The Wrong Intervention

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

That's true. Comparing situation in Libya to Rwanda, which was indeed an extreme case, is just insulting to the victims of that conflict.

Article rightly points out that, despite passing Security Council resolution, the intervention simply lacks real international support.

Furthermore, an intervention in fact only prolonged and escalated the circle of death and violence.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but I find this quite a weak argument. If Benghazi had fallen to Qaddafi, there's no way of telling what could have happened. A humanitarian intervention quite clearly was called for when it became clear that the fall of Benghazi was imminent, certainly when combined with some of the Qaddafi-rhetoric.

Naturally, if rebels captures Tripoli, that would be peace and love all over Libya. When will the people start to think and stop looking at Libya like "good guys v. bad guys?"

Intervention has some sense only if was aimed as establishing a real stalemate, instead of aiding one side.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Kalwejt, your insistence that the two sides are morally equivalent is quite amusing.

Xahar, I rather reject the view that it's some kind "good, pure rebels" vs. "bad regime".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but I find this quite a weak argument. If Benghazi had fallen to Qaddafi, there's no way of telling what could have happened. A humanitarian intervention quite clearly was called for when it became clear that the fall of Benghazi was imminent, certainly when combined with some of the Qaddafi-rhetoric.

Again, I didn't oppose an idea of humanitarian intervention upon the UN mandate. Preferably to create a stealmate, that would separate the two sides from each other.

Sadly, instead of this, we have NATO supporting one side of the civil war against another, which I consider a mistake.