Libya, the Land of the Free

The War in Libya has somehow come off the screens of televised news, but it has not left the gruesome reality that is Libya. Believe it or not, American troops - sorry, NATO Air Forces - are attacking the sovereign state of Libya as we speak.

Now, I have said this many times, but why are we in Libya? It is the same reason why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are the Police of Democracy, the same police force that had so successfully put Democracy into power in Latin America during the earlier half of the 20th century and in Asia in the latter half. Please not, for those who are not so historically-aware: America was not successful in either venture.

Which brings me to today's novel point: Democracy (that is the "rule of the people") cannot be attained by an outside force. That is like having sex to create a virgin baby and calling yourself the creator of virgins and professing the virtues of virginity as your own; when, in all reality, you are not. In simpler terms, such layered theories are nothing more than the best examples of hypocrisy. Yet, we continue to fight.

But, mind you, this is far different from previous wars, right? I mean, we're told that our troops are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq - sorry, not Iraq, we have no "combat troops" in Iraq - against a bunch of ragtag misfits, so by  fighting Gaddafi, we're actually fighting a nation, like the good old days, right? WRONG! The United States, like all nations who evolve into power-mongering buffoons to become the establishment, loves to use word "ragtag." But, mind you, weren't we once the ragtag? Yes. And moreover, did our "Founding Fathers" not once have the legitimacy of the nation, yes! Hey, almost like the anti-West "Insurgents."

But, the issue in Libya is not one like that in Afghanistan. The "enemy" - cough, cough, Humanity is one - does not enjoy the legitimacy of the people. To compare to this situation, there is actually a precedent: Iraq's Saddam Hussein. When he attacked Kuwait, the Kuwaitis wanted help. When he went ape-shit on his own people... apparently they wanted help. He had the lowest approval ratings as people hated him for disastrous economic and political movements. But, the difference between Libya and Iraq is this: the latter's people never went to arms against their leader. In retrospect, this makes clear the mistake the Americans made in going to war in Iraq.

With difference dawns a separate question: what are we doing? Is it justified that NATO is in Libya, yes. But is it the right choice, the ethical choice? No. If the people want to fight for their own freedom, let them. If we are to take up arms against Gaddafi for them, we would be no different than Gadaffi. Who are we to kill Libyan, American and NATO-allied troops? 

CNN) -- Top British officials paid a visit Saturday to leaders of Libya's opposition government, the beneficiary of the first NATO helicopter attacks on ruler Moammar Gadhafi' military vehicles, equipment and forces. 

Foreign Secretary William Hague and International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell traveled to Benghazi, where they reiterated support for the Transitional National Council.
According to a statement, Mitchell announced new support for the clearing of mines in besieged cities, including Misrata. He and Hague visited a Benghazi hospital treating those wounded in the conflict.
The visit, which included a discussion of the country's possible future, followed helicopter attacks by British and French forces on the regime's military. 

"This successful engagement demonstrates the unique capabilities brought to bear by attack helicopters," said Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, who commands NATO's Libya operation. "We will continue to use these assets whenever and wherever needed, using the same precision as we do in all of our missions." More>