Should The U.S. Attack Libya??

[Guest]

No question...attacking Libya's air defenses and shooting down their planes is an act of war. Will we declare war? I sure hope not, there's no money for another war.

A more important question might be WHY would we get involved militarily in Libya?

Most of the oil from Libya gets sold to China. That's the reason that China would be expected to veto any UN action against Libya. The Saudis have already said that they'd "make up the difference" in oil production to replace any lost output from Libya.

So why are some of our politicians (McCain, Kerry, many Democrats) supporting the idea of military action against Libya? Why should we spend one American life or dollar trying to displace Murmar Gaddafi? What, to protect the flow of oil going to China? Why are our shorts in a knot now, after leaving Gaddafi alone for forty years? Heck, President Bush even referred to Libya as an "ally". The guy we see now is the same despot who was there for forty years.

This whole thing is like another bad dream coming out of Washington. Seems like they'll do anything to avoid talking about stuff like cutting entitlements, creating an energy policy, balancing the budget, etc.

Does anyone here think that the situation in Libya is more important than the question of how to balance our budget, stop borrowing and beginning to pay down the national debt? More important that our growing reliance on foreign oil? More important than the disturbing decline in our education system? More important than the escalating cost of a healthcare system that has worse results than most of the rest of the developed countries?

Who's buying in to this baloney?
I'm mad a H**L and I'm going to do something about it...⇓

[Guest]

On this issue I am in complete agreement with you. I see no benefit for the U.S. to get involved with another country and another people who don't respect us, except when they're in trouble. I wish we did get a lot of oil from Libya so that people could chant "No blood for oil". Some people only think it righteous to send our military somewhere if we actually don't get any financial benefit out of it.

I'm also of the opinion that Gaddafi controlled his people; he was scared of us; and that worked OK since Reagan was President. Why mess that system up? What's in it for us, except another radical regime that hates America.

Aren't we into enough nonsense in the Middle East?

[Guest]

We can't afford any more wars. Nor can we afford Afganistan.

[Guest]

I'd say offer logistical support AT MOST as a MEMBER of NATO. Let the Europeans take the heat if it turns into an even bigger, longer cluster.

[Guest]

America in another Muslim country in the middle east. To accomplish what? Another Iraq or Afganistan? Where the leadership will get onto the USA payroll while stabbing us in the back.
Not only not go there but get out of the other no win areas also.

Spend the money finding alternative sources for their oil, then get out and let them do to each other what ever it is they have been doing for the 1000 years.

btk

[Guest]

Those who forget the past are deemed to repeat it. The 1991 uprising created by Kurdish and Shiites was crushed by Saddem because the then deputy national security adviser Robert Gates advised HW Bush against organizing a no fly zone. A dozen years later we spent billions on a no fly zone and war which exacted a huge human toll to free the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people felt betrayed and despite the war many still resent America. The Egyptians are not exactly impressed with Obama's "see what side comes out on top" attitude. So what happens if Gadhafi survives? In my humble opinion we are missing major opportunities with the people of the Middle East that will negatively effect us for a lifetime. Do we or do we not stand for freedom ? finally do you reaaly want to risk America's future on the decisions coming from the UN?

[Guest]

I stand for freedom, but I don't support someone's freedom who'd like to kill me.

[Guest]

I would agree but it is not those freedom fighters who want to kill you but their oppresors. Certainly their are exceptions to all rules, but what country poses the greates risk to America one led by a dictator or by a democratic government? Beside a look back in history to 1770 and you will find that same sort of thing said about the rebels in Massachsetts. At the time many did not know who they were and what they stood for.

Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco,Oman,,Bahrain, Algeria and even Iran protesters are taking to the streets risking their lives for freedom and we do nothing which is tantamount to acquiescing to the slaugther of the masses much as we did Srebrenica or Kosovo before we finally intervened.

We have a larger stratagical stake in the outcomes of these Middle East countries and again if we ignore tem it will come back to haunt us.

[Guest]

Very simply...we can't afford another war. In fact, we can't afford the wars we're already in. For that matter, there's a whole lot that the federal government spends money on that we can't afford. We countries like China, Saudi Arabia and India stop lending us money, we'll soon find out what we can't afford.

[Guest]

NO MORE WARS!!!! Let's have our military home protecting our country and building a real strong force for homeland security. BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME and honor them for their dedication.

[Guest]

I wonder if the people fighting for their freedom in the Middle East see it that way? I wonder if the people living in the original colonies believed fighting for their freedom was too high a price to pay? I wonder if we followed the liberal agenda who campaign for the European model believe we can maintain our military superiority by building some kind of invisble wall around the USA? I do not advocate for war, I advocate for peace and that can only come at the expense and willingness for Americans to engage in fighting to protect their freedoms.