Here's one way to simplify the Libya situation

One side is going to get their ass kicked. If the international community doesn't intervene, it's going to be the rebels. If they do, it's going to be Khadaffi. Which side are you on?

Some abstract "it's not our business argument -- I don't have to decide one way or the other."

Very similar to people who think that they can avoid choosing between Democrats and Republicans by not voting or voting for a non-viable candidate (as if this doesn't enable one of the two major parties at the expense of the other).

In reality, a non-choice IS a choice. It is perfectly acceptable to say that Khadaffi will win, because the cost (money, humanitarian, etc) of us intervening is too high. But it is ludicrous to pretend that a purported non-choice is somehow not a choice.

'If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice'

People forget that choosing to not intervene is still a choice. That was demonstrated in both the Spanish Civil War and the first 4 years of the wars of Yugoslavian secession. If the international community does not intervene, they are de facto supporting the stronger side -- and quite often that's not the right side.

why are you quoting that mega-asshole??

...that they're terrorists, that the key events behind their uprising is a myth, etc.

:eyes:

the no fly zone.

Personally, I'm not pro-Qaddafi enough to cast that veto.

Even a no vote wouldn't do it, there were no dissenting votes so we'd have to veto.

and we have a lot of leverage there, if we wanted to stop a war from starting

Ifwe can do it why not someone else?

And I assure you I will be the first person there.

Where is the bar for action?

The US has been killing people by the thousands for the last decade are you on the front line to stop it?

Is this better?

Grievances between states can, unfortunately, be dealt with via violent means.

We have killed for more citizens of other countries in the last decade then Libya has in the last two or more.

Responsibility to Protect, dude.

See: Geneva Convention

And yes I do want Bush one day to burn for what he's done, but all of this hang wringing by progressives about the UN is not going to help legitimize the ICC so that he can burn for what he's done.

why are you so sure that air strikes will oust Khaddafi?

Seems to me it's likely that everyday Libyans are the ones who will suffer most under any scenario.

Both sides may get their asses kicked, along with some combatants from foreign lands whose governments think they've got this all figured out. It could be messy on all three sides and wind up bringing in an even worse government. We don't know.

I'm on the side of international law, which supports the concept of national sovereignty.

That's a really silly thing to say imo.

Just because a deliberative body decides it has the right to do something doesn't mean everyone agrees. By your logic, there's nothing wrong with Guantanamo or some of the intrusions of the Patriot Act or the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill elements that were separated off and rammed through.

If the citation of any particular law, regardless of how trumped up is perfectly fine if done by a governmental body charged with that responsibility, then you obviously agree with the Citizen's United ruling, the current abortion restrictions being passed and all that.

By this same logic, the rebels are traitors against their country and not deserving of having their grievances addressed once they've declared a Provisional Government.

If you'll read carefully, the through-line of my problems with the UN Resolution is that I see it as a dangerous precedent of granting ourselves the right to violate national sovereignty and dictate our tastes for comportment from the nose cone of a cruise missile. The implications are very dangerous, and it can be used as justification for all sorts of ugliness.

As someone who is not a citizen of Libya but a citizen of the US, I support my government engaging with other states on the basis of equality and constructive engagement whenever possible. If it's not possible, I support non-engagement. I do not support military adventures that are not a matter of the survival of the US. I don't support McCarthyite logic like that posed in the original post.

Thanks so much :crazy:

Count me out of that.