What are our objectives in Libya?

[007]

Could someone please show me where in the constitution that it says the lop ear has the authority to attack a nation without the consent of congress?

 

[Avatar4321]

The objective is to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. And.... it's working.

And how does that work when we aren't going to pursue regime change? As long as he is in power he is a danger in his people.

You've probably summed up our objectives the best I've seen. I am just kind of shocked that these aren't spelled out alittle better before putting our troops in harms way.

Firstly, we're not putting our troops in harms way to any huge extend. The Libyan military ain't all that... except against badly armed, untrained rebels.

I, personally, think we need to look at a bigger picture and consider what is happening across the region and then consider why we are putting our resources into leveling the playing field in Libya when we haven't in other countries. Ask harder questions. It seems to me, some of us aren't asking the right questions.

We probably aren't asking the right questions. Im sure there are plenty I havent even thought of. And your question on why we are putting our resources here is a good one.

I, however, am not as optimistic about our troops not being in harms way. I don't particularly trust the administration when it comes to military activity or that they have any sincere desire to use our troops wisely. Sure the Libyan army isn't all that, but war isn't predictable. The history of the world is repleat with examples of strong, well trained military forces getting killed because their leadership made poor decisions.

 

[Sallow]

The objective is to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. And.... it's working.

Qaddafi really did back a terrorist operation to kill Americans. I guess everyone has been forgetting that.

 

[WillowTree]

The objective is to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. And.... it's working.

Qaddafi really did back a terrorist operation to kill Americans. I guess everyone has been forgetting that.

No one seemed to give a shit about that when Scotland sent Qaddafi's hero home to Libya and the Scottish Flag flew over Libya. We were told to mind our own business.

 

[Sallow]

The objective is to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. And.... it's working.

Qaddafi really did back a terrorist operation to kill Americans. I guess everyone has been forgetting that.

No one seemed to give a shit about that when Scotland sent Qaddafi's hero home to Libya and the Scottish Flag flew over Libya. We were told to mind our own business.

By who?

 

[WillowTree]

Qaddafi really did back a terrorist operation to kill Americans. I guess everyone has been forgetting that.

No one seemed to give a shit about that when Scotland sent Qaddafi's hero home to Libya and the Scottish Flag flew over Libya. We were told to mind our own business.

By who?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The objective is to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. And.... it's working.

Qaddafi really did back a terrorist operation to kill Americans. I guess everyone has been forgetting that.

Then kill him and his sons.
Any operation that leaves his regime in power is a failure.
Period.

 

[California Girl]

The objective is to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. And.... it's working.

Qaddafi really did back a terrorist operation to kill Americans. I guess everyone has been forgetting that.

I think that is in the 'highly likely' category. And certainly, there are some answers needed on that one.

However, it seems to me that we should be looking at the specifics of the UN resolution (which I have) and why everyone's focusing solely on the 'no fly' part, and not the rest of it.

I also think we should look at a bigger picture and not get too focused on Libya itself.

 

[GHook93]

The objective is to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people. And.... it's working.

And how does that work when we aren't going to pursue regime change? As long as he is in power he is a danger in his people.

You've probably summed up our objectives the best I've seen. I am just kind of shocked that these aren't spelled out alittle better before putting our troops in harms way.

Firstly, we're not putting our troops in harms way to any huge extend. The Libyan military ain't all that... except against badly armed, untrained rebels.

I, personally, think we need to look at a bigger picture and consider what is happening across the region and then consider why we are putting our resources into leveling the playing field in Libya when we haven't in other countries. Ask harder questions. It seems to me, some of us aren't asking the right questions.

Yet we know what we got with Gaddaffi, a nutjob who committed terrorist acts in the past, BUT recently go rid of his WMD program, stabilized an important oil producting country and is not a TERRORIST or AL QAEDA Haven like well most of the Arab world.

Look as bad as what is going on in Libya might be, its not nearly as bad as what is going on in much of Africa. African Countries will worse violence than Libya and if we gave a real shit about human rights, then we would focus on these countries first:
(1) the Congo (Over a few million slaughtered, rape of children is common place, they say over 80% of the female population have been rape victims - Worst genocide in the 21st century and its still going on)
(2) the Ivory Coast (plagued by on going civil war has led to some of the worst human rights abuses ever - Under-reported for some reason, but I best most I.C. resident would prefer to live in Libya any day of the week)
(3) Somalia (haven't had a government in decades! And they brought back the occupation of piracy, nuf said)
(4) Sudan (didn't genocide as many people as in the Congo, but stiill 2nd worst genocide of the 21st century is significant)
(5) Zimabawae (People turned a blind eye here because it started as Black on White violence, that is OK for liberals, but now since the economy has gone from the BEST in Africa to one of the worst in the countries, Black on Black violence is 1000 fold worse than Libya),
(6) Nigeria (Secular Conflict there makes Libya look like a picnick - Christians are getting slaughtered by ruthless Muslims gangsters on a daily basis!),
(7) Serria Leone (One of the most brutal civil wars known to man, don't believe the BS, the atrocities are still going on)!
(8) South Africa (Yep the Liberals will tell you about the great Mendela and South Africa success story. Mendela might have been a good man, but the legacy of South Africa is not a success story. Apartheid was bad, but South Africa did have an emerging 1st world ecomoy and established infrastructure that should have been built on. However, that didn't happen. When the whites were knocked from power, South Africa slipped into a 3rd world nation that revived state sanctioned racial discrimination, but the racial discrimination was sanctioned against the minority white population. Now South Africa ranks highest in the WORLD in: (1) Murder per capitia, (2) Rape, (3) CHILD RAPE, (4) Car Jackings, (5) HIV infections and (5) Crime per capitia). THEY ARE NOT A SUCCESS STORY. Rather it like the story of the younger son that finally received his day in the sun because his old brother went to jail and now can run the show, but he squandered the family fortune and is now homeless.

The list can go on and on and on and on (Eritrea, Uganda, Angola, Liberia, Ghana, Niger, Senegal, Ethopia, Western Sahara, Niger, Guinea etc) and all are committing human rights atrocities!

 

[dilloduck]

It's getting obvious that the true reasons the UN has agreed to intervene in Libya will remain a mystery. There was no threat of losing out on any oil and it's been shown that the UN does not care enough about the deaths of civilians in other countries.