At his press conference yesterday, President Obama made it clear the United States would not join France and Britain in a fly-zone to stop the slaughter in Libya.  France and Britain have made it clear they will not move without the United States.

Meantime, the Libyan rebels are being shelled, strafed from the air and driven into the sea. 

The fact is a huge majority of the people in Libya live within 15 kilometers of the Mediterranean coast, which makes the establishment and maintenance of a no-flyzone considerably less difficult than it was in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq.

The United States says Gadhafi should go.  Should it not do something to hasten that along?

Should we abandon the Libyans?

What do you think?


  1. 1
    Vin Smith Says:

    There is a vast difference between establishing a No Fly Zone and sending in an invasion force. An NFZ would be the next logical move. Timing can also be imperative. I am confident when the time is right, our government will move on this.

  2. Hungary, 1956, Prague,1968, Saigon, 1973 or thereabout, Somalia, need I say more. Long on talk, short on walk.

  3. 3
    Barbara Says:

    And will Canada join Britain and France, I wonder, or continue to take potshots from behind the USA’s skirts?

  4. 4

    Neil writes:

    The United States says Gadhafi should go. Should it not do something to hasten that along?

    A no-fly zone is a military action. Although on appearances it is « non-violent » and, as Vin above suggests, vastly different from sending in an invasion force, it does nevertheless impose itself with the backing of the threat of force and violence…and, yes, death and destruction.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that if George W. Bush were in office today, the likes of Neil McKenty would be screaming bloody murder at the mere suggestion that he establish a no-fly zone.

  5. Canada entered two wars ahead of the U.S., we were in Korea and our secrete special forces, unknown to tax apyers, were in Irak with you guys. In Afghanistan we have, relative to our population, lost more men than the U.S. did.
    We were in the Pacific before you and we went to disatrous Somalia with you.
    Barbara, you should learn some history before judging.
    And I will not mention other places we were in and you did not come.

  6. 6
    zeusiswatching Says:

    I’ve posted my questions about intervention on my blog. I am truly bewildered, and wondering why the United States needs to get into this. Can the French, the British and the Arab League not muster the forces to aid the Libyans who are trying to oust their tyrant?

  7. 7
    Barbara Says:

    Sorry you took my question as a judgment, Paul. It was merely a question. Canada does its part on many occasions. It must have a good reason for not sticking its neck out now. Maybe the USA is once-(at least)-bitten-twice-shy.

    But why must it always be the USA swooping in to solve problems? It is overextended as it is and criticized (often correctly) for meddling. It is damned if you do and damned if you don’t for the USA.

  8. I agree with you here, Barbara.

  9. 9
    Denise Says:

    Saved, I really like your site! :)

RSS Feed for this entry

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s


Recevez les nouvelles publications par mail.

Rejoignez 99 autres abonnés