Posted on 08/26/2011 11:35:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
The US should stay out of Libya and not fund or endorse the new Taliban-style government that is coming
You lead Mike. I’ve got doctor bills I can’t pay.
Bull$hit!
We don’t have any money. We’ll buy some oil, but that’s it.
Obama has failed the USA again. The Lockerbie bomber whom Obama released has now disappeared!!! Obama is a happy man!!! Gaddafi, his benefactor in 2008 still roams free, the bomber of Pan Am flight 103 stays on the loose and the Muslim radicals now rule Libya, just as Obama had planned. The African Muslim, America Hater, POTUS, Barack Hussein Obama is a most happy and contented man!!! Obama, Jeremiah Wright, Louie Farrakhan, Van Jones, Bill Ayres, etc. all have big, happy smiles on their faces!!! Ain’t you American fools proud???
When we will ever learn... We have MORE than enough issues here in the US to deal with. IMO it is not our job to shove our nose in to every other country’s business under the guise of SAVING them. We desperately need to SAVE this country!
There’s not one reason on God’s green earth that we should even BE in Libya, let alone LEAD.
It is NOT in our Strategic best interest to be there other than to provide assistance if ASKED.
Where is this written and why do the US taxpayers have to pay for it? Are the American people on the hook because the CIA trained and armed Al-Qaeda terrorist to attack the legitimate government of Libya, just like they armed and trained Al-Qaeda to attack the Russians in the 80's and the Serbs in the 90's.
Two reasons we should stay out:
1. We’re broke.
2. See #1.
If by “lead” he means provide humanitarian aid, help them re-build their shattered infrastructure (blah blah blah)—screw that.
I read somewhere that we’re kiting checks just to keep OUR lights on.
no no non non no a thousand times no
“United States Must Lead in Libya”
You Wrote: “Bull$hit!”
Exactly right!
M-FKers want us to pay for their “nation-building” BS. Let Europe do it.
The first thing needed is a leader. . . .
We don't have one. . . . .
We have a community organizer. I would love to send him over there to "Organize" Libya. . . .
We join the Libyan people in gratefulness as we hear of Col. Gaddafi’s defeat. The fall of a tyrant and sponsor of terrorism is a great day for freedom-loving people around the world. But the path to democracy in Libya is not complete, and we must make wise choices to ensure that our national interests are protected.
First, the White House needs to avoid triumphalism. Gaddafi may be gone, but the fighting may not be complete. As we’ve seen in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we must not celebrate too quickly. There are now mounting concerns that we will see tribal and sectarian fighting in Libya like we saw in Iraq. Let’s hope that is not the case, but it must be prepared for.
Second, we must be very concerned about the future government that will emerge to take Gaddafi’s place. History teaches that those with the guns usually prevail when a coalition overthrows a tyrant. We must remember that military power ultimately resides with the rebel commanders. This should be a source of some concern. The armed opposition to Gaddafi is an outgrowth of a group called Islamic Libya Fighting Group, and some rebel commanders admit that they have Al Qaeda links. The rebel fighters are from different tribes, and they have a variety of political views. Some are Islamists, some appear to favor some sort of western democracy. We should work through diplomatic means to help those who want democracy to come out on top.
That said, we should not commit U.S. troops or military assets to serve as peacekeepers or perform humanitarian missions or nation-building in Libya. Our military is already over-committed and strained, and a vaguely designed mission can be the first step toward a quagmire. The internal situation does not seem stable enough for U.S. forces to operate in a purely humanitarian manner without the possibility of coming under attack. Troop deployment to Libya would mean placing America’s finest in a potentially hostile zone that is not in our vital national security interest.
Finally, we must make sure that terrorist groups don’t try to co-opt the revolution, as Al Qaeda is trying to do in Syria. We should continue to use our intelligence assets to monitor the situation in Libya to ensure that potentially dangerous weapons are secured, and that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda don’t gain a foothold in Libya.
People of Libya, be vigilant. May this opportunity be used to build a free and peaceful country.
- Sarah Palin
With all due respect I disagree.
The US should stay the hell out of that tribalist hellhole that just got destablized for gold and oil.
Somewhere, the spirit of his father must be shedding bitter tears at this latest mouthing.
Tell you what Mike, if you want troops and cash in Libya, climb right down off that soapbox, put on your very best go-to-war gear, haul out your personal checkbook and GO FOR IT.
I’ve suffered amateur night clowns like you over ‘Nam and every two-bit adventure since that in silence, but my grandkids are getting old enough to maybe get roped into playing pawn in this fools’ game AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS CRAP ANYMORE.
Stick this bright idea up your.....
You have the French-trained and supported non-arab Berbers in the W and SW that occupy much of Tripoli. You have The Misrata and Benghazi and Tripoli Brigades that occupy the rest of Tripoli on east. Much of Benghazi is ethnic Italian.
Everybody has guns and there has been some fighting already between the rebel factions.
Throw in the Qaddafi loyalists that joined the rebels and the former royal family that is claiming power.
It will be a factional mess for years driven by greed and revenge.
Oh, and Qaddafi is likely in the south at Sabha starting up a guerrilla campaign from there.
Mike, you're a good guy. But you don't know anymore about Libya than your Father did about Beirut and Lebanon.
The only way I would be supportive of a U.S. intervention would be if:
(1) The clearly and openly stated purpose was to ensure that ONLY a secular/non-Islamic democracy was established. Their constitution COULD NOT have the Koran as a basis for anything. Also, they must have stated friendship with the U.S., U.K., et. al. With NO ties to any adversary (or potential one).
(2) Our presence was to ensure that any such democracy would have and enforce absolute individual freedom of religion to include individaul freedom not to practice religion. NO state sponsored religion.
(3) Our military forces could use any and all force necessary to carry this out and fully protect our own personnel - total war if necessary. NO restrictive & ridiculous ROEs. War is hell and innocents will die to remove the guilty or non-peaceful....it cannot be avoided. The safety of our troops should trump ALL other considerations.
(4) The U.S. forces WOULD NOT be part of a UN force but those of a coalition of like minded nations.
Under those conditions, I would probably be supportive of ground intervention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.