ask me anything

I'm certain the US (Obama especially) will try to stay as far away from the situation as possible. Given the disapproval Obama has at the moment, and his ongoing attempt to regain political momentum, the last thing he needs is for himself to be linked to the Gaddafi Regime. People have a way of blowing things out of proportions, and making innocent shit into something it's not....like this picture, which was a simple handshake at a UN meeting, where Kaddafi serves on the Security Council.


Truth the told both Democrats and Republicans have made deals with Kaddafi in the past to keep the oil flowing. Neither side wants that shit to be brought up so both sides are keeping quite about it. The ONLY way we might intervene is if the violence spreads to neighboring countries or outside forces try to actively intervene in Libya. In the case of the later we might ignore that as long as they don't get caught doing it. More then likely the US will advocate for the UN peace keepers to intervene in order to keep their hands clean of the incident.

__________________

ninjalostboy95

Okay so the US is trying to keep the past secret and trying not to get involved to ensure that these past secret deals don't get exposed? A "Be involved only when necessary" type of situation? Okay, got you.

ACt

First off, thanks AMA - that is a very valuable link for the interactive maps. Good breakdowns and stats on the regions.

Second, to say Bahrain is the next Egypt is to ignore all the other changes that have already happened. The West Bank disbanded it's government, while Yemen and Iran flared in violence before Libya or Bahrain, but their outgoing information is under tighter restraints; also Algeria is off and running, though it has become silent as of late in terms of new developments.

The other issue that separates Bahrain from others is that it is a rather wealthy nation that is divided on religious terms - in the form of Sunni rulers over the Shiite majority. This dynamic is far more dangerous than anything that was going on in Egypt, which is a more secular nation (and hope that it remains such).

Lastly, there may well be precedent to intervene in Libya, based on the brutal put down of protesters using snipers and air assaults. This is now becoming an issue of international human rights violations and international pressure will begin to fall on Gaddafi, despite any previous dealings. If this happens, the whole nature of the African/Mideast revolutions may take a new twist in terms of World involvement and influence. It is a dangerous road, but it may be necessary.

My opinion would be that if the uprisings turn incredibly violent, international intervention will be necessary, whether the protesters want it or not, but it will have to be a very tempered support. Not invasion or forceful removal and decision making about a countries future, but true intervention to prevent further violence in the terms of international protection and support of human rights and freedoms - perhaps they can even revive some sort of UN power with it - to demonstrate that the world supports free and independent African/Middle Eastern nations. Even those who hate America.

Of course, my general cynicism tells me that it won't happen because while I suspect there was a lot of backroom pressure from the Western World on the government and military of Egypt not to get violent, on the basis of the financial and political involvement (see: Suez Canal, oil and Israel "friendship"), countries like Libya, Bahrain and Yemen are less important and money can be made on the increase in oil prices these revolts will cause. Likewise, the West will feel obligated to subvert Iran, not help them.