Originally posted by CyberTruth
Appreciate all the flags but was hoping for more comments
The embedded interview might have something to do with the Benghazi murder of the US ambassador in the sense that NATO did take sides in an internal
Libyan matter, the revolt against Gaddafi, and did assist a conglomeration of opposition groups to topple the dictator and to seize power. All of
which begs the questions, "Are the former supporters of Gaddafi now a potential insurgent force within the country?" and "Did former supporters of
Gaddafi mount the attack which led to the asmbassador's death?"
Larger questions would be "To what degree did Gaddafi represent an idea
supported by Libyans, beyond his personality and military supremacy
within the country?" "Is there a large constituency of Libyans within the country for whom the United States and its NATO allies represent the wanton
destruction of their ideal and who will remain implacable enemies of the United States and NATO until that ideal is restored?" "Is there, in Libya a
significant segment of the population of Libyans for whom the current rulers of Libya will always be regarded as "Quislings"?
These things are difficult to assess at this time although by the end of the NATO assisted uprising against Gaddafi there were signs that Gaddafi's
support would simply go to the next holder of the biggest stick in the country, and that "kingpinning" (knocking off the leader) is precisely the
strategy to be used to topple regimes in countries where political beliefs and allegiances operate on a meagre and unsophisticated level, based on a
personality and personal military power rather than ideas
Having said all that, the actual reasons for the Benghazi attack are probably more related to current infighting among the rebels that America
supported against Gaddafi. If Ron Paul was saying America shouldn't get involved in complex situations overseas, as a matter of principle, to avoid
injury to its ambassadors, then I don't agree with him, but I don't think he was saying that.
Ron Paul doesn't really, in the vast majority of his statements that I have heard, address the real issues in American foreign policy. He's great on
many issues, and I am sure that he knows what is really going on in foreign policy but the American public is just not ready to hear the truth on
American foreign policy from any American politician or from anyone else for that matter.
The real truth of these matters is out there and being spoken by some great Americans, but not by Ron Paul, and that's not a knock against him.
Americans can't deal honestly with the truth on these matters and as a would be mainstream politician Dr. Paul simply can't speak plainly. He has to
"by indirections find directions out".
I've never heard one American politician say "Support America's initiatives in the Middle East and Caspian Basin, because we're going to pull off the
largest heist in the history of the world, if you vote for me."
Or the contrary, "Don't vote for them because they are the moral equivalent of John Gotti x 1,000,000,000."
edit on 4-11-2012 by ipsedixit
because: (no reason given)