Reply #70: There are two different points here - [View All]

[RaleighNCDUer]

First, Libya can NEVER rise 'to the level of genocide' because people of an ethnic and national group killing other people of the same ethnic and national group does not fit the definition of genocide, no matter how horrific the killing might be. The proper term is 'mass murder' (for civilians) or civil war.

RE PNAC - I didn't say they were responsible for the uprisings. In fact, if anything, PNAC machinations in the middle-east may well have delayed such popular uprisings by covering the entire region with the shroud of 'War on Terror'. But I feel just as sure that they would like people to THINK they are responsible for it - it falls right in line with their world view. That's why the PNACers want to double-down on Iraq - the legitimacy of the rebel movement has NOTHING to do with their reality.

The PNAC is entirely about establishing incontestable US hegemony across the world, and securing vital assets for US use. If they can make a case that the US was instrumental in gaining Libyan freedom, then they will be rewarded with access to Libyan oil. They could not care less about Tunisia or Egypt - they have no oil or other vital resource that serves US hegemony. That's why they were perfectly happy with 'friendly' dictators.

And if the rebels are successful, I anticipate a huge backlash when all of a sudden they find they've lost control of their own resources to US & European corporations.

I don't know how many different ways I can say it - the US does not get involved in foreign wars for altruistic purposes. If we did, we'd have done something about Central Africa, Darfur, Ivory Coast, and any number of other places where horrendous things have been happening.

You have to look at what the payoff will be, and who in the US benefits.