I think part of the difference is whether or not the 'protesters' or 'rebels' in these various countries ASKED for help. Did they organize enough to contact the UN and NATO and ask for someone to intervene on their behalf? Were/are there enough powerful people and organizations supporting the uprising to influence the neighboring countries and other organizations?

The African Union, the Arab League, the European Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Group of 8 all were asking for a no-fly zone. This wasn't something Obama or the US did all by themselves, nor spearheaded. But once it became a mandate, I do agree with our participation. We claim to be all about the human rights and supposedly we abhor violence against innocent citizens, so declining to aid when someone is asking for help defending against those very things is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I know what you mean.

op·ti·mis·tic   
[op-tuh-mis-tik]
–adjective
1.
Unbelievably high. "Dude, I tried out my roommate's new bong and after 3 hits I was so optimistic I couldn't stand up. It was great."
2.
reflecting optimism: an optimistic plan.
3.
of or pertaining to optimism.

Isn't Spexx an optimist by trade?

Nice.

It is not about enforcing democracy. It is about the same thing that caused British Marines to make that valiant and successful stand in Liberia. Same as what the French did years ago in Ivory Coast to also rescue hundreds of Americans.

America had no military interest in Libya. That was until Benghazi was but days from being overrun. And Kaddafi said he intended to massacre rebels by the tens or hundreds of thousands. Benghazi is a town of 450,000 to be massacred.

So everything changed. Kaddafi's speech was his undoing. Pressure to avert a massacre was especially strong from the French. African Union, Arab League, numerous European nations, and even Russia and China became very concerned.

The resulting UN resolution (that may be been passed in record speed due to events in Benghazi) authorized a no-fly zone. And forbid Kaddafi from continuing his attacks. Kaddafi said he would abide. Destroyed were tanks, amour, and other vehicles that continued attacking in violation of a very loosely worded UN resolution.

Remember, a no-fly zone in Iraq also forbade Saddam from doing same with his army.

America ended up in this war because no one else could provide sufficient force with sufficient speed. It had to be done in days. For example, the US launched over 130 cruise missiles. The British launched a full four. The French launched everything they had. Zero. The Italians launched all zero planes.

Criticism should be at so many European nations who are really as toothless as they were during the Balkan massacres. The British are the only European nation that has demonstrated any military power. Britain will now lose most of it due to too many wars too far away. The rest of Europe (other than France) can only deploy token forces.

A problem that Clinton addressed bluntly by what he did in Bosnia. And that a president after Clinton completely undid by his international diplomacy.

Why is Europe so toothless? The world only had a few days to respond to Kaddafi's threat. Or enjoy pictures of a premeditated massacre. Tens or hundreds of thousands. Which choice should the world have made? America basically got pushed into this mess because nobody else could on such short notice. The response had to be that fast.

So many here are ignoring the reason why America is the only nation that could respond. A nasty criticism of our European dwellers who should have been asking these embarrassing questions long ago of their own politicians.

Democracy has zero to do with events in Libya. Massacre is the only relevant word.

You quoted the wrong guy dude. I was asking a question.

And that question is what I was answering. I really don't care who asked it. Addressed is the only thing relevant. The question.

And then asked is the far more important question. Why are so many European nations so toothless?

Obama is a GD idiot. If Bush would have invoked AQ in the first sentence of his opening statement people would have called that "fear mongering". So far he is failing big time. IS the US now a tool of the UN? 2012 can't come soon enough....

We are choosing sides in a Civil War. One side is the oligarchy, the other is a pipe dream of hope for a demoncratic society which will never happen.

"The US cannot turn a blind eye to atrocities...." BULLSHIT again! how about Darfur asshat?

Nothing in the UN mandate says, "Assist the opposition." Nothing....

Wow.... Ivory Coast. How many people have died there in a civil war just like Libya?

Because of our HUGE military spending? Thank the R's.
:rolleyes:

Because Bush failed to prevent a slaughter (as Clinton before him in other regions in Africa) seems like a pretty feeble reason for not preventing one now, with little risk to American lives.