Do you think the US is really in Libya to protect citizens?

Jake: Do you think the US is really in Libya to protect citizens?
If the protection of innocent people is so important, then what about places like Darfur, which is nothing less than a humanitarian catastrophe? Do you think there is an underlying reason why the US and Western nations are involved in Libya and the entire Middle East for that matter?

Answers and Views:

Answer by captain blubber
looking for the holy grail….

Answer by icantremember29
No, must have something to do with the oil pipeline, it runs through Libya you know!

Answer by game
No come on, only americans believe in this nonsense provided by fox news

if the us wants to protect citizens why dont they invade syria, bahrain too? they make exceptions? why? maybe oil? think about it

Answer by crow t robot
yes the saudis want the land

Answer by Adrift in Time
Nope, cruise missiles don’t discriminate. They kill anyone that is nearby.

The French want to keep the oil supply flowing, that is the only reason we are there.

Answer by Maxwell
No

if that were the case….we’d be in Syria, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia….just to name a few places where civilians are being killed by their state

Answer by kril_420
We clearly have other interests in Libya. Unlike Iraq.

Answer by LeAnne
The entire Middle East is a powder keg – there are no easy answers in trying to stabilize this region. Humanitarian reasons such as the protection of innocent citizens is as good a reason as any to rid the region of dictators such as Ghadaffe.

Answer by Rachel M
The US is in Libya because of NATO (mainly Britain and France). Most European oil refineries are only set up to convert sweet (low sulfur content) crude into gasoline and other products (European environmental regulations made it so). Libya is one of the highest producers of sweet crude.
Its all about the oil.
I just hope that France is not dragging us into another Vietnam style situation.

Answer by Golden
did you see the signs the people in Libya were carrying? “Please! No Fly Zone Now!” they were desperate and being bombed by their own government. would you really deny them help?

Darfur is a different situation. and, a sad one indeed. maybe when Libya is somewhat stable, they’ll let us set up a staging base down in the southern desert and we can start dealing with the Darfur issue.

maybe industry will open back up. we are gonna need some fresh cruise missiles. if WW2 taught us anything, it’s that building military equipment and materiel can really get a piss poor economy moving.

Answer by Penfold buy naan bread, crash Hovis, bear
There can be little doubt that humanitarian concerns have nothing to do with it. The track record of the US shows that they don’t worry to much about killing brown people.

Democratic reform seems highly unlikely too given the track record of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its pretty plain that a policy of bombing to support a revolt by a rag tag bunch of loonies firing their AK47s in the air is far more likely to result in an extremist Islaamist state or in an ongoing civil war than it is to produce a liberal democracy.

Similarly its inconceivable that a bombing campaign in support of a revolt can be designed to secure the supply of oil from Libya.

So that really leaves only a couple of motivations which are:

1) to destabilize a major oil supplier and thus force up the price of oil
2) to expend and destroy vast amounts of military equipment to the benefit of arms manufacturers.