OldGreyEagle 5 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Why Libya? Why not Egypt? Tunisia? Bahrain? Dafur? Yemen? North Korea? Help Link to post Share on other sites
Scoutfish 16 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Egypt is holding it's own pretty well. Libya is like the tallest guy on the Basketball team picking on the shortest guy. Oh, the oil refineries on fire might have a teeny-timy bit to do with it too! Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1973 10 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Egypt was a good thing. Bahrain is our friend. North Korea would put us head to head against China. Yemen has been a lost cause for a long time, so it doesnt matter. Don't know about the other two. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Yeah, I don't see why we have to be so oblique about this. We've been wanting to kill Gaddafi for a long time, since his involvement in so many terrorist activities including the bomb at the Berlin night club and then blowing up Pan Am 103. "....to the shores of Tripoli..." I hope we get HIM this time instead of another embarrassing failure like in 1986. Note that in 2008 Gaddafi successfully paid off our government and then President Bush restored Libya's immunity from terrorism charges and had pending legal actions dismissed. Nice(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to post Share on other sites
Lisabob 13 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Uh, we need Yemen not to disintegrate into serious civil war. If Saleh goes, we have a problem. There are major US naval base in Bahrain & the Saudis don't want us in their backyard (again). North Korea, in addition to Chinese backing, has nukes. Can't hit us (we don't think) but can hit our ally S. Korea, including Seoul. Tunisia is/was a long-time regional ally. (Besides, neither Egypt nor Tunisia seriously attacked their own people in the way that Libya, Bahrain, & Yemen are now doing.) Darfur? Sadly, no strategic importance & plus we backed the Sudanese gov't for a long time as a regional stabilizing force (ha). Why Bush let Gaddafi off the hook, why the British freed the Pan Am bomber, I never understood, even less so now. BBC News has some decent coverage of the whole mess. So does Al Jazeera English, from a rather different perspective. Both are available on the web - just google them. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Ah Ha! It IS Bush's fault! And the Tokyo earthquake is because of global warming... Link to post Share on other sites
Lisabob 13 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Well now let's separate facts from opinions, JoeBob. It **was** President Bush's administrations that removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terror, unfroze Gaddafi's US assets, ended economic sanctions, and re-established normal diplomatic relations with Libya. It was the UK government (technically, the Scottish regional gov't) who let the Lockerbie bomber go. More facts: In 1979, the Carter administration placed Libya on a state-sponsors of terrorism list after Libyan rioters, spurred on by their government, attacked and burned down the US embassy in Tripoli. President Reagan ordered US bombings of Libya on two occasions in the 1980s, including shooting down Libyan air force jets. In 1986 Libyan terrorists, backed by Gaddafi, blew up a night club in W. Germany, killing & wounding many Americans & Germans. In 1988 Libyan terrorists trained & funded by Gaddafi blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland, killing almost 300 people (mainly Americans). In 1989 Libyan terrorists blew up a French plane over the Sahara, killing another roughly 200 people (including many Americans) It wasn't until 2003 that Libya agreed to give up its pursuit of WMDs, including its nuclear weapons development programs. Also in 2003, the Libyan government was alleged to be involved in a plot to kill the Saudi crown prince. These are statements of fact. I don't see how they can be argued. ---------------------------- Now here are my opinions: I think it was a bad decision to readmit this guy to the club of world leaders. As we see most recently, this is hardly a "reformed" individual. My views may also be colored by the fact that two girls from my high school were on Pan Am 103. Would a Democrat have done the same as Bush did? Maybe. It would have been a lousy decision (at least) then, too. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 So, when Secretary of State Clinton says that we don't want Khadaffi (Sp?) killing his people, that wasn't the real reason for the bombing and missile strikes? Lisabob, you give a good job of explaining why Khadaffi should be gone, but from what I understand, he is not a target. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You downplayed your mention of what has to have been the most significant fact: "On December 19, 2003, long-time Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi stunned much of the world by renouncing Tripolis weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and welcoming international inspectors to verify that Tripoli would follow through on its commitment. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology So let's see if we can noodle this out. 2001 - the US (Cowboy Captain)invades Iraq. 2003 - the US (Cowboy Captain)has a few free resources in the Mideast, so Libya says, "Whoa! Don't look at our nuke program. Here, take 'em! We don't want the Saddam treatment." Multiple choice, Quaddafi's surrender of nukes was primarily motivated by: 1- He wanted an invitation to the ranch in Crawford. 2- He wanted to come to New York for fashion week. 3- He got tired of choosing between oil or nuke power for the dessert light show at Ramadan. 4- George Bush scared the fart-blossoms out of him. (You too?) Would the iinternational community even think about a no-fly zone if Libya still had nukes? Link to post Share on other sites
AlFansome 10 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 > Would the iinternational community even think about a no-fly zone if Libya still had nukes? Really? You may want to check your facts. Much like Iraq, Libya never had nukes ... just "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" (as the Cowboy said about Iraq after we found not much of any WMDs). Link to post Share on other sites
sherminator505 10 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 To understand what is happening in Libya, you must first understand what is currently being sold to us as "American exceptionalism." Good luck in your quest. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 So, what is being said, is that when we say to Libya, don't kill your citizens, what we mean is we are going to get you sucka? It does seem the more things change, the more they remain the same Link to post Share on other sites
jrush 11 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The difference is the Arab League went to the UN and asked for military help to make Quadaffi act like a grown-up. Everyone else handled their protests without resorting to attack helicopters. Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 just a thought, if the Arab League went to the UN, why did not the Arab League lead the attack or at the very least participate? I mean besides Qatar? Why not all Arab League countries? Link to post Share on other sites
SR540Beaver 116 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 OGE, I've been wondering the same thing. Why does the Arab League keep turing to the UN and US for help, then criticize us for how we go about doing the dirty work. It is their neighborhood, they need to step up and do a little policing in their own backyard. Humanitarian issues aside, our Constitution provides for the defense of the US, not the world. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now