Remember "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the Shores of Tripoli"

[Cleita]

Is it time to send in the marines? Maybe this time it would be justified. I think it would improve our image in the Arab world this time rather than diminish it like our war for Iraqi oil did.

[gratuitous]

1. The marines are kinda busy right now, securing Dick Cheney's deferred compensation

The Bush administration and its reckless war crimes are a gift that just keeps on giving.

[tabatha]

2. The Libyans seem split

There are those who do NOT want outside help, and those that do.

The US cannot send in any troops without UN approval.

[Cleita]

4. I get the impression that the UN is

discreetly hinting for it, not necessarily all USA but a UN effort.

[Warpy]

3. Yeah, because we really need a third war of occupation

While it's nice to entertain fantasies of the marines coming to the rescue, it's just not feasible now that Stupid's 8 years have nearly bankrupted this country and rich men still own enough of Congress to avoid paying for this stuff for another few years.

[Cleita]

5. Perhaps we shouldn't occupy.

I think giving the Libyans some help in getting rid of Kaddafi and his corrupt regime would be sufficient. I believe the Libyans can govern themselves from then on. However, our western oil interests who are entrenched there might think differently.

[bobbolink]

7. OMG

[Warpy]

21. What do you know about Libya?

It's not Egypt. In some ways, it's just as tribal as Afghanistan. It would be another quagmire, generals promising a bloodbath were we not there to keep the squabbling children separated, and in this case, they'd be right.

[Raksha]

23. Yeah, it's tribal but so far all the tribes we've heard from are united.

They support the protesters and they want ONE Libya with Tripoli as their capital. I think even some members of Gaddafi's tribe support the revolution, whether openly or secretly.

Don't make more Libyan tribal distinctions than they do. As I understand it, "tribes" in Libya are really extended clans, kind of like the Scottish clans or the 12 tribes of Israel.

[bobbolink]

6. That is exactly what the Libyan people do NOT want, but then....

that is what we 'Murkins do......

Just like what is done with poor people all the time... come up with "solutions" that make matters worse, because there is no willingness to listen to poor people FIRST.

I suggest reading the tweets... the Libyans are telling 'Murkins to stay out of it!

[bobbolink]

8. unrec for actual unwillingness to learn to listen to the people FIRST

[Cleita]

11. I guess there is no room for discussion with

you if you disagree. If you were listening to the people you would know that many of them are begging us to help.

[bobbolink]

drop the snark. For those willing to hear...

"Dima_Khatib Dima Khatib أنا ديمة
Foreign intervention would be perfect for Gaddafi to say: see? I told you from the beginning, there was no revolution #libya #feb17
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

There have been hundreds of tweets like this, so take your personal attacks on me somewhere else.

[Cleita]

14. I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.

Back you go.

[bobbolink]

15. Thank you. If you can't stop personal attacks, then please... do it.

There are still rules.

[Exilednight]

20. Personal attacks? Where exactly did he/she get personal?

And speaking of snark, take a look at your own post before accusing others.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

27. the poster you are talking to plays the perpetual victim

everything is a personal attack against THEM...and nothing they ever say could ever be an attack or 'snark'...

sP

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. what a hoot...YOU telling someone to drop the snark! n/t

[MineralMan]

17. I expect that different people in Libya would like different things.

The "people" of any country rarely speak with a single voice. That gets missed a lot. Sometimes people will quote a single tweet and take that to mean it represents what the "people" want. We even see it here in this country. Many on the right use "the American people" far too freely, not realizing that only a tiny percentage of those people are saying what they think.

So it is everywhere. I have never heard an entire "people" say anything, just individuals or groups saying what they believe, while others say something else.

[David__77]

9. No, the US should not interfere in Libya.

If this is indeed a popular revolution, it will succeed. The US intervening would only serve to impose a political agenda which would be against the will of the Libyan people - privatization, neoliberalism...

[Shandris]

10. I'd take care of air superiority and leave the ground to the Libyans.

I think they can take care of their problems just fine on their own so long as they don't have planes bombing the holy shit out of them. Probably not even announce our presence...just fly in medium-range, engage any fighters in the sky, and fly off.

[Cleita]

12. That and maybe securing the ports so the regime

can't get reinforcements and armaments in would probably be sufficient.

[Posteritatis]

16. Yep. (nt)

[bluestate10]

18. Look like that is the solution that international politicians are gravitating toward.

If the US and it's allies enforce a no fly zone over Libya, the people of Libya seem capable of getting the rest done. Enough voices there are saying they do not want foreign troops on their soil, I say let their wishes carry the day.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Not unilaterally and possibly not at all

any action by the US military would have to be undertaken jointly with, probably, NATO allies or as part of a UN effort, and would probably involve the US, UK and France, I'd imagine. Britain and France had planned to introduce a resolution calling for enforcing a no-fly zone at the UN Security Council but decided against doing so because of the probability of a Russian and Chinese veto.

[Igel]

19. Nope.

"We" didn't get the Iraqi oil. It was a nice reason for those who opposed any American intervention to complain, for those who liked Saddam to hide, and for those who don't like war in general to vent.

Lots of Arabs didn't like Saddam except to the extent he defended Arab honor by opposing their particular "Other." That was often the US. Sometimes it was Israel. Sometimes it was Iran. Sometimes it was some other country. Oddly, you still hear people saying that the US supported Saddam--the only reason we turned against him is that he stopped being our lackey. (This makes for a convoluted narrative, of course. But it's a necessary narrative, so they convolute. To backform a word.)

Lots of Arabs don't like Qaddhafi. Except to the extent he defended Arab honor by opposing their particular "Other." That was often the US. Sometimes it was Israel. Qaddhafi is even less likeable than Saddam. The only anti-American bent that can be taken--and I've heard it--is that "we" support Qaddhafi. Yeah, barely, since shortly after the 2003 Iraq war started. That minimal perceived support doesn't go very far.

Let's say we intervene. We'll be seen as faithless. Not a good thing. There'll be the suspicion that we did it *for* the oil. To suck up to whoever'll be in charge next. And if anything--I mean *anything*, right down to some girl's pet parakeet being killed by some mugger--we'll get the blame in the minds of some. Now if the government goes bad, as often happens after revolutions, of course it'll be a nasty western plot against good, pure, true, infallible and all-wise/all-righteous ______ (fill in self-serving term of choice: Muslim, Arab, Libyan, forces of democracy, progressives....).

If we stay out, we run the exact same risk. That's the problem with black-and-white/always-blame-others thinking. If you're always right, then the Other must always be wrong unless the Other is 100% on your side as you perceive it right now.

[Cleita]

22. I agree with you that it would be perceived as we

did it for the oil and I wonder if maybe that would be the reason, too.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dash87]

25. No way. That would unite the country with a common enemy.

Or, both sides would hate us.

[Brigid]

28. Um, no.

It's never wise to get involved in another country's civil war. There is a reason why cops hate domestic disturbance calls.

[Cleita]

29. There is a precedence when Clinton went into

the Balkans with the UN to prevent a genocide. I too wonder though where you draw the line between coming to the aid of an oppressed people and becoming the oppressors ourselves.

[JVS]

30. No. We should stay out.