"Next time, Obama should make himself count to one million before he sets absolutists goals like 'Gaddafi must go,' and 'We must protect civilian lives,'" - Les Gelb.
In his piece we also find the following:
Of course, there is the new concern about providing arms to the rebels. The United Nations mandate for doing this is ambiguous, at best, and many nations argue that this would be an uncalled-for intervention in what many believe to be a civil war rather than a genocidal one. The White House and its coalition partners respond that it certainly would have been genocidal if they had failed to intervene.
On what conceivable grounds can Qaddafi's vile violence agains civilians be called "genocidal." His goals are to suppress revolt among large numbers of Libyans, the most ornery of which are in the East of the country. I see no evidence of racial or ethnic targeting. If the word "genocide" is going to be used to describe any mass suppression of revolt, it loses its meaning.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.