The West will finally realize that a despot dictator in the Middle East will simply kill his own people, and attack its neighbors while an Islamist terrorist breeding nation state will send suicide bombers to our shores. It's a no win situation unless the US, through huge sacrifice, engages in nation building. There are no easy answers, and we have the most inexperienced President handing this. I am no Hillary fan, but she actually knows a lot more that the POTUS. I don't know who is making decisions, but I home the POTUS is listening to the team rather than exercising his lack of knowledge to effect the Middle East.

lar: the "most inexperienced POTUS" seems to have done OK in terms of foreign policy, as evidenced by the fact that the GOP isn't attacking him in that area.

what would you have "the most inexperienced potus" do there or have done differently? do you have any reason to believe he isn't listening to "the team"?

Lar, were you sleeping or unborn when Qaddafi was doing his international terrorist thing ?

You know South of Algiers they are mostly Arabs, and most Arabs are Muslims. If not practicing ones, they still are of Muslims cultural background and influence.

Good grief! So the man is a moderate Islamist. What did you expect in an Islamic country, a Lutheran?

Will you ever stop with your nonsense?

I would rather an elected official who happens to be an Islamist, than a secular dictator who slaughters his own people. I guess that makes me a Liberal now, eh?

A "moderate Islamist," lol. I suppose that there are "moderate Nazis" too. Some doctrines are intrinsically immoderate. Political Islam is one of them.

No, it isn't. Unless your definition of "moderate" has to include "secular".

Also, I hate to break your cheap analogy, but there WERE moderate Nazis during the Third Reich. There were ordinary people signed up to the Nazi party who didn't believe in Aryan supremacy (although clearly there weren't enough of them). I know the Nazi is the cartoonish stereotype of villainy, but even those people were human, and they too held a wide range of beliefs and moral values.

No, it isn't. Unless your definition of "moderate" has to include "secular".

Rule by religion is toxic, yes. When has there ever been a "moderate" theocracy in world history? Other creeds like Nazism are also fundamentally immoderate.

Also, I hate to break your cheap analogy, but there WERE moderate Nazis during the Third Reich. There were ordinary people signed up to the Nazi party who didn't believe in Aryan supremacy

They certainly had every chance to find out about white supermacism before joining. Mein Kampf and all the fiery speeches were shot through with it. Turning a blind eye and ear to the explicit intolerance and hatred within an ideology or religion does not make one a moderate.

I know the Nazi is the cartoonish stereotype of villainy, but even those people were human, and they too held a wide range of beliefs and moral values.

Yet they all signed on to the particular creed of Nazism which openly espoused racial supremacy.

In a similar vein, Islam openly espouses religious supremacy and teachers that ALL other paths in life are inferior at best and filthy abominations at worst. How does one integrate these supremacist principles into a moderate state government? Libya has already declared that Islamic Shariah Law will be the main source of law in the new Libya. MAIN source!
Does that sound "moderate" to you? If so, then you are woefully ignorant about what shariah law covers and prescribes.

"When has there ever been a "moderate" theocracy in world history?"

Well, we already judge theocracy as an extremist system of government, so that would be a trick question. But there is a huge swath of gray area between "theocracy" and "democracy headed by religious people". Also, as far as toxic governments go, I would easily rate dictatorship as just as bad, if not worse, than theocracy, barely beating out Communism.

"Turning a blind eye and ear to the explicit intolerance and hatred within an ideology or religion does not make one a moderate."

It doesn't? Then what does it make them? It certainly doesn't make one an extremist; you can't be an extremist unless you actively support and/or advocate extremist views and policies. Just because a Muslim doesn't condemn Islamic terrorism doesn't make them a terrorist themselves; there could be any reason why, from silent approval to apathy to uncertainty.

"Yet they all signed on to the particular creed of Nazism which openly espoused racial supremacy."

Yeah, but do you think that was the sole thing the party stood for or accomplished? Look, I'm not going to waste time trying to defend the Nazis, I'm just saying you're thinking in terms of black and white. You can go on about how Islam teaches this and that and therefore all Muslims obviously think that way and are wrong, but that espouses a childishly simplified view of humanity with no basis in reality.

You can go on about how Islam teaches this and that and therefore all Muslims obviously think that way and are wrong...

Did I say that? No. I quite easily and effectively distinguish between Islam and Muslims, thank you.

but that espouses a childishly simplified view of humanity with no basis in reality.

You have a childishly simplified view of what you think I believe, that's the problem.

Yeah. The number of christian conservative republicans who are terrorists is only like around 5%, so quit generalizing.

Let them kill each other off, that's what.

Vermontguy is right. We DID the right thing in Libya, unlike the mess we created in Iraq and Afganistan. We let the people fight thier war and only offered air assistance. Much cheaper for the US and way less lives lost. Bush should have thought about this BEFORE we invaded the other two countries. Good for you Libya. Keep progressing and you will become a beautiful country again! I pray that peace will soon see your doorsteps as many more Middle Eastern countries take your country as a role model in thier own fight for freedom.

We DID the right thing in Libya, unlike the mess we created in Iraq and Afganistan. We let the people fight thier war and only offered air assistance

B.S. The rebels would never have overthrown Gadhafy without the relentless campaign of NATO (read; mostly U.S.) bombing in LIbya. That bombing campaign by the way killed scores of innocent civilians.

Granted, Gadhafy wasn't the best character in world history, but he had enough support in Libya to be their leader. Then WE decided he needed to be overthrown to be replaced by... well, our idiots in charge didn't know what would come next but just went ahead and overthrew him. So now there has been a long period since then where LIbya has been in a vicious low-level civil war with lots of suffering, chaos, crime, instability, VERY little of which has been covered by NBC or the other major U.S. news outlets. Instead we get this rosy picture of the debutante "New Libya," all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, ready to step out and shine. What the article doesn't tell you is the nature of the new rulers as J.S. points out in the first post here. ISLAMISTS are now in charge! "Oh Who Cares, that's what they want," some will say, but rule by Islamic theocracy is a nasty business, one that will likely spill over into greater conflict. These are the same Muslim Brotherhood aligned characters who are now consolidating power in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria if the Assad regime falls, and now Libya too. They will not be peaceful, cooperative members of the international community. They will brutal women and minorities. Non-muslims will be 2nd class citizens at best, their economies will go down the drain and our idiot leaders will prop them up with BILLIONS of dollars that we need to spend on our people. Then there will probably be a concerted effort among this new coalition of Islamist regimes to agitate vigorously and possibly even attack Israel which would plunge the whole region into military conflict. That conflict will suck in the rest of the world too and then no one will be saying "Who Cares!" anymore. By then it will be too late and a very heavy price will be paid by all. Admittedly this is a worst case scenario but it's a lot likelier than the best case scenario.

Your (read; Mostly U.S.) statement is patently false. The bombing was carried out by other NATO countries forces with the U.S. providing command and control. Get a clue before you post nonsense.

Nonsense? How about this Washington Post article from March of this year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-deploys-low-flying-attack-planes-in-libya/2011/03/26/AF9grPqB_story.html

It's also important to note that this ground force attacking role went beyond the so-called "No Fly Zone" and violated the U.N. mandate. So U.S. military intervention was intense right from the start and only intensified from there. Yes some other countries (Britain, France) ran air sorties too but the U.S. was the main player and the decisive factor.

Get a clue Mike.

"Granted, Gadhafy wasn't the best character in world history, but he had enough support in Libya to be their leader."

That sentence means pretty much nothing of value. I mean, our so-called "idiots in charge" had enough support (and democractic support, too!) to become our leaders, as did Hitler, and Mao, and Kim il Sung. And there are an awful lot of ways to become a leader of a country, from being installed by special interests (Banana Republics), killing the current government and establishing rule by force, coup, claiming ancestry to gods, and being the offspring of some other guy who had managed to become leader through his own merits/insanity.

Ghadaffi was a psycho, and the world, especially Libya, is better off without him.

That is, our government had a democratic mandate. Not the list of dictators that I listed afterword. Just wanted to make that clear before someone jumped on it.

Ghadaffi was a psycho, and the world, especially Libya, is better off without him.

That sentence means pretty much nothing of value.

Then I guess we're even!

Oh wow people still arguing about Libya? Move on people we all know Iran is next. Ah but I jest, anyway as for my opinion it seems that this threat has two sides, one stating that Libya will do fine and that they should be able to choose their own leaders regardless of creed, and the other saying Libya is going to hell in a hand basket and may take the rest of the world with them because they have electing an Islamic fundamentalist (well both arguments in a nut shell here)

Now as for my own take I’d have to say that Libya being run by said people is a problem as it is a guarantee that their new government’s interests will run counter to American interests. Which ultimately could cost America it’s influence in the region (which would be a bigger lost then just money) however it is here that America has itself in a bind for you see the main indicator of influence in a country is by how much of your culture is adopted by that country, and one of the main aspects of American culture is that of self-governance (indeed it’s the virtue America was founded on) which means that whilst America wants to spread its culture to these nations it also cannot overtly force change on said nations (by that I mean invade and install new governments) and still keep its cultural integrity intact, yet these Islamists want to revert their countries back to a far more traditional and conservative Islamic culture, which is obviously going to be a cause for conflict.

Oh wow people still arguing about Libya?

Should the matter be settled by now?

...whilst America wants to spread its culture to these nations it also cannot overtly force change on said nations (by that I mean invade and install new governments) and still keep its cultural integrity intact

Well, the U.S. is definitely and overtly forcing change on these nations. What we're not doing is enforcing an outcome which we tried only on Iraq at a terrible cost for all involved. So now the U.S. is just knocking down the existing authoritarian orders, pushing for an election, and hoping for the best. This is reckless policy. Most of the time things are just getting worse despite there having been an election.

Islamists are pushing hard for more Islam in the rule of Tunisia. Even the "moderate Islamist" party in charge there now, Ennahda, which comes closest to not being an oxymoron of the description, is under heavy pressure by ascending Salafist and other radical Muslims to steer Tunisia onto a more radical Islamic course. Just recently they [Ennahda] gave in and criminalized "blasphemy" which of course can mean just about anything -- and will -- in the hands of Islamist radicals.

In Egypt, the new Muslim Brotherhood president there is now acting as if he won 90% of the vote instead of the approx 51% that he actually received. He is summarily dismissing actual and potential foes in the Egyptian military and replacing them with Islamist allies. He is unilaterally voiding laws passed by the judiciary. He is purging state media and punishing independent media. It appears that there is a swift and decisive move to consolidate power in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and keep it there. Will there even be another election? I'll bet not, or if so it will be even more of a charade than those "elections" managed under Mubarak. But at least Mubarak was not a religious nutbag. Women and minorities are the ones most likely to suffer under this new regime.

Will Syria end better? I doubt it. Islamists have their eyes firmly on that prize there and will ascend to power there too. One more mostly secular regime toppled in favor of radical Islamists who seek to implement draconian Shariah Law and govern by Islamic "principles" that relegate women and Non-muslims to 2nd class (at best) status. And there is also the likelihood of an aggressive pan-Arab sunni alliance that will agitate for and possibly seek to attack Israel, thus plunging the entire region into destructive war that will probably spill over into something resembling WWIII.

That's the worst case scenario, yes, but events seem to be heading in that direction. Feckless western elites are making it more likely by their relentless push for "Islamic Democracy" as if the two constructions are perfectly compatible with each other. What they don't reckon with is that Islam is not about harmonizing with other "-isms" or "-cracies." Islam is all about forcing Islam ABOVE all other paths in life and death. That supremacist core is why Islam and Islamists are not content to compromise and co-exist as equals. Islam will never accept the equality of others on a sustained and long-term basis because its drive to supremacy is too central to the tenets and texts of the creed which are rooted in literalism and thus nearly impossible to reform, especially when there is great bodily and/or mortal risk in doing so.

Adam44

I was only joking at the beginning after all like I said I am sure Iran will be the next big topic in the news, my guess a war will come after the November elections (if started by the US) as nothing is better at rallying people behind a president then a new war.

As for the rest well I assume that these western elites you mention have access to or are the experts on Islam, the Middle East, ect ect so I would have to wonder if their actions are being guided by access to knowledge of the situation than anyone on this message board has, or would that be wishful thinking?

Personally I am not all that worried by this takeover of Islamists of Middle eastern countries I mean Israel has proven to be more then capable at defending herself indeed my only concern there would be because she A has nukes, B has missiles that can hit western Europe and C doesn’t really like European countries (well diplomatically speaking) but that is more of a “ultimate worst case scenario” and whilst I’m sure an Islamist take over in the Middle East may suck for minorities I’d have to say that why should that be a factor in anything but moral propaganda? After all if we start acting because of the plights of minorities in one country then we should act about their plights in every other shouldn’t we? And I don’t see the US in a hurry to declare war on China for the way it treats its minorities, or Saudi or Israel likewise I don’t see people in a rush to attack the US based on claims of discrimination that minorities face there either, so again yes life may suck for them but other than feeling sorry about it (and scoring propaganda points) there really isn’t much the west can do that is decisive about it.

Finally when it comes to all this global domination stuff I just have to “shrug” because it depends on what you mean by domination, after all if you are talking about having the global influence to do what you want around the world then yes I can see how the US would feel threatened (since it’s in that position) if however you are talking about a more physical and literal domination then no there is no need to become worried because that is impossible.

Los, I do plan on replying here but I want to reply on the Morsi/military topic first.

Even the "moderate Islamist" party in charge there now, Ennahda, which comes closest to not being an oxymoron of the description, is under heavy pressure by ascending Salafist and other radical Muslims to steer Tunisia onto a more radical Islamic course. Just recently they [Ennahda] gave in and criminalized "blasphemy" which of course can mean just about anything -- and will -- in the hands of Islamist radicals.

Here's the raw story by By Agence France-Presse:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/01/tunisias-ruling-islamists-file-blasphemy-bill/

As for the rest well I assume that these western elites you mention have access to or are the experts on Islam, the Middle East, ect ect so I would have to wonder if their actions are being guided by access to knowledge of the situation than anyone on this message board has, or would that be wishful thinking?

That would be wishful thinking because the policy fundamentally follows from their accepted narrative which is that authoritarian (mostly secular) governments are the root cause of Islamic extremism. When that's your jumping off point then it makes sense to topple the regimes which are creating the radicals by suppressing them.

If only it were true! (it's not)

Personally I am not all that worried by this takeover of Islamists of Middle eastern countries I mean Israel has proven to be more then capable at defending herself indeed my only concern there would be because she A has nukes, B has missiles that can hit western Europe and C doesn't really like European countries (well diplomatically speaking) but that is more of a "ultimate worst case scenario"

You think that Israel would fire missiles at western European countries?

and whilst I'm sure an Islamist take over in the Middle East may suck for minorities...

And women, inter-alia.

...I'd have to say that why should that be a factor in anything but moral propaganda?

So people suffering from religious bigotry are only a factor of propaganda in your view?

After all if we start acting because of the plights of minorities in one country then we should act about their plights in every other shouldn't we?

That's the idea, yes. Universal Human Rights.

And I don't see the US in a hurry to declare war on China for the way it treats its minorities, or Saudi or Israel likewise I don't see people in a rush to attack the US based on claims of discrimination that minorities face there either

Who is advocating that war be declared? A classic red herring.

...so again yes life may suck for them but other than feeling sorry about it (and scoring propaganda points) there really isn't much the west can do that is decisive about it.

One could've easily said the exact same thing about abuses under the former authoritarian/dictatorial regimes in countries like Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, etc, etc., that other than feeling bad about it there isn't much that the west can do about it. But in the last couple of years we have seen how much that the west CAN do about events in other countries, especially in the middle east. People complained bitterly about human rights abuses under Gadhafi in Libya, Mubarak in Egypt, and now Assad in Syria. Somehow our present leaders were keenly attentive to these complaints (and, again, that theory about how these leaders were creating so much Islamic extremism in the world).

SO WE TOPPLED GADHAFI BY MILITARY FORCE, aided and encouraged in myriad ways the "protestors" in Egypt who were openly trying (and ultimately succeeding) to oust Mubarak, and now we're using all the tools short of military force to topple the Assad regime. I suspect, soon enough the U.S. will be involved militarily there too, creating a "No Fly Zone" over at least parts of Syria, which is a forcible assault on the regime there. So don't tell me that there isn't much that the west can do to effect change in these countries. The west can effect A TON of change when it wants to, even short of military action (as in Egypt).

Also, how about this for a first step: Cut Off Foreign Aid to countries that continue to abuse the rights of minorities! We certainly don't need to subsidize such crap.

F

inally when it comes to all this global domination stuff I just have to "shrug" because it depends on what you mean by domination.

Did I write something about "global domination?"

Ah Adam

You’ll have to pardon my apathetic reply, as I am tired (busy few days) and right now I’d rather enjoy playing Grand Theft Auto then debating, however in reply

A the “accepted narrative” as you put it is that authoritarian governments are to blame for creating extremism because they lack legitimacy of consent, now I know you believe Islam to be the be all and end all of the problem here (politically speaking) but unfortunately these experts have the P.H.D’s and the ears of those in charge so at the end of the day it is their opinion that will matter more than both you or I to the policy makers.

B as for Israel I wouldn’t put it past them, their government is paranoid and (from what I hear) they are not liking that the Palestinian cause is receiving more empathy from Europe then elsewhere in the west. Oh add to that, that they will only use their nukes if they are “going down” as it were and so I think they’d want to “punish” everyone they thought was responsible for their downfall including their “allies”.

C, people suffering is bad no matter what, but how many people suffer in the world that we don’t hear about? How come such suffering only gets mentioned by our politicians when they want to use it as a moral excuse to start a war? I’ll give you an example in the first Gulf War George Bush encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam with promises of American support (which they did) during this time we heard how bad they was treated and it was used as part of the justification for western intervention. Then the war ended, Bush allowed Saddam to fly helicopters (that were used to suppress the Kurds) and Bush stopped supporting them, and what happened in the news? The issue just faded away, so yes peoples suffering is only used as a moral propaganda point.

D, Universal Human Rights is a joke, especially since no two nations seem to be able to agree on what they should be, for example in the mid-2000s (although it may have been the late 1990s I forget) the UN drafted a piece of legislation proposing Universal Human Rights, the US refused to support it as at the time they only wanted to support the right to free trade, Europe has some rights that are not included in the American Bill of Rights (and vice-versa) and China, Russia and Saudi all refuse their citizens’ rights that we have, so again it’s a joke and diplomatically speaking the noble idea of Human rights is just used as a stick that the West can beat its rivals with these days anyway.

F, Who is advocating war? Well plenty on these message boards for one, also one basic fact of conflict is that force (aka violence, aka war) is the most decisive way of solving a dispute, so short of using force to effect a change there isn’t much that can be done, after all I’m sure you have read all the posters (the Israeli government and the American political right) say how sanctions have failed in regards to Iran

G, your right here the west can effect change when it wants, but to effect change over something as weak (diplomatically speaking) as a minority group being persecuted is never going to happen, you mentioned Libya, and yes the west did intervene, yet America did that to honour its alliance commitments (just like its allies did with Iraq and Afghanistan) whereas Europe did it to secure their economies (I’m sure you remember the BP deal) that Gadhafi was tyrant was an added propaganda bonus. Of course that being said it was also a handicap as it meant that the west had to support the rebels to maintain its image (you know of not supporting tyrants)

H, I cannot remember all your posts, but I know so may on the anti-Islam “side” mention how Islam wants to take over the world, I have read plenty of posts saying that the MB’s goal or Iran’s goal is global domination, why even in your last post (3.11) you mention Islamic supremacy and how it cannot tolerate equals (which sounds very much like saying it wishes to dominate others)so you’ll have to pardon me if I misinterpreted that

Sorry if this is a rather cynical and apathetic post then normal but well like I said I’m tired and would rather do something a bit more relaxing with my time right now.

Hello Los, as to your last sentence I can appreciate how you felt (as you replied) because I don't feel like writing anything tonight either. So I guess I'll wait until I feel like writing more. It won't just be around and around and around we go though. I think we have a pretty good bead on how the other thinks about most of these issues. What I don't have a good read on is what motivates you. Haven't a clue. You're obviously motivated by something or you wouldn't even bother coming on this blog/forum, let alone write as much as you do. You may be cynical but I doubt that you're apathetic. Hmmm.. Anyway, have a good day/night and we'll parry away another day.

That's as valid as saying you can't go to the movies or temple here without getting shot.

That's as valid as saying you can't go to the movies or temple here without getting shot.

Yea, thats why 100,000 iraqis have been killed in secular violence and 14 were killed in Aurora. I see the comparison now.

Hank your comment is beyond stupid.

Hardly stupid. Actually quite relevant. A region where assault style weapons are fairly commonplace, and hundreds die in partisan violence? So your logic surely leads us to admit that maybe everyone having assault style weapons is a bad idea?

The other point being that the numbers don't matter so much as every nation has these problems, hence Hanks comments. Don't feel so superior when there's a bomb in YOUR backyard?

All you have to do is read these boards to realize the crazies are more common than we like to think.

So your logic surely leads us to admit that maybe everyone having assault style weapons is a bad idea?

He is talking about a chaotic, low-level civil war situation where society has broken down into hostile clans, sects, tribes, and other groups competing for power against each other, aka Libya. Our mainstream media have ignored this situation ever since Gadhafy was toppled because they WANT to think that what our feckless leaders brought about there was a success story. Wishful Thinking is our enemy in the middle east because it is not going to end the way we want it to end. In fact we are making things worse. Worse in Tunisia, worse in Egypt, worse in Libya, and soon to be MUCH worse in Syria.

Just because an election is held does not mean MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!! as this story seems to yearn for. If the governments arising from such elections are repressive, aggressive Islamist constructions with a veneer of democracy to maintain illusions, how is that a success story? It's not. We are simply replacing bad with worse in the middle east and wishfully thinking that there will be a happy ending. There will not be a happy ending in most of these countries.

The other point being that the numbers don't matter so much as every nation has these problems

Every nation has problems, yes, and every nation has some violence, yes. Every nation fortunately does NOT have the kind of problems happening in Libya, Egypt, and Syria right now. We had similar problems in 1860 to 1865. It goes way beyond a nut bag shooting up a movie theater, bad as that is.

"If the governments arising from such elections are repressive, aggressive Islamist constructions with a veneer of democracy to maintain illusions, how is that a success story?"

Because it's what the Libyan people voted in? I mean, granted, I see no reason to believe your assumptions about the government being Islamist and doomed to be oppressive, but even if it were true, that's what they voted for, and if they don't like it they can vote it out in a few years (assuming another dictatorship doesn't hijack the country). It doesn't matter if this ends the way WE wanted, because this isn't about us. This is MORE IMPORTANT than us. This is about making sure a new generation of people in the Middle East have a say in how they're governed, this is about establishing free institutions, and most importantly, this is about wrestling the military and geopolitical power out of the hands of a few ruthless and complacent psychos that think their personal empires are more important than the livelihood of millions. Whether or not "we" approve of the government really could not matter less.

Because it's what the Libyan people voted in?

Did the Libyan people vote to have Gadhafy overthrown by the United States and NATO? I must have missed that particular referendum.

It doesn't matter if this ends the way WE wanted, because this isn't about us.

If it isn't about us, why did our government take such extreme military measures to make it happen?

Whether or not "we" approve of the government really could not matter less.

It certainly mattered whether we approved of the ruler they used to have. And now, in the Colin Powell spirit of "You break it, you buy it," we are now deeply invested in how it goes from here, especially when we are kicking in all kinds of cash and other support.

Creating one chaotic, violent clusterfvck after another in the middle east and then hoisting the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! banner after an election is held is not a constructive or desirable foreign policy in my opinion. All we're doing in most of these cases is replacing bad with worse and then congratulating ourselves for imposing freedom and democracy. I like feedom and democracy as the next guy but it's not right for every country at every step in their development, even if it wasn't imposed byl force which is how we're doing it.

"Did the Libyan people vote to have Gadhafy overthrown by the United States and NATO? I must have missed that particular referendum."

You did? That's weird, it was a real big thing. The voted primarily with their ammunition.

"If it isn't about us, why did our government take such extreme military measures to make it happen?"

"Extreme military measures"? You mean air strikes, support and intel? Since when does that qualify as an "extreme military measure"? I mean, this is a semantic disagreement, but to me you need to at least nuke or invade someone before it becomes "extreme". And either way, it doesn't matter. The amount of ammo we spend doesn't suddenly make us more important than the Libyans.

"It certainly mattered whether we approved of the ruler they used to have."

Yeah, it did. And that was despicable. What's your point?

"we are now deeply invested in how it goes from here, especially when we are kicking in all kinds of cash and other support."

Well, it's nice that we're helping, but that still doesn't make our geopolitical priorities more important than the Libyans' basic welfare.

"All we're doing in most of these cases is replacing bad with worse and then congratulating ourselves for imposing freedom and democracy."

You really have a bizarre view of the Libyan campaign, don't you? You act like the Libyans just woke up one day with their government gone and an American flag over their capital. THEY started the rebellion. We only intervened after they asked for help, and even then only after the UN, NATO, and the Arab League all approved of intervention. That is the polar opposite of our previous "spreading democracy" model of Iraq. If you see it all as being the same (see black and white thinking criticism above), I apologize for being unable to adequately simplify the complexities of a nation's political and geopolitical structure into a simple binary choice of "bomb or don't bomb". It really is more complicated than that.

THEY started the rebellion. We only intervened after they asked for help,

Talk about a black and white cartoon of simplification! "THEY" represented a segment of Libyans. It is not at all proven that "THEY" (the rebels in the east) had enough support to topple Gadhafy. In fact "THEY" were about to be squashed by the Libyan armed forces until "WE" intervened and bombed and bombed and bombed until "THEY" finally came out on top in the end. Even then it was a very tight fight for months on end. Perhaps "THEY" didn't have the support of most Libyans.

The (sic) voted primarily with their ammunition.

They voted with their ammunition, huh? Cute. Apparently, in your view, the proof that most Libyans wanted to be rid of the Gadhafy regime is because they (the rebels) eventually came out on top. But you expect readers not to notice that the rebels ONLY came out on top because of an intensive and prolonged U.S. and NATO (mostly U.S.) bombing campaign which destroyed forces opposing the rebels. Had the U.S. and NATO not intervened, it was more than clear that the rebels were about to be stopped cold in their eastern Benghazi base of support. By your reasoning, had no outside forces intervened in the conflict, the rebels would have been crushed and that would have been clear evidence that Libyans "voted" to support the regime and reject the rebels.

Well, it's nice that we're helping, but that still doesn't make our geopolitical priorities more important than the Libyans' basic welfare.

Typical western arrogance. Implicit in your comment is the assumption that you know better what's best for Libya than the Libyan people themselves. So our intervention there was entirely altrustic then? For the Libyans' "basic welfare" as you put it. But now that our blitzkrieg there is over and we toppled the existing order, and basked in our MISSION ACCOMPLISHED moment (i.e. an election), and killed a bunch of innocent civilians in the process, suddenly you're all for "allowing" the Libyans their self-determination. How magnanimous! If only you had thought of that (allowing them to sort things out on their own and determine their own path) BEFORE we bombed the hell out of them and decided the winners and losers there.

"Peaceful transition of power"? "legitimate representative"? "parliamentary elections"?

Maybe so if you base your knowledge of what is happening in Libya on one shallow, wishfully thinking news article.

Yea, it was so peaceful they decided to celebrate with a good ol fashioned car bombing.

Sorry, I don't have a lot of free time to browse different news sources.

If you could direct me to the deep, gritty news articles detailing the anarchy of current-day Libya and the utter failure that their attempt to establish a democracy has been, I'd really appreciate it.

"Yea, it was so peaceful they decided to celebrate with a good ol fashioned car bombing."

Unless the NTC was the one car bombing the assembly, I fail to see how that reflects on the power transition. Car bombs happen pretty commonly in that region.

SF accountant, here are your "different news sources".

links ON MSN:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33790216/ns/world_news/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48518320/ns/world_news-europe/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48521190/ns/world_news-africa/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48556328/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48617107/ns/world_news-africa/

Open your eyes or stop the lying.

And Rommel never joined the Nazi party.

Yet anyone living in Germany by the time war was over/during (or german outside of the country or german descent) was considered a nazi or seen with much animosity. Essentially the same way we see Muslims today.

Yet anyone living in Germany by the time war was over/during (or german outside of the country or german descent) was considered a nazi or seen with much animosity.

Unfortunately that's what happens when mainstream people allow haters and supremacists to multiply and operate among them. It 'rubs off' on everyone. Same with mainstream and supremacist Muslims today.

Yes, it is unfortunate that in order to be a free nation, you must tolerate the intolerant... which is why there are now more nazis in the US than anywhere else. Pity.

Yes, it is unfortunate that in order to be a free nation, you must tolerate the intolerant

If you tolerate supremacists (of whatever variety) to the point where they're moving the mainstream in their direction then your nation isn't free any longer either.

Especially when they commendeer one of the major political parties....