Well there are wars for oil and then wars for oil. I thought it was odd that you would use that formulation on the first war in the middle east that we've gotten into that "war for oil" has not been a lefty talking point.
So to me, it was weird that you were saying it when I wasn't hearing it from Code Pinko or ANSWER. I suppose one could make a case that the Gulf War was a war for oil, and I don't think there is any case that Iraq was a war for oil, but the left claimed both of them were.
And Libya? At 2% of oil, I don't think this is a war for oil.
I disagree... that oil serves our national interests and keeping it safe is a part of national security.. even that small amount serves us they are in the top 10 oil producers... There was a need for us to protect our interests..especially now with prices already high.. add in Ghadaffi's treats and the tension it creates in the area gets real ugly real fast..
was it number one on the list? no.. but it was on the list in the top3 IMO.. how can you look at that and say "Nope, don't see it".. all you had to do was listen to the news the 1st few days and hear them tell you of the tension affecting OPEC and gas prices.. just the rumor he was leaving brought them down some..
I don't even know who code pink or ANSWER is so why would I know what they are saying. I was answering fafa in the simplest way possible.. nothing more, nothing less...
For us.
It was easy to understand except when it came to explaining what was the US national security interest was. That is my question after all. I get it that it was exciting to lead from behind the French and Arab League, but because you are seeking the approval of other's in their national security interests doesn't make it our national security interest. I mean, if we had no other wars or anything else going and just needed practice with operations and live fire, eh, maybe then.
But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.
But if it makes you feel any better, since we've committed forces, it's in our national security interest now. I think that's probably not something you would follow though, based on past history but now we're committed to this war and have to get rid of Gaddaffi (damn spelling) and make sure that a reasonably democratic government takes charge there.
I hope the President is up for it.
I don't find the mystery in what our national interests were in this situation... I don't find the mystery in why we didn't go into Syria or even Iran the way you do.. I do find it mysterious that you expect this President to solve every previous presidents problems though, when you're not really going to 'understand' what he does regardless of how easy it is to understand anyway..
I think the oil and the chance at another ousted dictator and insertion of a democracy, along with the saving of potentially 10's of 1000's of people who just wanted to be free made it in our interest.. I don't think I'm hiding anything from you or dodging any question, I just can't explain it any better than it's already been explained to you by me,cnn and JBG.. so you can take this..
But I've learned that when someone can't explain something to me and refers me to an article that doesn't respond to the question I'm asking, they probably don't know either and are just crushing on the person who got us into the war.and add it to that growing list of your refusal to accept anything that doesn't come from the mouth of (R)'s..because I can't make it any easier.. unless I hunt up flow charts, but even that.. would probably be a waste of my time..
