I think the real question about US Libyan involvement is...

[CommonSensePLZ]

Can the USA be trusted to behave?

I opposed the Iraq war because it was clear to me the reasons for it were bogus and the intelligence of supposed WMDs he was making was sketchy. The people were tolerating Saddam's brutal rule, that four-letter word even had the nerve to hold an "election" prior to the invasion "winning" something like 99% of it, still they pretended they liked him. Toward the end of the build-up to war the reasons for why we were doing it shifted from WMDs when proof of that was talking too long to get - wasn't gonna happen and we know now that such claims were falsified to "liberating the Iraqi people" among other things, meaning getting rid of some guy we didn't like.

That last detail is similar with Gaddafi but the people have been asking for help.

Some people here are frustrated by how Afghanistan and Iraq have turned out. Everybody is. But in this case the US is NOT leading - or at least I don't think it should considering all of the scandals our military has had in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know a lot of people don't like to think about such sordid details of their own nation, but I'm just calling it like I see it.

Now, to get to the point: Suppose the US DID NOT take the lead as occupiers or invaders of Libya. Suppose we played a more minor role, such as helping Libyans clean up but the UN was actually in charge of the peace-keeping (occupation if you prefer)? I believe that the US is not trusted in Libya and that if we were to be seen as in charge of their country hostility would rise and we would see backlash like what goes on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. "Can the USA be trusted to behave?"

When, in our entire history, has the answer to that ever been Yes?

[Taverner]

2. In a word....no eom

[damntexdem]

3. Now that IS a serious question.

We have to monitor this closely.