I think it has taken so long for any country to take action because there is unrest in so many countries for exactly the same reason. iran, bahrain, yemen, as well as libya. iran is a no go because it would be a huge undertaking and no one in the united states would stand for it. we don't care about iranian college students who took our people hostage in 1979.
bahrain is too close to saudi arabia, and they determine our mid east strategy. yemen? not enough oil?

By the end of '08, I definitely had most of the symptoms, but don't "quite" fit the technical definition...

Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush"

Now if I was "otherwise normal", that'd be a whole 'nuther story :)

edited: ps: Is ODS applicable now?

and China will send us $ to buy more tomahawks.

Libya is about one thing : Fortress Europe.

Eg, It's the first line of defence for widespread African emigration to Europe.
That's why Kaddafi was on speaking terms with most of Europe in the recent years before the uprising.
That's why the French were the first to go in with the Rafale's.

Ok, there's a bit of oil there as well... that's a nice bonus.

Stijn is on the money...;)

France has led this assault because of its own internal issues. This is what comes of French Mandates across the ME and North African regions...(the Italians don't count - they made a hash of things and their controls were shortlived). Britain too...

This is a civil war. Who are these militia and protesters? They are not 'innocents'; they are tribal fighters in a country (and region) that is historically tribal.

Now the so-called allies have dipped their toes into this mess there is no going back :(. Should 'we' support an allied assault on Gaddafi? NO. Should we just sit back and witness a mounting death toll from war...well no...this is another conundrum; like so many before in history.

I am no fan of Gaddafi; but he holds the key to the European gate so to speak.

If it were not for the strategic position of Libya on the world map (and a 'bit of oil'); this mess could be left to the Libyans. But it shares borders with Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, Sudan and Egypt .... not one stable country among that list.

I don't believe this is about Gaddafi or the opposing militia. This is about the West and Europe particularly being in fear of what is happneing across that entire region. Are they truly supporting the militia? I do not believe so - this is about trying to control the situation. Sadly the allies seem to never learn though...'liberate' from one despot and others will rise to fill the void.

Now my opinions won't be popular with most of you....so flame away boys...but it is time that we accept that world peace is not an option. History tells us so. There will always be uprisings, battles for control and war. I don't like it; but I have to accept it...

Very true. The whole Med basin is an incestuous rat's nest of historical tribes which have been warring with each other since our hunting & gathering days.

Ian

Well, that is what many of us already knew too, and history has shown what happened when Nutz like Gaddafi go unchecked or ignored..:(

I really appreciate the perspective from folks outside of the USA...everyone's actually.

I have hopes for Egypt re getting out from under despots. Mainly b/c our Army has trained their Army.

You accept it and so do I. But, do we have to get involved? The Middle East thing seems like a copycat deal, Egypt leads off.......

Is the Libyan thing simply a faction that we like? Do they have enough internal support? If the US needs to learn anything, it's to not under-support the underdog. If we can't simply invade and take over, we should leave it the hell alone.

And I'm not so much for the former, but as Lisa says, there will always be wars. We need to pick our battles better, do it quicker, take over, build the economy and infrastructure and hope we have an ally left as a result.

Anything less is like playing poker with Islamic Mamluk cards.

Uh, what's the game? Oh, you get how many tens of thousands to play your hand?

We are such duffers even with our Callaways and carbon fiber bling.

There's just no pleasing this group. When France doesn't go in, they are wusses, when they lead the way, they have ulterior motives... Tough crowd ;-) It's *all* about ulterior motives, always, no matter who leads or follows... in this case the sooner you stabilize the region, the less influx of immigrants you are gonna get. It helps also that the guy is clearly deranged.

I grew up in Europe and Khadafi (Ghadaffi now? K->G?) always was a little terrorist sponsoring ****. I distinctly remember several bombings here and there that were tied up to Libya with a bow. Call me insensitive if you want, but Saddam Hussein at least was largely secular and wasn't harboring terrorist camps. Libya on the other hand, ughh....

I don't quite understand how Libya bought its respectability again (well, I do know, they paid off the lockerbie families and hired a Washington lobbying firm, I kid you not), but Khadhafi was and still is a terrorist sponsoring ****. The silly parade in Italy a few month ago with that other corrupt %$% Berlusconi was an embarassment to the western world.

I was dead seat against Iraq, but I'm quite happy with Libya's air farce getting pounded. I hope the rebels can recover and go finish the job... We definitely don't need to be on the ground in 3 muslim countries !

I am opposed to getting involved in civil unrest in other countries, particularly where it is unclear (to me) who the "rebels" are. We have screwed up this scenario so many times and I don't see how this will be any different.

I fully support France doing that they're doing. They're in the right and I appreciate their taking the lead here. No criticism at all from me.

Q, indeed, bought his acceptance back the way you state. But short of assassinating him, what else was the world to do? Keep him shunned as a pariah state indefinitely, while many countries still quietly do deals with him? He should have been taken out 25 yrs. ago, but we are where we are.

Milt,

My honest, unabashed opinion is to get the hell out and stay the hell out. And to hell with the consequences...this business of the West trying to find, no make a solution in any of these regions has to stop.

The Sauds have now entered Bahrain (at their pleading)...there are riots in Syria...Yemen is a cesspool of violence...Algeria, Tunisia...you guys know the list. And no I won't buy the we have to defend Israel argument either. Israel can take care of herself...seriously.

This meddling and fluffing around the edges is costing 100s of millions of dollars every day...not to mention the human cost. The West has not helped the Arab/ME/North African nations in all their years of meddling. They have cocked things up in the main for decades...I want them all to go home and let the Arabs sort themselves out. I want a deaf ear and a blind eye to it. If they finish themselves or each other off, so be it. It's time we step out and stay out. Maybe the English should stay...if they can afford it...to fix the messes they caused when they sat down and divvied up the entire bloody region with the flick of a pen after WWII...

Sorry guys...this whole situation is really upsetting me...even though people are being displaced all over the region (not to mention the Palestinians who have been displaced for decades now)...we need to let the ME handle their own messes; in whatever barbaric or undemocratic way they choose. You have to remember: OUR WAY IS NOT THEIR WAY...and we cannot force our way upon them. If 'they' invade 'us' well then the ballgame changes...but until such time we have to stop sticking our gluey noses in...we don't solve the problem; at best we push it underground for a moment...

You know 'our' problem? We are so damned arrogant...who died and made 'us' God???

Off to Parf we go I'll guess...my doing...oh well :rolleyes:

Generally speaking, I'm 100% in agreement with you there (and Lisa, who squeezed a post in there before I could read it), but in the case of Muhammar Khadafi, I'm making an exception. He's megalomaniac garbage, and I'd be dancing a little jig if a missile accidentally blew up his a$$. But all in all, yes, it'd be better if we stayed away, but at what point do internal affairs become genocide? Still happy about Kadhaffi getting his a$$ handed to him though, sorry...

Accidentally, my ass. Q and his family should be targeted and taken out.

If 'we' were serious about this whole catastrophe we'd be taking our tactics back a few decades...what happened to the good old days when a CIA or Mossad squad would take out the target? Clean, quick, no messing around...

You want this job done...then I say pick up the phone to Israel...and send in the Mossad.

I am not blood thirsty...I just want effective results. Even war is so PC now it is sickening.

But before you pick up that phone, you had better be sure that a void will not be left, or the replacements are not worse than the predecessors...and in EVERY country in the ME/Arab/North African region I cannot be sure of that.

I'm totally on board with Lisa's opinion. Get out of it and stay out of it. After all the USA is the oft mentioned "West" and will bear a huge part of blame when things get worse(as they surely will) even though we claim to be playing a supporting role.

Historically justified, but why now? It bugs me that the world gets all high and mighty and moralistic and meddlesome now when Q is the same guy he's always been.