[lbo-talk] Libya

[Bryan Atinsky]

But can you accurately say that they are bombing the living shit out of the entire country? Or hitting tanks, Ghadaffi's offensive units and air forces?  Should they be doing this even if that is "all" they are doing? I REALLY do not want to sound as if I am supporting US/EU actions, because I am very queasy about it, but I want to be accurate in assessment and description of what is going on. I think what the US/EU are doing is definitely not out of altruistic interests, it is a dangerous precedence to make (not even really a precedence, because this excuse has been used before), and if it leads to ground troops, it is most definitely beyond fucked. Moreover, this faux ethical stance isn't evenly applied as we can see with reaction to Bahrain. (actually, i am most afraid if this precedence is used again if Yemen goes south...Yemen would for sure turn into a bloody, long enduring slog through hell). On the other hand, if Ghadaffi could just take out the revolt, it will most definitely be seen as a green light to every other regime that this is the way to go in dealing with threats of regime change and the worst they will get are statements that what they are doing isn't advisable... 

Maybe I am naive in complicating the uncomplicated and weighing things in my mind that I should just take a principled stand against...maybe.

Bryan

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 23, 2011, at 11:36, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [WS:] I take your point, but that still falls short of justifying the
> EU/US intervention.  There are far more effective ways of supporting
> democratic opposition than bombing a living shit out of the entire
> country.
>