Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait...

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im not sold it is either, however if it was, it should have been doing from the get go instead of waiting a month.

It presents a problem for the US in friendly areas like Bahrain...if we don't do the same there we end up looking hypocritical and doing this ONLY for US interests.

Well, we could critique impulsive knee-jerk decision makers just as much as those who are taking their time getting the facts straight.

Re Bahrain - exactly. Of course, serving our interests should be expected! But I'm not certain what our interests are in Libya. Meanwhile, gas prices continue to spike...

[pelathais]

I think that it's important to keep in mind that "these guys" hit us first and have vowed to keep hitting us as much as they can. This fact easily explains why many former "isolationists" (like the Repubs) are interested in the U.S. getting involved in the Middle East.

It is in the best long term interests of the United States and the West in general that we see secular based democracies established in the region. Whatever we can do to help that process along is a good thing. Of course, we have to also remember that just by showing up in the region, we create some rather deep resentments among the xenophobes that wield considerable power - both religious and political power.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In the context of the UN decision the right thing was to stop the whole sale slaughter of civilians by the Libyan military

This goes back to the first argument, if the right thing to do is to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians, then we have our hands full, in more places than just Libya.

Perhaps well-intentioned, but not sold that intervention in the ways America has continued is a good thing. In fact, I feel pretty strongly that it's not.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Well, we could critique impulsive knee-jerk decision makers just as much as those who are taking their time getting the facts straight.

Re Bahrain - exactly. Of course, serving our interests should be expected! But I'm not certain what our interests are in Libya. Meanwhile, gas prices continue to spike...

Just commenting on what Newt said. Serving our interests is what has gotten us into trouble with the rest of the world. See they wanted us to intervene in Libya to stop civilian deaths. They did not want us to intervene in Iran and put the Shah of Iran into place to serve our interests at their expense.

We have no interests in Libya. That was my point earlier in critiquing what Newt said.

Gas prices at not why we went there. Gas prices will spike any time an oil rich nation has turmoil. It's the nature of a skitish market

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think that it's important to keep in mind that "these guys" hit us first and have vowed to keep hitting us as much as they can. This fact easily explains why many former "isolationists" (like the Repubs) are interested in the U.S. getting involved in the Middle East.

It is in the best long term interests of the United States and the West in general that we see secular based democracies established in the region. Whatever we can do to help that process along is a good thing. Of course, we have to also remember that just by showing up in the region, we create some rather deep resentments among the xenophobes that wield considerable power - both religious and political power.

Not to mention that we have no control of who gets into power post-Qadhafi, and really have no idea who exactly the rebels are (which rumors speculate they have Al-Quada support). Americans are quick to get misty-eyed and see everything as sweet freedom and liberty, in light of our own revolution, but this is not the reality in the Middle East. So post-Qadhafi, do we then bomb them again until we get the right leader? Should we just pick the leaders for them? After all, we know what's best for them.

I have to agree with Sec. Gates that "anyone that thinks it a good idea to militarily involve themselves in Asia, North Africa or the Middle East need to have their heads checked."

We talk of intervention helping us alleviate threats to our security -- but the fact is, there is no demonstrable threat to our security by any of these nations at this time, the exception being MAYBE Iran.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Just commenting on what Newt said. Serving our interests is what has gotten us into trouble with the rest of the world. See they wanted us to intervene in Libya to stop civilian deaths. They did not want us to intervene in Iran and put the Shah of Iran into place to serve our interests at their expense.

We have no interests in Libya. That was my point earlier in critiquing what Newt said.

Gas prices at not why we went there. Gas prices will spike any time an oil rich nation has turmoil. It's the nature of a skitish market

Don't understand the bolded. That was also Newt's point.

I wasn't suggested gas prices are why we went there, but the spike is surely related.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

This goes back to the first argument, if the right thing to do is to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians, then we have our hands full, in more places than just Libya.

Perhaps well-intentioned, but not sold that intervention in the ways America has continued is a good thing. In fact, I feel pretty strongly that it's not.

right, I don't have an argument. Im just addressing what Newt said and pointing out some obvious things. In order to address those issues in other nations we'd have to do more than a no fly zone. No fly zones are easier and safer for us and cheaper than having to also land troops into those kinds of conditions.

It's an easier "argument" for Obama. I don't think Obama said we have Interests at stake. However France does. But the reason or the excuse was not about interests but to stop military actions on civilans.

It would be great if we could stop that kind of stuff in Sudan, however a mere no fly zone there won't work

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Don't understand the bolded. That was also Newt's point.

I wasn't suggested gas prices are why we went there, but the spike is surely related.

We don't have interests there. Nobody said we did nor should that be the sole reason to go in. Did they? Did Obama say we are involved to protect our interests? I don't see why Newt brought that up

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Not to mention that we have no control of who gets into power post-Qadhafi, and really have no idea who exactly the rebels are (which rumors speculate they have Al-Quada support). Americans are quick to get misty-eyed and see everything as sweet freedom and liberty, in light of our own revolution, but this is not the reality in the Middle East. So post-Qadhafi, do we then bomb them again until we get the right leader? Should we just pick the leaders for them? After all, we know what's best for them.

I have to agree with Sec. Gates that "anyone that thinks it a good idea to militarily involve themselves in Asia, North Africa or the Middle East need to have their heads checked."

We talk of intervention helping us alleviate threats to our security -- but the fact is, there is no demonstrable threat to our security by any of these nations at this time, the exception being MAYBE Iran.

Yup and as I pointed out earlier, this sets a precedent other "rebels" will expect the same help all the while we are already stretched militarily and financially.

You do have to pick your battles and I think in the long run this was not a good one. We should remain neutral.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im not sold it is either, however if it was, it should have been doing from the get go instead of waiting a month.

It presents a problem for the US in friendly areas like Bahrain...if we don't do the same there we end up looking hypocritical and doing this ONLY for US interests.

It can be seen as "hypocritical" if we insist that we all fixate on the "support the demonstrators" versus "support the rulers" paradigm. However, there are many other issues as well.

Wacky Gaddafi has actually attacked U.S. civilian and military targets. The emirs of Bahrain have never done anything like that. And, to do anything ONLY because it is in the U.S.'s interests to do so is not a bad thing.

As things are shaping up now, we see the U.S. tolerating the removal of a "sort-of-friend" in Mubarak while allowing the Egyptian military class, who have been the actual rulers of Egypt ever since Nasser threw out the king back in the 1950's, continue on as "caretakers. The U.S. then actively supports the overthrow of an old enemy in Libya. This is all consistent and not "hypocritical" at all.

If we then publicly "scold" our closer allies in the Gulf region and simply tell them to "play nice" with their Shiite demonstrators, we're still following a consistent course, IMHO. The irrational voices on "the Arab Street" have always cried out all sorts of insanities. We can't really expect them to understand - or even to care! - about U.S. interests nor to even show any concern for the welfare of the Arab people as a whole.

Stay the course. Bomb with discernment and accuracy. Put Gaddafi in front of a court in The Hague as soon as possible. Let the Sunni rulers of Bahrain payout billions of dollars in handouts to their Shia majority peoples and allow things to chill...

Except in Syria. Syria's next.