I am a supporter supporter of our President and the job he is doing. I also presently applaud that he has waited for an international resolution to act with regard to the conflict in Libya. If indeed this coalition of forces is present to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, giving the freedom fighters the opportunity to have a fighting chance, I can find it within me to hesitantly support such an action, despite my abhorrence of violent conflict and loss of life. I realize that sometimes the only way to stay off disaster is to cripple the ability to reek such destruction. In general I believe that violence begets violence and destruction but realize that on rare occasions it is left to such measures in order to protect.
My hesitancy in supporting the action currently underway, is because it is happening in an oil producing nation. Such crises have happened in the past (under different administrations), where no action was taken. However, this happens here in a place that produces part of our black gold and we rush in to help. I find it interesting that so many voted to act, and several nations, who themselves have a history of utilizing similar tactics as Khadafi with their own people, did not veto the action but rather abstained. Why did some rush to act and why did others quietly avoid opposition? Unfortunately, I don’t think the answer has its roots in humanitarian sentiments but in something a little more tangible: oil.