Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Libya: a New Fanatical Islamic State
Captain Zero has succeeded in helping the rebels push Muammar Gaddafi out of his role as dictator of Libya. Now the incoming government officials are saying that Libya will be ruled by Sharia, or Islamic Law. That means gays will be executed, adulterers, fornicators and apostates will be stoned or beheaded, women beaten and forced to wear ugly black bags, thieves will have their hands cut off in the public square, and jihad funded and practiced, as commanded by his high holiness, Muhammad, the Prince of Peace Eternal War.
So we trade one bumbling moron of a dictator who posed no threat to us or anyone else, for a cadre of motivated Islamic fanatics. Wow, what a victory for mankind!
And we helped.
So we trade one bumbling moron of a dictator who posed no threat to us or anyone else, for a cadre of motivated Islamic fanatics. Wow, what a victory for mankind!
And we helped.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Libyan War Utterly Frivolous, Like the American President
Rush Limbaugh believes that Obama's incursion is more about the presidential election of 2012 than it is anything else. Absent some unforeseen events, Obama has lost the independents and is headed for electoral defeat in 2012. Obama wants to look like a "strong leader," and saw the Libyan civil war as the means to that end. The Libyan incursion, however, is the frivolous yet dangerous and desperate act of a failed president.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Drudge: Doubts Mount on Libya War
I supported the war in Afghanistan: we were attacked from there by Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban hosts. Our attackers needed to pay for their evil deeds. I just wanted them dead, I never wanted to turn them into democrats. Nation-building is too expensive in terms of both money and American blood.
I was puzzled and less than lukewarm by the decision to invade Iraq, as I didn't see any compelling need for it. (Once in, however, I supported and continue to support our troops and their mission.)
However, I have been against the intervention in Libya from the start, and for these reasons:
1. It isn't our fight. I don't see that there is anything to gain for American interests.
2. We don't know who the players are or what they represent. We don't know if they rebels are better, the same or worse than the dictator they seek to overthrow. Talk about "democracy" is likely to just be propaganda and not a firm basis for our intervention.
3. We have no clear-cut role or mission. What exactly are we trying to accomplish there? How do we know when we're finished?
4. If the rebels cannot defeat Gaddafi by themselves, we will be pressured to commit troops. If we don't commit the troops and the rebels lose, Gaddafi will be out for revenge and a large massacre of the rebels will follow (like what happened following the first Iraq war when we abandoned those who had relied on us).
5. If the rebels cannot win on their own and we do not commit troops, the rebels will be defeated and it will be a major propaganda coup for Gaddafi and militant Islam. They can brag that they defeated a western-backed force.
6. If we do commit troops, there will be more American deaths and billions more spent on war. Libya isn't worth the price.
In short, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose. I am all for a long-term plan for disempowering militant Islam (pardon the redundancy), for isolating Muslim nations from the west and taking away their economic power (through energy independence), and for separating the civilized world from the barbaric, so the latter cannot harm us further. This plan would probably include military action in certain circumstances, but we should choose our fights carefully. The Libyan intervention is not one of these.
See report linked from Drudge here.
I was puzzled and less than lukewarm by the decision to invade Iraq, as I didn't see any compelling need for it. (Once in, however, I supported and continue to support our troops and their mission.)
However, I have been against the intervention in Libya from the start, and for these reasons:
1. It isn't our fight. I don't see that there is anything to gain for American interests.
2. We don't know who the players are or what they represent. We don't know if they rebels are better, the same or worse than the dictator they seek to overthrow. Talk about "democracy" is likely to just be propaganda and not a firm basis for our intervention.
3. We have no clear-cut role or mission. What exactly are we trying to accomplish there? How do we know when we're finished?
4. If the rebels cannot defeat Gaddafi by themselves, we will be pressured to commit troops. If we don't commit the troops and the rebels lose, Gaddafi will be out for revenge and a large massacre of the rebels will follow (like what happened following the first Iraq war when we abandoned those who had relied on us).
5. If the rebels cannot win on their own and we do not commit troops, the rebels will be defeated and it will be a major propaganda coup for Gaddafi and militant Islam. They can brag that they defeated a western-backed force.
6. If we do commit troops, there will be more American deaths and billions more spent on war. Libya isn't worth the price.
In short, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose. I am all for a long-term plan for disempowering militant Islam (pardon the redundancy), for isolating Muslim nations from the west and taking away their economic power (through energy independence), and for separating the civilized world from the barbaric, so the latter cannot harm us further. This plan would probably include military action in certain circumstances, but we should choose our fights carefully. The Libyan intervention is not one of these.
See report linked from Drudge here.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Temecula, California and the War in Libya
I'm in Temecula, California, about 70 miles north of San Diego, near Riverside. My son and his family are thinking of moving here from Northern California and are house hunting. So this morning it is breakfast, church and real estate.
I see on the news that the new war in Libya is going full blast. I figure it is only a matter of time before the allies have boots on the ground. As long as they are there, I hope they (1) kill Gaddafi Duck and (2) steal as much free oil as possible. (We paid $4.29 a gallon for regular yesterday.)
Of course, I am not serious about stealing Libya's oil. At 2% of the world's resources, it isn't worth the trouble. Now Saudi Arabia, that's another question. Not only could we take their oil, we could make Mecca into a giant filling station, with a crescent moon and star as the new gasoline company's logo. Now for a rousing rendition of "Ahab the Arab":
I see on the news that the new war in Libya is going full blast. I figure it is only a matter of time before the allies have boots on the ground. As long as they are there, I hope they (1) kill Gaddafi Duck and (2) steal as much free oil as possible. (We paid $4.29 a gallon for regular yesterday.)
Of course, I am not serious about stealing Libya's oil. At 2% of the world's resources, it isn't worth the trouble. Now Saudi Arabia, that's another question. Not only could we take their oil, we could make Mecca into a giant filling station, with a crescent moon and star as the new gasoline company's logo. Now for a rousing rendition of "Ahab the Arab":
Thursday, March 17, 2011
UN Approves No-Fly Zone Over Libya
The United Nations has approved a no-fly zone over Libya and British and French planes may begin attacking Gaddafi's forces tonight or tomorrow. Have at it, French and Brits.
Meanwhile, Egypt continues sending weapons and ammunition to the Libyan rebels. Are the rebels our friends? Probably not, but no one knows for sure. I can see no benefit in intervention except on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to prevent the slaughter of innocents; however, what is a limited operation today may very well grow into another full-fledged war. Color me unenthusiastic.
Read more about it here.
Meanwhile, Egypt continues sending weapons and ammunition to the Libyan rebels. Are the rebels our friends? Probably not, but no one knows for sure. I can see no benefit in intervention except on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to prevent the slaughter of innocents; however, what is a limited operation today may very well grow into another full-fledged war. Color me unenthusiastic.
Read more about it here.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Should the US Intervene in Libya?
I had a long discussion with another reader over at The Other McCain about the wisdom of intervening in the civil war in Libya. I am against intervention. After years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no compelling reason to intervene -- absolutely not with boots on the ground, and not even with military or humanitarian aid to the rebels. Why should we help people who hate our guts? The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Michael J. Totten makes the case for non-intervention in yesterday's New York Post. He writes:
But shouldn't we try to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabic world? What, do you live in Fantasy Land? Nothing we can do will change the minds of Islamists whose religion commands them to hate us and to kill us. Totten says, instead of us trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabs, they can damn well try to win our hearts and minds for a change. He writes:
Michael J. Totten makes the case for non-intervention in yesterday's New York Post. He writes:
Last time Americans led a coalition to topple a mass-murdering dictatorship in the Middle East, the Arab League and the Arabic press hysterically denounced us as imperialist crusaders fighting a war for oil and Israel. Egged on by al-Jazeera, they cheerleaded the "resistance" that killed thousands of our soldiers with roadside bombs in the years that followed.Of course, that operation was a full-scale invasion, not merely the offering of military supplies and advice. I am against even the latter, for fear that it would come back to bite us. We offer aid to the rebels, who are weak and disorganized, and who will be beaten -- and then give Kaddafi a great propaganda coup that he defeated an American-backed military force. No thanks.
But shouldn't we try to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabic world? What, do you live in Fantasy Land? Nothing we can do will change the minds of Islamists whose religion commands them to hate us and to kill us. Totten says, instead of us trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabs, they can damn well try to win our hearts and minds for a change. He writes:
Americans fret constantly about whether or not we're doing the right thing to win the hearts and minds of the Arabs. That's one reason Obama was elected (though I can't help but wonder how many Libyans wish John McCain were in the White House right now). This may be a good time for Arab leaders and opinion makers to ask themselves what they can do to win over the hearts and minds of Americans.Read it all here. Hat tip View From the Right.
They might find that if they treated us more like the Kurds do, more of us will be willing to help them in the future -- rather than shun them as hostiles who deserve to be left to their fate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)