Can we fight on both sides in Libya

[_richardMdBorn]

Steyn shreds Obama's foreign policy in this column

Mark Steyn: If there's no mission, when’s it accomplished?
April 01, 2011|By MARK STEYN

If I recall correctly, we went into Libya – or, at any rate, over Libya – to stop the brutal Gadhafi dictatorship killing the Libyan people. And, thanks to our efforts, a whole new mass movement of freedom-loving democrats now has the opportunity to kill the Libyan people. As the Los Angeles Times reported from Benghazi, gangs of young gunmen are roaming the city "rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies." According to the New York Times, "Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Moammar Gadhafi." We dropped bombs on Gadhafi's crowd for attacking civilians, and we're prepared to do the same to you! "The coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime's forces have been punished."

So, having agreed to be the Libyan Liberation Movement Air Force, we're also happy to serve as the Gadhafi Last-Stand Air Force. Say what you like about Barack Obama, but it's rare to find a leader so impeccably multilateralist that he's willing to participate in both sides of a war. It doesn't exactly do much for holding it under budget, but it does ensure that for once we've got a sporting chance of coming out on the winning side. If a coalition plane bombing Gadhafi's forces runs into a coalition plane bombing the rebel forces, are they allowed to open fire on each other? Or would that exceed the U.N. resolution?

http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-04-01/news/29375560_1_civilians-libyan-people-rebels

[_Baker]

Half-assed wars don't work - Libya is a mess.

[_Dr. Shades]

I think it might be a little early to get up-in-arms about this. Let's wait until after the coalition drops bombs on the rebels before accusing Obama of playing both sides.

[_Joseph]

Why in hell is the US trying to tell another country who its leader should be or trying to replace them?

Would the US listen to another country who was telling us to get rid of our President?

[_emilysmith]

Because the defense contractors have found a way to rob your tax dollars before you have even paid them. Even worse, they are robbing tax dollars from your grandchildren. The Federal Reserve is also a big winner, because they get interest on the money the government borrows to pay for the wars that are impossible to win.

[_Quasimodo]

Why in hell is the US trying to tell another country who its leader should be or trying to replace them?

Would the US listen to another country who was telling us to get rid of our President?

Oil. The price of oil and it's effect on the US economy. Notice the price of gas going up?.

An unstable Libya effects the price of oil. Speculators are betting that oil prices will rise due to the turmoil and they buy more oil futures which raises the price (a self fulfilling prophecy).

Instability in Libya hurts our (and the worlds) economy. I'm sure that this government would prefer a democratic regime in Libya, but not as much as they would like things to settle down. Any result that ensures the flow of oil would not be affected would be acceptable.

You don't see the US and NATO getting involved with revolutions in countries that don't have large oil reserves.