[Lån-Penge]

So, it now looks like we're considering arming the rebels in Libya:

Arming Rebels?

I don't know that I can think of a bigger mistake that we could make. Once we do that, any premise of our involvement to "protect civilians" becomes negated, because we will have chosen a side in the fight, and we will be arming them.

Hopefully, Obama will suffer a lucid moment, show some true leadership and refuse to do this...

[POMAH_K]

So, it now looks like we're considering arming the rebels in Libya:

Arming Rebels?

I don't know that I can think of a bigger mistake that we could make. Once we do that, any premise of our involvement to "protect civilians" becomes negated, because we will have chosen a side in the fight, and we will be arming them.

Hopefully, Obama will suffer a lucid moment, show some true leadership and refuse to do this...

Aww...come on Steve...it's worked so well in the past why not try it again!

[Xibizopt]

What is strange about this story is that nobody knows who the hell are these rebels and what they want to do once they are in power! Are they democrats? I don't really think so. My opinion is that they are a radical muslim group... so in terms of what would be better for the US, it would be better to let Kadafi stay in power, he's more or less friendly to the west, unlike for what it seens, the next group that is coming (the rebels)... Nobody knows what these rebels are, but I guess they are radical muslims... And will be much more hostile to the West than Kadafi is...

[Butiqueso]

Thought they were already armed. Until we know who they are, it's a bit loony.

[POMAH_K]

What is strange about this story is that nobody knows who the hell are these rebels and what they want to do once they are in power! Are they democrats? I don't really think so. My opinion is that they are a radical muslim group... so in terms of what would be better for the US, it would be better to let Kadafi stay in power, he's more or less friendly to the west, unlike for what it seens, the next group that is coming (the rebels)... Nobody knows what these rebels are, but I guess they are radical muslims... And will be much more hostile to the West than Kadafi is...

Y'know....I'd be willing to bet that Ike had similar thoughts in '59 and Kennedy even campaigned on stuff like this in '60. Ollie North and the Reagan administration went through these same type of maneuvers in the 80's. Clinton pulled similar shit in the 90's. Bush could have done the same thing in 2003 but opted for a somewhat more direct approach.

This kind of crap is nothing new and it never really works out well for any of the parties involved but that sure hasn't stopped anyone.

[LarryRda]

So, it now looks like we're considering arming the rebels in Libya:

Arming Rebels?

I don't know that I can think of a bigger mistake that we could make. Once we do that, any premise of our involvement to "protect civilians" becomes negated, because we will have chosen a side in the fight, and we will be arming them.

Hopefully, Obama will suffer a lucid moment, show some true leadership and refuse to do this...

Cool it, you're talking down the liberal "Jesus" here.

[Opislossy]

So, it now looks like we're considering arming the rebels in Libya:

Arming Rebels?

I don't know that I can think of a bigger mistake that we could make. Once we do that, any premise of our involvement to "protect civilians" becomes negated, because we will have chosen a side in the fight, and we will be arming them.

Hopefully, Obama will suffer a lucid moment, show some true leadership and refuse to do this...

I agree--arming these rebels is a huge mistake. First of all--we don't know who they are--and often times in our history we armed what we thought were friends only to find out later--that the same weapon was turned on us.

Secondly--even arming them--they can't and won't win this. The army is solidly behind Kadafy--along with several large communities. The rebels are already in retreat--they're numbers of support aren't growing--they're diminishing.

It's time to get out of this--and stay out of it.

[Opislossy]

Thought they were already armed. Until we know who they are, it's a bit loony.

Yeah--we don't know who these rebels are--and we've done that been there before.

[mobbemeatiedy]

We know nothing of these rebels. We shouldn't be involved with them, for they could be worse than Quadaffi.

[ReggieRed]

What I fail to understand is how this is public info. Anyways until we know the details of the arms it's hard to pass judgment. I was never a fan of blaming Charlie Wilson for arming bin Laden & co. After all it did beat the soviets.

[Lån-Penge]

What I fail to understand is how this is public info.

How it's public knowledge doesn't matter...

Anyways until we know the details of the arms it's hard to pass judgment. No it's not, it's ridiculously simple.

We shoudn't do it. Period.

It was a civil war. An argument could even be made that our involvement in "protecting civilians" allowed for it to continue to be a civil war. As soon as we start helping one side or the other, though, it ceases to be that, and that's bad...

I was never a fan of blaming Charlie Wilson for arming bin Laden & co. After all it did beat the soviets. The difference, of course, is that Wilson had a goal: to see the Soviets defeated. We don't know what the goal is for Libya...

[Frdsdx26]

What I fail to understand is how this is public info. Anyways until we know the details of the arms it's hard to pass judgment. I was never a fan of blaming Charlie Wilson for arming bin Laden & co. After all it did beat the soviets.

The Soviets were beaten already. Afghanistan, if it did anything, gave them another decade in power and left behind the very unstable remnant of a superpower we see today instead of what might be, by now, a resurging ally. Then again, the entire Cold War had largely that effect.

I think, the disclosure may be due to his statement yesterday that arming the rebels was "not off the table". Remember, this statement is really just a written formality that only allows him to arm the rebels if he wants to, so it's no surprise. It doesn't necessarily mean he is, yet, and it may be almost obligatory given the statement he's made.

In fact, both the statement and this memo may be negotiating tools, telling Muammar that it's time to get out if he is given the chance, I hope so, but have to admit that, knowing Obama, it's probably not, and knowing Qaddafi, won't be seen as such anyway.

I'm a certified Class A coward but even I would be willing to fight to the death if I was 68 and and only thing I had to lose was being tried in the Hague until 2050, while a whole nation was mine to gain.

My views on this are clear, getting involved in ANY WAY here is Obama's biggest mistake yet. Practically anything else he has done can be justified in one way or another and may yet work to his advantage. This, however, is nearly certain to turn out very badly. If he loses we look like the ultimate paper tiger and Qaddafi remains, as very probably the leader of anti-US Islam, the man who beat the Great Satan. If Muammar loses we get, most likely, an even more American hating regime in power or one at best viewed by radical Islam as yet another American puppet, ripe for terrorism and destabilisation. Yes, Obama was handed a turd sandwich but Presidents are supposed to turn these into pastrami on rye, not make us chow down on them with puke on the side for the next 20 years.

[ChexEcodece]

So, it now looks like we're considering arming the rebels in Libya:

Arming Rebels?

I don't know that I can think of a bigger mistake that we could make. Once we do that, any premise of our involvement to "protect civilians" becomes negated, because we will have chosen a side in the fight, and we will be arming them.

Hopefully, Obama will suffer a lucid moment, show some true leadership and refuse to do this...

The coalition has more or less chosen it's side, by default, as the rebels stand between the Lybian army and civilians. That, political objectives and the necessity to shorten the "intervention" as much as possible might be why they don't rule arming the rebels out. I'm not sure it would be very effective, as even if equipped they would remain untrained and unorganized, things that take time and time, in my opinion, is the sole thing the coalition is short of. Arming them would more or less mean the fight would keep going for months - at which point the effort will turn desperate, effective maybe but highly unpopular - at least more than now.
For now all they do is gather intel, which is what is asked of them.

[Hoglaunccoolf]

You do have a point, Steve. Right now in A-stan, our troops are being killed with weapons that we gave the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets in the '80s so it does give me pause when thinking of giving weapons to more "rebels".

[avaissema]

There are weapons that you could give the rebels that would not cause us too much grief if we had to chasten them at some point in the future.

After all, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Stingers we gave the Afghan opposition, how many planes did we lose from them?

[Rurcextedutty]

So, it now looks like we're considering arming the rebels in Libya:

Arming Rebels?

I don't know that I can think of a bigger mistake that we could make. Once we do that, any premise of our involvement to "protect civilians" becomes negated, because we will have chosen a side in the fight, and we will be arming them.

Hopefully, Obama will suffer a lucid moment, show some true leadership and refuse to do this...

You think we haven't already chosen sides?

[avaissema]

You think we haven't already chosen sides?

Exactly. The fact that Obama hasn't the testicular fortitude to admit it only further proves him unworthy of the office.

We shouldn't be afraid of helping the Libyan people because of a handful of them might be Al Quida sympathizers. If we where combating a tyrannical regime here, how would we like it if the outside world denied us assistance because there are Marxists among us.

[fil_nurser]

The right wing noise machine is going to be against whatever Obama does in Libya.
Their main objection is that the rebels will prevail, Qaddafi will be deposed, and that will look like Obama lead the US to a military victory, something that completely eluded the hapless tough talking pussy walking Bush Boy.
And a military victory coming before an election is as big a nightmare for them as a recovering economy.

[avaissema]

And a military victory coming before an election is as big a nightmare for them as a recovering economy.

Hi Pot.

Meet kettle.

[Lån-Penge]

You think we haven't already chosen sides?

Oh, I absolutely do.

Unfortunately, the UN Resolution was passed to protect innocent civilians, wasn't it? By arming the people who Ghadaffi is fighting, we're changing the game. Once we help the rebels, we're no longer in it to protect innocent civilians. We're in it to topple Ghadaffi, and that's very different than what we signed up for...