Why us attacked libya

The reason is bit complex. If you see it with emotions you would see a different thing but if you
analyze with a rational mind the picture would be quite different.
Emotional view: - To protect the people of Libya or to end the era of Gadaffi so that the people can
have their voice.
Rational view: - The oil prices are already shooting up and if the war goes on against Libya for a long
time, prima facie the Arab league is against it. So they (Arab's) might cut the supplies of oil and the
nation which would go to suffer would not be USA (they have huge inventories already piled up). So
they have enough to meet there domestic demands for the time till the prices cooled down. But the
major looser would be Emerging Economies India and China, and that is what US is aiming at along
with its natural ally the EU. These both are really furious and jealous of the way these two Asian
giants are progressing. Given the fact that the major bills of import in these both countries consist of
Crude oil and other energy products, the two are left with no choice as they don't have any way of
piling up huge reserves or inventories of crude to meet there domestic demands. Well we don't know
much about china they might have some inventories but India being transparent in terms of
economic data available would be hit most. Already battling with the inflationary pressure the two
nations are in deep trouble and given the timing of this evasion by US and EU the troubles would
inch up only. 
So it is the sole reason why US and EU are aiming at Libya ... the underlying target remains the
India and China. The two nations which are rising so fast that by 2050 there economies would
surpass both US and EU.
•
Threat from north korea
Early on September 6, 2007, explosions ripped through a nondescript building near the banks of the Euphrates River, in eastern Syria. Israel’s Air Force had bombed a covert nuclear reactor, which
Syria was assembling to produce plutonium, with help from North Korea. Had the reactor gone critical, it would have given Syria access fissile material necessary for nuclear weapons. (The story can
be found here.)
The covert nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea fundamentally changes the threat posed by the North Korean nuclear program. 
Pyongyang’s longstanding strategy is to create international crises by threatening or taking actions which the world deems dangerous, and use the resulting negotiating leverage to extract political
and economic concessions to prop up a failed state. This strategy resulted in the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which the North froze the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, in exchange for two light
water power reactors and up to 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil per year, until the reactors came on line. The United States and its allies contributed more than $2.5 billion under the deal. 
Pyongyang, however, apparently had no intention to abide by the Agreed Framework or associated agreements. According to the briefing cited above, nuclear cooperation between North Korea and
Syria probably began as early as 1997. In 2002, U.S. officials confronted Pyongyang with information that North Korea was pursuing uranium enrichment in violation of the Agreed Framework and other
international agreements. Over the next several months, North Korea withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and restarted the Yongbyon
reactor. On October 9, 2006, North Korea confirmed what it had long denied, by announcing its nuclear test.
Now the North is again taking threatening actions in an effort to extract concessions. It has conducted a long range missile test under the guise of a satellite launch (violating a United Nations Security
Council resolution), withdrawn from the Six Party Talks, and again expelled U.S. and UN experts monitoring the shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. 
Given the parlous condition of North Korea’s economy, and of Kim Jong Il himself, one might imagine a response of malign neglect. By this logic, North Korea is a failed state surrounded by
economically and militarily strong states. It is only a matter of time before it collapses under the weight of its own catastrophic and brutal policies. Secretary of State Clinton publicly speculated about
the possibility of leadership change in Pyongyang during her recent trip to Asia. Perhaps we can wait for nature to take its course. 
Unfortunately, the North’s nuclear-armed avarice makes such a course untenable. North Korea has a long record of selling dangerous goods to despotic regimes. Ballistic missiles, narcotics, and
counterfeit U.S. currency are all on North Korea’s export list, often to customers also under sanctions because of their destabilizing policies. Given the North’s demonstrated willingness to deal in
nuclear technology, it is urgent that we act to ensure that Pyongyang’s proliferation does not metastasize. 
In the near term, the United States needs to deter North Korea from spreading nuclear technology further. After North Korea’s 2006 nuclear test, President Bush warned that Pyongyang would be held
accountable for the consequences of any illicit nuclear transfers it might make. That warning was apparently insufficient. Moreover, the new administration needs to set forth its own policy on the
matter. The Obama Administration should make clear to both North Korea and China that it will hold the North fully and directly accountable for the consequences of any further nuclear transfers and
that, should further transfers be revealed, the United States will vigorously pursue all possible sanctions and expect China’s support. 
The latter effort is important because China is North Korea’s largest trade partner, most generous aid donor, and only political ally. Any pressure by the international community can be nullified or
magnified to the point of decisive effect by Beijing. We need China to deter nuclear sales from the North by making clear that it will withdraw political and economic support if further sales take place.
Over the longer term, the United States should engage Beijing in a conversation about how North Korea’s nuclear adventurism undermines Chinese security interests. It increases support for U.S.
forces in the region, strengthens U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea, drives U.S. and Japanese missile defense programs, which could affect China’s nuclear deterrent, and might lead other
states to consider the nuclear option. It is also a persistent threat to the stability that China seems to prize even more than it fears nuclear proliferation. Beijing, therefore, should be eager to end North
Korea’s strategy for creating crises and extracting concessions. 
The consequences of illicit nuclear transfers by North Korea could far outlast Kim Jong Il’s regime. Proliferation, therefore, is the real threat from North Korea, and it requires urgent attention.
 Is un right???
• Since United Nation already already intervened with the internal affairs of Libya, it will only
create more hate to the muslim countries and for that it will lead to more people dieing.
If united nation will continue to pursue the attack,..I don't know how far the war will
ends..and how many innocent civilians will die.
It could be that this is the way of al-queda to start the conflict of muslim and western
countries ? before this full war scale starts, let's pray that this wont lead to greater conflict
to other countries and peace will be restored in the end.
If you count those rebels in Libya, they can be counted. but if this war starts, thousands
will die. 
Libya are not well equipped to protect their country, why more than 2 countries have to
attacked libya, "THIS IS OVERKILL".
If United Nation really care to the innocent civilians dieing, then they shouldn't attacked
Libya, and save more people.
why did US attack Libya? Because of supremacy,
United Nation are in control, few people in 
Libya wanted freedom and gadaffi don't want 
that to happened. Rebels wanted to take control
in Libra, and gadaffi don't want that to happened. Because of OIL interest, Power this will
lead to thousands of people die.
• 4 weeks ago
 Islamic threats
• Most top US officials and most academicians who study such things are aware of the demographic trends in the world.  They are aware that the birth
rates in "first world" nations like the US, most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, and now China are declining to the replacement level or below.  They are
aware that the birth rates in Islamic nations is exploding - the rates are several times the rates of births in the west and much of eastern Asia.  They are
aware of the trends these rates portend for world populations and political power in the coming decades.  They are aware of what they call the
"radicalization" of Muslims in several areas around the globe and the danger this phenomenon poses to our national security.  Based on this
awareness, the answer of our elite in government and academia is to befriend Muslim nations - convince them of how truly good we are - shower them
with hundreds of millions in aid, and above all do not offend their religion. We fail to acknowledge Islamic supremacism and terrorism 
because no one wants to offend a Muslim.
•  
• It is common knowledge that our government relies a great deal on academia to advise them on foreign and domestic policy.  It is not so common
knowledge that Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations have for years showered hundreds of millions on academia in our country.  They do it in the
form of grants to Islamic studies programs in places like Georgetown University and Harvard - twenty milllion here, twenty million there.  Why?  They do
it to "further shared cultural understanding between Christians and Muslims."  The problem is, the Christian part is usually omitted.  These Islamic
Studies centers serve two major functions:  Promote tolerance toward Islam at all levels of government and society and recruit and indoctrinate
students in Islamic ideology.  And our government, at present, sees nothing wrong with this.  In fact, with "cultural diversity" being their god, they see
this practice as good and helpful.  And this Muslim strategy has been effective as evidenced by the path our government has taken. 
•  
• Our national strategy is to lavish our diminishing wealth on Islamic nations, befriend those who vow to destroy Judaism and Christianity, and embark on
"nation-building" of Islamic terror breeding grounds in Afghanistan and Yemen to transform them into "viable democracies" in our own image.  And all
the while the world is subject to dozens of terror attacks per week we are obliged not to insult Islam by calling attention to their psychotic ideology.
•  
• This is a strategy that will transform America, not Islamic nations.  This is a strategy to relinquish our Judeo-Christian heritage in favor of Islamic
ideology.  It is a form of giving up gracefully.  Our leaders believe that to avoid conflict, we need to give up our own values and embrace and respect
the values of those who have vowed to destroy us. (see Stockholm Syndrome.)
•  
• The one thing our leaders are denying is the true historical nature of Islam itself - the 1,400 years of Islamic doctrine, intolerance, and warfare that is
the model for more than 1.4 billion people across the globe.  Our leaders are wishing Islam is something it is not.  We are pouring our men and
resources down a rat hole with our current refusal to understand the nature of Islam and those nations that breed it.  We need to disingage from our
attempts to "transform" that ideology in remote parts of the globe and focus on our defenses at home.  We need first to understand that Islam itself, not
just the "radicals," are the ones who practice, teach, support and promote the doctrine that mimics the psychotic behavior of Muhammad, and inspire
the likes of al Qaeda, the Taliban and countless terror cells and "sudden Jihadists" to carry out their Allah-inspired acts.  We need to understand that
the problem is not merely Islamic radicals but there is a distinct likelihood that most if not all Muslims are sympathizers or radical wannabees. 
•  
• Here is an excellent short history, beginning with 9-11, of how our government and our national security effort began going in the wrong direction
regarding Islam right from the start.
•  
• Until we admit that Islam itself is the root cause of these behaviors, we will continue to fail.
 Is india and china on threat
• Yes as the underlying target remains the
India and China. The two nations which
are rising so fast that by 2050 there
economies would surpass both US and
EU.