I see no benefit by "cooperating" with a terrorist dictator who practices militant Islam and funds terror groups working to murder us.
This gives us excellent leverage in dealing with other rogue nations.
Rogue nations will see this as a weakness, and therefore will try to make it look like they want to "cooperate" with the US too, to get pressure off their backs.
We cannot forcibly remove each and every dictator. We would have allowed Saddam to leave. We are working on diplomatic efforts with North Korea. The list goes on...Syria, Lebanon, Iran.
I agree we cannot forcibly remove each and every terrorist dictator. But it doesn't mean we can't treat every terrorist dictator the same - that is, no diplomatic relations, no recognition, etc. until they change their terrorist ways and until the dictators step down. Sure we are working on North Korea, Syria, Iran, but we are treating them all the same, as terrorists, who should have no international recognition, but isolation.
Just what is it that you think we should do with Libya and how that is better than what is happening?
Treat them as a terrorist state in terms of making them isolated, diplomatically weak, and financialy unstable, just like we treat the terrorist states of North Korea, Syria and Iran.
I'm sorry yonif, but I think you may be thinking emotionally and not realistically about this one.
I appreciate your opinion. All I am saying that the US needs to stick to its principles and doctrine regarding the new war on terrorism it launched on 9/11/2001. He who supports, incites, harbors, or funds terrorists is a terrorist himself. Qaddafi fits that description accurately. Moving away from these principles make us weak and makes us look like we aren't serious.
Sure, Qaddafi could be giving up his WMD, which I don't believe, but it does not matter in terms of the big picture of who the US is targetting. With or without weapons, Qaddafi remains a militant Islamic terrorist leader who should not be dealt with, and kept isolated.