Yikes. I'm pretty sure where I stand on this, and it's not in favor.
I don't want Khadafi in power any more than the next guy, but to fire missiles into what is sounding like the residence of his son seems to cross the line for me. Thoughts?
Ran wrote:The thing about guys like Khadafi is that they like using human shields. Guess it backfired on him this time.
I guess my issue is that he can use this to successfully convince people who are on the fence about this that NATO is the bad guy. I guess that was going to happen anyhow, but I just cringe every time something happens that leads to an increased likelihood of folks around the world hating North Americans for getting involved in what many could argue is none of our business.
I guess part of me sees that as their issue. Call me a bad global citizen, but what, exactly, will those people gain from having Khadafi out? What has Egypt gained? Their military hasn't relinquished control of their country, unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think their way of life has changed. Not that people should stop striving to improve their lives.... but what's our stake in it? (And, I'm horrified that I know the answer, and it's blacker and more liquid than "human rights".)
Ran wrote:The thing about guys like Khadafi is that they like using human shields. Guess it backfired on him this time.
I guess my issue is that he can use this to successfully convince people who are on the fence about this that NATO is the bad guy. I guess that was going to happen anyhow, but I just cringe every time something happens that leads to an increased likelihood of folks around the world hating North Americans for getting involved in what many could argue is none of our business.
Well, the article only refers to the attackers as "NATO". I didn't see them specify what country, but I'm blaming the European part of NATO. They are the ones that buy their oil from Lybia.