Why is it that invasion of Iraq to liberate them from a dictator is the right thing to do while Middle East pro-democracy protester only get “concern” statement from U.S.? If report coming from Libya is true, then there is a clear and present danger of civilians being massacred. Libyan pilot who flew to Malta, and is seeking asylum, claimed they were ordered to bomb the protesters. Several Libyan ambassadors have defected and their U.N. ambassador have called for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya. Al Jazeera is now reporting about air strikes and live shots being fired into the protesters. This is information U.S. intelligence can easily verify.
Just because Britain have close business ties with Libya established during Tony Blairs time, and Petro-Canada paid Libya $1 billion for oil contracts, does not mean it should cause the Western Allies to be indecisive and twiddle their thumbs while pro-democracy protesters are being massacred. A no-fly zone should be considered if there is an immediate threat of massive deaths in the hands of what appears to be a vicious dictatorial regime.
U.S. should make it clear without ambiguity that Gaddafi will be responsible for war crime if he massacre his people. The slow elevation of concern statement to “deep concern”, “unacceptable” and “outrage” is not going to stop the bloodshed. U.S. have shown they are capable of establishing a no-fly zone in an attempt to overthrow a dictator in Iraq, so why is it different now? NATO waged “humanitarian war” in Kosovo. What needs to happen before international intervention in Libya would be justified? An urgent discussion of possible action should at least be considered apart from the “concern” statements.