Video: No-fly zone over Libya not a video game, says Obama chief of staff

posted at 12:55 pm on March 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

With Moammar Gaddafi using his air force to pound rebel positions and arms depots — as well as lots of civilians — the demand to impose a no-fly zone over Libya is rising. The Obama administration pushed back against that idea yesterday, even as some members of Congress began raising their voices for more American and Western action to stop what may become a massacre in North Africa:

Supplying covert arms as an alternate solution to more direct military action sounds … awfully familiar, doesn’t it? After several years of working with Gaddafi, would we even know the nature of the groups to whom we would hand these weapons? A no-fly zone at least has the virtue of taking direct action against Gaddafi without having to make decisions on the ground best left to the Libyans themselves.

William Daley’s point about the logistics of a no-fly zone are true enough, but also mainly obvious and pointless. The US has the resources in the Mediterranean to support enough of a threat to the Libyan air force to get its pilots to think twice about going up in the air. If NATO joined the effort, air superiority or even supremacy would be all but a given, and just that fact would likely prompt more of Gaddafi’s Mirages to land in Malta and surrender. It might not take more than a day or two for Libyan pilots to abandon their missions against their own people.

The question isn’t whether we can do it, it’s whether we should do it, and whether we can find enough support to make it work.  Russia opposes the idea, and China will almost certainly balk at it as well.  That will put us back in the same boat as we were in the Balkans conflicts in the 1990s, or Iraq in 1991 for that matter.  Also, the Libyans will almost certainly shoot back.  Will Europeans continue to support a no-fly zone if Western pilots end up getting killed enforcing it?  Will Americans support it under those circumstances?  I’d call that doubtful, although Europeans may like that option better than the refugee crisis that’s coming their way if Gaddafi manages to hang on in this civil war.

Obama, though, is at least keeping his options open, reversing course from Daley’s reaction yesterday:

President Barack Obama says the U.S. and its NATO allies are still considering a military response to violence in Libya.

Speaking at the White House, Obama says the U.S. will stand with the Libyan people as they face “unacceptable” violence. He says has authorized millions of dollars in humanitarian aid.

Once again, it seems that the White House can’t make up its mind how to react to the situation in Libya.

What do you think?  Take the poll:

Addendum: Are those chess-animation clips the best that ABC News can generate to make its point? Seriously?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bold, fresh idea: Let’s drill our own oil and let the dogs eat themselves.

SouthernGent on March 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

No-fly zone over Libya not a video game, says Obama chief of staff

Nor is being President of the United States.

pugwriter on March 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

All options are on the table!

Just not on the table on the table.

MayBee on March 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

I feel like a passenger on the deck of the Titanic watching as various captains take the wheel driving the ship back and forth into the Iceberg.

All the while with others on the deck of the ship, even though we’re all yelling to others just standing there to get their life jackets on.

HELPLESS I feel.

PappyD61 on March 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

I am sorry but I have yet to see anyone show why we should favor one tribe over another in Libya. The rebels are headed by a prominent member of Gaddafi’s government.

Rocks on March 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM

FWIW, I’m not sure the US getting involved militarily is the right answer.

I just don’t like the talk about all options being on the table, Gadhafi’s behavior being “unacceptable”, and saying Gadhafi “must” step down all while the administration whines about how hard it is to back any of that talk up.

MayBee on March 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Unilateral , if there are some pro US people on the ground to support. Otherwise they can play with themselves.

the_nile on March 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Frankly, I think the no-fly zone would be easier to enforce by blowing up the aircraft on the ground. Preemptively.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM

A no-fly zone at least has the virtue of taking direct action against Gaddafi without having to make decisions on the ground best left to the Libyans themselves.

Yes, it would be “direct action”. We can all make ourselves feel better by saying “we’re doing something”.
Sounds like the left-wing mantra every time there’s some domestic problem, whether it’s practical or helpful for the government to get involved or not:”The government should do something.”

One of the main reasons for instituting a no-fly zone would be to keep Ghaddafi from flying his mercenaries to various hot spots around Libya. My understanding is that he is using commercial airplanes for that purpose. So if we instituted a no-fly zone in Libya, do we start shooting down these commercial airliners?

Dreadnought on March 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

if there are some pro US people on the ground to support. Otherwise they can play with themselves.

the_nile on March 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM

There are some Pro Bush types there.

Electrongod on March 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

No-fly zone over Libya not a video game, says Obama chief of staff

Nor is being President of the United States.

pugwriter on March 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Are you sure about that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zmZPB6MMrI&feature=related

mizflame98 on March 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I think Gates is bluffing. I think that the plan to implement the no-fly zone policy is aready in the works. I think they will start with precision strikes using cruise missles on the runways and possibly take out radar locations.

It will be sanctioned by other countries but they will not acknowledge their participation…

Nelsa on March 7, 2011 at 1:09 PM

There are some Pro Bush types there.

Electrongod on March 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Explains why Obama became hesitant…

the_nile on March 7, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Frankly, I think the no-fly zone would be easier to enforce by blowing up the aircraft on the ground. Preemptively.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 1:04 PM

That would be meddling in a nation’s internal affairs. Remember Iran and Honduras. We don’t do that.

a capella on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

President Barack Obama says the U.S. and its NATO allies are still considering a military response to violence in Libya.
Speaking at the White House, Obama says the U.S. will stand with the Libyan people as they face “unacceptable” violence. He says has authorized millions of dollars in humanitarian aid.

Wow, 1) STILL considering and 2) Authorized millions of dollars….SSDD of the Odumba$$ administration.

sicoit on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

One wonders where the Wilsonian idealism of the left has gone.

unclesmrgol on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

OT: Political payback in Oregon against Republican House candidate’s children

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=271753

Art Robinson ran as a House candidate in Oregon against Rep. Pete DiFazio (D-OR) in 2010 and has already announced his intentions to run in 2012.

In what appears to be political payback, all three of his children, who are PhD candidates in Oregon State University’s nuclear engineering program, have been targeted for academic payback.

The oldest son was expelled at the end of the quarter ending 2010 and all research and work he did was appropriated by the faculty to be given to other students, the daughter having her thesis terminated by a faculty member despite a 3.89 GPA and at least some of her work has already been appropriated for use by another PhD student’s thesis, and the youngest son and his professor being targeted for further payback because that professor had sought to prevent the attacks on the older children.

This kind of blatant political payback is the kind of thing that groups like FIRE should be highlighting when it comes to the incestuous nature of academia and the left in suppressing opposing viewpoints.

teke184 on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

From the people who brought you the Reset Button.

Christien on March 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM

This kind of blatant political payback is the kind of thing that groups like FIRE should be highlighting when it comes to the incestuous nature of academia and the left in suppressing opposing viewpoints.

teke184 on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Banana republic.

the_nile on March 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Cruise missiles could do exactly what this no-fly zone is attempting and an AWACS could detect any military aircraft that need an intercept. There doesn’t have to be a 24/7 air presence over Libya.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM

But is it the right thing to do?

Only if assassinating Moammar Gaddafi is the main objective.

He’s directly responsible for blowing up an airliner, that makes him an enemy combatant no different than Obama Bin Laden. Pop him.

Speakup on March 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM

OK, who the hell suggested that it was a video game, Mr. Daley?

If you can’t answer that, please take your strawman argument and shove it in your piehole.

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM

WWCD?

What would Carter do?

PappyD61 on March 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM

1. Crater airfields
2. Destroy helicopter gunships
3. Realize that you’ve just created a de facto “NFZ” and then watch as it is auto-enforced.

that. was. hard…./

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM

What would Carter do?

PappyD61 on March 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM

put on a sweater, bang his fist on the desk and tell you to enjoy your time in the gas lines.

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:19 PM

It’s not a video game? Who knew?

NeighborhoodCatLady on March 7, 2011 at 1:19 PM

When muslims start killing each other, it is our duty to ourselves to arm both sides to hasten their demise. Islam is already at war with us-we shouldn’t make the mistake of saving muslims against our allies. Throughout the world we should only back anti-Islamic groups who are facing genocide and ethnic cleansing at the hands of muslims.

Of course the sensible and humane thing to do is topple all Islamic regimes, ban Islam, turn all those nations into secular democracies like own own and the problem of ‘radical islamic extremism’ would vanish…but that’d require a real visionary leader and all we have are imbeciles and traitors running our states.

thinkagain on March 7, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Warmup
Those
……Fighters
moment

Electrongod on March 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Bold, fresh idea: Let’s drill our own oil and let the dogs eat themselves.

SouthernGent on March 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

I like your new wave thinking! But what will happen to all those sweet wind towers we want to build????

search4truth on March 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM

FLASHBACK 2004: Kaddafi plotted to kill Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah

A federal judge sentenced Muslim activist Abdurahman Alamoudi to the maximum 23-year prison term for illegal dealings with Libya that included his involvement in a complex plot to kill the Saudi ruler.

Kaddafi’s blood debt to The House of Saud is overdue. They should be encouraged to collect in full.

Step 1: Greenlight the $audis to put a bounty on Q’s head.

Step 2: Watch Q’s mercs climb over each other to mount Q’s head on a pike.

Step 3: Light Cohiba and enjoy lower gas prices.

Terp Mole on March 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Correction above: saving muslims at the expense of our allies like we did in the Balkans, Israel, etc.

No more American blood and treasure to save muslims-they are our enemy because of their religion that wants to conquer and destroy us.

Islam is a violent, evil, barbaric relic that belongs in the 7th century, not the 21st and we should do everything in our power to eliminate it.

thinkagain on March 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Hey Daley. The White House ain’t Chicago. Maybe you fools up there could stop sh!tting the bed and rolling around in it, but that’s just me talkin….

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM

1. Crater airfields
2. Destroy helicopter gunships
3. Realize that you’ve just created a de facto “NFZ” and then watch as it is auto-enforced.

that. was. hard…./

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM

I prefer “hit fuel depots at airports” instead of 1 and 2, for a couple of reasons: 1. They’re just sitting there. 2. They’re self-immolating (as opposed to cratering airfields, which requires a lot more in the way of munitions). 3. It would take out substantially all aircraft, wherever they are — you could land on any clear stretch of highway, but you’re not likely to find jet fuel at the local Mobil station. 4. There is a possibility of plausible deniability.

cthulhu on March 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM

No-fly zone over Libya not a video game, says Obama chief of staff

Nor is being President of the United States.

pugwriter on March 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Are you sure about that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zmZPB6MMrI&feature=related

mizflame98 on March 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

lol. I stand corrected!

pugwriter on March 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

What would Carter do?

PappyD61 on March 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM

put on a sweater, bang his fist on the desk and tell you to enjoy your time in the gas lines.

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:19 PM

and start printing Gas Rationing coupons instead of drilling.

PappyD61 on March 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

One wonders where the Wilsonian idealism of the left has gone.

unclesmrgol on March 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

The left decides to shoot it every time a Republican is President.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Russia opposes the idea, and China will almost certainly balk at it as well. That will put us back in the same boat as we were in the Balkans conflicts in the 1990s, or Iraq in 1991 for that matter.

I lolled.

RachDubya on March 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I prefer “hit fuel depots at airports” instead of 1 and 2, for a couple of reasons: 1. They’re just sitting there. 2. They’re self-immolating (as opposed to cratering airfields, which requires a lot more in the way of munitions). 3. It would take out substantially all aircraft, wherever they are — you could land on any clear stretch of highway, but you’re not likely to find jet fuel at the local Mobil station. 4. There is a possibility of plausible deniability.

cthulhu on March 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Good point.
Besides, it seem the helicopter gunships are doing most of the damage anyway.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Gee, I’m sorry….didn’t I read somewhere that Saudi Arabia has some really nice F15′s???
Doesn’t Iraq have some Mig’s hanging around?? What about Turkey??? UAE??? Why the he’ll are we always getting involved in this crap?!!? It. Is. NOT. Our. Fight.

KMC1 on March 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Islam is a violent, evil, barbaric relic that belongs in the 7th century, not the 21st and we should do everything in our power to eliminate it.

thinkagain on March 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM

May I ask how you intend to succeed at exterminating a religion that fights back, when entire empires of the past failed to kill off more peaceful religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc?

Dark-Star on March 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Why the he’ll are we always getting involved in this crap?!!?

KMC1 on March 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Oil.

They have it and we want to buy it.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

No-fly zone over Libya not a video game, says Obama chief of staff

Nor is being President of the United States.

pugwriter on March 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Of course, POTUS is a video-game! It’s a cross between EA Sports “Tiger Woods PGA Tour 12″ and Ubisoft’s “Rock Star”, right?

dmh0667 on March 7, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Ed,

I disagree with the premise of the question.

Try this, will Obama make a decision to act unilaterally to impose a no-fly zone?

It’s yes or no.

I vote no.

booter on March 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Is Sarah living rent free in Barack’s head a video game?

Paul-Cincy on March 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

It’s really too bad we don’t have any aerial vehicles that are unmanned that could perhaps carry air-to-air ordnance and keep personnel out of harms way..

Chip on March 7, 2011 at 1:42 PM

cthulhu on March 7, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Good point
Besides, it seem the helicopter gunships are doing most of the damage anyway.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM

yes, either way, if the end result is fewer helicopter gunships in the air, then just do that with the least amt of ordnance/damage necessary. Using that trademarked smart power, these options can do that for us rather than doing daley’s video game of sky patrol, wait for something to take off, then drop it with a missile. Obviously, Daley isn’t that intelligent to be a COS, buuuuttt, I consider the source.

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:42 PM

May I ask how you intend to succeed at exterminating a religion that fights back, when entire empires of the past failed to kill off more peaceful religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc?

Dark-Star on March 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Islam once held Spain until the Spanish Reconquista, they once held the Balkans until driven out, and they once held the Ukraine so it can be done if it comes to that.

Peaceful religions are more difficult to defeat than militant ones.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Is Sarah living rent free in Barack’s head a video game?

Paul-Cincy on March 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM

no, but teleprompter reading sure is!

said it.

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 1:43 PM

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

So instead of spending 10′s of millions sending in a carrier task force, and putting our people at risk, not to mention running around the globe taking what we want with your “might makes right” philosophy….what don’t we spend that same money here at home building our own energy infrastructure????? You never did answer that yesterday. Nor did you compadrie for that matter.

KMC1 on March 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense and we can’t put up a no-fly zone over some two bit country?

Unacceptable!

commodore on March 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Dang no edit function.

KMC1 on March 7, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Hitchens weighs in on Libya:
Bomb them.

Interesting…

Nelsa on March 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

your “might makes right” philosophy….what don’t we spend that same money here at home building our own energy infrastructure????? You never did answer that yesterday. Nor did you compadrie for that matter.

KMC1 on March 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM

We should be developing energy sources domestically.

That doesn’t mean we have to dig underground bunkers and a giant wall around the country either. There are things in the world that concern the United States and running away doesn’t mean those things vanish.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Oh my…an on-line poll. Every Paulnut in America will be clicking to get in.

Limerick on March 7, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Before I vote, would this be the same kind of unilateral action Bush did in Iraq? In other words, are there 14 allies unilaterally actioning with us or just like 5?

txhsmom on March 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM

May I ask how you intend to succeed at exterminating a religion that fights back, when entire empires of the past failed to kill off more peaceful religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc?

Dark-Star on March 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Non-muslims collectively are richer, wiser and far more powerful than muslims. All we lack is the understanding of this threat we face and the will to defeat it.

If every non-muslim understood Islam for what it is, then we’d already be working towards the goal I mentioned.

And no one wants to eliminate PEACEFUL religions, that’s why you don’t see me complaining about Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism. If however they too because fascist, supremacist, totalitarian and violent like Islam, they’d be on our radar too.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:42 PM

well said.

thinkagain on March 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM

are there would there be

txhsmom on March 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

We should be developing energy sources domestically.

That doesn’t mean we have to dig underground bunkers and a giant wall around the country either. There are things in the world that concern the United States and running away doesn’t mean those things vanish.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Not to mention that a lot of our prosperity is based on trade.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

*became (not because)

thinkagain on March 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I like your new wave thinking! But what will happen to all those sweet wind towers we want to build????

search4truth on March 7, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Well, personally, I’d hang seditious democrats and RINOs from them, but maybe I’m out of the mainstream.

SouthernGent on March 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I think it’s interesting that the suggestion is being consider childish. Especially since The Won changes his mind and may have to eat that opinion.

Cindy Munford on March 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense and we can’t put up a no-fly zone over some two bit country?

Unacceptable!

commodore on March 7, 2011 at 1:47 PM

funds have recently been reappropriated in order to fund the F22 Raptor, F35 JSF, Seawolf submarine, the green fees at Andrews and Belvoir.

priorities.

ted c on March 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM

And no one wants to eliminate PEACEFUL religions, that’s why you don’t see me complaining about Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism.

thinkagain on March 7, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Depends on your definition of “no one”. On the one hand you have various totalitarian regimes that find that the moral imperatives of said religions endanger their ability to control the populace and want to wipe them out person by person, and on the other hand, you have people like me that just plain find them factually incorrect and would like to see people leave them on their own.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Not to mention that a lot of our prosperity is based on trade.

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Well I suppose we could pay the Somali’s bribe money to let our ships pass but it doesn’t sound like a wise idea.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM

lol. I stand corrected!

pugwriter on March 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Of course you have to have Barry there too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJb_JaVo_IQ

mizflame98 on March 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

We’ve got two wars going on, don’t see it in the media anymore. All of the units around the US have done multiple deployments to the middle east This country is hemorrhaging red ink. Let’s let the europeans fight this one.

TulsAmerican on March 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Count to 10 on March 7, 2011 at 2:09 PM

I meant ‘eliminate’ in the militaristic sense but I agree with your point. I believe all religions are misguided and ancient, outdated mythologies that are retrogressive in our time.

I’d like to see them disappear also but education and other peaceful means can be employed to get people to leave the non-violent religions.

Islam on the other hand will require warfare because it is a warmongering creed. The goal of muslims of course is to conquer and impose their will/religion over the world.

The only solution will be to fight back using everything we have. To incur the least amount of bloodshed, it’d be best to take out their leaders and impose our western model on their populations and ban Islam the way Mein Kampf has been banned in some countries. Islam (unlike Christianity has) cannot be reformed, they tried for centuries and failed.

Of course any and all muslims that want to fight us to the death should get what they want. It seems nowadays people have forgotten what an ‘enemy’ really is. Hopefully they learn before it’s too late.

thinkagain on March 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM

That entire Obama administration is just one big kettle of inept, incompetent dolt stew.

rplat on March 7, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Not a video game? And who, may I ask, is arguing that it is?

Pound sand, O-bot.

petefrt on March 7, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Islam once held Spain until the Spanish Reconquista, they once held the Balkans until driven out, and they once held the Ukraine so it can be done if it comes to that.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Kicking out =/= exterminating. Not by a long shot.

That doesn’t mean we have to dig underground bunkers and a giant wall around the country either.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Both of those would be a good ideas, actually. We should’ve been digging bunkers all over since the Reds test-fired their first A-bomb, and a wall complete with armed guards is long overdue on our southern border.

Dark-Star on March 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Kicking out =/= exterminating. Not by a long shot.

They converted if they wanted to stay and most did.

a wall complete with armed guards is long overdue on our southern border.

Dark-Star on March 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Agree but it isn’t going to keep world affairs out, hopefully just illegal aliens.

sharrukin on March 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM

I’m sure NOoooobody in Saudi Arabia would give weapons to the wrong people. What could go wrong with that plan?

hawksruleva on March 7, 2011 at 3:14 PM

If they want a no fly zone over Libya, then the request should come from the U.N., and the U.S. should demand payment for its services.

paulsur on March 7, 2011 at 3:26 PM

The Chief of Staff says, huh? So, other than serving as his brother’s butt-boy in Chicago, what’s his foreign policy/DOD creds, again?

And why isn’t SecState weighing in?

mojo on March 7, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Maybe we can take advantage of this situation and blow up another Chinese embassy.

Mark1971 on March 7, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Hell no.

BallisticBob on March 7, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Remember, anything that causes oil prices to rise advances The One’s Green Utopian Vision.

http://nomayo.mu.nu/blood_for_windmills

Stephen Macklin on March 7, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Yep, Egypt, Tunesia and Lybia were all unstable autocracties long before Jan. but there had to be some common factor. It’s Food

Caststeel on March 7, 2011 at 5:57 PM

While any number of invasions could be in defense of Libyan rebels, there is nothing in US interest. Consider just what kind of people would be revol**ies in a Muslim nation. From your own experience with other humans, the leaders and followers would not be Darwinian finalists.

Kadaffi isn’t either so, when he eventually quiets this situation, there are a few less nasties in this world and others that might get a message. And there is no way that they will “convert to democracy”. There have been almost 1400 years of experience there.

And it’s still about Food

Caststeel on March 7, 2011 at 6:09 PM

William Daley(D) says it is hard to setup ‘No Hair Zone’… oh… I mean… ‘No Fly Zone’. Has he even served?

DANEgerus on March 7, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I dunno, it kinda reminds me of R-Type.

Cylor on March 7, 2011 at 10:40 PM