The Libyian Question

[greg334]

This is for those who are quick to justify our involvement with Libya's civil war with the end game of ousting and possibly killing Quadaffi based on the twisted idea of justice for Pan Am 103.

I have two questions;

what happens if the new country is formed into one that is solely based on Sharia Law with a government that is not a "democracy" but rather a form of theocracy that we oppose?

how can we justify removing the factor that kept the country and terrorist organization from gaining a foot hold in Libya and take a chance that we won't face in the future another base of operations in Libya?

The reason I am asking this is a few in the media in the past couple days have raised these two important questions because we do not know who the rebels are or how they represent the people or if they represent the people. Already there is talk about using Sharia Law to base their new constitution on but on the other hand there is a continuing concern over the tribes who have power and how they want to proceed.

I remember when Iraqis were forming their government and how idiots here screamed about how dare they include their religion in their constitution - I think it was those right wing religions fanatics who screamed the most but there were some senators also screaming.

 

[witness23]

One thing to remember. This rebellion was initiated and completed by the Libyan people with the help of NATO. You do not see American service members anywhere in the picture and it was the Libyan people that put the final nail in the coffin of Gaddafi's reign of tyranny.

Que sera, sera.

Let the Libyan people decide their fate. Rest assured, the Western world will be there to try and steer the Libyan people toward a Democracy, but in the end, they will decide.

 

[greg334]

That would be all good and well but who do you think NATO is and where did they get their funding?

Look at the players and you will see that we, the United States under the guise of NATO have provided 75% of the funding at the same time providing the arms to continue the fight.

I don't want to sound anti-war but we need to decide what and where we take stands with world events. Maybe intervention into Mexico would have benefited us a bit more than intervening into Libya's civil war so Europe can enjoy their oil.

 

[witness23]

Look at the players and you will see that we, the United States under the guise of NATO have provided 75% of the funding at the same time providing the arms to continue the fight.

Oh I understand quite well greg. Personally, I wanted to stay out of Libya and let France, Italy and the UK deal with the tyrant. I do understand why and approve of the way the administration dealt with the situation.

I don't want to sound anti-war but we need to decide what and where we take stands with world events. Maybe intervention into Mexico would have benefited us a bit more than intervening into Libya's civil war so Europe can enjoy their oil.

Unfortunately, we have close ties to those countries and they asked for help. I am glad that we were able to help without putting Military men and women in harms way.

I think the big question however is, who will now be in control of Libya's 1.6 million barrells of crude output per day?

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I think with that 1.6 million barrels should help pay for them 100 or so missiles we first launched into there...

 

[witness23]

I think with that 1.6 million barrels should help pay for them 100 or so missiles we first launched into there...

ya think?....

 

[greg334]

Unfortunately, we have close ties to those countries and they asked for help. I am glad that we were able to help without putting Military men and women in harms way.

But isn't the costs that are involved a concern?

Who says that this won't escalate or we won't have to go into Syria?

Should we actually run when asked to help while ignoring other real serious issues that directly affect us in both the long and short term?

Your comments brought up one thing that is actually bothering me a bit, when do we not decide to be involved with policing the middle east for the benefit of those who are in power in the middle east?

I mean the Arab league was the first who we went to for permission and after reading what diplomatic posturing we did it appears to me that they don't want to soil their hands if it comes back to them as happened with them and the first gulf war which leaves us in a position to be more of a target if a fanatical group gains control.

We don't know where the oil will end up as much as we don't know where the nuke material will end up. BUT being off line and having oil prices drop during all of this showed that it wasn't our problem to begin with but Europe's and as you said they should have handled it.

 

[purgoose10]

They have 20,000 shoulder fired surface to air rockets and 10 tons of Mustard gas. I hope we can get that before anything else. Maybe the Seals or Green Berets???

 

[tbubster]

This is for those who are quick to justify our involvement with Libya's civil war with the end game of ousting and possibly killing Quadaffi based on the twisted idea of justice for Pan Am 103.

I have two questions;

what happens if the new country is formed into one that is solely based on Sharia Law with a government that is not a "democracy" but rather a form of theocracy that we oppose?

how can we justify removing the factor that kept the country and terrorist organization from gaining a foot hold in Libya and take a chance that we won't face in the future another base of operations in Libya?

The reason I am asking this is a few in the media in the past couple days have raised these two important questions because we do not know who the rebels are or how they represent the people or if they represent the people. Already there is talk about using Sharia Law to base their new constitution on but on the other hand there is a continuing concern over the tribes who have power and how they want to proceed.

I remember when Iraqis were forming their government and how idiots here screamed about how dare they include their religion in their constitution - I think it was those right wing religions fanatics who screamed the most but there were some senators also screaming.

Maybe you should be asking the great unbeatable one,after all he is the one who took us there.These are questions that might have been asked and answerd had the unbeatable one not ignored the constitution and gone to congress first.

As far as the oil goes well if china has anything to say about it

China wants active role in Libyan reconstruction | The Tribune & SanLuisObispo.com

This is the same china that has been against this uprising from the very start.

 

[layoutshooter]

NATO was going to enforce a "no fly zone" attacking ground troops as they did was an act of war. NATO started that war without ANY attack on NATO forces OR NATO countries. It was pure nation building.

There was NO economic or national security reason for the US forces that flew there to be involved. Just as we have NO business in Cosavo. Clinton got us in that one.

I am by NO means anti-war. We have NO business in Libya. What a joke this Noble Peace prize winner is. Typical Dumb-O-Crat, war monger. Just like the rest of them.