U.S. went to war with Libya to repay NATO allies?

[spanish_emperor]

Why is the U.S. and other nations interfering in Libya?


We currently know that both France and Qatar have been arming the rebels. Qatar have themselves shown greater activity than other Arab countries. Here is a good article highlighting their interests if anyone is interested.

Here is an article of an interview with Gates and Hillary where they admit that U.S. interests in the area are minimal. Hillary hints that they intervened to pay back their allies for their assistance in the war of Iraq and Afghanistan but also to avoid Libyan interference in Egypt and Tunisia:

As the war in Libya moves into its second week, tag-team Sunday talk show appearances by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State suggest the Obama administration remains divided over the fundamental question of whether the war is in the United States' national interest.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Gates was asked, "Is Libya in our vital interest as a country?" He answered, "No, I don't think it's a vital interest for the U.S., but we clearly have interests there, and it's a part of the region which is a vital interest for the U.S." Gates' statement wasn't an entirely convincing rationale for a major military commitment, and moderator David Gregory responded by saying, "I think a lot of people would hear that and say well, that's quite striking -- not in our vital interests and yet we're committing military resources."
At that moment, Clinton jumped in to offer an extended justification for going to war. "Did Libya attack us?" she asked. "No, they did not attack us. Do they have a very critical role in this region and do they neighbor two countries -- you just mentioned one, Egypt, the other Tunisia -- that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders? Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration?"
At that point, Clinton suggested that the U.S. went to war to repay NATO allies for support in Afghanistan. "We asked our NATO allies to go into Afghanistan with us ten years ago," she said. "They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact that they were not attacked. The attack came on us…They stuck with us. When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the UK, France, Italy, other of our NATO allies…This was in their vital national interest…"
Earlier, Clinton claimed that American intervention in Libya "prevented a great humanitarian disaster." If there had been no intervention, and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had "massacred tens of thousands of people," Clinton said, then critics would have asked why the President of the United States didn't stop it. Clinton conceded that it is difficult to prove that such a massacre would have actually occurred.
Gates said nothing further about the justification for war. He spoke more extensively on progress in the war, saying the no-fly zone has been successfully established and "we've also been successful on the humanitarian side."

source


I am doing a investigative report on the real reason NATO has intervened in Libya. I was wondering what people thought was the reason many of these nations are supporting the rebels?

[Mortality]

Its because Libya and Qaddafi has been a prick to the world. Lockerbie is a example.

I don't see how saving lives is a bad thing in the US government. I guess the "For the People" part means for the Rich fat arses.

Frankly the only reason the US are there is to say to the world "US FIRE POWER FTW" and shove their political and military dicks in the face of the world, or at least in my opinion.

[charles the hammer]

They are there to show that they support their allies, thats obvious so I dont see the point of this thread.

[brandbll]

Frankly the only reason the US are there is to say to the world "US FIRE POWER FTW" and shove their political and military dicks in the face of the world, or at least in my opinion.

That about sums it up...

[MathiasOfAthens]

Its because Libya and Qaddafi has been a prick to the world. Lockerbie is a example.

I don't see how saving lives is a bad thing in the US government. I guess the "For the People" part means for the Rich fat arses.

Frankly the only reason the US are there is to say to the world "US FIRE POWER FTW" and shove their political and military dicks in the face of the world, or at least in my opinion.

Opportunity presented itself to rid the world of a dangerous dictator and most of the world took it. This way we can avoid infamy and negative prestige.

[mrmouth]

Its because Libya and Qaddafi has been a prick to the world. Lockerbie is a example.

Lot of pricks running around. This guy was actually highly beneficial in the fight against terrorism.

But by those standards, why would anyone have an issue with Iraq?

Frankly the only reason the US are there is to say to the world "US FIRE POWER FTW" and shove their political and military dicks in the face of the world, or at least in my opinion.

US is there because our allies shot their wad by backing the rebels at a point when it looked to them like they were going to march into Tripoli. The US apparently did not see it that way, A - because Gaddafi's tanks had not begun to roll, and B - because taking Tripoli was a pipe dream.

So after stabbing Gaddafi in the back over the possibility that he would have "shelled Benghazi indiscriminately", we now find ourselves in a ridiculous stalemate after an ill-conceived, and prosecuted, military action.

There is no one factor as to why the US reluctantly got involved. But it isn't just to spend a billion dollars to "shove our military dicks in the face of the world". I mean, you are aware of the two wars in the last decade?

Yes, there are political implications, China implications, energy implications. And our allies would not have really been able to make a significant first impact to gain momentum without US firepower. But any momentum was squandered anyhow.

Best case scenario is that we reach a peace agreement with Gaddafi and he stays in the country with someone else taking over. Everything basically goes back to what it was before this stupidity, and the world is spared another political stalemate in a Muslim country.

Arab spring has turned into summer stalemate, and it is costing us all a significant amount of money. This in particular, is just another billion dollars down the drain for the US, and in steps China ftw.

[mw2xboxplayer]

Here is an article of an interview with Gates and Hillary where they admit that U.S. interests in the area are minimal. Hillary hints that they intervened to pay back their allies for their assistance in the war of Iraq and Afghanistan but also to avoid Libyan interference in Egypt and Tunisia

Do they have a very critical role in this region and do they neighbor two countries -- you just mentioned one, Egypt, the other Tunisia -- that are going through these extraordinary transformations and cannot afford to be destabilized by conflict on their borders? Yes. Do they have a major influence on what goes on in Europe because of everything from oil to immigration?

I think that is a rational explanation and justification of the US/NATO interest in Libyan conflict. NATO/US are not primarily concerned about the Libyan people but about their impact on oil and oil-producing countries. Although, the humanitarian justification while true, should not be viewed as the only interest in Libyan affairs as it is played up to be by the media. Also, supporting your NATO allies is another necessarily figure in politics.

[Border Patrol]

The US didn't instigate this whole Libya thing and are not taking an active role in the fighting, please remember that.

[Dubh the dark]

The US didn't instigate this whole Libya thing and are not taking an active role in the fighting, please remember that.

I do think the US are being hammered unfairly by critics with regard to Libya.

There are enough actual issues the US is responsible for without adding rebellion against Gaddafi to the list.

[s.rwitt]

Well MY investigative report has uncovered the fact that the US did it for the pancakes. Obama has been quoted as saying that he loves pancakes and according to the CIA and French intelligence services Qaddafi's personal chef made excellent Libyan pancakes.

[SPECTREtm]

PMD (Pancakes of Mass Destruction)... Obviously!

[priam11]

Well MY investigative report has uncovered the fact that the US did it for the pancakes. Obama has been quoted as saying that he loves pancakes and according to the CIA and French intelligence services Qaddafi's personal chef made excellent Libyan pancakes.

The problem is that there is no direct evidence linking Libya with pancakes. When I first heard this I thought "Here we go again".

But more on topic: Stop with this oil nonsense people.

[Azog 150]

But more on topic: Stop with this oil nonsense people.

How is it nonsense? Libya is a country with a large amount of oil that goes to Western countries, and as such any decision taken in regards to the country is naturally going to factor in that oil. Whether or not it was the primary motivation for the war I don't know, but those oil supplies will certainly have played a part.

[priam11]

It is nonsense until someone actually proves that it is about oil.

It is the common anti-involvement arguement used in Iraq, Iraq 2, Afghanistan (no wait those are minerals= its all about the minerals)that get's thrown out there.

And since this thread is about the US, tell me how much oil does the US get from Libya directly? About as much as I do.

As for the rest of the world, Libya is not the great exporter of oil that some people think it is.

[Ahlerich]

Well MY investigative report has uncovered the fact that the US did it for the pancakes. Obama has been quoted as saying that he loves pancakes and according to the CIA and French intelligence services Qaddafi's personal chef made excellent Libyan pancakes.

impressive how he keeps his ass in shape so well despite the pancake weakness. low sugar sirup?

[Azog 150]

So you are saying oil didn't factor into the decision whatsoever? Thats just absurd. Of course its going to factor into any decision (Or I should hope so, otherwise our ruling elites are even more stupid then I first feared)

[priam11]

Well I don't really need to show that it did have a hand in the decision, that's your job.

But I agree with the rest of your statement regardless. Never agreed with this decision to get us involved period.

[Principe Alessandro]

Well it is pretty obvious that US is participating to the Libyan war in order to honor their allegiance to NATO.

[Sphere]

If this was about oil NATO would be fighting to keep Gaddaffi in power.

BP, Exxon Mobile, Total, ConocoPhillips, Eni (Italian Oil Company), all had large and lucrative oil contracts with Gaddaffi. The rebellion have put those in jeopardy.

[mw2xboxplayer]

If this was about oil NATO would be fighting to keep Gaddaffi in power.

BP, Exxon Mobile, Total, ConocoPhillips, Eni (Italian Oil Company), all had large and lucrative oil contracts with Gaddaffi. The rebellion have put those in jeopardy.

Not if removing Qaddafi and supplanting him with rebel leaders means cheaper oil. If NATO helps the rebels during and after the civil war, they will be more inclined to give NATO favors in return, like cheaper oil prices.