Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't want to sound like a moderate hero, but I'd be very cautious with intervention talk. Remember, unlike Egypt or Tunisia, those are not massive protests: this is a civil war already.

Should international community intervene with force or not? I really don't know

All I know that there's always a risk such a mission can turn into another creppy "nation-building" which, I dare to say, is going to be much worse both for Libya and the region, that Gaddafi now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm quite pessimistic here.

I sincerely doubt Europe or the US are going to take any, even most limited, action regarding Libya. You can't really for count France (regardless of Sarko's empty declarations) or Italy, since they believe Gaddafi is best choice for them, as they view him as the one, who can guarrante preventing Libyans from immigrating to Europe.

If Gaddafi can hold on, it's matter of year or two before he's again the best buddy.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libya less much less now like what was in Egypt or Tunisia: a real popular uprising, and more and more appears to be a tribal war.

And that's why I'd extremely cautious with siding solely with the opposition.

And, yes, idiot Sarkozy is already abusing resolution mandate in order to appear less pathetic.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Great job, injecting yourself into a Arab tribal war.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Forcing a cease-fire? Would be splendid.

Separating two fighting sides? Would be great.

Supporting one side against other in Arab tribal war? Insane.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Where did this tribal war nonsense come from?

I have the same question. Some people probably try to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction to any kind of military intervention.

Do I need to remind that Libya is one of those countries, where various tribal divisions and influence of tribes are strongest?

Oh, btw, Gaddafi/opposition lines are mostly along with regional/tribal divisions.

Please learn more about Arab culture before posting.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Where did this tribal war nonsense come from?

I have the same question. Some people probably try to rationalize their knee-jerk reaction to any kind of military intervention.

Do I need to remind that Libya is one of those countries, where various tribal divisions and influence of tribes are strongest?

Oh, btw, Gaddafi/opposition lines are mostly along with regional/tribal divisions.

Please learn more about Arab culture before posting.

Ahem, Qaddafi also is a murderous madman.

I guess we all are in agreement here (except of opebo)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Is Gaddafi a birther?

Win.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Russia calls on Britain, France, US to 'stop non-selective use of force' in Libya - Reuters.

Should have voted against it then.

Hipocrites...

Hypocrites club is a large one.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Forcing a cease-fire? Would be splendid.

Separating two fighting sides? Would be great.

Supporting one side against other in Arab tribal war? Insane.

The way the geography of Libya is, a divide back into Tripolitania and Cyrenaica is quite plausible.  About the only thing the two really had in common pre-Independence was being Italian colonies.  Uniting them made as much sense as uniting Algeria and Tunisia would have.

Cyrenaica never was Gaddafi's strong point. It was a stronghold of As-Sannusi dynasty he toppled.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The most likely scenario seems to be akin to Iraq in the 90s.  Qaddafi still in power but ability to massacre rebellious regions checked.  As we know that's not competely stable.

After 1991 Saddam couldn't do anything about Kurds due to no-fly zones.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There's a difference between trying to stop Gaddafi from massacring Bengazi and helping the rebels (or, according to Mr. Sarkozy, "peaceful protestors" ) conquering areas, like Sitra, where Gaddafi is actually popular and where the people don't want them.

Coallition is basically taking a side in a civil war. Big mistake and stupidity.

Remind me the U.S.' vital interest there again?  Oh, wait, OIL!!!!!!!

Damn that Bush Obama for getting us into a fight over oil.

Again, I really wonder how many Atlas liberals, that are so enthusiastic toward this operation, would be enthusiastic if Bush still were in power and joined the coallition.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's been reported that Sirte has fallen without much resistance, and that a column of military vehicles fled westwards. Don't know what to make of this, given that both sides aren't very truthful.

     Given Sirt's status as Qaddafi's hometown & a fairly important point of defense for him, I doubt that it fell that easily. Both sides have lied plenty in this conflict, & I am reticent to believe anything not corroborated by foreign media.

True; however, Sirte was primarily a Qaddafi fortress due to the large loyalist military presence there early on, not necessarily due to much sympathy for him. We'll see.

     Some people have referred to this as largely a tribal conflict. If they're correct, than the people of Sirt should be very strongly pro-Qaddafi, since they are typically of his own tribe. The fighting over this city might serve as a test of that hypothesis.

If you're reffering to Gaddafi's own tribe, then indeed.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's amazing how we've played ball with dictators for countless years in the name of oil.....and still do.

How is that amazing?  The US installed most of the world's dictators during the cold war, and not only in the name of oil.

Little known is the fact that, while Gaddafi took power without any help from America, the U.S. government effectively blocked British-sponsored attempts to overthrow him quickly and restore As-Sanussi dynasty, since they believed Gaddafi is going to be "anti-communist enough".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The goal has never been to merely protect civilians.

Well, the UN sanctioned measures to protect civilians...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not all of them.

Yes, but a majority.

Majority/minority term, as we understand in the West, are hardly applicable to societies divided along tribal lines.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

After listening to Obama, I wonder if he'll use the same words when the Saudis start mowing people down......oh, wait.

Not people, in Saudi case, that would be evil terrorists.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, my friends, how is military option working so far in saving innocent lives and preventing damage?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Perhaps, I'm being a bit to critical here, but aren't the same people who excoriated Bush from the beginning in regards to Iraq hypocritical here?  Saddam was responsible for how many deaths, yet those same people cry in support of Obama's Libya policy.  Even the people who supported the Iraq surge based on the same premise now attack Obama's Libya policy?  France flat-out attacked our Iraq policy, yet here they are seemingly leading the battle cry in Libya?  My Goodness.  Politics is the absolute antonym of common sense.

In 2003, Saddam wasn't bombing his own cities or preparing for a huge massacre among his political adversaries.

I doubt Muammar can match Saddam's body count.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

NATO hit Qaddafi's compound, and missed him.

Did they really think he'll be here?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Some British commander said that if Gaddafi or his sons are in any compound being hit, they'll be considered legitimate targets.

So, what targets are "ilegitimate"?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Splendid, we have three dead kids, it seems.

Very bad PR.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Gaddafi is making politicaladdict appear normal.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

With Qaddafi gone, now it's on to Syria...  

Too little oil.

What Syria may lack in natural resources, it makes up for in strategic importance as an ally of Iran and benefactor of Islamist terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. 

Sooner or later, once the opposition unifies and broadens its appeal to Aleppo and Damascus, the United States -though NATO- will intervene there as well. 

Lol.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't believe in possibility of military intervention in Syria for following reasons:

1. NATO and US are already quite tired with Libya and obviously have little idea what to do with present problem
2. Obama already took a huge political risk in joining intervention in Libya. He's neither gambler nor an idiot
3. No player in the region wants regime change. Israel doesn't love Assad, but don't want to risk losing a predictable neighbour either. Neither wants Lebanon. Saudis and other Gulf monarchies are worried about spreading of the unrests and will sit with the present rulers (hell, Saudis are already scared with Yemen and were with Bahrain). Iran is a close Syrian ally. Iraq is too concerned about it's own fragile security and fragile government to wish any additional meltdown.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I had hard time imagining Gaddafi on any "retirement" anyway.