Getting involved in Libya

Why is it in America's interest to get involved in Libya? What do we have to gain/lose?

I know it is unpleasant to discuss military conflict when you could be watching the NCAA playoffs, I say that because when Obama interuppted the Texas/Oakland basketball game today to announce the US position there were yells and jeers to "Shut the F up" by many in the crowd of a local sports bar.

What do you think? Is this another opportunity for us to flex our military muscle?

Is it a Left/Right issue?

Peace

It seems to me a moral issue: do you have a duty to render aid to others? And if so, under what circumstances? And at what cost?

Sticky issue. If you 'render aid to others', how far does that extend? To every mid east country that has protestors that are shot by those in charge? That list is getting pretty long.

And of course, who pays for it? Will those who want military intervention be willing to have their taxes increased? Probably not, so what other programs do we cut?

It doesn't seem they actually get the rendering aid part right when they do it, even from a practical standpoint. It seems it quite often leads to causing more harm than good. Whether this is unintended or not so unintended consequences .....

I don't think I'd rely on the U.S. military as a force for good in the world, it seems just as likely (really more likely) to do be doing harm somewhere.

I have to take offense at the characterization of the U.S. Military as not being a force for good in the world. Our soldiers and sailors are as we speak providing life-saving aid and comfort to those in Japan, Haiti and wherever there are natural disasters. Our Armed Forces, however, are only as strong as their Commander in Chief, who has an infantile view of foreign policy. As he begins his South American tour (why? why now?), Japan is in crisis, the middle east is in meltdown - so why is it in our interest to get involved in Libya? For once (maybe 2 X now), I agree with Best on this, its not. The useless involvement of the U.N. though - is not a good idea either. You talk about not being a force for good - look at the U.N.

People are being killed by an insane despot with heavy weapons. We should probably just look the other way and sing 'la la la'.

Wouldn't want to meddle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

People are being killed by an insane despot with heavy weapons. We should probably just look the other way and sing 'la la la'.

Wouldn't want to meddle.

---

I don't mind if UN forces which include Americans go in, but I'm not buying the insane despot reason to spur American action. If the rest of the world doesn't think it's worth saving their fellow men, why should I? sorry.

There are plenty of civil war slaughters we stayed away from (as a uniquely American force) why now is this one special?

I would buy one reason being that it's in that tricky middle east area but that's also enough reason to stay away form it.

Agree that if anything it should be a UN effort and that should be limited at best. Any intervention will always have unexpected consequences - always. I'm thinking that this would be a good time for UK and France to take the lead if anything is done. I guess the biggest concern is where does this end? Which countries are important enough for intervention? (Yemen, Bahrain, Sudan, etc) What is the determining factor? Geopolitical problems will never go away - I think the US is making more enemies around the world with our "Do as I say" attitude and that is not good for long term stability.

I proudly wear my "I'm already against the next war" T-shirt when attending public functions, including VFW sponsored events. No very popular with many of my colleagues (vets) but those that actually have been in combat know exactly what I mean.

Peace

I think we should start with intervening/helping when asked and priority to our allies - which Middle Eastern countries allow us to keep military installations, provide strategic geographic access, etc.

At least France and Britain taking the lead.