Yes or No: US Establish No Fly Over Libya

[Wilhuf]

The world will condemn the US whether it intervenes in Libya or not.

 

So the US may as well intervene, do some good, help some people, and end up with a favorable situation in the end.

[Tinny]

You could make this a poll and i vote yes.

[Path-x]

As harsh as it might sound, these countries are probably better off with current establishment. It's either dictators or Islamic radicals. I just don't see any possibility for a liberal democracy at this moment.

 

I might be wrong though.

[Darth Avlectus]

My opinion I'm inclined to disagree with OP if only because I really don't want to see the US betrayed or blamed again for problems in that region. It's damned if we do and damned if we don't, we're looking hypocritical either way. I'd say if a year prior we'd have helped the iranian people it would seem less a double standard from us to help out now--others would argue that's just politics and it smells bad.

 

As it is we're tired from a drawn out war which we could have fought better IMO, and shown a little better leadership.

 

It's ugly no matter what.

[Liverandbacon]

I don't like the idea of once again getting into an unneeded conflict before finishing another.

 

I've come to the conclusion that no matter the morality, all humanitarian intervention does is give people an excuse to not un**** their own countries, and present them with someone to blame when things don't go perfectly. Part of why I was always in favor of war in Afghanistan (reprisal for attacks), but considerably less enthused about Iraq.

 

If the ME didn't have such valuable natural resources, I'd be in favor of cutting large portions of the region off from the rest of the world until they either destroyed themselves or established a modicum of modern civilization (that extends more than 10 miles outside of the borders of the major cities), whether under democracy or dictatorship or anything else.