Why are we even involved in Libia?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
The civil war there was starting to disrupt France's oil supply since they get such a large amount from Libya. This is why they pushed so hard for this and why they struck so quickly and first to kick this war off.

Oil.


Cause there's oil there and their internal issues might affect our ability to get oil from their neighbors.

kadaffi was winning the fight and had driven the rebels from the oil fields.

so if oil stabilty was the reason, wouldnt it be better under a guy who ruled for 40yrs than some unknown colalition of Libian politicians?

oh wait.. puppet govt set up by the ground troops who would occupy Libia after kadaffi is hung? thus dicatating oil policy + supply?
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
It's because nutjob was using the army and hired goons to blow the shit out of protestors.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The same people who are crying for us to go to Lybia are the same ones that screamed bloody murder when we went in to Iraq. Lybia has, what, 1% of the world's oil? But that's important to protect, right?

I mean, when Bush goes to Iraq it's because he's an evil, imperialist, racist, money-grubbing, oil-stealing, Islamophobe douchbag. But when Obama does the same thing in Lybia (for the same reasons Bush was accused (oil)), he's just saving a poor helpless society that can't deal with its own problems.

Total hypocrisy.

Why don't you print out your post, and go put it in the ground, it'll help grow plants.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
I'm all for war for oil but the U.S don't even buy oil from Libya. If the Europeans think their oil supply is in danger, they're the one who should be involved, while the U.S should stay out.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
We haven't declared war since WWII.
-snip-

Congressional authorization for Iraq was a declaration of war, the SCOTUS ruled on that a few years ago.

So, it was the last time Congress declared war.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Bombing != war/invasion. We're just providing support for the revolutionary forces.

Seriously?

Bombing is an act of war. We bombed Libyia's defense installations on Libyian soil.

It was an act of war.

Fern
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Congressional authorization for Iraq was a declaration of war, the SCOTUS ruled on that a few years ago.

So, it was the last Congress declared war.

Fern
Really? I didn't know that. I guess that means that Iraq war veterans will be entitled to full benefits. My understanding was that it took a declaration to give them that. I wonder if those benefits will be retroactive? I would assume so.

Thanks for the correction.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Why are we even involved in Libia?

IDK, I'm not sure if anybody knows.

Is it because of "morals"? We don't like to see countries slaughter their own civilians? If so, I think we're setting a precedent that will likely cause confusion and trouble down the road. E.g., what are we gonna do when China starts repressing the Tibetians again? Where do we draw the line?

Is it to make it a 'fairer fight" If so, that makes absolutely no sense to me. When have we, or anybody for that matter, done something like that? If the Falkland islands goes after the UK again, are we gonna have to shoot down British aircraft to make sure it's a fairer fight?

Is it to topple Qaddafi? If so, why? So far as I can see, he was neither a threat to us or his neighbors. I thought he agreed to drop any WMD programs and help us (the West) against terrorism a few years ago? Are we sending a message about how we treat our allies? If you're Iran, go ahead and crush that rebellion, but if you're our ally (Egypt/Libyia) you better not or we'll bomb you.

Are we sending a message that if you're a little country with no nukes, we'll bomb you. Think NK, which is far more oppressive to it's people than Libyia, is feeling pretty good about their decision to acquire nukes. Think Sryia and others are really going to want to drop their nuke programs after watching this?

If we're getting rid of Qaddafi, who is going to take over? Are we (coalition partners) gonna install a new regime? Are we going to have to support them with $'s and weapons? Are we going to have rebuild what we blow up?

Seems to me there are a lot more questions than answers ATM.

Fern
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I think it is because most of the oil from Libya was headed for European refineries. How come we never helped the people in Darfur? Why are we attacking Libya? Maybe O'Bammah thinks this will improve his approval rating? Maybe he thinks he can be a cowboy just like Bush????
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
This is going to get far more ugly before it gets better. Bombing will not be the end all of the conflict. Unless the rebels are well trained they will more than likely be slaughtered by trained soldiers in ground combat.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
The bigger question is why are we in Libya without the approval of Congress?

http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/dissenting-democrat/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#ixzz1H9mR9Bvb

Grounds for impeachment?

exactly. i dont know about the rest of you but im fucking sick and tired of our presidents acting like kings and sending out troops into war. jesus christ we are the most warmongering country on earth and i hang my head in shame as an American and as veteran.
 
Last edited:

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
to prevent the slaughter of innocent people

fuck that. its not worth one American life period. we ahve shed too much blood in the ME and we need to rise up as a country and put a stop to it. enough is enough.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
fuck that. its not worth one American life period. we ahve shed too much blood in the ME and we need to rise up as a country and put a stop to it. enough is enough.
Right on! /fist pump

We got ours in the good ol' US of A. Fuck everyone else. Who gives a shit whether or not those brown people might be able to live without oppression and with a semblence of freedom and self-respect? Let's just turn our backs and ignore everyone else in the world because they just aren't important as Americans. Fuck yeah!
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Right on! /fist pump

We got ours in the good ol' US of A. Fuck everyone else. Who gives a shit whether or not those brown people might be able to live without oppression and with a semblence of freedom and self-respect? Let's just turn our backs and ignore everyone else in the world because they just aren't important as Americans. Fuck yeah!

Um, I realize you're being sarcastic, but that's true. It's not our business. Fuck those brown people.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,976
141
106
your obama needs to shore up his military/leadership resume. He knows his willing accomplices in the media won't pester him with quagmire/ exit strategy action lines like they did with bush. Gadahfi is a push over low risk target unlike iran.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Right on! /fist pump

We got ours in the good ol' US of A. Fuck everyone else. Who gives a shit whether or not those brown people might be able to live without oppression and with a semblence of freedom and self-respect? Let's just turn our backs and ignore everyone else in the world because they just aren't important as Americans. Fuck yeah!

we are not the fucking world cops and i have serouius issues with sending our men and women into combat due to a UN resolution and NOT a vote by congress. you know the guys who we voted in to do those types of things.

so fuck off. you want to go over and help them then go nobody is stopping you. and what the fuck is the target? what is our objective? there is none and that is scary as hell.
 
Last edited:
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
we are not the fucking world cops and i have serouius issues with sending our men and women into combat due to a UN resolution and NOT a vote by congress. you know the guys who we voted in to do those types of things.

so fuck off. you want to go over and help them then go nobody is stopping you. and what the fuck is the target? what is our objective? there is none and that is scary as hell.
Let's get something straight with all the naive puddingheads in here that constantly make that claim - Whether you like it or not, yes, we are the World's cop because of our position as the economic and military powerhouse on this planet. The fact you don't like that position doesn't change a damn thing. So piss off yourself if you want to continue to act the fool about it and pretend it's otherwise.
 

llee

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2009
1,152
0
76
The bigger question is why are we in Libya without the approval of Congress?

Grounds for impeachment?

No. Presidents have full command of the military.

Presidents have the constitutional right to attack any country anytime the President decides it is necessary, and congress has the constitutional right to declare war.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
a) Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 789 (1950) (President has authority to deploy United States armed forces "abroad or to any particular region")
b) Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850) ("As commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual")
c) Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 776 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (The "inherent powers" of the Commander in Chief "are clearly extensive.")
d) Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501, 515-16 (1927) (Brandeis & Holmes, JJ., concurring) (President "may direct any revenue cutter to cruise in any waters in order to perform any duty of the service")
e) Massachusetts v. Laird, 451 F.2d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 1971) (the President has "power as Commander-in-Chief to station forces abroad"); Authority to Use United States Military Forces in Somalia, 16 Op. O.L.C. 6 (1992).

Also, why did Russia and China go agree to it?

They abstained from voting. This way they don't vote to affirm nor reject the draft resolution.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
kadaffi was winning the fight and had driven the rebels from the oil fields.

so if oil stabilty was the reason, wouldnt it be better under a guy who ruled for 40yrs than some unknown colalition of Libian politicians?

oh wait.. puppet govt set up by the ground troops who would occupy Libia after kadaffi is hung? thus dicatating oil policy + supply?

Of course no one has actually gone out and described who the rebels are and what various groups make up their forces. I am pretty sure they aren't all secular, pro democracy, freedom loving guys willing to make a Libyan version of Bill Maher their new president. If we were to actually take a look at what is happening in Egypt with the MB lining up the chairs for its power play and the oppressive strife against the Christian minority there you'll begin to understand that sometimes the devil you know might sometimes be the better then the devil you don't know.
 
Last edited:

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
The President has the power to defend the country without seeking Congressional approval. Yet, the power to order an attack against any country not posing an imminent or direct threat against the US rests with Congress. The distinction being that Congress isn't granted the power of war by Article I, section 8, clause 11, but instead has limited power to declare war. The Founders also clearly meant this as an exception to the President’s own executive power.

Lobbing missiles into a sovereign nation, of which President Obama admitted to not posing a threat, is clearly an act of war and unconstitutional. Obviously, a presidential war becomes a political or policy question, rather than a legal one. Otherwise, the President's own words could be used to begin impeachment hearings for violating the War Powers Act. Admittedly, war does not fall under foreign policy in the US Constitution, but instead law.

That Americans finally have begun to question the last 50 years of US military engagements or presidential wars, especially those not authorized by Congress: Korean War, Gulf War, Bosnian War, War in Afghanistan, Haiti etc., is a heartening movement that needs to continue growing in order to protect our own sovereignty.





"Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Moammar Gadhafi. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied international demands, thwarted international sanctions, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Libyan people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Gadhafi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Libyan economy is in shambles, that the Libyan military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful military effort against Libya will require US involvement of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that bombing Libya without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."


Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Act:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

1. a declaration of war,
2. specific statutory authorization, or
3. a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.