World Should not attack libya, it will create another Iraq, and just like it happened there, West will experience critics and non popularity later. Islamic terrorists may get provoked even though Arab league is in favour of no flying zone in Libya, but still you never know there ideology.

~With Regards
Sanskar
(http://www.theworldreporter.com/)

Libya is not Iraq nor Afghanistan. Strategically speaking this is an "easy" job, just make Ghaddafi don't come out of this alive.

I stated earlier that intervention is a bad idea and I stand by that. But now that it has been decided, lets make sure thats its done properly this time.

On Wednesday 21 December 1988,a Boeing 747–121-- named Clipper Maid of the Seas -- was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members.[1] Eleven people in Lockerbie, in southern Scotland, were also killed as large sections of the plane fell in the town and destroyed several houses, bringing total fatalities to 270. As a result, the news media has named the event the Lockerbie bombing. Of these 178 were Americans.

There is no justice for the murdered.

The UN has proved it is incapable of protecting anyone, or ending conflicts, or bringing people or nations who have committed such crimes to justice. A very bad joke: Libya has a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission, serving as the group's chairman in 2003.

The New York times recently reported: "Until Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s violent suppression of unrest in recent weeks, the United Nations Human Rights Council was kind in its judgment of Libya. In January, it produced a draft report on the country that reads like an international roll call of fulsome praise, when not delicately suggesting improvements."

I can no longer support any action by the UN - it has become a joke and a bureaucracy that demands ever larger sums of money. The hope it once represented has died as surely as the League of Nations before it. In this time of economic crisis it is just a matter of time before the major funding nations cut or eliminate their funding and the House of Cards just collapses.

In this crisis European nations refused to act unless the US acted - even though it is their nations that buy oil from this nation.

Our world is so dangerous. This blood on the sand in Libya is just as bad as the Italian slaughter in Ethiopia - in this case their was no Libyan leader of great stature to address the UN beginning it to act to save his people. Not that the UN would have acted, just as the League of Nations failed to act after The speech by Haile Selassie I calling on the League to stop the invasion of his country by Italy and the murder of his people. While the speech made the Emperor an icon for anti-Fascists around the world, the League agreed to only partial and ineffective sanctions on Italy, and several members even recognized the Italian conquest.

As the League went before it the time has come for the UN to follow it into the dustbin of history!

When the Tamils of Sri Lanka; facing years of oppression similar to those under Gaddafi defended their legitimate sovereign lands that was unified with the rest of Ceylon by the British Colebrook-Cameron Commission (1), the western countries did not lift even a small finger to help them in their hours of need when its governments rained deadly military hardware including chemical weapons on them killing almost 100,000 civilians.

Evidence of Tamil sovereign lands abound. The British colonial secretary James Emerson Tennent, (1845-1850) to Ceylon wrote, “In pre-colonial days there was the Tamil Kingdom in the north-east (Jaffna) and two Sinhalese kingdoms in the south, called Kotte and Kandy. Drawings and maps from the time of the Greek explorer Ptolemy, and later from the period when the British came to the island, show how the areas of the Tamils and the Sinhalese were recorded separately from antiquity”. Emerson, Tennent J (1859) Ceylon, Volume 2 (London: Longman Press) (2)

Is it not the case that the speed with which the Libyan regime was dealt with; within weeks, is tantamount to double standards. Or is it that oil is thicker than the blood of the Tamil speaking people of Sri Lanka?

(1) http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-13139.html

(2) http://knol.google.com/k/sri-lanka-tamils-genocide-part-2#

I recall the last time the US Attacked Libya in the 1980s in retaliation for the attack on US Soldiers in Berlin the French denied overfly permission to our jets. How things have changed.

President Obama put America into the Libyan fray when he said that Gadafi must go...I don't believe that's it's Americas job to go into Libya and get rid of him...who are the opposition forces, I haven't heard who they represent...this is an internal matter but I feel that somehow the President thought that Gadafi was in his decline and would be gone by now....so he wanted to state his support for the Libyan people in their struggle to rid themselves of this dictator...from my observation, the President lacks leadership. I believe that he has to lead directly with the European leaders to oust Gadafi. I don't believe that Obama has ever "grasped" what his role as the leader of the world's largest democracy means...I do believe that his hands off approach on several foreign policy issues means that he does not agree with past Presidents getting our nation involved in other countries internal affairs. I disagree....we have to lead, he has to lead....he has not shown that he has leadership....I see a legislator talking, a politician, but I don't see a LEADER...

Almost every ally we have in the middle east is repressive and I'm not counting Israel which looks pretty oppresive to some.

How many Arab League democracies are out there?

All this defines for the President is his willingness to sacrifice American resources and eventually lives.

Where is the anti-war movement when we need it? Maybe BHO forgot where LBJ and JFK took us.

"the U.N. and the international community needs to prove that it can be effective when dealing with situations such as this. United States needs to prove to its own people that it can take a humanitarian role as an equal not a leader. Not to mention that it would be in U.S. interest to legitimize their values by acting in this humanitarian role and proving they can intervene without occupying."
(quote from Lifeline, above)

Improving the image of the UN? Legitimizing US values - to whom? Foreigners, I presume.
We Americans already know the US can do humanitarian stuff, witness aid to Japan.

Public relations for the UN and for US values is a cruddy reason to have any war, much less a poorly defined, poorly timed war, with no objective pertinent to US interests. Sure, let's go spend a couple billion we don't have for the sake of UN PR.

Dear Mr President, Ms Clinton, Members of the UN Security Council,

I have trouble reconciling your recent decision about Libya with the common moral standards of our modern world. There are women and children in Eastern Congo, for example, who are victims of sexual terrorism but no speedy summits to give these people a choice in their destiny, as it is tendered as the reason for UN sanctioned intervention in Libya. Sorry, but this is utter negligence, when the leaders of the world act more quickly to protect the cost of a barrel of oil rather than protect a three year old girl from the violation of sexual terrorism and the mutilation, too many have to endure. Please, will you examine your priorities and act to protect the most vulnerable in the world, not just our own positions.

Yours sincerely,
Annette O’Connor
Dublin, Ireland.

please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/liberty-and-stolen-identity-in-the-middle-east/

There is should be no outside intervention in Libya affairs. The US and Allies should not have entered Libya, these will only make it worst in an effort to stop Ghadafi. Let the Libyans solve this problem on their own. All for world peace... wagner steamer

Have there been no lessons learned in the US from Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, and again Afghanistan? Is an American or French missile really in support of democratic values and the Libyan people just because we say it is, especially since we have no plan for who or what will take Qaddafi's place?

I really have to object to the hyperbolic terms being used in the press to describe the situation in Libya. Are armed insurgents taking part in an insurrection really "peaceful protestors" being "slaughtered" by a "madman"? If Qaddafi's forces engage the insurgents is he really "murdering his own people"? [Rememeber how popular that one was with Saddam and Iraq?]

The US Press are usually pretty guarded and scrupulous about how the describe things except in the case of a guy who has been generally determined to be a villain. Then the restraint is chucked and its party time. They can discard the concern for the truth and rip the scumbag. After all who going to defend and Qaddafi, Saddam, Achmadinajad?

Let America be an example of democratic values by the way we live. We should not be exporting our values via the Pentagon.

As has been pointed out, there are humanitarian disasters ad infinitum all over the world the US and UN DO NOTHING ABOUT.

Yet, they speak as though they are the purveyors of human rights and democracy?

How is indescriminate bombing good for the civilians?

The question NEVER ASKED:

Why don't "we" ASSASSINATE Qaddafi?

Dan Rather got an interview in Saddam Hussein's MANSION -- I believe -- it was months before the second Iraq War. If Dan Rather can get to him, so can we.

But there has been an international moritorium on assassinations, presumably to spare our own precious leaders.

The Western/Saudi/Qatari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent. The charade of overthrowing regimes and invading countries in the name of democracy was a bloody farce in the case of Bush era. They now don't need to do that. They can just jump on the case where they see a potential for a real democratic change and then guarantee the installation of a puppet regime without having "boots on the ground", as Obama kept warning in White House meetings. They bomb and kill and manage to maintain a high tone of moral uprightness while the puppet Arab League puts its ugly stamp to make it look like an Arab affair. A useful idiot is needed, of course, and Mustafa `Abdul-Al-Jalil is perfect for the role and he has been so chummy with Saudi propaganda as of late. Obama has modified Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: not only maintaining the occupations but guaranteeing long-term presence in both countries. He has also started a war in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen where the US is a major force in the war there. Western enthusiasm for intervention in Libya has never even been explained: why the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia did not warrant any condemnation (the State Department did manage to condemn the protesters in Egypt, lest we forget too soon)? Israel manages to kill far more than Qadhdhafi and in shorter periods of time, and we never encounter the "humanitarian" impulse of Western governments there. Western military intervention in Libya is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers to our region and 2) perhaps as importantly to abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain of today is the vision for Libya of tomorrow, as far as the West is concerned.

Angry Arab Blog
Saturday, March 19, 2011

...and I don't mean metaphorically. When the dust settles and an "interim regime" is needed in Libya the EU no doubt will be the one financing the mess.
Probably we'll get stuck propping up a clan based gangster regime just like in Kosovo.
BTW, when I say that the EU are going to pay I, of course, mean Germany and the Nordic countries since southern Europe and Britain is bankrupt. That explains why Germany wasn't very enthusiastic.

If we are to actually make the R2P the norm in all places, especially the middle east, the U.S. will forever be in a state of war. Libya is just one current example of several middle eastern countries whose leaders are oppressing their people. Are we supposed to intervene on every single one of these countries? Despite this coming from the U.N., the majority of the resources and manpower used in these missions comes from the U.S. Even in the current Libya situation, the "international force" has not even come close to what has already been done by the U.S. alone. After 2 days, the U.S. has launched 118 cruise missiles. The rest of the force combined have shot down 1 plane and killed a few tanks. The U.S. cannot afford to make this the norm.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/un-intervene-against-sexual-terroism-in-congo/

Mods look before making a decision please.

Should we be in Libya? Interesting question. In a situation like this we really need to be asking ourselves three questions: whether the war is just, whether it serves our interests, and whether it is worth the cost (to both us and them). At least two out of three makes for a pretty strong casus belli.

1. Is it just? Yes, this one's pretty obvious. I don't think anyone on the planet would disagree that Gaddafi is better off dead. But there are a lot of tyrants just as bad, and nobody seems to be asking whether the rebels would do any better (aren't they mostly just fighters from an opposition tribe?) so it's going to take more than this. Arab politics is all about choosing the lesser of several psychopaths, and knowing when to eliminate him when he becomes the greater.

2. Is it in our interests? Not really. Obviously Gaddafi has financed terrorism against Americans and done various and sundry other nefarious deeds, and capping him would send a strong message not to screw with us, but the time for blood-soaked vengeance was two decades ago, not now. As for political gain, Obama and the UN's typical inability to make a timely decision means they'll likely be seen as opportunists at best and colonial oppressors at worst. The Arab League is already, predictably distancing themselves from it since they've made a cottage industry of biting the hand that feeds them; more will follow. Lest we forget, "illegal, immoral, unjust" Iraq passed UN muster too before all the dictators' nephews, Ivy League manchildren and other assorted members of the "international community" decided it was more politically expedient to blast Bush for fun and profit.

3. Is it worth the cost? To America, no it is not unless we stick to just shooting missiles at them. Europe is much more heavily involved in Libyan affairs, this would be a good opportunity for them to show that they can in fact hold their own pants up and actually do something without the US bearing most of the cost. To be perfectly frank, if they can't beat a butt pimple like Col. Lockerbie on their own they are simply not deserving of the multilateralism the liberals are always whining about. Want an alternative to US hegemony? Earn it.

So summing up, good riddance to Gaddafi but if it's going to happen Europe has to lead the way--this is their war. That will involve a lot of money and some dead soldiers, and if the West is not prepared to do this then we have no business being over there.

The rebel begged EU for help and now they cannot solve the war by their own. The game gets complicated now

Maria

@ABNJ :-)

We should STAY OUT. These very same 'victims' danced in the street on 9/11. These same 'victims' blew up Isreali school busses. These same 'victims' do not need 'The Great Satan'. Let them pray to Allah for deliverence. I know that this sounds snarky and 'where's the compassion?' But I don't have any for these 'victims'. Also I don't have any need to spare the E.U. the experience to finally get off their collective, cowardly butts and go to war without us. The Ruwandan Genocide? Just when did Pres. Clinton and the E.U or the U.N. jump in on that one. I believe that they showed some mild concern when the count got to over 700,000 people HACKED to death. Where was the compassion?

Get out and stay out. Here is a suggestion. This country will not go to war again unless there is a formal Declaration of War. That will keep the 'I voted for it before I voted against it', elements out of the military way. Let us begin by using our own oil and let these 'victims' eat their own.

Hamid fails to note that Obama ordered a study on the emerging unrest of the Arab-Muslim world last year and began developing strategic policies for meeting the challenge after receiving the report last summer. Does Hamid not recognize it's importance, or is he simply unaware of it?

Too much of the commentary here is about the proper short-term response to an immediate situation. Obama is thinking about how to navigate the long-term evolution of the region's societies. He developed principles which he has consistently applied in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, which involve supporting democratic movements but not taking over the struggle. He moves deliberately - which pundits misread as hesitance. Does Hamid think the decisions of the Arab League and the UN emerged all of a sudden, that they were not prepared over weeks? Can he account for why Russia and China decided to abstain and not block the vote?

It is a mistake to confuse showboating with leadership. Let Sarkozy be the showboat.

To the posed question, the answer is NO. The Arab League and The African Union can perhaps make legitimate claims for influence/action invoking regional interests/stability, but for the rest of us, the clear answer is NO.

Damn, too late...

What if the law of the ghetto is used by your neighbours?

Let us not forget the innocent victims of conflict, the neighbours here have done nothing, neither exercising influence nor implementing a real plan of action,

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/un-intervention-needed-in-drc-congo/

U.S. have an interest to push Europe into the Libyan problem. It became clear that if Gaddafi hold power, he will take vengeance on their opponents. This is advantageous for the U.S. - additional chaos in the Mediterranean would complicate the economic situation of Europe.
From the perspective of the Islamic world and the U.S. - and in this case, their interests coincide - it is more important for Europe to get a lesson. The policy of "surgical intervention" in Libya would mean a sharp aggravation of socio-economic situation in Europe. Will raise the price of oil, but as we add the Japanese catastrophe living Europeans could shrink double in the next two years. We'll see then how they react social lowlands of Europe.

Tactically USA lose the strategic game. In practice, U.S. is tied to Europe. There are such concepts as total West and its general presence in world affairs. A similar European crisis will inevitably weaken NATO and the attachment of Europe to the U.S.. By looking at where things are going, we will see waves of social unrest in Europe that will threaten the vertical of power. And that will make Europe incapacity as a U.S. ally.

President Medvedev made ??a serious mistake by declaring Gaddafi persona non grata on the territory of Russia. By this he demonstrated a lack of independence in our foreign policy. Appears to have been impressed by the promises of Vice President Joseph Biden during his visit to Moscow. This promises concerning the presidential elections in 2012. Now Medvedev wants to show that is best and can be wagered.

Gaddafi has got to go. He lost the legitimacy, as Libyan foreign service officials who left also claimed. The ICC was built to deal with people who exploit nations and abuse human rights. He thinks he can still abuse and destroy his people - well, the world has moved on, he cannot play his games anymore.

He should take the machinery around him as well and head to the international criminal court .

Mr President,

I admire the fact you have taken ownership of the conflict in Lybia, no longer standing back from it. However, Mr President, as a father of two girls, I ask you to watch the videos in this link, then repriortise where the international community needs to intervene.

Kind regards,

Annette O'Connor
Dublin

I can no longer support any action by the UN - it has become a joke and a bureaucracy that demands ever larger sums of money. The hope it once represented has died as surely as the League of Nations before it. In this time of stavkove kancelarie economic crisis it is just a matter of time before the major funding nations cut or eliminate their funding and the House of Cards just collapses.
In this crisis European nations refused to act unless the US acted - even though it is their nations that buy oil from this nation.Our world is so dangerous. This blood on the sand in Libya is just as bad as the Italian slaughter in Ethiopia - in this case their was no Libyan leader of great stature to stavkove kancelarie address the UN beginning it to act to save his people. Not that the UN would have acted, just as the League of Nations failed to act after The speech by Haile Selassie I calling on the League to stop the invasion of his country by Italy and the murder of his people. While the speech made the Emperor an icon for anti-Fascists around the world, the League agreed to only partial and ineffective sanctions on Italy, and several members even recognized the Italian conquest.The Russians and Chinese don’t approve, nor for that matter do the Germans. The UK doesn’t count as it has a canine predilection for the US posterior, the French needed to cover themselves after recognising the Transitional Council as the legitimate Libyan authority, and the Arab League hoped it would mollify their own protestors. All this humanitarian hogwash and uncharacteristic deference for the UN cannot obscure the fact that the whole thing was precipitate, ill thought through and headed to do more harm than good. The perpetrators are already looking at the floor, shuffling their feet and wondering how to get out of this one.