Then why aren't we occupying half the world? what about Darfur, North Korea, numerous Middle Eastern countries, and many South East Asian countries? We can't liberal the entire world, and certain conflicts we should not meddle in. We can't just start a war, oust an oppressive leader, and assume that peace and freedom will follow.
Alittle clarity goes a LONG way.
WE didn't start the uprisings throughout the Middle-East and North Africa. Their people did this. They finally got tired of being oppressed and did EXACTLY what those on the
Conservative side of the political divide
have been saying IS an American fundamental right - for a nation's citizens to take up arms against an oppressive government to defend themselves against aggression. Frankly, I wonder how ANYONE can disagree with any nation rendering aid to a nation's countrymen who are doing the EXACT same thing WE, as a nation, wouldn't do for ourselves if our government were treating its citizens in the EXACT SAME OPPRESSIVE MANNER! I mean,
this IS a basic tennent of Conservatism! How can a Conservative be against this? IT'S ABSURD to see Conservatives think otherwise because what you're really saying is, "It's okay for Americans, but it's not okay for the rest of the world to exercise this pretective measure against oppression." How hypocritical of you.
Still, I'll tone it down just a notch and say while I disagree with any U.S. President to unilaterally take his country into war, I have no problem with a U.S. President using his judgement to render aid to a country that is fighting for its freedom against aggression and oppression AS LONG AS he/she can do so in a way that brings about the least amoung of loss of life to Americans and over-use of our resources (military and military hardware). To that, I think President Obama has done the right thing here and he's doing it in a way the puts few of our assets in harms way but is getting the maximum positive gains from it.
Qadaffi's finances are drying up if not toally frozen.
Some of his closing government officials are either fighting on the side of the rebels or have defected (2).
Most of him military resources (planes, tanks, surface-to-air missile launchers, etc) have been destroyed. Libya's military is now forced to fight in the streets among civilian populations to insulate themselves against U.N./NATO offensive attacks. Yes, Qaddafi's forces still have some fight in them, but they haven't been able to gain as much ground as is being reported. Watch Al-Jezzara on Link-TV; it tells a completely different story than what's being reported in U.S. media circles.
Unless NATO forces make a big blunder, I don't think Qadaffi has much time left.