News reports have the USS Enterprise and Kearsarge moving into the area. So do we take direct action? How much? What form? An air raid or do we send in the Marines?

Have you learned nothing at all from Iraq? This is a tribal civil war...let it play out. Life sucks...people die, get used to it. Our involvement only complicates matters. And where was your question on direct US action in Darfur?

 

In answer to your questions: No, nothing, none, neither. 

I don't mean to be crude or cruel, but at this stage what good will our intervention do? If anything it might bind Qaddafi's loyalists closer to him, sow resentment among the rebels who want to bring down Qaddafi themselves, and it is using the military for social science experiments. I understand the need to "help" and "do something" (which is a sentiment I would expect more from leftists), but the reality is these "interventions" don't usually go the way they are supposed to. Sometimes the people we try to "help" either are not so nice and democratic (KLA in Kosovo) or resent us being there (Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan). 

I just wanted to correct your assumption.  The US is moving forces into the area (which is the proper thing to do in the sense that we will be ready for whatever comes), however, I am not endorsing any direct US involvement in the uprising.  I merely posed those scenarios because they are increasingly under discussion.

 

If you are interested, here's my logic:

 

Gadhafi is dead meat (deservedly so) regardless of what we do.  He's lost all legitimacy and support.  Anything that he does to remain in power will only incite more people against him.  If we take direct action, the uprising loses authenticity.  It becomes a product of a foreign power, rather than a genuine grass-roots uprising.  (Exactly what Gadhafi says it is.)

 

I would support the revolution through indirect means (CIA).  Normally this is an act of war, however, since it has recently been revealed that Gadhafi personally ordered the bombing of Pan Am 103, killing US citizens, we have fresh evidence of casus belli.  So it's okay.  They keep their legitimacy, while we quietly, lawfully support it.

 

I would not support action through the UN.  The UN is a product of the lowest common denominator, which at best limits our actions and at worst supports Gadhafi. 

 

 

Furthermore, the UN charter forbids intervention for purely internal matters, which this clearly is.  While there has been a push to go beyond this "internal matters" restriction, I feel it is a bad precedent.  The UN is not a sovereign body and it would be a huge mistake to treat them as one.  (Remember, there are substantially more dictatorships in this world than legitimate democracies.)

 

So let's just give 'em the guns and let them do the shooting.

 

?The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.? — Thomas Jefferson

PPR, Why should we even care what happens next in Libya? Unless they take to boats and attack Italy (doubtful) and then it becomes a NATO issue. US shouldn't even be putting these options up for debate. Oil is still flowing as far as I know, as both sides are greedy, and will need the money to fund their war. If Qaddafi is really done for then let it play out. If not we will see (he does have some support, not no support). No need to get involved even with CIA "proxy armies"...arming rebels sometimes has blowback.

Italy, Tunisia and Egypt look at refugee problems now. 

 

H. 

Two things could legitimize US intervention and I'd bet the UN security council has had back room meetings regarding this:

 

1. The presence of mercenaries fighting for Qaddafi is well-established.  Thus there is already foreign intervention in what otherwise would be a completely domestic situation and a simple replay of Egypt.

 

2. Qaddafi has lots of WMD, including an estimated 1000 tons of yellow cake uranium.  He cannot be allowed to gas the rebel forces and that yellow cannot be allowed to leave Libya.  

I get a kick out of Hillary running her mouth over all this, "It's time for The Colonel to go..."

Then some other loudmouth woman was on there, harping about how he was all jovial and laughing with reporters about America saying he should step down (yeah, like he's going just because Hillary said so),

yet at the same time, he was supposedly killing his own people by the hundreds/thousands/etc...

 

My question being,

why now?

A virtual army of democrats to this day condemn Bush for wanting to take down Saddam (by the same argument, of killing his own people, the UN sanctions thrown upon the country, etc yada yada...),

but now one of their own spokespeople is crying for us to go after the Libyan leader's head?

 

We get demos crying up a storm about getting us out of Iraq, out of A-stan, and that we're too broke to police the world,

and now they are at the verge of demanding the use of force against Libya?

 

Our allies, the Europeans and UK, get alot of their oil from Libya, as does our biggest, hugest, creditor, China.

 

Hopefully we can write off the expense of this operation against our debt.

You won't be if you play this card now. Hold your cards and wait until things getting out of control.

 

Then you play racketeering internationally.

 

The problem is that the US doesn't play the game the way it should be all the time, and hence became everybody's sucker.