[frog in a pot]

Thank you for your insight. Sounds as though you have a well-informed take on the situation.

Do you have an opinion of what, if any, U.S. interest warrants aggressive involvement of our military? At least any interest so vital that it is worth further inflaming the Muslim world? (I will stipulate inflammation may be built in and unavoidable.)

[blueunicorn6]

This is what happens when you elect the junior high team (Obama and the liberals) into the NFL (world affairs).

[Qbert]

I could be wrong, but I almost get the sense that this was Hillary tired of nobody listening to her (there were reports leaking out to that effect last week), so she said enough is enough and threw her toys finally- consequences to Obama be darned. I don’t think Obama would’ve done this on his own, considering his usual obsequious behavior when Muslims are involved.

[gandalftb]

Well, it's a late in the game payback on Lockerbie and the disco bombing. Mostly, we are trying to position ourselves well with France, Italy, and England by doing the heavy lifting and letting them benefit economically with unfettered access to Libyan oil and uranium ore.

Humanitarian reasons? Huh? We did nothing in Rwanda when 750,000 were butchered.

Promoting democracy? Huh? We are doing nothing now in Cote d'Ivoire to help the newly elected government take power and more are being killed there than in the violence in Libya.