Here's the thing: Why should we care?

For decades the Arabs have celebrated their dictators and supported their every move against Israel and the west (and against Africans). Suddenly they decide they don't like the dictators any more. Well, it's a bit late now.

Gaddafi is not worse than Erdogan. The Turkish government has killed more Kurds per year, including last year, than Gaddafi has killed Libyans. Al-Jazeera's numbers are ridiculously inflated. But Erdogan and Turkey are EU candidates and Gaddafi is evil? Why? Just one month ago Gaddafi was a member of the UN human rights council and was supposed to get an award for his human rights record. And now he is evil? He has killed before, all the time.

If the Arabs want a no-fly zone over Libya they should create one. Egypt can do that. If the rebels (or Gaddafi) want western help, they should openly tell us. Let THEM take the risk of declaring their loyalties first. That's how adults do it. It is time for the Arabs not to act like children and for the world not to treat them like children. The rebels in Libya could ask Egypt for help. Let the new Egypt make a decision. Then Egypt can ask Israel to supply aircraft, pilots, logistics etc.. The US and Europe have nothing to do with this. It's time for the Arabs to choose sides, not for the west.

So my proposal is simple: Let's do whatever they ask of us, but only if they ask and only if they ask openly.

Until then, let them do whatever they want and let them fight their celebrated dictators.

Also, most governments in the world and the UN should apologise for treating those very dictators as normal human beings for so many decades. But to switch from giving Gaddafi a human rights award to condeming him as an evil dictator within one month is ridiculous. Gaddafi is just unpopular now, but he is not worse than before and not worse than the others. He is only a lot more honest.

Shibber, shibber.

75% of his country is a void.  I think it is too late.  For now, Qaddafi has won.  There may be another opportunity in the future, but the UN action is again too little too late.

They're hearing shells and gunfire in Benghazi. Misurata amazingly hasn't fallen yet. There have been videos showing Qaddafi's tanks randomly shooting buildings. Explosions were heard in the capital Tripoli. Apparently the opposition is using bombs now.

This is a dark moment in the history of the West. We had one chance to make the Middle Eastern people like us by supporting their democracy movements, and we completely blew it.

The UN is ineffective and needs to be scrapped.

middle east needs less sand, more glass.

mmm.... yeessss...

That sort of "dumb American" attitude is what gives Al Qaeda a propaganda advantage.

I've checked more into the situation in Libya. Why havent the air strikes started? And why has the US not committed to the no fly zone yet? All Obama is doing is talking.

Obama is just talking because he is Obama, and therefore scared of using military force or anything that makes the U.S. look good.  Bush may have been a gunslinging cowboy, but at least he wouldn't have hesitated to drop the hammer on Ghadiffi's forces.

Exactly.

Apparently, too many people who voted for him in 2008, don't know what Obama is. Obama has no military sense what so ever, all he does is talk the talk, commit treasonous acts with our and our allies nuclear secrets (hasn't been confirmed, but wouldn't be surprised one bit if it is true, which is grounds for immediate impeachment), and try to make "peace" with everyone he can no matter how much they want us dead.

I think he just wants to make sure none of his guys get hurt- that's why he's keeping the US presence limited to logistical support for other countries. That's kind of short-sighted, but it results in a good outcome- namely, cutting down on the Colonel's force-using ability without giving the US military enough responsibility for it to screw up.

The Libyan military presents an almost-nil threat to American forces.  Our airplanes getting shot down by the barely-trained and horribly-equipped Libyan forces is a near-zero probability.

EDIT:  The question here is: does sending American personnel into a potentially lethal situation advance American interests?  The answer is yes.  America has a chance to look like the good guys for once when it comes to military intervention.  There is a U.N. mandate to enforce this no-fly zone, so it isn't unilateral on our part and participating makes us look like we care about international engagement rather than pure self-interest.  Sending planes to help the rebels at this point will make us in the U.S. look like liberators and supporters of freedom for once.

I agree. Qaddafi still has plenty of backers, as judged from the rallies they throw (the propaganda still inflates those numbers). If the rebels win, they could easily become insurgents along with the remnants of Qaddafi's forces. If we invade, it will hand Al Qaeda another source of "The infidels are coming to kill Muslims" bullshit. If a ground forces are really needed, let France do it. The Libyans already view France as a hero for pushing the no fly zone while Obama twiddled his thumds.

We just need to stick to air strikes and the no fly zone to protect the rebel held territory. At the beginning of the uprising, the rebels did not face the artillery barrages and air strikes they do, and they took over most of the country. Qaddafi's forces have proven that they rely on artillery, planes and other heavy weaponry to win. When they used arms equivalent to what the rebels have, they stood no chance.

It is highly unlikely Benghazi will fall. Qaddafi's forces have tried twice already to enter the city, but were pushed back. The rebels reportedly have 8000 troops as well as the French providing air cover, while Qaddafi has only 2000, though he has better weapons than the rebels.