Attack on Libya imminent?

khaddafi gone is success, not having troops on ground to get it accomplished success, libyians being able to take credit for their own freedom, success.

what happens beyond now is gravy either way

 

I largely agree, but Wes has a salient point. If a radical Islamist regime ends up in power, we may be trading one madman for a group of lunatics. Hopefully, that won't happen, but getting rid of a terrorist and mass murderer is a huge victory for the world.

 

Whoever takes over it will be a matter of self-determination by the people of Libya which is a good step regardless of the consequences. Same with Mubarak. And with no boots on the ground. As opposed to the removal of Saddam in Iraq. Not to mention Osama Bin Laden. Reasonable people can disagree on domestic policy I think, but Obama has built a very impressive foreign policy resume.

 

Bush (and America) spent a lot of capital insisting on the Palestinians right to self-determination and though they didn't like the choice of Palestinian voters, the fact is that they voted for their leader. That is democracy and I don't believe democracy is ever bad.

 

And?

a "Democratic" nation can't have any other religion than Christianity? Last time I looked, they don't have seperation of church and state in Muslim nation.

Do you sleep with a night light on as well?

 

I have less faith in humanity.

 

Do you think Qadaffi should have stayed in power?

It's a yes or no question in addition to being the alternative to what you are complaining about.

 

Where is the credit for Nato? 5-month of bombing played a huge role in this war. In fact, we still do not really know what Libyan people want because of those interventions.

 

What is that even supposed to mean?

 

You don't know?

It means basso is complaining about something in a "pre-constitution" in Libya. Since he seems upset about it, I asked if he'd rather Qaddafi still be in power.

The reason I asked that is because that was the other option to having these rebels take him out.

 

I don't understand the logic. Why would there only be these two options? (no separation of church and state vs. Gaddafi in power)

 

I would say that freedom (personal as well as political) and peace are both more important than self-determination. It is possible that both of those improve under the new, more democratic theocracy in Libya, but it's not a foregone conclusion at all.

 

Please tell me which other faction in Libya was moving and powerful enough to throw Qaddafi out.

If there was a faction that we could have supported but somehow didn't, then I guess I was wrong.

To me it appears that the groups that came together to get rid of Qaddafi were the other option.

If there was a third option please let me know about it.

 

maybe we can send some covert oklahoma tea party law makers over there to make sure sharia law doesn't get implemented, maybe even bachmann

 

Seems to me that the uprising was driven by a rather diverse group of forces within Libya...some Islamists, some members of rival clans, some pro-Western forces...etc. etc.

E.g., Mahmoud Djibril, who is emerging as possibly "the face of the revolution" (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...-Jibril-the-global-face-of-Libya-s-opposition) clearly seems to be a representative of a more liberal world view.

Not sure what makes you think that there is only one faction comprising this revolution.

 

I mentioned that it was a coalition of different groups that got together to drive Qaddafi out. They definitely have different views. The fact that right now they have a clause in their "pre-constitution" that mentions Islam is what the group has come up with.

It's post revolution time, and there may still be some bloodshed before we see who's really going to end up ruling, but whatever they decide including some form of Islamic democracy is what they themselves decided upon.

At this point the rebels including the more worldly Mahmoud Djibril have allowed the saying about Islam to be in their constitution. Obviously I would hope the new Libyan govt. is more secular. But I would prefer a self-determined Libyan govt. even if it has Islam in their constitution to Qaddafi.

Judging from the complaints some people are making, they may disagree.

It's impossible to tell what basso really wants since he's paid for his posts, and he's flip-flopped on Libya from the get-go. He was initially critical of Obama for not doing more to help oust Qaddafi, and then was against intervention once Obama helped support the rebels.

So who knows. I figured a yes or no question based on the only two alternatives I've seen seems easy enough for anyone to answer.

 

edit:

 

As terrible as Gaddafi was, I think I'd prefer him to the Taliban (not that I think this is a likely scenario, but just pointing out that I believe your statement is not necessarily one I would agree with).

 

Ok but the Taliban wasn't the coalition of groups that ousted Qaddafi.

The bottom line is that the group which ousted the dictator included Djibril and came up with the inclusion about Islam in their document.