News Libya-

i've stopped following it. there's no reason for gas prices to be on the rise like they are because of this situation. we get 1% of out oil from there and i am sure we can cut it off and find it somewhere else.

We should not be involved. Let Europe handle it

looks like another genocide, our queue to get involved.

Here you go:

http://obama.net/gadhafi-continues-genocide-united-states-fires-back/

"The genocide in Libya has not stopped. Despite pleas and demands from all around the globe, including the United States of America and the United Nations, Moammar Gadhafi has continued to attack his own people and murder them mercilessly."

Thats how so.

The headline of the paper pissed me off the other day: "TAKE THAT!" in big bold letters above a pic of one of the cruise missiles being fired from the ship. yeaaaaaaa so exciting! Rally the troops! lets get involved in a 3rd war!
Ive never been involved in politics but this is bothering me

"Your tax money at work" Seems more appropriate above the cruise missile.

^referring to paying for this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/costs-of-libya-operation-already-piling-up

ohhhhh now McCain wants the US to train and equip the rebels!!! Is he out of his mind? Thank God he wasnt elected.

i was seeing stories about the gas prices going up because of libya. i also know prices are rising because the price of gas is based on the american dollar which is horrible right now.

Lol.

We should not be there. Europe can do what they want since they apparently rely on oil from there more than us. These people don’t even have a leader. When Khadafy attacks, they all run off. Wheres the leadership? And whats going to happen if/when they get control of the country. I also believe that Obama during his campaign said we should not enter a war unless we are attacked (correct me if I’m wrong). Yet we are there!

I was referring to the leader of the rebels.
Well, when khadafy bombs them they retreat. They've lost some of the territories gained and the troops are having trouble organizing themselves for combat. There's noone stepping up, like a leader of the revolution (like a G.Washington of Libya)

Random, but I also find it interesting that this rebellion is taking longer than the other ones. It seems like in Egypt, the entire nation was against Mubarak, yet in Libya, there is still very strong support for Khadafy? Some people still like him?

Even if its not a genocide, its a massacre we shouldn't be apart of, its between them.

I feel this is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. It has the great potential to be
either a "game changer", so to speak, in US-Arab relations or as an economic and political disaster - if everyone else bails early in the conflit and leaves the US with the check.

I know that Obama pushed his agenda for not entering conflicts unless they are directed at the US, but being Commander and Chief means that sometimes you got to pull on the big boy pants and grab your whupping stick - can't always negotiate in a situation like this.

Compared to the other Middle East conflicts, this one is a little different. To some people, war is war - nothing else, that an armed conflict will mean the potential deaths of many people and stirring the global pot of power. But keep in mind that recent Iraq conflict was based finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction / keep an adversary in perpetual check.

Also keep in mind that it was clear that a couple of conditions had to been met before the US entered the Libyan conflict.
- Arab people requested the intervention
- Europeans took the lead in calling for the intervention
- United Nations Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the action

Main thread of the conflict is to protect the citizens of Libya and to the end goal of supporting a Gaddafi ouster to keep the momentum for the push of democracy - not for access to the oil (2% of world's output) or eliminated a possible adversary. This is the potential game changer - US protecting citizens of Libya will not be lost on the other Arab nations, further halting or even flipping that growing negative view of the US in the eyes of the Arab nations.

My fear is the high potential for an economic and political disaster. The nations that are entering the conflict are hoping for a short intervention, the US hasn't recovered from the economic downturn, though it could be argued that we are doing better than some of the other nations involved. If this turns into a drawn out conflict, it will be likely that the other nations will have to bow out early, leaving the US in leading the intervention. The US should not have to shoulder that load and was voiced early on. The US also have to balance how much involvement the US warfighter has on Middle Eastern soil - have to be able to cleanly level the playing field between the pro-Gaddafi forces and the opposition forces. Let the opposition take the lead in fighting with minimal involvement from the Western forces. Limiting civilian casualties / minimizing collateral damages is always a concern in an armed conflict. Advanced avionic and superior tech can only go so far - US has to pay due diligence in making sure that CONOPS is based on good intel, communications with all joint forces. US cannot stand to loose ground to anti-Gaddafi forces, if this conflict is to be resolve swiftly. Do not want this to become another Iraq war.

Only time will tell if this was a good decision or not.

Its a good debate topic, whether we should or should not be there it just depends on which side of the line your standing on.