we kept to ourselves until ww 1 and 2. everyone needs to look at how this country was, and how it is now that we've spent the last 70 years as a 'superpower'.
it's not that we shouldn't have gotten involved in those wars, it's that we have stayed involved in far too much since. we need to step back, and take a long look at exactly what it is we want, where we're going. after ww1, we stayed out of any further intrigues. we ramped up war production when attacked. problem is, we didn't go back down after. now we're broke, and still involved in iraq and afganistan (our longest war ever) and libya...

washington, so smart, warned us against getting involved in foreign garbage. and here we are. to what end? how does it benefit this country? others take care of themselves first, and will turn on us if it serves their best interests (pakistan, anyone?). we've made some mistakes. the trick is learning from them, and not making more.

i'll be math's bleeding heart.

i don't think there's anything good about the way this played out. if american soldiers took a live war criminal into custody i'd expect them to deliver him to medical care before trial.

i understand that the libyan rebels are a disorganized militia. i probably don't understand at an emotional level what it's like to live under a murderous despot. i'm sure whoever put the bullet in his head thought he was doing it for a very good reason.

but what he executed along with ghadaffi was the rule of law. and any chance for libyan society to have an accounting for the last 42 years.

south africa had truth and reconciliation. libya had this.

i don't know how anyone thinks this is good for us in the long run.

I'll take a shot at that: We sent in Tomahawk cruise missles, and predator drones, no troops, to help a civil war, and a horrible dictator controlling one of the largest oil sources in the world and a good amount of Mediterranian coastline is gone.

That the Libyan people tore apart a leader who horribly and brutally tortured his own people for 40 years is their deal - rather than put him to trial and "have an accounting" - well, what exactly would you hope for, in that "accounting"? :zz: The "rule of law" was besmerched because they beat their murderous dictator to death? There was no rule of law - it was a dictatorship! I'm sure the people are quite happy at his death at the hands of the rebel troops, rather than have some "trial" (in a country where that system doesn't even exist)

Libya is wealthy in oil, and doesn't have tribal and religious factions tearing it apart, and the country is united in it's goal. It will be up and running as a democratic new country quickly. Probably do far better than Egypt.

We're done there.

Could it be Sons of Anarchy?



Spell it out ,Girly.

i guess where we differ is where we place our optimism. i think you're betting that the french revolution doesn't produce napoleon. hope i'm wrong and you're right.

I understand what you are saying, we'll see. I see Libya as very different from the other countries east of Africa.

i don't know either. i sure don't miss hussein, but i still think it was a mistake for us to go there and do what we've done. and i think our actions will have repercussions that will affect us, and others, for years to come. if nato wanted to go so dammed bad, fine-but we shouldn't just move in lockstep just because nato said so.
having allies is all well and good. but not when we lose sight of our own best interests because of what an ally thinks is in his best interests. it's how we got involved in vietnam. surely we've repaid our debt to france by now for them helping us out vs george the third?!

I've followed the rebellion in Libya with a little more interest than most Americans because I lived in Libya when I was very young. My family and many other Western families who were there because of the oil industry left Libya as Gadaffi began to take greater control of that industry.

How do you think they will recover post Gadaffi?

I agree, Iraq was a disaster, we had no business invading there, our government lied to us. But I can't equate Libya with what Bush did invading Iraq?

I agree, we need to stop trying to be the superpower of the world. But we don't need to refuse to help when situation is ripe, especially if it is with technology rather than troops. And having footholds in areas of the country that are ripe for nuclear proliferation doesn't hurt. It is no longer just two superpowers facing off regarding nuclear or biological threat.

Yeah we are done there unless some other outside influence gains a foothold there and creates their own fiefdom. Think the Chinese or Russians wouldnt trade arms/technology to the next govt/leader for a big chunk of that oil? What if (gasp) a islamic govt works its way into power and uses that oil money to sponsor terrorism? Especially frightening considering the location.

Rats! You're right! Ghaddafy never should have been overthrown! What a mistake that was! The unknown fear is worse! This is the worse thing ever! What was Obama thinking? What a crappy President! This is horrible! Obama has alot of screwups, but this tops them all!

That largely depends on how secular the post-Gadaffi government is.

The US being part of the NATO force that assisted the rebels is really a moot point. It is really almost meaningless moving forward because it is unlikely that the assistance we provided be remembered for long. I don't think our involvement was a mistake per say but there is a great deal of uncertainity going forward. I dont believe the US was forced or coherced into this action. On the contrary I believe Obama wanted to be seen as a bit player here despite the vast majority of our money and tools being used under the guise of NATO. It was a pretty safe bet for him as virtually no country supported Qaddafi and his military/air force wasn't something to fear.

Can you please try to grow up for at least one thread?

Of course you dont remember but I supported Obama on this action on this board. Pretending that you know that some magical democracy will evolve here is silly. The Chinese supported the Sudanese Govt economically and with arms despite Sudan being very much in the worlds spotlight for human rights abuses. Don't you think they would love to be "friends" with the new govt? Don't you think Mr Putin would like to further Russian influence in the region?

You're the one that just said we'll be there if any of that happens in the future. I'm glad you're omniscent enough to accurately predict our involvement in that. Good to plan 10 years ahead. Certainly you are not "silly", let alone childish, in pretending what you know.

Uh I just said we probably wont have much influence there.

he had a point. no one yet knows how libya will evolve now. much like iraq, no one will shed a tear that hussein is dead...but iraq hasn't exactly turned out golden since hussein was killed. libya could well end the same way. other countries wish for us to remain in iraq, but iraq does not. the others in that area know that iran will most likely end up the dominate power there, and they don't want that.


at any rate, i just want to know why libya. what was the point of it? why did nato go in? they're valid questions, regardless of how rotten the leader of that country is. it's our money, our weapons, our future. i don't think an explanation of the point is too much to ask.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusiv...094911231.html


you know...it's amazing. people get on here and bitch about spending, but then applaud this expense. people question priorities, and then celebrate this... one. billion. dollars. yeah, money well spent, right? what roi are we looking at herre?

it's just like iraq and afganistan. trillions spent on countries worth millions. lol and we wonder why we're deep in debt. can't afford to pay for programs, but we can freaking buy weapons. brilliant.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/a...mpid=125219969

Now this is something I really really really support!!