And Libya goes on...

[Ken White]

Maybe you missed it but everyone (except you apparently) now agrees that the NFZ is in place and effective (and was from day two). So keeping it that way be expensive and boring (for the pilots). Was rather simple wasn't it?

At least as many if not more who think it stupid disagree. I sure do not think it is (a) effective, (b) smart, or (c) likely to achieve the stated goal.

No, it wasn't rather simple -- at least not to judge from all your carping about it. Before we ascribe it to the 'was' column, let's wait until it's over...

BTW any idea why you think the Gaddafi controlled TV and radio is still on the air?

Uh, yeah -- because no one has been told to shut it down. That and a lot of other things are reasons your "was" is premature.

You and I agreed the US was dithering, we both put it down to a lack of knowledge and other problems. While I know the US system is designed to cause that, you chose to ignore it -- which is certainly okay -- but the real difference between us was I disapproved of the whole idea -- and still do. Whereas you were a cheerleader for the action.

That dithering was likely not intended to force others to step up and do things but it fortuitously did just that. Long overdue, too...

So-called humanitarian interventions in my observation and experience generally do more harm than good and arguably rarely if ever change the body count much -- just who the targets were and generally both sides were and are at fault.

Your "three cruise missile" attack presumes accurate targeting info and success. Probably not as certain as you seem to presume and it would have left us attacking yet another Islamic nation for little benefit to anyone including those that were to nominally be 'saved.' Had they all missed, we'd have looked even sillier than we do...

BTW, your post on another thread on that topic, so-called humanitarian intervention, failed to mention the five paragraphs of valid criticism of the concept. To rectify that omission on your part, here are some quotes from those paragraphs and the LINK:

"Some argue that humanitarian intervention is a modern manifestation of the Western colonialism of the 19th century."

"Others argue that dominant countries, especially the United States and its coalition partners, are using humanitarian pretexts to pursue otherwise unacceptable geopolitical goals and to evade the non-intervention norm and legal prohibitions on the use of international force."

"Henry Kissinger, for example, finds that Bill Clinton's practice of humanitarian intervention was wildly inconsistent. The US launched two military campaigns against Serbia]] while ignoring more widespread slaughter in Rwanda, justifying the Russian assault on Chechnya, and welcoming to the United States the second-ranking military official of a widely recognized severe human rights violator - the communist government of North Korea."

"During the G-77 summit, which brought together 133 nation-states, the "so-called right of humanitarian intervention" claimed by powerful states was condemned."

Those in order seem to indicate a massive amount of western / European hearth presumed superiority and egos at work; the US is guilty of using 'humanitarian' issues to further its own interests -- so are the others who think it a grand idea; the inconsistency is routinely noted by others whiule the proponents blow those concerns off with various rationales, regardless it appears quite hypocritical to most of the world; one such rationale can be and is applied to the G-77 'Well, of course, they object...'

As I wrote, sneering European condescension and egos.