posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:08 AM
I hope the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is correct with her grandiose assessment of things on the ground in Libya? This is not Checkers, but a
game of Chess. Realistically, I find her remarks to be more gimmicks and the usual run-of-the-mill political double speak. As I said on another
thread, trade one dictator who the West more or less had under control, and trade him for a bunch of mini-dictators all seeking a piece of that big
pie called Libya. I am very skeptical about these rebels?
Who the heck are they? What do they represent? Do they have any grasp on legitimate governance, law, and order? What about the allegations of
atrocities during this campaign? How about answering allegations about these rebels moonlighting as Iraqi insurgents? So, as you can see I am on the
fence. Now, that the dust has settled that country better be flooded with agents, because we have to know beyond a shadow of doubt what these people
are about before we start cutting checks. Let the French, UK, Canada, or any another nation taking part in this NATO exercise to foot the bill. There
is plenty of stuff for the US to do at the moment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Trust but confirm! In the meantime, I would expect a power vacuum to occur as this massively damaged nation begins to crawl out of the destruction
left by this military campaign. Furthermore, there had ought to be some kind of agreement with whomever takes over stipulating that the Western allies
can enter the country to safely remove Qaddafi's nuclear materials and biological weapons. Can't afford to have those fall into the wrong hands.
As for this meeting in Paris? What is the point? What concern is it to the US? I thought the US took a limited role in this campaign? Now, when it
gets real hairy that is when the US is invited to the party? When abductions, be-headings, suicide bombings, and any other misfortune is to befall
Libya in the vacuum left by Qaddafi, and who is going to have to go in there and get shot at? Hmm. . . I reckon that is going to be the crust of this
edit on 31-8-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)