The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    No fly was OK. Now stop

    By Flavius on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:21pm |

    A compromise? 

     

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/29/libyan-srebrenica-ti...

    Comments


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:54pm

    My last comment on your last thread on Obama's speech is somewhat applicable to Mr. Freedland's argument.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:02pm

    Yeah. I was about to suggest you follow this link.

    As you say we're about to learn whether Prashad was right.

    I'm going to with hold any comment until I a few more hours pass and I can see  what the facts on the ground suggest  

     


    by Flavius on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:18pm

    Yet on Monday Barack Obama was glad to tell the American people: "Tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance." In similar mood, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, told Tuesday's London conference that we "have averted a humanitarian crisis".

    Hummm...seems to me I remember hearing similar words from Johnson about the Vietcong many moons ago.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:14pm

    No arming of the rebels, then?   

    http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2011/03/201132863311584728.html


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:39am

    Yeah. In for a penny, in for a pound.


    by Flavius on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:49am

    Most sardonic tweet I've seen on the issue:

    " The good thing about arming Libyan rebels is it lays the foundation for our new war 10 years from now - our Enemies need to be armed."


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:44am

    Now there are people fleeing east as the army pushes the rebels back.  So there is still the possibilty of a Srebrenica.  Right now it doesn't look like Kaddafi is content with a stalemate.  At the same time, there is a report of Kaddafi's people beginning to defect in Tripoli (via the French), which was the hope in the beginning of the action as the way to unseat the regime. 

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:46am

    Am omnibus response to the above , or just to what I've concluded over night.

    We should comply with the spirit of 1973 rather than grudging implementation of its terms.

    Until we change our minds..

    Like Freedland I want the killing to stop. At least by us. And by complying with 1973  we'll actually do what we agreed to do. And " Gratify our friends and astonish our enemies."And if moslems  are being killed they'll be killed by other moslems.

    However, if Qaddafi is once again on the verge of  invading Benghazi all bets are off. We should do what we have to do and if that violates 1973 , so be it. But only if needed to keep him  for crossing that red line. Not to protect the rebel advance- that's their nickel. There's a cost to violating  1973 and we shouldn't pay it because our allies can't win their own war.

    But if that's the cost of protecting 700,000 people, we should protect 700,000.

    Am I in fact forecasting a stalemate.? Perhaps.And McCain and the Ancient and Honorable Assembly  of arm-chair stategists will scorn Obama. But it's the option that results in our killing the least number of people and therefore  the one I prefer. 

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:20pm

    Moojs Redux

    As in Afghanistan during the 1980s, the U.S. is backing the radical Islamists of eastern Libya against a socialist regime. The law of unintended consequences surely awaits.


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 12:12am

    Remember: It has been reported, this is the leader that finances the bombing of commerical planes and the bombing of US soldiers. 

    Is it true or propoganda?

    Would he massacre his own people, and if so; why should he have any qualms about pushing the button, if he could get his hands on it? 

    He surely will take his wealth and help support terrorist groups against us.

    Do you preempt him or wait till he strikes?

    Did he already strike out at the US or is this propoganda?


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:49am

    Remember: It has been reported, this is the leader that finances the bombing of commerical planes and the bombing of US soldiers. 

    Is it true YES or propoganda?

    Would he massacre his own people YES, and if so; why should he have any qualms about pushing the button, if he could get his hands on it?  HE WOULDN'T

    He surely will take his wealth and help support terrorist groups against us.YES

    Do you preempt him WE JUST DID or wait till he strikes?  

    Did he already strike out at the US YES or is this propoganda?

    Doesn't really change anything but my friend Nat's daughter was booked on that  PanAm flight. He  heard the news bulletin, then a couple of hours later she called from JFK .She got  to Heathrow early and got an earlier one.

    It did catch my attention.


    by Flavius on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:29am