posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The European Union and Britain spent years between Libya surrendering of all WMD after the Iraq
invasion and lifting of their status as a pariah to the time they murdered him, making a small fortune out of arms sales to Libya. I'm surprised you
don't recall, since I thought you'd been on the thread where someone called me on this once before. I'll have to dig a bit but I have a dozen pages
or so in one of my folders with the data sheets and export records showing just how much and what specifically had been supplied into Libya in large
quantities. That was shipped almost exclusively out of E.U. nations and Britain...not us. Not THAT nation, anyway. (We supplied everyone
America may be good for many a disaster...but as much as the U.S. has screwed with Libya after the place fell and moved right in like we owned the
place in the aftermath? Even the U.S. Carrier just kinda passed through and waved at the shoreline during combat operations and the removal of
Gadaffi. If we'd been heavily involved, the Carrier would have parked and engaged...as they have in times before off that same coastline under
previous Presidents who Gadaffi pissed off a bit too much.
Obama seemed quite determined to do nothing but support this one...especially since he told Congress he didn't have to follow the notification
requirements of the War Powers Act specifically because he wasn't taking any lead role or more than logistics and intelligence help (for the most
I hate to derail your thread with discussions about LIbya but since I am replying to your post I will feel less guilty about it
Regardless of what the EU may have done prior to the NATO bombardment of Libya, it was a NATO operation with NATO countries. Italy was pretty much the
ground base for NATO operations meanwhile the USA pretty much ran the naval aspect of the campaign.
Sarkozy and Clinton both cheered on and justified the action on live TV as the NATO "no fly zone" was put into effect (no I'm not talking about
when Hillary jumped for joy once Gadafi was murdered).
As for Obama, he just said what he thought would make him look good prior to the upcoming election. Nothing he says should be taken seriously, in
fact, anything he says you can pretty much expect for him to do the exact opposite.
No matter which way you try and spin it, the USA shares equal guilt with the EU for the Libya fiasco regardless of who sent more money or aid to the
rebels. In fact, the US navy did more damage to Libya than the rebels did if you consider how they destroyed several urban centers with their barrage
of rockets and missiles that rained upon the civilian population of Libya in order to support the rebels. The rebels would have had no chance of
winning that war without the assistance of the US Navy and the airforce of other NATO members, including Canada as I previously mentioned.
In my opinion it is quite clear that the United States did the most damage in Libya so I find it odd that you would try and distance your
government's actions from this conflict. Perhaps I misunderstood your point, please forgive me if I have done so.