That the world is committed to isolating Libya and holding its ruling family to account does, indeed, send a very powerful message to those who are fighting ”“ literally ”“ to end Gaddafi’s four decades of tyranny. Yet, as the humanitarian crisis inside the North Africa country escalates, world leaders ”“ like David Cameron ”“ will note that the dictator is unlikely to take any notice of the EU, United Nations and others, despite the prospect of a no-fly zone being belatedly imposed to protect Libya’s citizens.
Their dilemma, if the bloodshed persists, is whether the West can justify military action to remove Gaddafi when considering the consequences that this could have across the wider Middle East, and for the war on terror.
If anyone believes the unrest in in Egypt, Libya, etc. will result in anything resembling freedom and democracy, they are quite quite mistaken. This is all about establishing rabid Islamic Mullahs like Khomeini all over the Middle East and foisting Sharia misogynistic rule wherever they can.
Oh, and ask yourself why are US warships assisting in this endeavor when they should be backing up Israel and staring down the Iranian warships docked in Syria?
(hint: Barack Hussein Obama denounced Israel in the UN a few weeks ago)
[blockquote] Their dilemma, if the bloodshed persists, is whether the West can justify military action to remove Gaddafi when considering the consequences that this could have across the wider Middle East, and for the war on terror. [/blockquote]
That depends on how it is done. George Bush asembled a coalition of islamic nations to drive another islamic nation (Iraq) out of Kuwait by force. The Egyptian and Syrian armies lined up alongside the Americans and British to attack their fellow Arabs from Iraq. A truly remarkable diplomatic achievement by Bush Snr.
If the West’s leaders do things the right way, with careful consultation and due regard for the feelings of the Islamic leaders, I am sure they will be able to use a modicum of force to bring down Qaddafi.