So..why did we help again?

[loug002]

Sharia Law to be used in Libya (http://news.yahoo.com/libyas-transitional-leader-declares-liberation-155513082.html)

Here's an actual quote:

The transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil set out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying that Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation in the country and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.



Now, obviously, this isn't happening in the United States. And I realize that Sharia Law is not completely evil, but it just still seems like a waste of time.

But it still begs the question, why did we as NATO help the Libyans then? It seems like any time the US, in one form or another, helps another country they end up installing a dictator, a set of laws that oppose the United States in everywhere.

Again, it's their choice of course, but it feels like a waste of time (and yes I know I'm repeating myself.)

[tokenuser]

That premise has been pretty clearly stated for over two months now, so it's no great surprise.

However consider this:

According to a study by the University of Houston, out of 15,000 documents from America's founders, 34 percent of the quotes came from the Bible, making it arguably the “principal source” for the U.S. constitution

Christian principles does not mean adherence to strict Christian doctrine (unless you are Texas, or a state that still can't get over the defeat of the CSA).

[loug002]

Christian principles does not mean adherence to strict Christian doctrine

Pardon me as I ignore the snark for a moment, please.

I didn't mean to imply that Sharia Law is "evil" or wrong or anything. I mean can it be abused? Yes, the same way that "Christian" principles can be.

I should have expressed it more clearly but my point was that it just seems like a waste of time to help the Libyans because it seems like that the United States just helped install another Gaddafi (the dude seriously needs to learn to pronounce/spell his name!) somewhere down the road. Only this one will have religious backing, so it seems more like Iran than anything to be honest.

And the question needs to be asked, from both sides then..why exactly did we help then if we just made things worse.

[tokenuser]

And yet they a heading for democratic elections.
There are several, very moderate, Islamic states in that region who have a basis in sharia law. Some are better than others, but some are also progressive, with equal rights (except LGBT - but you barely get them in supposed modern society anyway).

[loug002]

And yet they a heading for democratic elections.


Saddam had 'elections' too; so did some guy in the 30s.

[tokenuser]

Saddam had 'elections' too; so did some guy in the 30s.Can you give me a set of winning lottery numbers for 8 months time?

You are making statements and predictions based on ZERO knowledge except your own biases and misconceptions.

[loug002]

Can you give me a set of winning lottery numbers for 8 months time?

You are making statements and predictions based on ZERO knowledge except your own biases and misconceptions.

So you're going to deny that the United States 'helped' in Iraq years ago, and then they got a dictatorship?

Or that we 'helped' in Afghanistan and then we ended up with a guy that blew up our buildings?

Or that we 'helped' the English in Iran and ended up with a theocracy that hates us?

history has shown that any time the United States messes with the Middle East/Islamic world, things turn out bad.