DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**fil_nurser** · 03-31-2011, 02:20 PM

Well, that's because we shouldn't be there in the first place. It was a civil war. It should've remained that...

There was plenty of noise about Obama not doing anything, until the bombing started, then it shifted from slamming Obama for "not doing anything" to slamming Obama for "doing too much".
We get it, you don't like Obama...

Deposed?

I'd like to see him killed. Frankly, I think we should've killed him in 1989. But we didn't, we didn't do anything in response to Lockerbie in 1989, and we welcomed Libya back into the fold of upstanding nations and removed all sanctions just a few years ago.

So now that Obama is shooting at him, why aren't you applauding?

My main objection is that this was a civil war. It stops being a civil war once we start helping one side or the other. I object to the fact that Obama hasn't ruled out arming rebels... What are the actual US interests in this case?
Do we want Qaddafi dead or imprisoned or exiled at the least?
Yes, because he actually attacked us. And it's a much better precedent to have the last official US act concerning Qaddafi to be the US assisting in his downfall, rather than the US president kissing his ass and removing sanctions in return for him giving up the remnants of a nuclear program he had abandoned 2 decades before. This is for the benefit of next dictator that has to make a decision regarding US interests, that we never forget.

Do we want to have a government in Libya that sees the West as a friend rather than as the Great Satan or as Qaddafi's enablers?
Yes, because we need the oil and the gas to flow.

Now in diplomatic circles you can't just come out and say "This is what I want to do and here is the real reason why".
But US actions here seem to be much better aligned to US long term interests, than the invasion of Iraq, which was much more closely aligned with GOP political interests than any long term US interests.

03-31-2011, 02:20 PM	#26
fil_nurser Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 401 Senior Member	Well, that's because we shouldn't be there in the first place. It was a civil war. It should've remained that... There was plenty of noise about Obama not doing anything, until the bombing started, then it shifted from slamming Obama for "not doing anything" to slamming Obama for "doing too much". We get it, you don't like Obama... Deposed? I'd like to see him killed. Frankly, I think we should've killed him in 1989. But we didn't, we didn't do anything in response to Lockerbie in 1989, and we welcomed Libya back into the fold of upstanding nations and removed all sanctions just a few years ago. So now that Obama is shooting at him, why aren't you applauding? My main objection is that this was a civil war. It stops being a civil war once we start helping one side or the other. I object to the fact that Obama hasn't ruled out arming rebels... What are the actual US interests in this case? Do we want Qaddafi dead or imprisoned or exiled at the least? Yes, because he actually attacked us. And it's a much better precedent to have the last official US act concerning Qaddafi to be the US assisting in his downfall, rather than the US president kissing his ass and removing sanctions in return for him giving up the remnants of a nuclear program he had abandoned 2 decades before. This is for the benefit of next dictator that has to make a decision regarding US interests, that we never forget. Do we want to have a government in Libya that sees the West as a friend rather than as the Great Satan or as Qaddafi's enablers? Yes, because we need the oil and the gas to flow. Now in diplomatic circles you can't just come out and say "This is what I want to do and here is the real reason why". But US actions here seem to be much better aligned to US long term interests, than the invasion of Iraq, which was much more closely aligned with GOP political interests than any long term US interests.
	Quote