I'm sure everyone has heard that France, the United States, and the UK have launched air attacks on Gaddafi. Gaddafi has said "no mercy" in his attempt to retain power and he supports terrorism. I think what we are doing is a humanitarian effort to stop a lunatic from hurting people who aren't able to really defend themselves.
Now, I've been reading comments made on both American and British news websites. The majority of Americans keep referring to the Iraq/Afghanistan war as a comparison. They claim we're going in for oil or refer to things like "oh next they're gonna tell us they have weapons of mass destruction." Do they not see that it is 3 countries-not just the US- standing up for citizen's rights? Obama also said that ground troops will not be deployed. A lot of the comments I've heard/seen have ignored that statement and they compare Obama to George Bush. The comments made on British sites seem to also have the same views-oil. I really don't see it? Now, if we launch an all out war against Libya, I might just change my mind.
I wanted to post this to see other like-minded people's opinions from around the world. What are your views?
These types of events are the ones that define America and its place in the world. The cost of being a superpower is that you will be looked at to resolve events like these. Inactivity would mean that another dictator would check if they can get away with, literally, murder. If America stops interfering there will be a massive arms race in the world to become the second superpower which then will be looked upon to weigh in. In the current situation, that would most likely be China.
I sometimes disagree with their solutions, but I understand their position. In this case, the US have to support on a limited scale. 'Support' because otherwise the danger of being perceived uninvolved, 'limited' because of your other recent Arab excursion.
I think it will be France and UK which initially supply the combat troops, the US has a good claim on being overstretched. Or you might see other countries starting to offer more troops to Afghanistan to resupply the US, so indirectly sending in the troops.
In either event, I think there will be just about enough support in Libya after Gadaffi to avoid any protracted situation, granted whoever takes office does not committ genocide and allow parts of the old regime to stay on condition of immunity. There are no allies of Gadaffi right now, even Russia and China tacitly accept it.
I really, really don't want a bunch of Saudis running the middle east unchecked.. That is a major mistake which will have severe consequences. It was to a large extent extremist from this very country that inspired the Taliban and the terror attacks.
Yeah, the blunder in Iraq is pretty bad, and the price of that mistake is the quagmire you are in. Obama's hand is forced, he is unable to get out without creating a massive geopolitical issue in case a hostile Iran decides to test the boundaries.
So, what to do?...let Gaddafi continue in his crimes
.. there is no choice..believe me......
and Saudi Arabia is not running the middle east.. not at all.. this is called "a legal war" this is the whole idea.
Saudi Arabia has it's strategic position in the middle east..and Obama is indeed an intelligent leader by choosing this resolution .