Poll: Why did the US join in the invasion of Libya

[DisgustipatedinCA]

Poll question: Poll: Why did the US join in the invasion of Libya

As usual, we have a divided DU, this time around on the subject of Libya. Why do you think we bombed Libya and achieved regime change?

(editing to add this parenthetical, and removing nothing: I get the point--sending thousands of bombs to land on Libya is not an invasion. It's a bombing. And I'd like to know why you think we engaged in/are engaging in this bombing. I understand I'm wrong about calling it an "invasion". This in no way invalidates the question. Thank you.)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. We did this because that's what the U.S. does: regime change around the globe. nt

[The Northerner]

28. +1

[Harmony Blue]

2. Many reasons

Libyan opposition has stated they don't want foreign troops or bases, which is exactly what the Russians were planning to do (Naval Base in Benghazi was being discussed back in the winter of 2010), and the Chinese wanted to expand their influence in the region because of the oil. The West didn't want the Eastern powers to have a foothold in the region and acted as they did for military, and economic reasons.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. thank you

I didn't see your pre-edit answer, but I appreciate the reply that I can see.

[qwertyMike]

3. It will not be an 'invasion'

till there are boots on the ground (yawwwn)
Have you seen the hardware those rebels have?

And the US is running out of boots.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. evasive answers not acceptable

Sorry you're sleepy and irritable; I guess that's the way it is sometimes.

Maybe I should have called it "thousands of freedom sorties" instead of "invasion". For you, I'll restate the question: why did we bomb the living shit out of Libya? Would love to hear your thoughts.

[ProgressoDem]

5. When was there an invasion of Libya??

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. evasive answers not acceptable

Why did we slaughter lots of Libyans? Is that better? Please let me know your opinion on the matter.

[ProgressoDem]

18. We accidentally killed some

To prevent Gaddafi from killing hundreds of times more, intentionally.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. Thank you

Can't say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your answer.

[panader0]

6. "Invasion"?

I wasn't aware that the US invaded Libya.
I read here on DU that US involvement in Libya cost as much as three days in Afghanistan.
Whether or not it helped the people of Libya is debatable. But Gaddafi is gone, and the Libyan people can shape their own future.

[geek tragedy]

8. Diary title is a lie.

There was no invasion of Libya.

Just more of the "the US is great Satan" crowd.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. cowardly evasion not acceptable

Why did we bomb Libya?

[geek tragedy]

15. Because the alternative was to dismiss the demands

of our allies and the Arab League and take a de facto pro-Qadaffi stance.

As has been taken by the extremists at this site.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. thanks for the straight answer

I don't understand your second sentence, but I'll take the first--I consider it progress. Genuinely, thanks for answer.

[Demonaut]

10. was this before the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. do you have an answer, or don't you?

[Demonaut]

14. about a accurate an answer as your post...

answering the poll would only confirm the stupidity of the headline

[DisgustipatedinCA]

17. why did we bomb Libya?

I'd like to know what you think. Is "bomb" an ok way to say this? If you'd rather I call it "freedomintervening" or something, I'll do that just for you--if you'll actually answer the question. Can you answer?

[Demonaut]

19. Acceptable question

to be on the right side of history when we've been on the wrong side too often and are still
not a diplomat but I believe the force was necessary to protect the rebels/civilians

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. Thank you, Demonaut. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

13. Pax Americana, we must make resources safe for exploitation of industry

and maintain strategic military positions to better project power which allows the security and access for exploitation.

[SavWriter]

22. Simple

We have abandoned the principals that we once argued for passionately. We have decided that the Repugnicks and their/our corporate masters are right. The first answer must be violence. As much violence as possible, as much as we can get away with. We abandoned our stated standards, no threat to us, and Libya was no threat to us. They may have attacked us thirty years ago, but that was thirty years ago, during the reign of the Reagan Regime, and who can blame them for opposing Reagan.

We were not threatened, Libya was looking at internal political change. We remained neutral in Egypt's fight, and it passed with barely a thousand deaths. We got involved in Libya, and ten times that number have died. Where do we inflict internal political change next? Iran? China? England?

All of those nations have citizens who are unhappy with their political system. In each system, they have used violence to suppress the demonstrations. If we are now crusaders charging across the globe to free those we determine to be oppressed, who is next up for the Kinetic Military Action award?

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to defeat, for it is momentary. That was a lesson taught to us by Gandhi, who defeated the British Imperialists with peace and compassion. Now we cheer when the American and NATO imperialists use violence.

Do we next embrace Capital Punishment? Do we jump on the bandwagon of Racism? How many other principals of the damned Repugnicks are we going to claim are our own? I weep for my party, for we are so busy defeating ourselves, that the Repugniks are destined to take control of the monster we have allowed to live. The overbearing, intrusive, Government we protested such a short time ago. When we give the people a choice, Liberal Democrat versus Racist Repugniks. We win. When we give them a choice, Repugnik, or slightly more moderate Repugnik, we always lose. They always choose the genuine article.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Same reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. To keep Topeka safe from their paratroopers.

Or, it could be that we still wanted to prove that we're the biggest and best armed bullies on the block.

[obxhead]

24. When we start dropping tons of bombs in support of an uprising

in non oil bearing countries I'll believe the line that it was for humanitarian reasons.

Without the oil, we would not have been involved.

If not for the uprising, we would still be selling weapons of death and giving aid to Gaddafi.

[TomClash]

25. Several reasons - all amounting to more or less the same thing

Not necessarily in order of importance:

1. To sustain the Empire by controlling Africa's largest oil supply.
2. To accommodate the Empire's satellites who were itching for the spoils.
3. To block China and Russia from controlling that oil supply.
4. To counter Chinese moves in North Africa.
5. To secure increased oil supply for multinationals.
6. Bigger and better markets.
7. Access to Libyan bases if necessary.

It's a very nice win for the Empire - in many ways better, cleaner, smarter and more efficient that Iraq and nearly as important.

[Igel]

26. I'll overlook the use of "invasion."

1. We said that had requirements. Qaddhafi ignored us. It was important that when the West and NATO say something people take us seriously. We saved face.

It took 6 months. I'm not sure we saved face, even though we have shown that we can muck up anybody who disses the people that matter--us.

2. Improving relations with the Arab world is a Big Deal with the current administration. They blew it with Egypt. They desparately wanted to be on the Right Side of history and, well, flunked. With Libya they could be the defender of the Every Man Arab and on the right side of history; this would lead to a domino effect of regime change letting those Western-minded progressive thinkers in other countries triumph as they did in Egypt and would in Libya. The Arab world would celebrate the US and love us, and when the Arab states called for the no-fly zone, woo-hoo!

It's unclear to me to what extent this has actually panned out. To the extent we owned and bought the revolution, we'll be resented. To the extent we didn't, we'll be ignored.

3. Other reasons arose by accretion. Business, oil, etc. Somehow the thing became as much anti-Qaddhafi as pro-rebel. Perhaps because having the primary goal being supporting the rebels would associate us too closely with the rebels, unknown quantities.

[johnaries]

27. "Invasion"?!?!?! WTF? Talk about re-writing history!

This was a revolution by the Libyan people. If it were for the oil, we would have helped Gadaffi. I hate Republicans who use spin to rewrite history, but I even less patience when a so-called Liberal does it.

[Selatius]

29. Because Libya has something that the Democratic Republic of the Congo doesn't have?

Like oil? And the DRC has been convulsing in civil war for years.

[quaker bill]

30. We already had the oil

Gadaffi was sufficiently tamed, and needed the income from the oil to maintain control. He was pumping it and selling it in the marketplace. We could just purchase it and were doing so. This "war for oil" thing is getting pretty threadbare.

Gadaffi was a residual client dictator left over from the cold war. Like Saddam, he had survived well beyond his usefulness. His people wanted him gone so we used our "special abilities" to quickly destroy stockpiles of the cold war weaponry he was depending on to maintain power.

[Shagbark Hickory]

31. In a nutshell...

Europe countries didn't want a flood of refugees.