Good article on Libya

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/25/a_mission_wrapped_in_confusion_109341.html

For all lefties... do not fret, this was written by a leftie.... so don't get your panties in a bunch prior to reading it.

That said, the points he brings up are very very familiar. Anyone remember the discussion in 1991 with regards to Iraq and the discussion about creating no-fly zones? Eugene brings up the very valid point that unless you actually BACK the rebels and depose Gaddaffi then the no fly zones have to be maintained indefinitely.

Meaning it is inevitable that you will either have to depose him and his regime or hope that when Gaddafi dies the regime crumbles with him.

 

[apple0154]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/25/a_mission_wrapped_in_confusion_109341.html

For all lefties... do not fret, this was written by a leftie.... so don't get your panties in a bunch prior to reading it.

That said, the points he brings up are very very familiar. Anyone remember the discussion in 1991 with regards to Iraq and the discussion about creating no-fly zones? Eugene brings up the very valid point that unless you actually BACK the rebels and depose Gaddaffi then the no fly zones have to be maintained indefinitely.

Meaning it is inevitable that you will either have to depose him and his regime or hope that when Gaddafi dies the regime crumbles with him.

Excellent article! Humanitarian aid was a pretext. It wasn't a case of Gadaffi practicing genocide and the people trying to defend themselves. They rose up against their government. Any government would have done the same thing and any government would have gone after those who did rise up and block access to cities and used weapons.

"(Excerpt) According to the White House, we're not taking the rebels' side -- and we're not using military means to unseat Gaddafi. (End)

Unfortunately (Excerpt) "It is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go," Obama said this week. (End)

The goal had nothing to do with humanitarian aid and the White House did take sides.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Excellent article! Humanitarian aid was a pretext. It wasn't a case of Gadaffi practicing genocide and the people trying to defend themselves. They rose up against their government. Any government would have done the same thing and any government would have gone after those who did rise up and block access to cities and used weapons.

"(Excerpt) According to the White House, we're not taking the rebels' side -- and we're not using military means to unseat Gaddafi. (End)

Unfortunately (Excerpt) "It is U.S. policy that Gaddafi needs to go," Obama said this week. (End)

The goal had nothing to do with humanitarian aid and the White House did take sides.

Which is oddly enough almost exactly the arguments made after Saddam was booted from Kuwait. Some wanted to just have no-fly zones to 'protect' the people in those areas. Others pointed out that those no fly zones would essentially be indefinite if we didn't overthrow Saddam. Obviously we know which side won the argument in 91.... 12 years later.... there we sat... still with the no fly zones and every day pissing off the radicals with our presence.

Now here we are today. Libyan no fly zones going up. President wants Gaddafi removed. But doesn't want to take sides. Over/under betting has been set at 4 years for these no fly zones to be up and running.... if Gaddafi were younger then maybe we would go longer.