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...
Like I said, I don't think it was a war for oil,
for us.
I do think from the European perspective, it very much is a war for oil, since the have much closer business dealings with Libya and get much more of their oil from there. If you recall, it eventually came out that pressure from the UK government on the Scottish legal system lead to the release of one of the Lockerbie bombers, allegedly for humanitarian reasons although apparently back home in Libya, he experienced a miraculous remission and last I heard, was still alive.
So, if foreign governments will trade a terrorst who killed their own people (not to mention ours) for oil contracts, I'm not surprised they would try to get a superpower with superior military capabilities to do their dirty work. Same thing happened in Bosnia. There was a humanitarian crisis, but not a national security crisis. So, which country has has more civilian deaths since these uprisings started? Libya or Syria?
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..
Yes yes the "mouth of R's." Like I said, I get the humanitarian angle, however now that we are involved in Libya, are we willing to stay to do what it takes, kill Ghaddafi, help support a democratic government there... I mean, do you understand the commitment we have made? Or, are you going to get bored with the whole thing and want the US to pull out later? I think that since we've gotten sucked into this, we've got a much bigger commitment than just lobbing a few bombs, and I don't see these issues being addressed. That's why asking what our national security interests are isn't just a matter of R's and D's. I see that you seem to find it difficult to think I can have anything other than a partisan slant on foreign policy.
Which, considering
your reaction to Bin Ladin's killing, is more than a wee bit ironic!
