For real. It's time for some of these things to be Not Our Problem(TM).

Send in the French? Made me laugh almost as much as when I heard GQKDFii had announced an "immediate ceasefire". Yeah right.

The most interesting piece I've heard lately is that weapons are flowing in from (or more likely via) the Egyptian army. This, plus the no fly zone, might give the rebels a bit of a chance, but in reality, no-one can become proficient with a new weapon in a few days. Practice and training are needed.

I still think the rebels will lose, unless the "no-fly zone" is interpreted to include "no tanks or artillery either, or we'll bomb them".

I hope, somehow, the rebels win. Get the momentum for this Jasmine Revolution going again.

The French are survivors. They have my respect.
We're a tiny nation who likes to punch above its weight - the French have more land but not many more people. Neither the UK or la belle France have enough resources to do this alone.

I'm not saying America should be involved.
The situation in Libya is complex and we can't intervene every time a country murders its own citizens. But I completely understand why no-one has currently engaged without US backup.

Cameron is going to see Prince Sarkozy today.
Hope he brings back some duty free.

Are you seriously saying that the UK can't kick Libya's ass in a fight because it lacks resources?

Silly national stereotypes aside, the French can handle this with a little communication assistance from us.

srsly. It's Libya we're talking about, not all of Africa, or China.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

If you voted for Obama you should never say another bad thing about Bush and his attacks on Iraq.... Obama basically just stuck his foot in another trap and used US forces to attack another country based on a UN mandate.

Merc, I voted for Bush twice, and against Obama, and am generally the most conservative guy in any given room. That aside, you have to admit that these are not parallel situations - only the rhetoric is the same.

I would agree...there is no parallel at all.

Until such time as Obama authorizes the invasion and occupation of Libya with 100,000+ ground forces w/o a UN resolution, as was the case of Bush's actions.

A more appropriate parallel would be towards Bush I and the Iraq no-fly zone.

smoothmoniker- what you fail to understand is merc is a one trick pony.

UK has been so severely depleted with unnecessary wars that the UK cannot even supply fighter aircraft for (what will be) their only remaining aircraft carrier.

UK is so severely depleted as to fear risk to even one Tornado aircraft (at maybe $300million per platform).

Libya is first and foremost a problem addressed by the local nations. France is acting because other closer nations who should be taking more responsibility (Tunisia, Algeria, Chad, Niger, Sudan, and Egypt) are not or cannot.

An example of the new world order that George Sr defined (despite extremist naysaying from his own party). How long is required for world people to learn lessons from history? Slowly, the world will mock extremists and ostriches by learning fundamental lessons from history. Learn from history that define responsibility and the requirements of government. These lessons are mostly and still unknown. Too new to so many people. Even 70 years ago, the American government would do to their people what is today called political corruption. These social ethic and international responsibility are concepts very new throughout the world – even in America.

The French are simply doing what most nations (and people) in the world have not yet learned. A nation has certain responsibilities to citizens in neighboring states.

Americans are only a support function. Tiny destroyers and submarines launched cruise missiles. What Clinton did in the 1990s to (we later learned) completely defang Saddam (because Saddam was a threat to no one). What Reagan did to Kaddafi. What Ford did in Cambodia. What George Sr did in Panama. What Reagan did in Lebanon. What Clinton did in the Balkans. What Carter attempted in Iran. What George Sr did in Somalia. Where is any of this similar to an unjustified invasion of Iraq? What Obama did was simply support France, in part, because so many other nations did not (ie Italy) or could not.

Fixed it.

Your editting makes no sense. The UK is down to its last aircraft carrier. And may need even French fighter pilots and planes to arm it.

Your entire life makes no sense. And 99.9% of your posts.


So there.

Nyah.

From the Washington Post of 20 Mar 2011: As noted previously, interesting will be how that UN resolution is interpreted. In part, because some Arab governments may view it as also justifying attacks on their nation. And may make future necessary interventions impossible.

Also is a question of where was the Arab league when it came to being a responsible neighbor? Again, these concepts are extremely new. The world is so far away from learning about responsibility, ethics, respect for citizens, the purpose of government, etc. Good thing mankind is maybe 100 years from spreading to other planets. This world is still dominated by barbaric thinking. Basic social and ethical concepts are so new and so little understood throughout the world. The galaxy does not need contamination by Neanderthal and Cro-magan barbarians. Maybe we did not let things get bad enough. Maybe there have not yet been enough massacres so that other nations finally learn what they and most of the world has not yet learned. Responsibility, social ethics, and the purpose of government. These concepts did not even widely exist in the US 70 years ago.