Let's play what if

[cali]

What if Khaddafi (or however you spell his name) is deposed/killed/exiled- in any case out of the picture. And let's say the rebels take over. And let's further say that the rebels decide to go after Khaddafi loyalists- or anyone else who opposes them. And let's say that the new government is just as oppresive as the old gov't, will the intervention have been worth it?

I'm guessing that the above is every bit as possible- or more so- than any other scenario. To those of you who support this action, does this ever occur to you?

[theophilus]

1. The only way to win "what if" is not to play. n/t

[cali]

3. how can you possibly decide to support or oppose something like military

action if you don't examine the potential outcomes?

[catenary]

2. It will likely depend on the terms and pricing of the oil contracts.

:shrug:

[rug]

4. We already played that in Afghanistan.

[H2O Man]

And still are

playing it there.

[Blue-Jay]

5. That's, what? FIVE "what ifs" in a row?

What if I wait and see how things play out before I assume the worst? (crazy-talk, I know)

[tabatha]

6. What if they follow the example of Mandela

and implement a Truth and Reconciliation Committee?

What if they listen to Desmond Tutu, who supports this action?

(If they were going to implement the same kind of system why put their lives on the line?)

[cali]

8. that seems quite unlikely. S. Africa is not exactly the best comparison

there is little in common. And unexpected consequences happen regularly when a regime is overthrown.

[tabatha]

9. What is not in common?

[cali]

11. There was no outside military intervention in South Africa

[tabatha]

16. The Truth and Reconciliation Committe

was not about military or no intervention, and the TRC was about moving forward not looking backwards.

[cali]

17. yes, of course, but it was possible, I'd wager because of

what transpired. How they got there is important too. You see a T&R in Iraq? That's a much closer comparison- though not perfect.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Not to worry. We'll just "intervene" again. It's been working so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Little Star]

10. You've got some good 'what ifs' going on there! k&r

[Bonobo]

12. Those aren't boy scouts we're supporting.

What about the large number of them that are reportedly fighting against Quaddafi because they think he's a Jew?

Do we expect them to start laying down a Western-style Democracy and welcoming others outside their little group with open arms?

[lonestarnot]

13. And suppose Kidd Cadaffy hooks up with Al Kidia? Den wha?

[PufPuf23]

14. More will be killed and Libya more destroyed by the intervention.

There will be bigger grudges than if left internal and Gadaffi loyalists are at risk.

We chose sides in a civil war and made one-sided rules of engagement.

I did not support Gaddaffi when he became a partner in the War on Terror and do not support Gaddaffi now.

But I do not support the bombing campaign either.

The USA is in an awkward situation in many Nations of the Middle East and North Africa because of hypocracy of support and rhetoric.

[spanone]

15. let's play what if

what if the opposite happens....will it have been worth it?

i don't support it but it's as easy to optimistic and it is to be pessimistic...what ifs go both ways

[cali]

18. no, it 's not as easy. history has taught us that.