Why are we even involved in Libia?

[bfdd]

Well we destabilized the Libyan situation by immediately backing the rebels and saying Ghaddafi has to go because we were riding the high of Egypt's protests and progress. If we had said nothing and let the internal affair play out we probably would have seen the rebels wiped out and the problem squashed. I'm not saying that's right either, but we kind of jumped the gun saying Ghaddafi has to go less than a week into skirmishes.

 

[werepossum]

It's purely my opinion but I believe Obama did it to forge stronger ties with some of our European (and maybe a few Arab) allies. We are shoring up their national interests as a favor to be called in at a later date.

Possible, and I can support an air war on that basis as long as our allies step up and do their part.

As dystopian as it sounds, it's all politics and oil IMO. Obama's trying to make this his Kosovo to give him that much more to crow about during reelection (in addition to "making critical healthcare reforms" and "expanding gun rights"). I've called the man a bureaucrat who feeds on idealism before and I see no reason to abandon that line. I'd be overjoyed if there was a legitimate reason for us to be in Libya, but at this point we've already gone way past the UN mandate with no sign of stopping.

Guess I'll be proven right or wrong over the coming weeks. If Obama invades and gets us embroiled it'll be seen as his Iraq, and he knows it. If we do commit significant numbers of ground forces (beyond SF strike teams and escorts for humanitarian aid) then I'll admittedly have no idea what he's doing.

He argued about how the civil war could destabilize the region, but fact is Gaddaffi was kicking as and taking names up to the moment we started to take out his armor. Now he's kicking slightly less ass. If we had just let him be he'd have slaughtered the rebels and, despite the humanitarian atrocities, the region would still be as stable as it ever was out of fear and lack of capability.

Or maybe the humanitarian angle is the reason and Obama's just got some idealistic Neocon-ish interventionist tendencies?

Maybe he's trying to earn his nobel peace prize?

No way to know for now, just got to wait and see I guess.

Possible reasons, granted, but I don't want to accept that any President is doing this for purely political and/or donor-related reasons. I could accept that he thought this is something that must be done to preserve the world recovery, except that as you say, Gaddaffi was clearly on track to making the region as stable as ever. And I'm no fan of the Messiah, but surely there are reasons beyond simply oil or domestic politics. I do not believe any President would attack another country for domestic politics or to enrich his friends. Granted, Obama is indeed a "bureaucrat who feeds on idealism", but I don't think he's stupid enough to believe the pap he spouted about the "humanitarian mission" - except by regime change, and NO ONE is stupid enough to believe that Gaddaffi can be removed by non-military means. Either we topple him, or enough of his military defects for the rebels to topple him, or he stays in power, no matter what economic sanctions we employ.

 

[jonks]

SNAP!

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/rand-paul-newt-gingrich/

I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. [...]

There’s a big debate over there. Fox News can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It’s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work? -- Sen. Rand Paul

 

[sunzt]

snap!

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/rand-paul-newt-gingrich/

i was happy to see that newt gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. [...]

there’s a big debate over there. Fox news can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the middle east or bashing the president? It’s like i was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the middle east and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work? -- sen. Rand paul

winning!

 

[Steeplerot]

Conservatives will wake up one day and realize this is the real world, living in some cult mindset fed to you by silver spoonfed assholes who have no problem giving lip service (thats all it is) to austerity measures to con you out of another buck of your time listening to their convient tough economic love when they themselves know nothing of sacrifice and struggle of real people makes you guys sound really idiotic and irresponsible as far as understanding your own best interests. You guys put the "conned" in conservative, thats for sure.

 

[werepossum]

SNAP!

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/31/rand-paul-newt-gingrich/

I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. [...]

There’s a big debate over there. Fox News can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It’s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work? -- Sen. Rand Paul

The essence of good humor, biting with a streak of truth.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
-- Sen. Rand Paul

lol, good stuff. I like his sense of humor.

-----------------

I want to emphasize something I raised before.

What we know said by our own gov:

- Libya has the highest per capita AQ fighters.

- They come from Eastern Libya

- The LIFG is a Libyian AQ group strongly opposed to Gaddafi. They are located in East Libya

- A rebel action starts from East Libya

- We know very little about the Rebels at the begining of this (and even now apparently)

So when this stuff starts, why do we support the rebels from East knowing all the above?

The obvious risks of helping Libyian AQ (LIFG etc) is, well, obvious.

Then there's the whole antiwar sentiment in the USA, and the huge issue of gov spending that would argue strongly against this involvement.

WTH is so important that Obama accepted this risk? Can you imagine the damage to the Dem party and Obama if a perception developes that we helped AQ gain Libya? Seriously?

And the French can be very clever. They can be some seriously devious mofo's, particularly in world affairs. There are downright Machiavellian. I don't see why they would take this risk either.

Did Gaddafi get hold of Obama's long form HI birth certificate?

I can't help but think there is some damn serious motivation to jump in and take this risk and they aren't saying what it is.

Fern

 

[OutHouse]

lol, good stuff. I like his sense of humor.

-----------------

I want to emphasize something I raised before.

What we know said by our own gov:

- Libya has the highest per capita AQ fighters.

- They come from Eastern Libya

- The LIFG is a Libyian AQ group strongly opposed to Gaddafi. They are located in East Libya

- A rebel action starts from East Libya

- We know very little about the Rebels at the begining of this (and even now apparently)

So when this stuff starts, why do we support the rebels from East knowing all the above?

The obvious risks of helping Libyian AQ (LIFG etc) is, well, obvious.

Then there's the whole antiwar sentiment in the USA, and the huge issue of gov spending that would argue strongly against this involvement.

WTH is so important that Obama accepted this risk? Can you imagine the damage to the Dem party and Obama if a perception developes that we helped AQ gain Libya? Seriously?

And the French can be very clever. They can be some seriously devious mofo's, particularly in world affairs. There are downright Machiavellian. I don't see why they would take this risk either.

Did Gaddafi get hold of Obama's long form HI birth certificate?

I can't help but think there is some damn serious motivation to jump in and take this risk and they aren't saying what it is.

Fern

and the Obama/democrat koolaid drinkers in here keep defending it tooth and nail. i really dont get it.

 

[Zorkorist]

As Iraq is a base in the Middle East, Libya will become a base in North Africa.

Simple as that.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Although I did hear a rumor that Libya was harboring Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.



-John

 

[Nebor]

As Iraq is a base in the Middle East, Libya will become a base in North Africa.

Simple as that.

-John

That's actually a lot cheaper and simpler to do that Afghanistan. Easy ocean access = win.

We still have no business in Libya.

 

[HomerJS]

Man those house Republicans are a bunch of dumbasses...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ho...ned-fighting-in-libya-could-spread-to-africa/

With Libya in the news one would think he would have checked a map. Guess he was too busy trying to restrict abortion.

 

[Doppel]

Man those house Republicans are a bunch of dumbasses...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ho...ned-fighting-in-libya-could-spread-to-africa/

With Libya in the news one would think he would have checked a map. Guess he was too busy trying to restrict abortion.

Possibly a slip of tongue, meaning "expand into more African nations".

On Fox today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/01/end-air-combat-role-libya-qaddafi-makes-gains/

US to suspend air campaigns. This entire thing is really strange to me. I'm starting to think the rebels represent about 15 guys with BB guns. I heard on NPR that most of them are young men. This may not be a surprise but nobody in the major media that I've seen has really drawn up even so much as a brief on what the rebels actually are or represent. And with a superior air force smashing their opposition but they still lose ground (yes, I know, supposedly weather this week really hurt), they are obviously not militarily meaningful.

Gadhafi should be taken out if possible.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Gadhafi should be taken out if possible.

Then in the power vacuum one of Osama's men can come take the reigns of the Libya.

We should have stayed out of this civil war.

 

[Craig234]

It's one thing for the US to say it supports people protesting against a dictator (that we funded, like Mubarak), when the military refuses to kill them, as in Egypt.

It's quite another for the US to do nothing when the dictator does use force, as Qadafi was planning to do, door to door executing people.

It can be debated in which situations we should get involved and which ones we should not, but there was a clear humanitarian issue here.

In the past it's been more awkward - in Serbia, there was an oppressive leader, but he'd been goaded into action by Croats who used terrorism to get the government to overreact and give them an issue to rally around, and they hired an ad agency who marketed the message that the Serbian leader was a 'new Hitler' pursuing genocide against them.

In the first Iraq war, you had the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter (which was hidden) lying that she was a witness to Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators, in testimony to Congress that was covered nationally, in a propaganda campaign organized by a US ad agency paid by the Kuwaitis, from a branch headed By President Bush's former chief of staff. The second gulf war's propaganda to justify it needs no explanation. Neither was the clear humanitarian crisis - but there was a bad dictator (who we had helped keep in power when he attacked someone we liked him attacking).

The criticism today should be why we are backing the leader of Bahrain, who is murdering protesters, while we are opposing their murder in Libya.

The fact is, while we might cheer democracy, at times that democracy is under threat from armed forces - some of whom we've backed for selfish reasons.

And sometimes armed force is needed to help the people have democracy.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

And sometimes armed force is needed to help the people have democracy.

So do you support putting ground forces into Libya?


Who are the rebels?
Will they be any different than the current regime?
Will they slaughter those who support/supported Gaddafi?

 

[Nebor]

The fact is, while we might cheer democracy, at times that democracy is under threat from armed forces - some of whom we've backed for selfish reasons.

And sometimes armed force is needed to help the people have democracy.

Who's cheering democracy? The US needs to, and usually does, look after US interests. The freedom of foreign people isn't a US interest. Large parts of the globe are both not desiring of and not capable of handling democracy at all. They need some kind of badass to brutalize them in order to keep them roughly aligned in some sort of society.

I feel that historically, organized armed force has done more to prevent democracy than to help it. Just my (non-historian) view of things.

 

[Nebor]

Possibly a slip of tongue, meaning "expand into more African nations".

On Fox today: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/01/end-air-combat-role-libya-qaddafi-makes-gains/

US to suspend air campaigns. This entire thing is really strange to me. I'm starting to think the rebels represent about 15 guys with BB guns. I heard on NPR that most of them are young men. This may not be a surprise but nobody in the major media that I've seen has really drawn up even so much as a brief on what the rebels actually are or represent. And with a superior air force smashing their opposition but they still lose ground (yes, I know, supposedly weather this week really hurt), they are obviously not militarily meaningful.

Gadhafi should be taken out if possible.

Great, we realized we were wasting our time helping out what amounted to a Libyan flash mob.

 

[mizzou]

Im really ashamed at how public figures pleaded and begged obama to step up before its tooate and now the same people are questioning why we did anythng at all, so expensive, etc ( looking at you mr. mccain)

Ive said this before, and i still beleive we have no right to interfere in libya especially not knowing who the rebels. We seem to just be going along with nato but you got to scratch your head about why EU is so gung ho to get a rebel victory or totally destabilized region

Gadaffi is a tool, but what is the alternative?

 

[jonks]

1) Per NBC's middle east corrrespondent Richard Engel: "I would say 1 in 5 of the rebels told me today that they’re fighting because they think Gadhafi is Jewish"

!

http://themoderatevoice.com/104550/libya-obama-and-rachel-maddow/

2) Apparently pro-Gaddafi cilivians are being armed by the military. Kinda muddies the waters a bit in our proclaimed interest in "protecting civilians" or enforcing the "will of the Libyan people".

 

[Genx87]

1) Per NBC's middle east corrrespondent Richard Engel: "I would say 1 in 5 of the rebels told me today that they’re fighting because they think Gadhafi is Jewish"

!

http://themoderatevoice.com/104550/libya-obama-and-rachel-maddow/

2) Apparently pro-Gaddafi cilivians are being armed by the military. Kinda muddies the waters a bit in our proclaimed interest in "protecting civilians" or enforcing the "will of the Libyan people".

lmfao 20% of the rebels think he is Jewish.

 

[BoberFett]

And sometimes armed force is needed to help the people have democracy.

But only when it's a Democrat in the White House? Right Craig? Right? Right? Am I right?

LOL. "Liberals."

 

[HomerJS]

lmfao 20% of the rebels think he is Jewish.

That makes them brighter then the GOP. %Jewish < %Born in Kenya

 

[jonks]

lmfao 20% of the rebels think he is Jewish.

Well the thing is his origins are a bit cloudy, and he may in fact have a jewish parent or whatever. That's not the funny thing. The funny thing is that 20% of the rebels cite that fact as the motivation for their uprising. Not the oppression and police state dictatorship, it's that the dictator is jewish. And we want to arm these good folks.

 

[piasabird]

Blood for Oil.