I find this very complex. I think anyone has to acknowledge that there can be no foreign policy that is perfect and keeps everybody happy. No matter what is decided in relation to the arabic world and middle-east, there are some people going to be more than pissed about it, even if the foreign policy would be just...nothing, no policy, no statements, no words, no actions.

So, if we're gonna have people pissed at us anyway, if there is nothing we can win...why not just doing what we think is ethically right?

So are the airstrikes right?

Although i tend towards a 'yes', i fear that this might spiral out of control into something even worse than iraq. If mr hysteric clown is not removed from his throne, he will get even nastier and besides that he will take revenge by commiting terror attacks on our soil as well: this is not the same as the iraq invasion: saddam had never commited terror attacks on western soil but gaddafi (apparently there are more than a thousand ways to spell his name so i'll just name him 'hysteric clown' has. This mad has always kept his word when making outrageous threats.

I also fear that the west is going to give (or already giving) weapons to the rebels, wich could be a bad idea because we have no idea who those weapons are going to be used against...i mean, we gave weapons to the taliban (mujahadeen), iraq, the saudi's, fidela, nigaraguans, etc.

So i find this a rather complex and murky kind of situation on wich i am undecided, although i hope that the self-proclaimed leader of africa, the northern hemnisphere, the world and the galaxy is gonna be killed soon rather than late, and that his head will be displayed on a stick, like you would expect good rebels who're pissed would do.

At least you can say it would be a most apropriate place for the object.

wow. I can't answer this. I tried. I can't. It's too thorny. I'm pissed about it, but I hope it helps. I also think there will be u.s. bases there soon. All I can think is... What about Somalia?

Screw all politicians.

Yeah, i can't answer it either. What have our leaders gotten us into?

The irony is that the whole iraq-project has actually weakened the west militarily, and that now there is a dictator who HAS been actively involved in major terror plots, who has become enraged with the western condemnation of his genocide. And the west, because of iraq, no longer has the means nor the will to enforce a regime change. While in libya the regime change could actually have been enforced by supporting the rebels. And this time the west has possibly waited too long for a UN resolution, afraid to make the same mistake as in iraq again.

Yeah, what about somalia? Well the number of 'somalia's' on this planet seems to be increasing too rapidly for us to actually be able to do anything against.
It's all deeply worrying.

From my American pov...

Engaging in Libya was perhaps necessary from the viewpoint of eliminating Gaddafi and "freeing" the people from this tyrant...unfortunately it doesn't end there. As mister Niles said, what about Somalia? What about Uganda? What about North Korea? The list goes on and on. I can't say I'm surprised that we've gone into the oil-rich nation of Libya under the pretext of liberation/freedom...but I have to ask. Does anyone remember the no-fly zone over Iraq? This seems suspiciously similar, to me. What about the fact that Obama made comments along the lines of "no one in the world opposes this military action"; completely disregarding the African Union's protests against military intervention? This whole mess reeks of Bush Sr./Bush jr. vis a vis Iraq.

I just think it's incredibly suspicious that the countries we "liberate" (mind you, we've dropped over $100 million in ordnance on Libya, so I guess technically at this point, we've liberated the shit out of them) tend to parallel our own interests. In this case, the UAE's clamoring for military action (and the subsequent willingness of the Obama administration to jump right in) also made me raise an eyebrow, especially in light of the AU's protests.

In short, a no-fly zone, much as a blockade or alliance, is an act of war. Whatever the propaganda machine claims, we have now engaged in another foreign war with a country that poses significantly less threat than several we are more or less ignoring. I'm not saying there are any easy answers to this...I just don't think dropping bombs, the cost of which could fund god knows how many vitally necessary public programs (i.e education, state infrastructure, etc.) is the proper move in this economic or political climate. We've already overextended ourselves far more than we can handle...yet we continue to push forward, playing the role of Team America: World Police.

Here's the clear picture: We're launching entire school district's worth of cruise missiles and culture so we can learn these uncivilized brutes some democracy! The holographic bipartisanship eliminates human fallibility, which is why it's been proven so successful across the globe.

Somalia does not have oil so I doubt oil hungry first world nationa will become involved again. The cost reward equation is not balanced.

Although I would like to beleive in the philanthropic generosity of powerful nations I notice time and again nations only tend to get involved in other nations affairs when there are definate tangible benefits of that involvement.

I would like to see nations helping other nations without insinuating themselves into a position where benefits can be extracted - then I would beleive in the espoused genrosity of spirit suddenly manifesting in the circling nations.

In the world of power politics and embedded media not everytrhing is as it seems.

I would love the little man, the oppressed and the poor to benefit from military interventions but as so often all that happens is that one dictator style goverment is replaced with a foreign dictator style goverment. The rich become richer and the poor become poorer.

Obviously the first worlds sudden enthusiasm to become involved in Libya is oil orientated.

The problem is that if the west would not have done anything, you would have heard much of the same criticism. The same arab union would have condemned the west for NOT acting. They are as political as the rest of the world. Asking for action so you can protest it is also a way to make yourself popular, politically. And as we've come to know, popularity is something arab leaders are in dire need of. If israel and the west wouldn't have existed, they would have invented it themselves.

You have to be realistic: there is no way you can do it right and please everybody.

The question is wich is the right direction out of the minefield. I don't know if this war is the right way and i even fear it may lead us straight into the midle of it. But i could have spelled out all the criticism in advance: 'western imperialism, only there for the oil, political distraction aka wag the dog, etc'.

I find this type of reaction almost as lame as the blind support in the name of 'patriotism, honour and the flag' and that kind of blabla.

The world is changing and the west is no longer almighty and powerfull, if it ever realy was.
We cannot affort not to work on good relationships with other nations and to invest heavily in it.
Therefore the libyan initiative could turn out both very good and very bad, depending on how succesfull it is going to be.

It is clear to me that the situation in the arab world offers chances for democracy and human rights to thrive.

the world desperately needs that. And now more than ever. Because democracy and human rights are more and more under pressure internationally and eventually that would definately backfire at us.

I think its very hard to say, at this stage, if its a good thing or not.Time will enlighten us all to its merits or otherwise.

I also wonder if there are some Hawks in the US who havent forgotten Lockerbie and are keen to slap Gadaffi while he is down.The geopolitical facts on the ground are muddied by the fact that Libya has oil and also a very firm hand against so-called Islamic Radicalism and from what Ive heard there is a militant element in Benghazi but this doesnt mean the agenda of the rebels is along these lines.I find it laughable how Gadaffi has played the Islamic card saying all Muslims should fight the 'Crusaders' in light of his past treatment of those who have embodied the 'spirit of Jihad'.

But the biggest paradox is how the aims of Al Qaeda with regards to deposing the puppets of the West (Mubarak and Ben Ali so far;?Abdullah Bin Saleh of Yemen soon) and the secular-oriented tyrants are being fulfilled, albeit not at the hands of Al Qaeda.

Lastly, there is a double-standard operating here, with the entry of Saudi forces aiding the repression in Bahrain being studiously ignored by the media.

The saudi's...They don't seem to be very friendly guys do they?

But yeah, everything about this situation is one big paradox unfolding itself.
And it's only march 2011 still.

Yeah its no easy answer.

What I do find funny though, is how the western nations actually armed Gaddafi, and these guns are now being used against the people. Spain, France, Belgium (and probably many more more) are some of the western nations that have sold a lot of guns and warfare equip to Lybia under Gaddafi. And they keep doing it to all sorts of dictators around the world.

I completely agree with the sentiments regarding how much education and sustainability investments could be done instead with the same money being spent in wars. I feel sorry for all the suffering and deaths going on now, but I am happy that it is also a sign to all the world that if people really unite, corrupt/dictator leaders will have to go away. I just hope that this all is followed up with real positive lasting social changes, and not just a future of opportunists who use the temporary crisis to make themselves more powerful and rich.

In the long term nothing good will come from this. Short term? Who knows.
We are already involved militarily in more countries than we can handle or afford.

Our ecconomy is a wreck here in America. The Tomohawk cruise missles that we have been launching into Libya cost a couple million dollars a piece. We have launched about 1/2 of a billion dollars worth so far.

Shit! I cant get started today.

lol
my oh my

I wish I could just go to sleep and have my wife wake me up when its over. Unfortunately thats impossible because this stupid war is about religon, just like it always has been. The fighting will never end, ever.

Sad......

I can not agree that the United States of Americas' intervention in Libya is about oil.

As truthful as it may be that we've invaded countries in the past for inhumane reasons, the oil production from Libya is moot compared to the rest of the Arab world. Saudi Arabia can, and has been easily covering the lost oil that was US bound from Libya, and thats not mentioning the mass reserves of oil that the US has to make up for our mass consumerism.

The only reason oil prices have been skyrocketing recently is because of the unknown status of the accumulative of all the unrest we've been hearing about in Europe. No one can safely predict what has been lost, and what further damage will be done.

The U.S. presidential administration has repeatedly recognized the unease, and resentment of any sort of military intervention. What I haven't seen mentioned in this thready yet is that even Turkey, who at first refused to enforce U.N. regulations against Libya, has amassed a small force to assist in the mission. When the U.S. stated that they would be handing over control of operations, they were going to do so by giving it over to NATO. But the United Nations has been deliberating other means because of the opposition in the Arab World, to NATO operations.

Obviously there had to be something done to prevent countless, senseless acts of murder, and because Libya has been given more attention above all other countries who's leaders are massacring their people, European and Western societies have been demanding action be taken. Obama is acting in conjunction with the U.N., Europe, and the overall opinion in the world that something needed to be done. Something had to be done, and obviously murdering more people wasn't some easy first choice for our respective governments.

If no action had been taken, there is simply no way to tell what could have been occurring in Libya today. All I know is that even with U.N. restrictions in place, Muammar Gaddafi still sends planes into the sky to bomb rebels and openly, gladly refuses to obied by sanctions. Having not foreseen his strong resistance - even when Gaddafi stated the U.N. has no rights to apply sanctions - has doomed the governments involved in the mission to being forced to put soldiers and bases on the ground in, Libya. Muarmma Gaddafi will still find some means to attempt to stop the rebel uprising (Mortar strikes are still happening) from taking over his country even with sanctions applied.

Murderers' in Libya have only become the most popular topic, they are by a wide margin not the most heinous acts of violence occurring against humanity today, although it is still tragic.

As others have pointed out there are many other countries who are in much worse shape or the violence is worse that the west could be helping, but they don't have oil.

That is a good summary of what we are doing. Why the hell are we the police of the world? We made a big mistake by "freeing" Iraq from Hussein, and now we're at it again. Europeans suffer from the "Manifest Destiny" syndrome. On a selfish level I think its a good thing for employment in the US as now we have to make more planes and more bombs. On a social level it is horrible the money that we are spending for all these bombs instead of spending it on our own social needs like food, education, and healthcare here.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand this...how is this reaction lame? I understand you're saying my argument is cliche...but is it anymore cliche than the statement that we're all sisters and brothers or that "war is not the answer"? I mean...at a certain point you have to realize that cliches become cliches due to their mundane truthiness . I don't understand how this can be seen as "working on good relationships" with other nations. We're not going to create a solid infrastructure when we're done bombing...we're not going to provide food/supplies for the libyans...we're only going to put in the time/$ to get what we want out of this situation.

Could you explain how you feel the Libyan thing could turn out good? There is a history of US intervention in nations throughout the world...I would ask you to show me an example where, since our intervention, things have turned out "good". The examples of revolution in the Arab world that you tout as "good" are only good/revolutionary, because the US installed dictators or created situations whereby they would eventually become the bad guy/oppressor/vested interest that needed to be kicked out. MAybe I'm missing something in your point, but I find it fairly confusing.

I have to agree with Ice House and say for the life of me, I can't see any good coming out of this situation. I understand that in a globalized world, it is no longer possible to follow Washington's advice and stay out of foreign entanglements...but I would suggest if not for our interventions numerous times through history, and along the lines of US interests, much of today's intervention would be unnecessary.

Obviously the same thing goes for imperialism...you can't mine the material/political resources of entire nations to create global power imbalances and expect everything to be hunky-dory, nor can you discuss how things "could be" if x,y,z had/hadn't happened...but this Libyan fiasco seems to follow the blueprint of various international conflicts we've seen throughout recent history, and that gives me a very bleak outlook on the whole thing.

The simple fact that American imperialism is too cliché now to discuss as a motive for intervention should be telling in and of itself. (And it's juuuust a little strange that that particular position is "lame" but riding the fence isn't.)

And I saw someone mention Saudi Arabia... in the midst of the Egyptian uprising their king doled out billions of dollars for social welfare improvements... but if you're familiar with the board game Risk... interpret that as you will

I have the same scepticism towards this whole operation in the sense that it could turn out to be a fiasco.

There are differences with iraq though. The majority of libyans actually wants the west to impose a no-fly zone for instance as well as many other arab nations. Ofcourse they're not going to be gratefull and throw themselves at the feet of the west or something, but the majority of the arabs (not just the leaders of some nations) seem to support this no-fly zone.
Another difference is that there is an alternative transitional government ready in bengazi.
And yet another difference is that so far, the western coalition has explicitly stated not to send groundtroops to libya (except some reconaissance troops ofcourse that are officially not there anyway).

My main point is actually this: the arab world is liberating itself from dictators that have been our allies for decades. If we don't support the transition towards democracy and human rights, we will lose so much more than just some economic interests.

So far, everything the west has done in the region has been rather fucked-up. I agree on that. If we could show that we support democracy and human rights over there, that we can take actions without just doing it for the oil, in other words, if we can correct some of our mistakes in the past, that would be realy great.

But isn't this actually very similar to the reaction of swathes of the Iraq population after Saddam used gas on them (and the kuwaitis) during the whole kuwait oil skirmishes? I'm not actually very well read on that conflict, so I can't say for sure, but I thought there were some similarities

I completely agree with this and find myself hoping that this is the case, my skepticism just tends to make me...well...skeptical But honestly and at times like these I feel like, as Cornell West called himself, "a prisoner of Hope".

I think the bottom line is that nations ostensibly act in a fashion which serves their own national interests, and this consideration supersedes any notions of human rights and democracy.If democracy does emerge across the Arab world then the main loser will be Israel and this will be the case even if a secular government were to emerge in any of the Arab nations.As Noam Chomsky has frequently written (especially in his work 'The Fateful Triangle' the national interests of the USA are in many ways hijacked by the requirement for Israeli security, and until US policymakers can distinguish clearly between US national interests and those of Israel the same tragedies will be repeated.The Zionist Lobby in the US backs both sides (Republicans via New York, the Democrats via Chicago) so I dont see this changing .......especially as an objective examination of the state of affairs inevitably raise the cry of anti-semitism.

If israels position would be weakened a bit, that would be beneficial for everybody. Even for israel itself.

I think israels position is already weakening. Europe is more and more distancing itself from the 'unconditional-support-position' and america will simply have to follow this. It is simply unsustainable.
America is clearly losing it's influence in the region. They are no longer able to dictate everybody over there what to do.

I sometimes think we europeans should simply offer israel EU membership. In order to fullfill the criteria, israel would have to give it's arab citizens full civil rights, stop occupying foreign territory, etc. Maybe that would be an incentive. I know many israeli's would want to be EU citizens but membership is totally unrealistic if israel keeps doing the way it does.