Is Libya a threat to the US?

[quinnox]

I could support military force being used if I was convinced that Libya was a threat to America, but I don't see it. Perhaps Libya has WMD hidden somewhere? Has this angle been brought up yet? How about Quadaffi, is he secretly affiliated with Al Queada? Is he planning mass attacks in our cities?

Failing this, I don't see a legitimate reason for the US to get involved.

[dkofos]

1. Nobody is a threat to the US.

Except the US.

[Poll_Blind]

2. +1

PB

[leftstreet]

22. +1

[FlyByNight]

33. Another +1

[Motown_Johnny]

42. and another +1

[TBF]

3. Those pesky gas prices ... nt

[GodlessBiker]

4. So, we should not use military force in order to help a particular population against an aggressor,

unless that aggressor is also a threat to the United States?

[gratuitous]

5. Why Libya and not Ivory Coast?

Or Bahrain? Or . . . well, this could go on and on. The basic question is why Libya and not somewhere else?

[Richard D]

6. Oil

[Ikonoklast]

25. Kosovo.

[GodlessBiker]

12. Yes, the choice of who to help is difficult, but I think helping people through the use of ...

military force is justified in certain situations. Which situations can be a difficult decision, but I think we help the image of our country, to say nothing about making good moral choices, when we use our military to assist populations where it is justified.

Do we do nothing because we cannot do everything?

[gratuitous]

21. Except we made an affirmative choice anent Libya and Libya only

I'm not trying to pit the good against the perfect, but it's natural to wonder why Libya and not anywhere else. It hasn't been notably more brutal in Libya than Bahrain. And Ivory Coast has been suffering for quite a bit longer under brutal government repression. But boy oh boy, didn't a coalition form fast, and didn't folks move quickly on Libya. Why?

[GodlessBiker]

28. No, you're right. There are good reasons not to help Libyans. I just wanted to stake out a ...

position that whether or not a state is a threat to the US is an insufficient reason to use (or not use) military force to help others in a conflict, as was implied in the OP.

[sad sally]

27. Topple the leader; let chaos prevail for awhile; insert "democratic"

elections; put in new hand-picked leader; whip up patriotic pride in military action; pump reconstruction money and contractors into country; hope for best; deed done, on to the next despot; repeat until all outcomes achieve peace and harmony worldwide. the end.

[quinnox]

8. That is how I see it, I don't think the US has the moral authority

to play worlds policeman.

I don't see the US role as being one where we use military force as if we are the civilized freedom liberators to every country in the world.

The US lost all moral authority when they invaded Iraq on lies IMHO.

[emulatorloo]

15. UN is playing world's policeman

You can make arguments whether or not that is inappropriate.

[WatsonT]

9. If we go down that path we can't be selective

only helping those oppressed people who happen to sit on oil.

And once done we couldn't simply abandon them to anarchy and poverty otherwise it would be a pointless intervention. We'd be in for the long-haul.

We could do it, maybe, with a draft and full war-time economy. It would mean a major hit to our standard of living, frequent terrorist attacks on our soil as we create enemies everywhere, and of course much fewer freedoms.

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. So far we know very little about this "particular population"

motives, or anything else. As this situation is looked at carefully, the facts about this whole rebel thing get muddier and non-linear. One might suspect that it is a bait & switch tactic not unlike Iraq's WMD.

[fittosurvive]

24. Absolutely not. Americas sons and daughters are not your pawns

to be sacrificed on the altar of what you, the United Nations, or any other country believe to be more valuable than their lives.

They have elected people to represent them and they are the only ones authorized to make this decision.

Are you familiar with the concept of inalienable rights?

[WatsonT]

7. Yes, Libya is the greatest threat the US has ever faced

they have sent waves of terrorists our way, personally funded 9/11 and if we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The mighty Libyan navy has an invasion fleet off Atlantic City.

Libyan marines will soon be overruning the casinos and taking up all the parking spaces.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Isolationism is a traditional conservative position, but you're welcome to it.

Now let's answer a few more questions:

- Is poverty a threat to an upper-middle class person like me?
- Is the loss of collective bargaining rights a threat to a non-union employee like me?

[Wait Wut]

29. +1

Great points!

[fittosurvive]

30. How about this question?

Are you willing to sacrifice your life for the Libyan revolution?

[fittosurvive]

31. .

[krabigirl]

36. It's actually a classical liberal position, but ok.

[kudzu22]

13. There's no question that Libya has WMDs

It's well known that they have stockpiles of chemical weapons. However, they weren't a threat to the US until we started bombing them.

[emulatorloo]

16. Who is arguing that. Nobody. N/T

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Ask the families of the passegers on Pan Am Flight 103

[Alamuti Lotus]

20. Can the families of the passengers on Iran Air 655 start bombing American cities, then?

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. It is quite plausable that the Iran Air 655 was a case of mistaken identity, but

Gaddafi himself ordered the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/muammar-gaddafi-ordered-lockerbie-bombing-says-libyan-minister/story-e6frfku0-1226011070628

[quinnox]

23. interesting dodge, but what do you think?

Is Libya a threat to the US? Its a pretty simple question...

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Libya is a threat as long as Gaddafi is in charge

He has shown that by his past actions.

[pampango]

18. No, but the UN has a responsibility to protect civilians. The US should support the UN or

withdraw from it (a repub wet dream).

[highplainsdem]

19. +1

[fittosurvive]

37. When did we authorize the UN to decide which issues justify the sacrifice of our sons and daughters?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. 10 members of the Securtiy Council is not "the UN".

I wonder how well that vote would have gone if presented to the General Assembly.

[Zorra]

26. It may be a threat to some giant US based multi-national oil corporations

or their subsidiaries.

[MilesColtrane]

32. I'm glad France saw a legitimate reason to get involved in 1776.

I'm not much for monarchs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Uh..France was a Monarchy at that time. And, far more autocratic than England.

And, their "legitimate reason" to involve themselves wasn't about supporting democracy.

[KoKo]

34. Senator Robert Menendez said "Responsible for Lockerbie and he has Mustard Seed Gas..."

This a.m. on CNN. Sounded like Bush/Cheney. But, then he did go on to say (when pressed) that US involvement should be limited and no military on the ground. :shrug:

BTW: Mustard "Seed" gas is a new one. Mustard gas used in WWI...but never heard it called "mustard seed gas" before. Maybe I missed something about how it's made, though.

[Catherina]

35. No but the current regime is a threat to BP's 50 Billion Pound Investment in Libya n/t

[treestar]

38. that claim has never been made

straw man.

[emulatorloo]

41. Of course not.

[pokerfan]

43. If you define security broadly enough, one can justify anything. (nt)