Sweethearts Candy Blog's

The architects of 911, the fanatical Muslim extremists called Al Qaeda, are now fighting alongside the Libyan rebels.  Some of these vermin are veterans of the Iraq war, where they fought against American troops.

Now, thanks to Barack Obama, Al Qaeda and other Muslim fanatics have a much greater chance of overthrowing the current government of Libya and replacing it with one that is worse, one that is more aggressive and openly at war with the United States.

Like I said in an earlier post, we don't know enough about the Libyan rebels to know if they are friend or foe, and for that reason (and others), our intervention in Libya was naive and reckless.

Those on the right who have enthusiastically supported Obama's ill-advised adventurism should take note.

The United Nations has approved a no-fly zone over Libya and British and French planes may begin attacking Gaddafi's forces tonight or tomorrow.  Have at it, French and Brits.

Meanwhile, Egypt continues sending weapons and ammunition to the Libyan rebels.  Are the rebels our friends?  Probably not, but no one knows for sure.  I can see no benefit in intervention except on humanitarian grounds, i.e. to prevent the slaughter of innocents; however, what is a limited operation today may very well grow into another full-fledged war.  Color me unenthusiastic.

Read more about it here.

I had a long discussion with another reader over at The Other McCain about the wisdom of intervening in the civil war in Libya.  I am against intervention.  After years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no compelling reason to intervene -- absolutely not with boots on the ground, and not even with military or humanitarian aid to the rebels.  Why should we help people who hate our guts?  The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Michael J. Totten makes the case for non-intervention in yesterday's New York Post.  He writes:

Last time Americans led a coalition to topple a mass-murdering dictatorship in the Middle East, the Arab League and the Arabic press hysterically denounced us as imperialist crusaders fighting a war for oil and Israel. Egged on by al-Jazeera, they cheerleaded the "resistance" that killed thousands of our soldiers with roadside bombs in the years that followed.

Of course, that operation was a full-scale invasion, not merely the offering of military supplies and advice.  I am against even the latter, for fear that it would come back to bite us.  We offer aid to the rebels, who are weak and disorganized, and who will be beaten -- and then give Kaddafi a great propaganda coup that he defeated an American-backed military force.  No thanks.

But shouldn't we try to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabic world?  What, do you live in Fantasy Land?  Nothing we can do will change the minds of Islamists whose religion commands them to hate us and to kill us. Totten says, instead of us trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabs, they can damn well try to win our hearts and minds for a change.   He writes:

Americans fret constantly about whether or not we're doing the right thing to win the hearts and minds of the Arabs. That's one reason Obama was elected (though I can't help but wonder how many Libyans wish John McCain were in the White House right now). This may be a good time for Arab leaders and opinion makers to ask themselves what they can do to win over the hearts and minds of Americans.

They might find that if they treated us more like the Kurds do, more of us will be willing to help them in the future -- rather than shun them as hostiles who deserve to be left to their fate.

Read it all here.  Hat tip View From the Right.