Obama Makes Demands on Libya

If he follows through, this is a damned good place to start. A lot of libertarians are strict non-interventionists.  I’m not.  When you are a human rights violator, I think that your shit needs to be blown up, and we’ve got the bombs.  Qadhafi is certainly a human rights violator.

Obama made a clear justification of why we should take the admittedly sobering act of using military force:

Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.

The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.

The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.

That’s good enough for me.  And it was good enough in Iraq, as well.

The conditions we expect Libya to meet are clear:

The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.

Qadhafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Adjabiyah, Misurata (ph) and Zawiyah (ph), and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all area.

Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Let me be clear: These terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action.

My only concern is that the president has not yet sought Congressional approval for the mission.  It’s a constitutional requirement (yes, I know what the War Powers Act says, but it’s not a repeal of the constitution) and he should comply with it.

Let’s hope that the enemies of world freedom are as impotent in opposing this president on this as they were in opposing Bush in Iraq.


  1. divemedic says:

    So I guess we can prepare the missile strikes against China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and half of Central and South America.

  2. Phelps says:

    As soon as bombing them does more good than harm, hell yes.

  3. Andrew says:

    We should have dusted this tyrant 27 years ago. I hope a tomahawk lands in his living room again and blows his arse to kingdom come.

    As far as the war powers act, Bush got approval from Congress, and yet every lib group in the country said he had no right to do what he did, and continue to say so up to this date.

    So whats the point of going that route.

    Obumbler is late on the trigger, but better late than never.

  4. mexigogue says:

    The thing that bothers me is that many people decide their stance on issues such as these based on the identity of whoever happens to be President rather than on principle. I like Ayn Rand’s rationale that it is never immoral to depose a dictator because no one has the right to persecute his own people. That clearly applies here just as it would have if we had stepped in to help the Iranian people back when they had demonstrations that were violently suppressed by the Iranian government. The legality of Obama’s decision is entirely another matter but ethically the US is unquestionably in the right. At times like this I wish people would put partisan politics aside (I believe many republicans who are criticising Obama now would have applauded Dubya had he made the same decision) and I wish people would decide the issue based on ethical principles.

    This is not a defense of Obama but rather speaking up for what is right.