Ron Paul: Libyan Rebels May Likely Be Radical Jihadists Bent On Destroying America

“We have spent over $1 billion on a war that this administration has fought not with the consent of Congress but under a NATO flag and authorization from the United Nations.

Meanwhile, we must beware of any ‘Mission Accomplished’ euphoria. The conflict in Libya is far from over, and there could very well be war in Libya for a long time to come.

We face a situation where a rebel element we have been assisting may very well be radical jihadists, bent on our destruction, and placed in positions of power in a new government.

“Worse still, Gadhafi’s successor is likely to be just as bad, or worse, than Gadhafi himself. Alternately, Libya may descend into anarchy like Somalia after the overthrow of dictator Siad Barre. Much like when we removed Saddam Hussein, another thug in Iraq, the likelihood of either a new brutal dictatorship or tribal violence and a protracted insurgency are much more likely than the peaceful transition to democracy we are all hoping for.

www.ronpaul2012.com...

Now PLEASE see this:


Basically they invaded Libya and put Al Qaeda in Government Positions.

What does this look like to you?

To me, it looks like an elitist playing god and forcing two parties to play a destructive game of chess, and as long as the game never he ends this elitist playing god will always win.

So for anyone thinking that Obama starting a Nato War with Libya was in the best interest of any large population is terribly mistaken.

Is this breaking news?
Not really since i've been saying this for god knows how many months now
And everyone else should have been saying the same

At least I hope that 100% of everyone in this thread will be against that war

ron, who is doing the fighting ?

this guy gets worse every day

That... almost sounds like something Bush or Obama would say...

Ron?

Originally posted by havenvideo
That... almost sounds like something Bush or Obama would say...

Ron?

Bush or Obama would go into war and then condemn their very own actions of interventionism?

I don't understand what you mean, he's always been against the libyan war
Why should he flip flop now?

reply to post by syrinx high priest
Either I'm not following what you're saying, or your not following what Ron is saying here.

Outside intervention in Libya was a bad idea, and us aiding the rebels (instead of leaving them to fight it out, likely with Qadaffi putting them down) was a worse idea, since we've already verified they have links to Al Qaeda as previously covered elsewhere, and we may have just empowered our own enemies an entire nation that we fairly recently were not on terrible terms with.

As far as who's been doing the fighting - well, that was covered above - Nation Libyan forces, and rebels including (former?) Al Qaeda fighters who had previously been fighting our own forces in Iraq and Afghanistan - with a health dose of no-fly and aerial bombardment by NATO coalition.

And if you're implying what we've been contributing in Libya is a good thing, then I'd assume you're also pushing for us to get involved in Saudi and other nations where the ruling authorities have been abusing and executing PROTESTORS, instead of actual armed insurrectionists like in Libya?

reply to post by havenvideo
Hmm. I think you might also be losing his track as well. Please see my response to the poster above for clarification. He's not saying we should go in and get 'em now, he's saying we hosed it and did entirely the wrong thing again, possibly (likely?) making the situation worse than it was to begin, by getting involved - and possibly supporting the wrong team once we did.

Be well.