I agree, Hazza, but this might be the easy way out: what if the people WANT intervention, and quickly : Compare these entries on al-Jazeera's Libya Blog:

"5:22am: Details of the US sanctions are emerging. They are:

Freeze of assets held by Gaddafi and four of his children inside US, all US banks have been put on notice for sudden movement of funds from Libya and all military assistance cut off.

"5:23am: Ashraf Tulti, director of the Justice and Democracy for Libya group based in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera that sanctions go against people; they will not affect the Libyan regime.

Instead, he asked for immediate action to stop the killings of Libyan people."

Enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya may not need many, or any, US forces actually on the ground in Libya - if Malta or Egypt or Tunisia gave approval, then US or NATO planes could be quickly moved there and launch attacks on Libyan airfields, shoot down planes, whatever else they need to do to enforce that no-fly policy. Then they withdraw any active forces, as they have done from Kosovo and Bosnia and Iraq.

But when the people plead, 'Please help us, help us, please !' what might they mean ? When, as above, a spokesperson says not to worry about sanctions but asks for 'immediate action', whether you or I like it, that does seem to mean 'send in troops', or at least air support for the people, in the form of a policy that denies freedom of the skies to Ghaddafi's fighters.

And I wonder what Pilger would write about the people asking for US intervention ? Or would he prefer Cuban intervention ? On Ghaddafi's side ? As an Aboriginal friend of mine says often, you can paint a turd in gold paint but it's still a turd.

Joe

John Pilger has for years disclosed events that the media-combine controlling our diet of news carefully absconds from us. He does it at his personal risk.

Many of us reading his articles are infuriated by the light he shines to emphasize those events’ relevance.

We do it in the context of political views ingrained in our brains by years of schooling that passes for education and propaganda that passes for information.

But John Pilger is himself a product of that schooling-information process imparted or pushed into people’s throats.

Evidently Pilger and opponents need a battle field for the contest to occur.

My hope is that we and Pilger can soon discover that we are fronting political opponents which may be, say; good or bad, but who are people, people with opinions or ideas, like us, people that are dead or will be dead.

No, Pilger and others, we are all wrong. Thom Hobbes’ Leviathan is our enemy.

Its new name is ‘The State’.

Skeptic,

With respect, that last one-liner is another easy way out: the problem is what to do after that realisation.

On another thread, contributions have been exploring this very issue:

Discussion: A Democratic Alternative To Democracy
Forum link: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4305

Get back to us :)

To some of Pilger is philsophically incorrect,but he does have an uncanny knack of digging up the raw truth which the Hollywood Glamours of image without substance find very disconerting.

More power to you John Pilger.It matters not what you believe but how you treat your fellow man.

No arguments there Loudmouth- those are indeed positive interventions that should harm the ones in charge and minimize their ability to suppress their rebellions (I was thinking more along the lines general nation-wide trading sanctions and outright invasion as we tried a few times in the past).

It seems to be happening in full swing now that it seems to be widespread and likely to overthrow half of the old regimes- but there has been a long delay before Washington would take an official stance on the issue, which underlines a sad reality that the USA can (or will) only support democracy when it doesn't harm their diplomatic standing and conveniences- as to declare support for the pro-democracy groups meant stating their opposition to the governance of one of their own allies).

Early support would have cost them their relationship with Saudi, Yemen, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait instantly, and far worsened their relationship with virtually every other Middle Eastern country, even ones already on opposite sides.
Late support could have been interpreted as an attempt to be diplomatic towards the new winning side.

Hazza,

It's probably stretching reality a bit to call Ghaddafi an ally of the US - of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe maybe, but not of the US. Strangely, I haven't heard any call from the people for the intervention of those fine people's democracies. Although, it seems, Zimbabwe has been sending troops to help one side of the struggle.

And I'm still waiting for either an American flag to get burnt, OR to see one flying in the crowd: either way will be a sort of touchstone of which direction the revolutions will go.

But surely there are many, many nuanced positions between mere sanctions and outright invasion ? Establishing a no-fly zone over the next few days, once it is clear that that is what the people ask for - this is an option that the US, the people and even the Left commentariat may prefer.

I think there is a long, long way to go yet across the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Iran will probably be the next big fish to get caught in the nets of democracy. Hasten the day !

Joe