"Obama could send Mitt to Gitmo"
or go himself. Both would be a good thing.

unless you do it the drug smugglers way...

Yeah I think wfs is right. The "muslim brotherhoods" are different organizations with different agendas and power base. Some are very moderate others are more radical. As people gain more freedom and better education over time, their support will slowly shrink and they will become less radical.

true as that may be, firewing, I think yell wants to debate another topic.

@Baratheon:
Can't understand why I forgot to post that as an option. Must have been late.

I was wondering what you guys think about him. Please keep this poll clean for a while.

1. Hero
2. Criminal
3. Nobody interesting
4. Controversial, but still should've been treated fairer (add by zidi)
5. not too bright (add by xeno)
6. ...

If you want to add an opinion to this poll I will edit this post.

"You can't force that new government to be democratic with rockets. That requires an invasion and occupation. You claim we can force them. How?"
Its enough for a newly established regime to be threatened. You can blockade them economically and shoot it to ruin. If you only play dead serious about an invasion they will not risk it unless they have a powerful ally. The Libyan leader had no way out so he had to fight. He couldn't make it a democracy or he would be brought to justice. The new Syrian regime prolly has a choice.

"It's real people in a real space on the earth."
This comes from...mister Spock!

update:
Latest numbers say libertarian family wins against Islamic influenced politicians in Libya with almost 50%. Soon we will see if they can keep up the lead.

"If the rebels are only supported, you're simply trading one tyrant for another."
and yet you said we didn't know what regime would erupt. We can force that new gov to be democratic.

"So now you're arguing a Libya-style assault, without regard for who takes power."
No, I said First pressure,if that doesn't work support,if that doesn't work then invasion. I also made it very clear I want a democracy there, if need be it should be enforced.

"Syria has access to much better arms than Libya did."
But no arms that can shoot rockets out of the sky.

while we are at it, Russia officially stated "they will not deliver any more arms for the duration of this conflict". Seems like they slowly abandon Syria.

"Invasion to liberate a democratic ally and invasion to overthrow a government and occupy a people are not quite the same use of the word."
What democratic ally? Western Europe was occupied by the Nazis=not democratic. So it was an invasion to overthrow a gov and occupy temporarily till a democratic gov was installed.

That is to say, just because the word may apply to both circumstances, there are huge differences that your overly-simple discussion of "invasions" misses."
Ofc there are huge differences. But it was a reply to your far too general statement.

"You have absolutely no basis to presume casualties will be "low.""
You don't seriously think they will shoot our rockets out of the sky? Western military leaders are aware of the bad publicity of casualties. It will be a little more costly thats all.