jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (7 posts)

Why did it take such little time to attack Libya but we have yet to do anything

  1. Kaniel Loughran profile image58
    Kaniel Loughranposted 6 years ago

    Why did it take such little time to attack Libya but we have yet to do anything about Syria?

    It took less than 100 deaths to inspire the U.N. to put into motion the bombing of Libya, but after 450+ deaths in Syria, including sniper fire, hospital blockades and the killing of children, we still haven't done a single thing. Why is that?

  2. Ralph Deeds profile image62
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    What do you suggest we do? How many wars do you think we can pursue at one time?

  3. Kaniel Loughran profile image58
    Kaniel Loughranposted 6 years ago

    We didn't do anything about Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Yemen, Bahrain nor Jordan, but we didn't hesitate to go into Libya? I'm saying you either help them all or you stay out of all their business. They committed to help Libya, they ought to take on the rest. By attacking Libya and no place else, it implies the Allied Nations stand to gain something by stepping in, whereas the others are either inconsequential or even beneficial to other countries looking for a particular country to tear itself apart.

    My personal thoughts on the matter is that it's not our business. None of it is. But the selective nature of this is a problem to me.

  4. Inspiration88 profile image82
    Inspiration88posted 6 years ago

    Politics has many layers. And the layers seen by the general public are certainly the most shallow and misleading ones. In political decisions complex geopolitical, historical, strategic and other factors play part. In this regard, Gadaffi was a splinter in the toe of many western countries for decades in a row, but everyone was busy with other wars and conflicts to engage him. The recent civil unrests in Libya simply became this long-awaited justification factor and in a good time too (when everyone is free to engage), so they did.

    Let's also not forget that Libya has oil, which is another strategic factor that plays a major role in the decision to engage it militarily. In reality, no one really cares about the actual deaths of people, their rights or suffering. It is all business and gain. This is what politics is, behind the public layers.

  5. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 6 years ago

    The answer to 99 out of 100 questions with regards to US involvement in the Middle East is "OIL". This case is no exception to the rule.

  6. profile image0
    GERALD710posted 6 years ago

    OIL.obviously.libya has the largest reserves of the cleanest crude oil which is cheaper to refine under the control of a dictator.syria has a declining oil output.Tunisia and yemen have tiny oilfieilds while jordan has none

  7. ptosis profile image81
    ptosisposted 6 years ago

    Quackdaffy was already hated by all his neighbors already and gave the green light. Syria's leader is supported by his Arab nieghbors.

    Quack Daffy ran his country to the ground that vast untapped sweet oil is still undergound while Saudi Arabia who has been pumping for the last 40 years has now have to use water injection in the middle of a desert in order to continue pump crude.

    And no - it's not salt water.....I wonder if it's sewage water?