

First is another Ghaddafi comment

"We have left the way open to them," he said. "Escape. Let those who escape go forever." He pledged that "whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected."

This seems to be the exact opposite.

Further the article looks at the fact

"Gadhafi," he told me, "did not massacre civilians in any of the other big cities he captured — Zawiya, Misrata, Ajdabiya — which together have a population equal to Benghazi. Yes, civilians were killed in a typical, ham-handed, Third World counterinsurgency. But civilians were not targeted for massacre as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bosnia, or even Kosovo after NATO intervention.

Finally there is this information from the article.

"Benghazi is the second-largest city in the country and he needs the city and its people to continue functioning and producing goods for his impoverished country,"

From wikipedia

Benghazi, as the principal city of eastern Libya, is one of Libya's major economic centres. The city has an important port which is vital to the economy, as Libya imports many foodstuffs and manufactured products. Benghazi is also an industrial and commercial centre in Libya. Major manufactured goods include processed food, tanning, processed salt and construction material, particularly cement; a large cement factory is located in al-Hawari. Food processing is based on local fish, imported goods, and the produce of irrigated coastal lowlands and the nearby Jabal al-Akdhar Mountains, including cereal, dates, olives, wool and meat. Finance is also important to the city's economy...

It is kind of clear this city need to continue to function. Is Ghaddafi really going to cripple his economy by starting a massacre in the city?

The article also says this is a completely different situation then other genocides. Most genocides are directed at clearly defined ethnic/religious groups, i.e. Serbia, Kosovo, Sudan, Rwanda. Libya, on the other hand is a

... civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. ...The first is murder, the second is war."

Interesting bit about Samantha Power, the woman booted to the curb after denigrating Hillary. She is married to Cass Sunstein (a favorite target of Beck's) and apparently the key adviser on the Libya situation. Two good links in the post.

Last two paragraphs of the blog:

Power is a prime specimen of that formerly rare species, the liberal hawk. Unlike neocons, who seek to project American power – alone if need be – to spread democracy around the globe, Power and her ilk push for American intervention abroad through the auspices of international agencies when other governments create humanitarian disasters. As Joyner correctly points out, she embraces a theory which says that the sovereignty of other nations is conditional and subject to veto by the US and a handful of other countries if they fail to live up to our standards.

But the outcome is the same either way. Whether you staff your administration with neocons or liberal hawks like Power, the end result is an increasing number of foreign wars if they have their way. There seems to be a mounting list of reasons why both conservatives and libertarian leaning liberals should oppose the expansion of her power and influence in the Obama administration.

archduke your source claims that the only reasons for beleiving an impending massacre by Ghaddaffi is the one quote must be ignoring all the other evidence.
Start with Ghaddaffi's track record
http://www.aberdeennews.com/la-fg-libya ... ory?page=2

1200 political prisoners killed in 96 in Ben Ghazzi. (above)
- sponsorship of terrorism in Germany and Lockerbie
- a long history of the use of torture and executions over the last 30 years.

Move on to the conduct of his forces as they moved on Ben Ghazzi, and the conduct of his forces now. The Misrati refuggess on board the Turkish hospital ship described constant bombardment and sniper fire that targeted everyone including children.

Your critic seems to think Ghaddaffi is going to suddenly behave rationally and act as if he had scruples. If he has scruples, its a sure bet they used to belong to someone else.
There are good arguements as to why outsiders shouldn't have intervened, but "Maybe Ghaddaffi will act reasonably and rationally isn't one of them.

rickyp wrote:1200 political prisoners killed in 96 in Ben Ghazzi. (above)
- sponsorship of terrorism in Germany and Lockerbie
- a long history of the use of torture and executions over the last 30 years.

96?

I am confident many more than that have died as a result of our actions in Libya. A boat carrying refugees has gone down in the Med and there may be that many dead because of that alone.

Is Ghaddafi a nice guy? No.

Can the US travel about the globe attacking every evil dictator? I don't think so.

I really hope this turns out well. However, not many wars are won with air power alone. In fact, I can't think of one. Inn the Balkans, the situation was not analogous.

Ghaddafi is adapting. His forces outnumber the rebels 10:1. If he puts his troops in pick-ups, how do the NATO planes attack the right guys?

Answer: they don't.

Doctor Fate wrote:I am confident many more than that have died as a result of our actions in Libya. A boat carrying refugees has gone down in the Med and there may be that many dead because of that alone.

Please explain how that was caused by 'our actions'? Many boats try to cross the Med there and a fair few sink. Awful, but I'm not sure you can show a direct link, or compare it to an actual massacre.

Oh, and ricky was referring to the killing of 1,200 prisoners in 1996, not to 96 deaths

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I am confident many more than that have died as a result of our actions in Libya. A boat carrying refugees has gone down in the Med and there may be that many dead because of that alone.

Please explain how that was caused by 'our actions'? Many boats try to cross the Med there and a fair few sink. Awful, but I'm not sure you can show a direct link, or compare it to an actual massacre.

I believe they were fleeing the violence, not touring the Med.

The violence that pre-dates intervention? And is largely internal even now?

Most of the crossings I referred to are of refugees (including economic) fleeing North and Central Africa.

danivon wrote:Oh, and ricky was referring to the killing of 1,200 prisoners in 1996, not to 96 deaths

Ah, well, I guess I missed that--his usually clear writing style seems to have abandoned him.

Since that was his point, it would be completely valid--if he were complaining that Clinton did not invade in 1996.

Again, Ghaddafi is a bad man. He is a murderer. He is a terrorist.

Are we ready to invade (in no particular order): North Korea, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia?

Each represents at least as compelling a case as Libya.

Obama better institute the draft--and we'll need some Commonwealth troops!

danivon wrote:The violence that pre-dates intervention? And is largely internal even now?

Wrong on both counts. Taking the last first--if it's "internal," what are we doing there? Checking out the sights?

As for "pre-dating intervention":

ROME—Italian authorities were losing hope of rescuing more than 200 migrants who remained lost at sea on Wednesday after a boat that had been ferrying them from Libya to Italy capsized in rough waters.

Forty-eight migrants are saved but around 200 are still missing after their boat capsizes off Italian island of Lampedusa. Video and image courtesy of Reuters.

The migrants are part of the increasing flow of people that are trying to escape unrest in North Africa and reach Europe's shores, even though European authorities have not come up with a coordinated policy on how to deal with the influx.

By Wednesday evening, Italy's coast guard had rescued 53 from a group of up to 300 believed to be aboard a boat that sank about 40 miles from Lampedusa, a tiny Italian island off the coast of Tunisia, said Commander Cosimo Alessandro Nicastro.

The migrants, who were predominantly Somali, Eritrean and Ivory Coast nationals, had departed days ago from the port city of Zuwarah, in northwestern Libya, Cmdr. Nicastro said.

So, we don't know how many Libyans were aboard. What we do know is that there are a few more countries in need of intervention--Somalia and Eritrea for starters.

Save the World!!!

Perhaps we need to use the "wayback machine". Remember Iraq?

Tens of thousands of Kurds killed with gas (a weapon of mass destruction I am told)
Terrorist camps sponsored by Saddam
Do I really need to explain torture under Saddam?

The left lambasted Bush for his invasion. (I didn't like it either, BTW) Now it is OK to work over Libya? Is this a double standard just because Obama is in office?

Ray Jay wrote:I think the right standard for Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) is whether it ends better than it would have ended had we not intervened.

You're essentially saying that in a cost-benefit analysis you'll count only the benefits and will disregard costs. In other words, if our intervention yielded a slightly better end in Libya, but cost us many billions of dollars, the unity of NATO, further estrangement of Russia and China, and so on... a long list of costs, you'd still apply the lopsided standard. I'm confident that's NOT what you intended to say. Perhaps you can clarify?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:The violence that pre-dates intervention? And is largely internal even now?

Wrong on both counts. Taking the last first--if it's "internal," what are we doing there? Checking out the sights?

When I was learning English, 'largely' was not a synonym of 'exclusively'. Gadaffi-loyal forces and the rebels are hardly bystanders.

So, we don't know how many Libyans were aboard. What we do know is that there are a few more countries in need of intervention--Somalia and Eritrea for starters.

I still haven't seen you establish how the capsizing is 'our' fault.

Save the World!!!

You are still confusing me with those who support the intervention. Maybe I feel the need to counter your hysterical hyperbole in order to reduce the damagd to our agreed position.

Which brings me to Brad. In my case it is not double standards. I marginally opposed both, I understand that Hussein was and Gadaffi is a tyrant and a killer, and who lives at 1600 Penn Ave (or 10 Downing St) is of no bearing.