Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Obama stated that his giving control to the Libyans by this weekend.>> Excuse me, but I highly doubt he is giving it to the Libyans. I heard it was NATO, and Libya ain't a member.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***A mistake in hindsight perhaps*** Perhaps? <---lifts one eyebrow Spock-style
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Why did we intervene in Libya but not the Sudan, Darfur, etc? It can't be because Libya supplies 2% of the world's oil...so what is the reason? I'm not being critical of the decision in this case...just wondering why we involved ourselves in stopping the slaughter of "innocent civilians" in one instance but not in a multitude of others.
Originally Posted By Mr X That question could be asked of every American "intervention" of the 20th and 21st centuries, couldn't it? The answer, of course, is "politics". Sad, but true. Although I can appreciate what Dave has been saying too, because just because the world ignores it 9 times out of 10 doesn't mean the 10th time is the wrong thing to do.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I think we intervened in Kuwait because of oil and on country attacking another...that had oil of interest to us. We went to Afghanistan to chase Bin Laden. Ghadafi has been a bad guy for 30 years, ordered the bombing of Pan Am, etc but I don't come up with the "why" answer that easily in Libya.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >Why did we intervene in Libya but not the Sudan, Darfur, etc? It can't be because Libya supplies 2% of the world's oil...so what is the reason?< Because the UN waltzed up to Obama and said "If you want to start removing the stain left by Bush you will help us"
Originally Posted By ecdc This editorial sums up my feelings pretty well: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03...tof.html</a> >>Doubts are reverberating across America about the military intervention in Libya. Those questions are legitimate, and the uncertainties are huge. But let’s not forget that a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now and that this intervention looks much less like the 2003 invasion of Iraq than the successful 1991 gulf war to rescue Kuwait from Iraqi military occupation. This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: “Never again....” Critics of the intervention make valid arguments. It’s true that there are enormous uncertainties: Can the rebels now topple Colonel Qaddafi? What’s the exit strategy? How much will this cost? But weighed against those uncertainties are a few certainties: If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale; Colonel Qaddafi’s family would be locked in place for years; and the message would have gone out to all dictators that ruthlessness works. The momentum has reversed. More airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi’s artillery and armor will help. So would jamming his radio and television broadcasts. Arab countries are already delivering weapons and ammunition to the rebels, boosting their capabilities and morale. In short, there are risks ahead but also opportunities.<< Much more at the link!
