Comments on: Watching a “US-less” NATO in Libya…

By: TB

TB — Wed, 11 May 2011 21:00:47 +0000

“The Cold War is over, and if they want a NATO with us in it, they are going to have to hold up their end of it.”

And in my opinion, it’s about damn time. I always thought Europe should have handled that whole Kosovo thing by themselves, too.

On the other hand, being “World Policeman” isn’t anything we signed up for, but it’s often the case that nobody else can or will step up when things hit the fan. The bitch is deciding when to go in and when not to. It isn’t always a clear decision, and often the outcome either way sucks.

By: ER

ER — Wed, 11 May 2011 20:34:41 +0000

TB (above) is right, on both counts. The Euros need Libyan oil more than we do, and they are way too used to us patrolling their neighborhood. But this is a new world, and we are not going to war for their sweet crude and we can no longer afford to fight their fights for them. The Cold War is over, and if they want a NATO with us in it, they are going to have to hold up their end of it.

When this Libya thing broke out I first thought the Euro’s were getting us to do their dirty work yet again. But it soon became clear that after some initial, and very effective, kick-ass on our part, this was their problem and they had to get involved because we had our hands full elsewhere. Besides, the US is tired of being slammed for being the neighborhood bully, but getting no respect and no backup when the bottles start flying.

I believe Obama has handled this just right, probably not consciously, or deliberately, but in the way it will eventually turn out, through no fault of his own. He stepped in and got the ball rolling, but its their rumble now.

I believe Khadaffi’s days are numbered. But if they are not, what’s the very worst that can happen? He wins and we go back to the way things were? That would be too bad, but we can live with it and it’s not our problem. We did our part even when we had little to gain from it. We did the right thing and we have nothing to be ashamed of.

Besides. With the way stuff is going down in the MidEast and N Africa now, we may want to save our interventions for when we REALLY need them. Libya is not worth a war. Syria or Iran might be.

By: TB

TB — Wed, 11 May 2011 18:26:26 +0000

They do have a stake in the outcome. A big one. They've just been under the U.S. military umbrella so long they've forgotten what dealing with rain is like.

By: mcfly

mcfly — Wed, 11 May 2011 18:22:59 +0000

I thought about that too. Having had enough of war is no sin, I’m sure.

But so much talk came out of europe about stopping gadhafi. I was really hoping that they’d step up to the plate, but it seems they’re a little lost without America leading the team.

By: Lee

Lee — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:35:57 +0000

It’s the end result of the welfare system. For decades the Europeans have been under the American defense umbrella. They’ve become reliant on it and are unable to function on their own. It’s going to take them a while to reawaken from their parasitic stupor.

The coming islamic insurrection should knock them back to reality…maybe.

By: ER

ER — Wed, 11 May 2011 16:22:13 +0000

You can’t expect a committee to run a campaign, especially if you don’t have much at stake in the outcome. Wars are expensive, people get hurt, and they rarely turn out the way you expect them to, even the ones you win. The first half of 20th century left them in the same shape the Confederacy was in 1865: in ruins, depopulated, broke, exhausted, and with the US in charge. Then in the second half they lost world hegemony, their empires and had a cold war.that bled them dry. Maybe the Euros have finally grown up, and gotten flags and marching out of their system. Or maybe they are just tired.