Before history is recorded or distorted....

[kentuck]

Let me get it cleared up, for my own understanding.

Before the US and Allies bombed Libya, was not Qaddafi already killing his people? Did he not say that he would have "no mercy" on them?

Was that not the reason the US and Allies got involved? In other words, it was bad and getting worse before one American bomb hit anyplace in Libya, is that correct?

The reason I ask is because I can see that a lot of people are already calling this a clusterf*ck, etc. What was it before it was a "clusterfu*k"?

Just asking?

[spanone]

1. well these neocons thought so.....

none of them have come forth to defend their plea....or even recognize it.....

Foreign Policy Experts Urge President to Take Action to Halt Violence in Libya
PrintShareThis
March 15, 2011 | Open Letter

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC

March 15, 2011

Dear President Obama:

Regrettably, the international community has yet to take serious action to prevent a moral and humanitarian catastrophe in Libya and the Libyan opposition is now on the defensive. As forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi push eastward, we are concerned that the brutal and indiscriminate tactics of government forces could lead to additional civilian casualties.

On Saturday, the Arab League endorsed Libyan opposition calls for a no fly zone. We call on you to urgently institute a no fly zone over key Libyan cities and towns in conjunction with U.S. allies. We also call on you to explore the option of targeted strikes against regime assets in an effort to prevent further bloodshed. The United States should also immediately recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council and take all necessary actions to support their efforts to unseat the Qaddafi regime.

In your inaugural address two years ago, you said this: "And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more."

Today the United States and its allies should stand with the men, women and children of Libya who seek a future of peace and dignity. The situation in Libya in the coming days will not just impact the Libyan people. As protests continue against repressive regimes around the world, the message currently being conveyed by our inaction is that killing and repression will go unpunished and are the best option for despots seeking to postpone reform.

For the sake of our security as well as America’s credibility with people who seek freedom everywhere, we ask you to act as quickly as possible to ensure that the people of Libya – and the world – know that we are willing to back up our principles with action.

Sincerely,


Fouad Ajami
Ash Jain
Randy Scheunemann

Stephen E. Biegun
Ken Jensen
Gary J. Schmitt

Max Boot
Robert Kagan
Dan Senor

Ellen Bork
Lawrence Kaplan
Henry Sokolski

Paul Bremer
David Kramer
Whit Stillman

Scott Carpenter
Irina Krasovskaya
William Taft

Elizabeth Cheney
William Kristol
Marc Thiessen

Eliot Cohen
Tod Lindberg
Daniel Twining

Seth Cropsey
Michael Makovsky
Kurt Volker

Thomas Donnelly
Ann Marlowe
Peter Wehner

Michele Dunne
Cliff May
Ken Weinstein

Eric Edelman
Joshua Muravchik
Leon Wieseltier

Jamie Fly
Michael O'Hanlon
Rich Williamson

Reuel Marc Gerecht
Martin Peretz
Damon Wilson

William Inboden
Danielle Pletka

Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
John Podhoretz

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/fore they have since removed this page hypocrisy alert

[jpgray]

14. Why spoil a perfect record of petty yet horribly reckless hypocrisy

[spanone]

15. it's my nature.....

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

2. I share your understanding and agree

that this was a messed up situation to begin with.

:hi:

It will be interesting to read the responses.

[The Magistrate]

3. True On Both Counts, Sir

[On the Road]

4. A Lot of People are Comparing This

to what is going on in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen. However, at the point where the situation in Libya was similar to those countries, the US was pointedly staying out of the conflict. The US stayed out when it turned from protest into an armed conflict.

It was only after repeated reports of civilian massacres and threats of far more than the US got involved. Only if and when those other countries turn into another Libya, then the comparison will be apt.

[jpgray]

5. Might as well also clear up what the mission is, and what the timeline will be

The ostensible goal is removing Qaddafi, and the supposed timeline for heavy US involvement is days not months. I expect these to get muddied quite a bit. What might happen if Qaddafi digs in and reasserts himself after the worst of the bombing? How far are we willing to support our chosen side? What can we expect if mass proscriptions begin, on either side, in the aftermath? Will we ignore violence on fractious tribal lines after Qaddafi is gone, as we largely ignored Sunni/Shia violence in Baghdad?

[kentuck]

7. All excellent questions.

I think the main goal was to stop the random killing of the Libyan people? Was that not a moral cause?

If there is a larger strategy, we have not heard it. Maybe there is not one? Does that mean it was wrong to stop the merciless killings by Qaddafi's forces??

Should we have not stopped the killings because we did not have an "exit strategy" in place?

The concerns are that we will get bogged down into another senseless war. And why shouldn't we be concerned? If we look at the recent past, we can see a pattern.

This is not a simple black and white issue. We must continue to question where we go from here.

[jpgray]

8. It's not difficult to find a place to intervene with the best of intentions

Or to find people desperately in need of the West's vast resources. What is apparently very difficult is to leave that place and those people better off than we found them. We rarely have managed this.

[Robb]

9. This. nt

[Taitertots]

13. Stopping Qaddafi from fighting against an armed insurgency during a civil war was the main goal

The only pattern to see is the US going to war with any country that we will benefit from through western resource exploitation.

Is it a moral cause to pick sides during a civil war so we can better exploit their resources?

[emulatorloo]

6. Yes and Yes. Thanks for posting n/t

[Lyric]

10. I think this is a situation where there are no good options.

Just ones that are either horrible for a LONG time, or horrible for a SHORT time. Or at least we all HOPE it's a short time. That's supposed to be the goal. We'll see if it actually works out that way, but unless we're willing to just let those people be slaughtered, I don't see much of a way around it.

What bugs me about all this are the deeper implications. We're basically taking the position that people have the RIGHT to revolt against what they see as a brutal, tyrannical government without being murdered by that same government. I wonder...would our government feel the same way if the revolution was happening in New York, Washington D.C., Boston, and Chicago? Would we honor that ideal if OUR government was the one killing civilians in revolt? We've bombed civilians before; look at Blair Mountain, WV.

THAT is what keeps me awake at night. For all that many of us see this as a "noble" stance to take, what if the Freepers start a revolution? Or what if WE do? Should the government have the right to send in the military to oppose it, even if it means killing civilians? We think that we're so different, but are we really?

[kentuck]

11. Those are questions we all should be asking...

My hunch is that America would be more violent than the Middle East dictators if something like that were to happen. Think of Branch Davidians multiplied by ten-thousand.

[Sky Masterson]

12. Well put

:hi:

[CJCRANE]

17. _

[Bandit]

16. Lots of "cluster fucks" going on around the globe, should we bomb them all?

:shrug: I guess since we have such a dandy military it would be a crying shmae not to use it..