Phatscotty wrote:I don't think this will turn out how a lot of people think it might....
I'm curious what you were expecting.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Um... what kind of military action are you talking about?
well, probably any action is action, but I suppose some could argue we should go in there and get Gaddafi, other might argue we should provide boots on the ground to support rebels, it could be naval bombardment of palaces.
Obama could order a pre-emptive strike, like a 72 hour thing. What if Gaddafi goes WMD? I know anything can happen but I hate waiting until after it happens to talk about it.
On the one hand, the US is in no condition economically to support another war. Even if it were, what business does it have there? They've been burning American flags and saying the US is the "great satan" for years. There's no reason for a pre-emptive strike, since it's no threat to any other nation (except for the civil unrest spreading, which could be a good thing in any neighboring, repressive nations). When the populace of a nation rise up and overthrow their dictator on their own, then the responsibility of their actions rests solely with them. It forces those citizens to cooperate if it is going to succeed, which makes that cooperation and interdependence much more likely to continue when the time comes to set up the succeeding government. Also, what about every other nation which is experiencing civil unrest due to repressive leadership? If the US steps in here, why not in Egypt, Tunisia, or any other nation in the future? When do you stop? And why stop at a no-fly zone? May as well send in troops. I don't know, it's tough to avoid a slipperly slope on the issue.
On the other hand, I could support a no-fly zone implemented by a few nations (why should the US bear the brunt of the cost? Let some other nations step in a shoulder their part of the load). A no-fly zone would end some of the worst atrocities going on there and would make a massive uprising much more possible for any civilians desiring greater freedom.
P.S. I voted "no," since I don't believe this is mainly the US' responsibility. I'm curious to hear Saxi's conspiracy theory on this uprising and how it was all organized by the US, Jews, and global elite lol
P.P.S. On another side note, if it was justified and a moral imperative for the US to invade Iraq and oust Saddam because of the atrocities he committed, then it is justified and a moral imperative to do the same in Libya now (leaving the issue of WMDs to the side for the moment, since that hasn't been an issue in Libya for quite some time now, and many question if it even was one of the original reasons for invading Iraq--besides as a cover story).
P.P.P.S. IMHO Obama has done a terrible job on foreign relations and policy which is where, ironically, he was expected to shine.
P.P.P.P.S. Michael J. Totten, an independent reporter on the Middle East, wrote an interesting account
of his trip there a couple of years ago. If you're interested in getting a feel for what the civilians were saying (or couldn't say) about Qaddafi and even just one man's description of what it's like over there, I would recommend it.