And Libya goes on...

[Dayuhan]

It is the disgraceful failure to implement UNSC resolution 1973 (which they asked for) that is at issue here.

Since when is the enforcement of UN resolutions the specific and exclusive responsibility of the United States? The US has no more responsibility than any or every other member of the UN. Any given state in any given case decides what they are willing to contribute to an enforcement effort. The US contribution in this case has been significant, but the US never signed on as the sole party responsible for enforcement, nor is there any reason to impose such responsibility on the US.

In my comments I have erred on the side of kindness towards the Obama Administration in saying that they did not wait until the mass graves were filling. But even apart from in Misrata, Zintan and the towns between Sirte and Benghazi what has happened to the people in Tripoli itself who had taken to the streets in the early stages of the uprising? Any still alive?

How is that the responsibility of the Obama administration or the United States? Has the US been appointed sole saviour of anyone who rebels against a government they can't overthrow? When? By whom?

The betrayal of the Hungarians in 1956 can be used as an illustration of how little has changed.

There is a parallel in the betrayal of the Hungarians as there is in the betrayal of the Libyans in the West of the country.

I see no "betrayal" in either case? How can you "betray" someone to whom you have no responsibility?

The CIA's incompetence is paralleled. "A CIA paper concluded in June, 1956, that 'there really is no underground movement' in Hungary at all." No doubt with the assistance of Wikileaks we will find out that the CIA said the same about Libya in 2010.

The level of disorganization among the rebels suggests that there probably wasn't much of an organized "underground movement" in Libya prior to the Tunisian uprising. What's going on now looks less like an underground movement coming into the open than like a frantic attempt to bring some kind of organization to what was largely a spontaneous rebellion.

Europe knows they can't trust the US government. What Europe, especially France and Britain who jumped into this first, are concerned about is that the US will jump ship when the going gets tough and they will be left holding the baby (so to speak)... which appears to be in the process of happening.

Did the US ever promise to hold the baby when the going got tough? The US provided what it said it would provide. Why should it be obligated to do more?