Im not a neo con, but I dont think there was many troops (or none report) from the west on the ground there.

Now, the NATO bombings did not help keep things orderly there, and forced the unraveling of MQs government rather quickly, so you can perhaps blame that.

The things is, when the U.S. (or, more accurately the president of the U.S. unilaterally) decides to start bombing another country, it creates an indefensible double standard. Why aren't we now intervening in Syria according to the current rationale, which is an infinitely more influential and important country in the Mid-East than Libya. In addition, the civilian casualties the NATO bombings have caused are indefensible, and we may very well just be giving the Islamists a new base of operations.

@jpgredsox - the Libyans were calling on us to help them. The Syrians have said expressedly that they don't want any help, so therefore its not a double standard if you use those two in comparison.

What is wrong with Islamists? Radical Islam is bad of course, but there is nothing wrong with religious people ruling the country, so long as they adhere to the tenants of their religion and don't force others into it. The Ottomans are a great example of an Islamist government that governed relatively fairly. They never forced people to convert and follow their ways, they just gave economic incentives.

Also, NATO uses weapons that are called "precision guided" for a reason. The collateral damage from these is near zero. If any "civilians" died, they were either in the target building, or there was bad information that the military got.

But the number of stuff floating around is probably nothing compared to what was in 1991. Heck, half of this stuff was probably Soviet-era and once were part of the Red Army's arsenal.

my guess would be that the majority of them were taken by Libyan fighters to use against the remnants of Ghadaffi's forces. They probably just say "ooh, missle" not "ohh, anti-aircraft missile"

@goldfinger I would certainly say that the Syrians have not "expressively" said they don't want help. Syrians are split among themselves as to whether they desire intervention. Even so, according to the Un Resolution, we intervened in Libya for humanitarian purposes, to protect civilians. Under that doctrine, we should be intervening in Syria (this really shows that UN resolutions are a total joke).

An Islamist regime in general would not exactly be what the West planned for in Libya, and we could be throwing Libyans from the fire to the frying pan. Hell, Libya could fracture entirely, like the Balkans. Certainly a good result of Western intervention.

Ah yes, the ignorant civilians, playing around int he war zones. According to Libyan Health Office, 1,108 civlian deaths by JULY 13. But it's all for the greater good of the Libyan people, right?

jpgredsox, could you please take a deep breath and pull your head out of your ass? I can tell it is jammed what up in there.

"more accurately the president of the U.S. unilaterally decides to start bombing another country"

Once you pull your head out of your ass you will hopefully grasp reality and realize what a stupid statement you made.

Click and educate yourself.

Sarkozy takes lead on Libya despite risk of EU rifts
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/libya-unrest-france.90p/

11 March 2011, 23:22 CET

"Berlin too is at loggerheads with Paris over Sarkozy's unilateral recognition Thursday of Kadhafi opponents as Libya's rightful representatives -- making France the first and so far only country to take that stand."

Clean yourself up jpgredsox, you're certainly a mess now.

i don't get it

no one does

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/27/syrian-rebels-dont-want-us-aid-at-least-for-now/?page=all

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/syria-opposition-activists-form-national-council-seek-international-support-1.384688

Their official position has been that they don't want foreign military intervention. And has anyone raised a resolution asking that we step in and help? Someone has to care enough to raise the issue, so its not a single party's fault if so.

And the West shouldn't have any "plans" for Libya. The goal was to get Ghadaffi out, and he's out. If Libya fractures, why is that a bad thing? It would end the otherwise unavoidable persecution and possible murder of other groups. Better to do it all now while the country is in a transition phase than when there's a firm regime in place who can brutally strike back Sudan style. There would be less bloodshed overall now and in the future if things were indeed unstable enough to make fracturing a possibility.

And no, not ignorant civilians. Was that the figure civilians killed by NATO airstrikes, or just civilians killed? Because I would doubt many of that figure were killed by NATO airstrikes, but rather by armed fighting on the ground instead.

And my last comment was suggesting that they might use these surface-to-air missiles as surface-to-surface missiles against Ghadaffi loyalist targets in buildings, so the potential harm to planes is minimal

Oh and by the way Libya implemented sharia law. Yet another secular progressive country bombed to bits and replaced with a jihadist regime. And Iran? What incentive is there to not get the bomb now? Libya cooperated and we still destroyed that country.

NATO is a bunch of assassins, period.

They're Islamist, but I wouldn't say jihadist. I also wouldn't call Ghadaffi a progressive, seeing that most of the reforms the protesters were asking for were *progressive* reforms and that they just found a mass grave a prisoners that he had executed without a trial. Real progressive.

But I agree with you that Iran has no incentive to not get the bomb. Its their only guarantee for security. But, I will hold the caveat that Libya was only attacked because its ruler didn't follow the will of his people, and NATO feels an obligation to defend democratic movements, so when he didn't do what the people wanted, we sided with the people. It will always be like that. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria. Its the same story. Bahrain is the anomaly, and Jordan and Algeria appeased their protesters successfully, so we're still friends with their rulers.

Also, we're not assassins. That is an overstatement.

It is not an overstatement. NATO bombed personal residences and explicitly said they were aiming for Gaddafi. NATO bombed a facility for disabled children and orphans. It was no where near any military target whatsoever. They did the same type of shit in Yugoslavia, bombing maternity wards and cities which had no military value whatsoever.

And yes they're jihadist. Look up the reports of who the people were fighting in Iraq. Who were the foreign fighters. One of the largest contingents were jihadists from the Benghazi area of Libya. The same leaders who organized those foreign fighters are now our "friends" in Libya. They openly admit their friendly relations with Al Qaeda. They implemented Sharia Law. One of the first things they did was release Al Qaeda militants held in prison by Gaddafi.

This had nothing to do with the "will of the people". This uprising was manufactured entirely by foreign interests. The "protesters" were heavily armed with shiny new equipment. Much larger rallies took place in support of Gaddafi. This "movement" is much the Tea Party, completely fake.

NATO doesn't defend democratic movements, that's a joke. NATO helps putschists and people trying to overthrow democratic governments. NATO helped the criminal Albanian syndicates destroy the heritage of the Orthodox people in Kosovo. NATO helped Tudjman's bloody crypto-Nazi goons annihilate the Serbian population of Croatia. NATO helped the Bosnian Islamists play football with the severed heads of Christians in Bosnia. There is nothing "democratic" about any of that.

This was first and foremost about France feeling humiliated after being caught in bed with the Tunisian regime during the uprising there. Now they had to flex their foreign policy muscles by picking on Libya, and pretending this has something to do with human rights.

Anomaly? Yeah Bahrain is a big anomaly in that we have a big naval fleet there and Bahrain's uprising is full of Shia friendly with Iran. We allowed a brutal crackdown by the Saudis to beat up the protesters there, while saying "both sides should exercise restraint". It's a big joke. NATO has no credibility whatsoever.