why the hell did Obama decide now was a good time to start another war? Just because the UN blessed it?

Like as not, the Arab League only wanted this because they knew it would make us look even worse in the region.

What does winning even look like in this. Or is this one of those where we'll eventually expend billions, and call a truce, where everybody is worse for the wear.

'cuz after all, we wouldn't want kadaffy to feel bad about himself would we?

This kinda stuff makes the people in the tinfoil tiaras sound reasonable... Is 'O' trying to wreck stuff that he doesn't believe in?

This intervention is impossibly stupid. The guys we're helping are busy fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both sides are our enemies. We should sit back and let them kill each other.

Despite the grudge match with Gaddafi, the US and Europe spent decades propping up the Arab dictators who are now on the run.

THAT is the story that the Arab street has internalized over decades of Western unconcern. The Arab masses have never tasted democracy because we didn't use our leverage to liberalize these countries. They associate "the West" with the thugs they've been living under with the West.

Is is any wonder they support radical anti-Western Muslims?

There IS no "democratic opposition" in ANY of these new revolutions - because the West didn't bother to cultivate such change.

So: there is no side for us to prop up in this fight, and we have zero credibility with the Arab street.

The West should step back, let the chips fall, and THEN begin meaningful engagement of the Arab world.

Yes, we will then face more openly Islamic governments. But that is the result of our own passivity - and cannot be changed at this late date, no matter what we do.

This is yet another sign that the guy in office has no idea what he's doing.

And that the public which elected him doesn't, either.

Lets assume for the sake of the argument that we did "have to do something"

Why are we doing what were doing? Blowing up SAM site to enforce an air blockade that will only cause this conflict to be drawn out longer?

Why not lob a few sub orbital balistic missles to land on the persidental palace and major army insatlations?

It times like these I regret giving up my plans to destroy humanity

Blowing up SAM site to enforce an air blockade that will only cause this conflict to be drawn out longer?

I've been wondering whether that's exactly the point, to draw the conflict out into a stalemate, and let both sets of bad actors destroy each other. It's the only thing that would justify the intervention as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe the plodders who govern us are nearly devious enough.

Another thought: A friend of mine suggested that there's a liberal mindset at work here. They don't mind having the parties kill each other, so long as it's a "fair fight." So they'll destroy Qadaffi's air superiority, but will stop short of actually taking him out. (It's kind of like the dumb liberal demand that Israel strike back at the Palestinians with precisely the same amount of force that the Pals use against them, and not a drop more.) I'm not sure I agree, but I thought I'd toss it out there.

No matter who wins in Libya we lose.

If the "rebels" win -- we are looking at another Al Qaeda/Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood run state.

Quadaffi is quite insane. If he wins, we are going to be looking at another Lockerbie or similar terrorist acts down the road.

Where if we had stayed out -- if the rebels lost, it would go back to "status quo". If they win we are going to be dealing with another Palestine, Yemen, Syria type government.

Kishke, you're pretty much correct. They're doing the boxing referee act. "You can fight, but no low blows".

It's completely ridiculous, because the first element of decision making is to divide "what do I want" from "how do I get it", or possibly "can I get it". You decide the first one, then you look at your options. They seem to have forgotten the first part.

Really it comes down to being seen to do something without getting stuck with the consequences. Which they will anyway, so they may as well pick a side and see it through.

It is like the arguments about "proportional response" from Israel. I wonder how those people would feel about a real tit-for-tat policy - so for instance, rocket for rocket, mortar bomb for bomb, one randomly murdered Palestinian family, including the obligatory decapitated three year old.

Of course, they would never do it - but it would be proportional.

I don't know if it's just me or if everyone else experiencing problems with your website. It appears as though some of the text within your posts are running off the screen. Can someone else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them too? This might be a issue with my internet browser because I've had this happen previously. Many thanks