U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack: Should America Have Gotten Involved in Libya?

by AdriHead Posted 2012/09/12 18:08:31

Related Topics: Chris Stevens, U.S. Embassador, Obama, Barack Obama, Ambassador, Libya, Revolution, Benghazi, Rocket, New York, United States, CNN, New York Times, Media, Video, Photos, President Barack Obama, The New York Times

Read More

987 votes
Read all 1,142 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	295 votes	30%
	No	692 votes	70%

Chris Stevens, who was the U.S. ambassador to Libya and an envoy during the revolution in the country, was killed, along with three others, in a rocket attack outside the American Consulate in Benghazi. U.S. officials have told The New York Times and CNN that the attack may have been planned by a group that "had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack."

In a statement Wednesday morning condemning the attack, President Barack Obama referred to Stevens as "a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States." Stevens, 52, was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.

NEWS.YAHOO.COM reports:
Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya killed along with three others in a rocket attack outside the American Consulate in Benghazi was "a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States," President Barack Obama said in his initial statement Wednesday condemning the attack.

obama initial statement wednesday condemning attack initial reports slain embassy

+19

Add a comment above

Heisenberg 2012/09/12 18:23:45 (edited)

No

+37
I think some people forgot we already went to war in Libya when Obama violated the war powers act and sent the Navy to install the Muslim Brotherhood and kill Qadafi without congressional approval.

How is Obama's bow-and-scrape foreign policy working out for us?
>> See Replies

More polls by AdriHead

Heisenberg to Grizzle... 2012/09/12 23:42:25 (edited)

+4
You are confused.

Our Navy delivered ordinance, provided air support and our special forces assisted the Libyan rebels.

If sending our military to kill people in Libya with bombs is not war, how do you define war exactly?

Nice try.

reply
Grizzle... to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 00:58:59 (edited)

+2
Perhaps you are the one confused as you might be getting this mixed up with our involvement with the aiding of the Mujahuideen during the Soviet / Afghanistan conflict of the late 1970's early 1980's? The "enforcement" of a no-fly zone in the above case was to support the effort by the UN Security Council. Very similar to the "No Fly Zone" enforced upon the completion of the Persian Gulf war of 1991. (In fact I don't think that was authorized by the Congress then either, but decreed by UN resolution). Or how about the time the US (under Reagan) bombed Quadaffi the first time? Was that an "act of war" and was it "authorized"? I think you need to better familarize yourself with the War Powers Act. And to accuse Obama (by way of the Navy) of "installing the Muslim Brotherhood" is plain ludicrous.

reply
Heisenberg to Grizzle... 2012/09/13 02:29:21

+4
Yes, they were all authorized acts of war.

Libya 2012 was not.

Impeach.

reply
Grizzle... to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 02:45:17

+1
Biased much? I'm sorry to have proven you wrong.

reply
Heisenberg to Grizzle... 2012/09/13 02:50:08

+3
Sorry but you failed.

You can believe you didn't but I can't control your hallucinations.

reply
jean to Grizzle... 2012/09/13 12:52:13

+1
No you didn't he won hands down!

reply
EdDarrell to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 14:57:23

+3
Okay: I impeach your claims. You cite no authority that supports your claims, and you spout nonsense. Worse, you spout nonsense in support of genocide. Shame on you.

reply
EdDarrell to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 14:56:22

+1
State for the record, Heisenberg: Had the U.S. not acted, 200,000 people in Benghazi would have been slaughtered. Genocide. You endorse it, or you support U.S. action? There is no middle ground on this.

reply
Magus BN-0 to Grizzle... 2012/09/13 16:34:19

+1
Heisenberg, in addition to being a blocker coward, is a liar. You can't expect honest or sensible posts from him.

reply
Grizzle... to Magus BN-0 2012/09/14 12:14:19 (edited)

+1
I see that. There are many here.

reply
EdDarrell to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 14:44:57

+1
Heisenberg, how you can get facts so dead wrong is a mystery. It was a NATO action. The Muslim Brotherhood was not elected. The Navy was not sent with instructions to do anything other than stop the genocide in Benghazi, originally. Your stand is an endorsement of genocide, you know. Shame on you.

reply
Heisenberg to EdDarrell 2012/09/13 14:57:52

Hey dummy.

It was war.

Don't like facts? That's your problem.

THERE WAS NO GENOCIDE IN BEGHAZI dum dum and if genocide is the justification, why no war in Syria where ACTUAL GENOCIDE HAS TAKEN PLACE?

You admit we went to war in Libya. You can't even keep your lies straight.

Dumb-ass liberal. Go away. You bore me.

reply
Magus BN-0 to EdDarrell 2012/09/13 16:36:23

+1
Heisenberg knows he's wrong, he's just a liar. Hence his ability to post outlandish whoppers like claim that Obama has a "bow-and-scrape foreign policy"...in the very same post that he complains that Obama's foreign policy is too aggressive.

reply
Larry to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 15:06:04

+1
He does that alot (without congressional approval.)

reply
William... to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 16:03:59

+2
Hey, he deserves a Nobel Peace Pri... oh wait... -_-'

reply
Bob DiN to William... 2012/09/14 23:06:08

That was a joke. Obama the war monger getting the Nobel Peace Prize..

reply
Thane36425 to Heisenberg 2012/09/13 20:30:46

If that is one they are actually sending, it is a troop ship. It might carry up to a battalion of Marines but is itself poorly protected. Just sending more bodies into harm's way for an empty political stunt.

reply
Heisenberg to Thane36425 2012/09/14 16:32:42

Then hide under your bed princess.

reply
Matt Sj... to Heisenberg 2012/09/15 22:55:31

I'd calmly like to point out how full of s**t you are, by saying that the President has the ability to deploy troops for up to six months without Congress' approval. That's the Constitution at work; the War Powers Act doesn't even enter the equation.

And Qaddafi needed to be taken out after he started massacring his own people. No discussion was even needed. Also, it's too early to say what the impact of the collapse of Qadaffi's regime will have on Libya; whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge as the dominant force or some other power. But keep reading Breitbart.com for all your misinformation needs, I assume that's your favorite website, no?

reply
Heisenberg to Matt Sj... 2012/09/19 16:46:41

May I calmly invite you to go make love to yourself?

reply
Brendakp 2012/09/12 18:22:43

No

+5
No, no, no, no! We should never gotten involved.

reply
chicago 2012/09/12 18:18:30

Yes

+2
Yes, and we did it in a way that made sense. Unlike the Iraq debacle, we provided air cover and established a "no fly" zone over key military areas, in and out within 6 months. It's tragic for all the civilans dying in Syria that we aren't doing the same thing; no ground troops, air cover only.

reply
Heisenberg to chicago 2012/09/12 18:24:41

+10
Except unlike Iraq the POTUS did not get congress to approve and the Iraqi government is not killing Americans.

Just two small things you missed there.

reply
chicago to Heisenberg 2012/09/12 18:33:45

+3
Hardly making a political comparison, the point isn't about Obama/Bush, was about whether we should/have been involved in Libya. My view is we did it well with a minimum exposure of American lives. If you'd like to make it a political discussion, have at it. I'll come down on the side of John McCain who was in favor of our actions, actually stating that we didn't move fast enough "we didn’t act much more quickly, and we could have.”

reply
Defend ... to chicago 2012/09/12 19:19:04

+3
obama screwed up again mccant is a liberal progressive fool

reply
RG to chicago 2012/09/12 21:46:43

+1
McCain? what about congressional approval--what happened to that?

reply
chicago to RG 2012/09/12 22:03:09

Sweety, you want to get into a fight about whether Obama abided by the rules of Congress in regards to the War Powers act? Go for it, just not with me. Go talk to a birther, they're still beating their own horse so I'm sure they'll jump in with you. The question was about Libya and should we have gotten involved, which I answered. Like McCain I was in favor of going in, like O'Reilly I think we did a great job.If you don't want to be topical, that's fine. Just do it with someone else please.

reply
RG to chicago 2012/09/12 22:13:20

+1
Just for the books, I'm not your "Sweety"

reply
chicago to RG 2012/09/12 22:19:15

Sorry cupcake, my bad

reply
Bob DiN to RG 2012/09/14 23:03:39

God question.

reply
Defend ... to chicago 2012/09/12 18:29:57

+3
100,000 Christians Apply to Get Out of Islamist Egypt...
http://www.egyptindependent.c...

both countries are run by Sharia Law and still run by thugs and dictators

reply
chicago to Defend ... 2012/09/12 18:38:05

+2
Nice link, and your solution is?

Welcome to the word of the American Foreign Service. So do we install a dictator who is "friendly" to the U.S.? Do we support democratic uprisings and hope for the best? Do we ignore the rest of the world? Should our foreign policy represent our values, or our interests?

reply
Defend ... to chicago 2012/09/12 19:19:44

+4
it was liberal progressives who backed these Nazis
Conservatives warned against this from the start

reply
Connor ... to Defend ... 2012/09/12 22:04:19

So they are National Socialists?

reply
JP to chicago 2012/09/12 18:30:06

+1
Except the only nation in the middle east not burning to the ground right now seems to be Iraq.

Obama is going to let the Syrians die, the NATO oil interests are not what they were in Libya.

reply
chicago to JP 2012/09/12 18:40:28

+3
While you can feel free to make it an Obama issue, I see it as a failing of our government. Not like I see any congressional representatives out there, from either party, saying anything about Syria's massacres.

reply
Lucy to chicago 2012/09/12 19:11:54

+2
Wait. You think it was good that Obama gave unlawful orders to support Libyan rebels, but now you say it is not his fault to stay out of Syria???

reply
chicago to Lucy 2012/09/12 19:22:33 (edited)

+1
No, I'm saying that, like McCain, I supported our efforts in Libya and, like Bill O'Reilly, thought we did an outstanding job there. I am deeply disappointed that Obama is not now calling for similar action in Syria and deeply disappointed that no one in congress is either.

reply
Defend ... to chicago 2012/09/12 19:20:39

+3
you liberal progressive ELIITEs backed obamas decision
the Rebels as obama calls them are no different from Assad

reply
chicago to Defend ... 2012/09/12 19:24:04

+1
technically, I'm a libertarian elite

reply