The US will allow the Arabs determine their own destiny. They will prefer that the people can take ownership of the overall process. The US will only come in (probably under UN with the support of other Arab nations) when they have no choice.

Police001:

I can't believe my eyes at the sorts of response coming from this page, so by inference we are saying while hundreds of kids and women are being murdered by their government for registering their legitimate demands, the rest of the world who has the necessary means to stop this killings should just fold their arms and watch?

Evil is now so prevalent in the world and our consciences silenced by its prevalence, people in Libya are humans too, anyone, any government, who can do anything to stop this killings should step in, posterity will have them to thank for it

violent:

^^
Well, i think it's a bit too early to rule out military intervention in this case, the US seem to have toughened their tone ever since the successful evacuation of American citizens.   If China and Russia throws in support for military intervention, then it might be the way to go.

violent:

Although, it has been rightly said already, any actions from the US at this point will be seen as brash, peharps even what Ghadaffi is hoping for in order to draw sympathizers to his cause, this is the main reason why the US has refused to evacuate her citizens through a military aircraft!

Any military intervention would be centrally directed toward securing the economically and strategically crucial Libyan oilfields. American, British, Italian, French and German oil conglomerates all have lucrative stakes in Libya’s high-quality oil reserves. The operation would be colonialist in character, marking the further extension of Washington’s efforts to use military force to maintain control over energy resources in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation in Libya is threatening a major world oil price shock and a sharp downturn in the US economy[/b]. On Thursday, Obama underscored this concern when he addressed corporate executives assembled for the “President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.” Speaking of oil prices, he declared, “We actually think that we’ll be able to ride out the Libya situation and it will stabilise.” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner sought to allay concerns by stressing the excess oil producing capacity of other OPEC member states.

The US and international media have thrown their weight behind the US and European governments’ humanitarian posturing, reviving the pretexts that were used as a cover for US-led interventions in the Balkans in the 1990s. On Thursday, the Financial Times recalled US President Ronald Reagan’s denunciation of Gaddafi in an editorial entitled “Time to Muzzle Libya’s Mad Dog.” The London-based publication demanded an immediate no-fly zone and the opening up of “humanitarian corridors” from Tunisia and Egypt.

The same theme was sounded by the New York Times in its editorial “Stopping Gaddafi.” Halting just short of openly demanding military intervention, the newspaper declared: “After Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda, the United States and its allies vowed that they would work harder to stop mass atrocities. One thing is not in doubt: The longer the world temporizes, the more people die.”


These statements are utterly cynical and hypocritical. Less than a decade after the New York Times played a central role in promoting the bogus “weapons of mass destruction” pretext for the US invasion of Iraq, it is propagandizing in support of another colonial intervention in yet another oil-rich country, Libya.

Police001:

I can't believe my eyes at the sorts of response coming from this page, so by inference we are saying while hundreds of kids and women are being murdered by their government for registering their legitimate demands, the rest of the world who has the necessary means to stop this killings should just fold their arms and watch?

Evil is now so prevalent in the world and our consciences silenced by its prevalence, people in Libya are humans too, anyone, any government, who can do anything to stop this killings should step in, posterity will have them to thank for it

Police001:

Quote
The US will allow the Arabs determine their own destiny. They will prefer that the people can take ownership of the overall process. The US will only come in (probably under UN with the support of other Arab nations) when they have no choice.


When they have no choice?  when will that be?  you mean until there are only a few hundred Libyans left alive?  did you watch the deputy ambassador of Libya to the United Nations crying the last emergency meeting held?  common people, what happened to our conscience? 

EzeUche_:

Why should the U.S. get involved in Libya? The Arab people already hate Americans and the rest of the West. Yet, they continue to call for American support. I don't even understand this people. If Americans get involved, that will complain. If Americans do not get involve, they will continue to complain.


These people need to sort their own affairs.

pleep:

I hope you are Aware that the majority of Americans cannot even locate Libya on a map. The also simply don't care. People don't realize how apathetic Americans are. And as for the u.s government it only acts in it's intrests it is not a humanitariAn organization, if you researced all the evil the u.s gov has caused you would know this. America only uses words like humanitarian mission peacekeeping liberation and freedom when it has something to gain, Look at south Sudan there were no American instrests there so america didn't intervene

Kobojunkie:

They also simply don't care? You mean the many other times America intervened, and people like you immediately declared them invaders and enemies, in those they cared?? WOW !!!

PS. America was in Sudan, only that was more a humanitarian mission. I believe the country learnt from Somalia that it is better to stay clear of the local issues, and focus instead of helping the refugees. But then again, I would not expect you to admit that since it seems America is ALWAYS evil to you, no matter what it does.

Kobojunkie:

They also simply don't care? You mean the many other times America intervened, and people like you immediately declared them invaders and enemies, in those they cared?? WOW !!!

PS. America was in Sudan, only that was more a humanitarian mission. I believe the country learnt from Somalia that it is better to stay clear of the local issues, and focus instead of helping the refugees. But then again, I would not expect you to admit that since it seems America is ALWAYS evil to you, no matter what it does.  

pleep:

i will admit, that some of the things i say about the U.S are unnecessarily pointed. America is not evil. keep in mind that it was not America alone that invaded Somalia it was the U.N the security council leads this group and America leads the council (debatable) thus, the u.s was obligated to take part in the mission,  that failed,  there are HUGE strategic interests in Somalia,  its a window on the middle east the French have a military base their. and a stable Somalia would counter balance extremism. also you must remember how the American public reacted to the American involvement. it was mostly negative. Because as a said earlier the majority of American are more concerned with things like the economy and gay marriage than foreign affairs. The majority of Americans dont care.
and in Sudan its was not the U.S it was the U.N,  i will admit they did do a great deal of good but only intervened when the violence was mostly over.

Kobojunkie:

OMGosh!!! So you do KNOW that the U.S does go out on U.N Security Council sanctioned missions(For a minute there I thought you were just another nairaland numskull that probably needed to be spoon-fed information little by little),and it does not necessarily go ahead unless in special cases. But here you are pretending the U.S itself should jump out ahead of the U.N council to go save Libyans?

Please, let us use our heads more! The U.S rarely goes on these missions except when the U.N in involved. And it is almost always the case that the U.S is involved in most every U.N security outing. I am not sure what you mean when you now decide the only time the U.S gets involved is when it has something to gain, when this same country is known all around the world for being a part of U.N missions such as this, even the Somalia, and Sudanese cases cannot be told without mentioning the fact that U.S forces were present even then. 

Why now expect the U.S to act as world police when many of you have made it more than clear that you do not welcome the U.S serving in that capacity? Why not focus on the U.N in this instead??

pleep:

I hope you are Aware that the majority of Americans cannot even locate Libya on a map. [size=13pt]The also simply don't care. People don't realize how apathetic Americans are. And as for the u.s government it only acts in it's intrests it is not a humanitariAn organization, if you  researced all the evil the u.s gov has caused you would know this. America only uses  words like humanitarian mission peacekeeping liberation and freedom when it has something to gain,  Look at south Sudan there were no American instrests there so america didn't intervene[/size]

Kobojunkie:

[size=14pt]ROFLMAO!!!! [/size]

I see it is goal post shifting time, huh??  WOW . . . . so, even though most of the missions are U.N missions, America, a country, is still required to have stepped out, BEFORE the U.N to save lives in Sudan ROFLMAO!!

pleep:

Haha ok I read through what you were saying again. and now I understand what u were trying to say. This was just a big misunderstanding. The US is indeed involves in u.n missions that are not directly In it's intrests all I'm sayin is that these are part of it's role on the security council.

cap28:

America has never intervened in any conflict anywhere in the world on the grounds of humanitarianism - it was only in Somalia because it had been promised trillions of dollars worth of oil concessions by a former Somalian dictator Siad Barre, it tried to regain control of the country from rival warlords and failed, after their failed expeditions they resorted to using proxies to fight on their behalf. 

This whole thing about humanitarian intervention in Libya is  a sham - all the americans want to do here is go in and a[b]nnex the areas of Libya in which the oil is located.[/b]

Kobojunkie:

They also simply don't care? You mean the many other times America intervened, and people like you immediately declared them invaders and enemies, in those they cared?? WOW !!!

PS. America was in Sudan, only that was more a humanitarian mission. I believe the country learnt from Somalia that it is better to stay clear of the local issues, and focus instead of helping the refugees. But then again, I would not expect you to admit that since it seems America is ALWAYS evil to you, no matter what it does. 

cap28:

WAKE UP!!!! AMERICA COULDNT GIVE A F.U.CK ABOUT THE LIBYAN PEOPLE THEY ONLY WANT TO GO IN AND SEIZE CONTROL OF THE OIL WELLS!!!!!!!!!!!!



I REPEAT THE WEST COULDNT GIVE TWO FU.CKS ABOUT THE LIBYAN PEOPLE THEY ONLY WANT THEIR OIL. 

GOING IN ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS IS A COVER AND A LIE:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/lead-f26.shtml

johnie:

Truth be told, the days of USA's overwhelming superpower influence are quickly coming to an end.

Kingdoms/empires and nations will rise and fall. T[b]he years of their influnce wane with one significant world event or the other.[/b]

Remember the Persians, Romans (Pax Romana), British empire (on which the sun never used to set)?

After the second world, the British empire gradually crumbled and the influence of America rose.

The disgrace of US is Somalia, blind invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and routing in Vietnam are all blood trails left behind by a fatally wounded giant.

Military invasion of Libya might be the final deathblow to American bigmanism a la law of unintended consequences.

Depsite the attraction of oil, invasion of Libya would be ill advised and I think the Yanks know that.