posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by neo96
Do tell what was the reasing behind libya when not a peep has been heard from them in over 30 years?
We probably are already pretty much in agreement on Libya, although I do not think we would have been involved at all if there was not a rebel force
attempting to seize control of the government
In my honest opinion Libya appeared a lot like pre-war Iraq. A "seemingly" popular leader/dictator who had been accused of multiple human rights
violations, an extremely corrupt political system, and a growing resistance movement.
The Obama administration instead of repeating the Iraq strategy instead elected to support the resistance with intelligence, supplies, and air
support. While not as drastic as the Bush Iraq strategy, it was still an unneeded and arguably unethical use of our resources.
That all being said Gaddafi was still a corrupt politician who should have been opposed much earlier, just like Hussein and Assad.
Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Admin was actually fighting "radical islamic fundamentalism" whereas the current one has been
aiding them "Libya,Syria".
I would not say the current administration is "aiding" Islamic radicals, again we are blowing the crap out of them in Yemen, Pakistan, and a plethora
of other nations. But it is far more politically viable to support resistance movements which seek to overthrow already unpopular and radical
I agree that the resistance movements that came out of the Arab Spring are fueled by fundamentalism, but that old saying still rings true "the enemy
of my enemy" and all that jazz.
edit on 20-3-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)