"Gadhafi’s savage killing at the hands of those rebels – unverified video showed him being sodomized with a weapon – should have been a forewarning of the risk posed by a power vacuum."
Uh, THERE WERE PLENTY OF VOICES YELLING STOP. But the man-child AND Hitlery ignored the intelligent ones and chose the path of morons.
I like how NBC buries this kind of analysis on a web site but pretty much REFUSES to nail BO and Hitlery over this on their broadcasts which reach millions more eyeballs.
Bias.
Another one of McCain’s Wars.
HRC: “We came. We saw. he died.”
How’s that working out?
Toward?
Gee you would think someone would have spoken up in opposition to messing with Libya. /s
Islamic hard-line militias are claiming to have taken control of Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi, after defeating army units, taking over military barracks and seizing tanks, rockets and hundreds of boxes of ammunition.
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/26161724/libya-islamic-militias-declare-control-of-benghazi
Just like ISIS in Iraq. Depressing.
Now aren’t we all glad that Obama got rid of that nasty Gaddafi.
Reminds me of the south of the border dictatorships of Mexico and Central/South America.
Another O failure. No doubt he’ll blame Bush!
The “Muslim Spring” was organized after Obama took office to try to get the Muslim Brotherhood to take over all these countries and create the new Caliphate.
Obama clearly knew about it and helped it to happen. We had no reason to step in and help Kadaffy get tossed out, Syria is only still standing because they saw what happened to all the other “spring” countries, and did not let it happen to them.
But just like the “occupy [your city]” movement it was poorly orchestrated and never made it to their grand goal.
Thankfully they are as incompetent as they are stupid, or we would have the one-world government they want already.
Wasn’t this Obama’s Excellent Leading-from-Behind Adventure?”
Yeah.. thought so.
Tailgunner Joe, are you out there? I remember your being an enthusiastic support of overthrowing Ghadafi.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8716386/Libya-Overthrowing-Gaddafi-will-be-just-the-beginning.html
Turns out Ghadaffi was correct in predicting a terrorist takeover in Northern Africa:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/25/before-he-was-overthrown-and-killed-libyan-dictator-muammar-gaddafi-warned-jihadists-would-conquer-northern-africa/
Obama, the King Midas of Poo - everything he touches turns to...
It is my belief that involvement in such conflicts should only be based on a direct and significant national interest. Direct (directly affecting the US) and significant (e.g. while the oil in Saudi Arabia or the oil sands in Canada are significant/important, the waxy limited supplies in Uganda are not and would merely add to a rounding error). However, if a situation doesn't have a direct and significant national interest to the US, then there is no way to go and spread (real) democracy and/or (merely feel-good) 'democracy' there. It only leads to excessive pain and suffering for the people there.
Sure, Libya and Syria were not gardens of Eden under Qaddafi and Assad, but things are definitely far worse now for the people. Libya is not a failed state ...it is a series of failed states that are still called Libya in aggregate. Syria on the other hand has become the birthplace for the most competent Qaeda offshoot so far - ISIS - and the rebel controlled areas have become veritable hells on earth. Egypt managed to go from Mubarak into the hands of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, something that was amazingly cheered at first - but the real colors of the MB came through, and Morsi's attempt at being the next Pharoah backfired and ...amazingly ....now we have a younger version of Mubarak. Another army chap, but now several decades younger than Mubarak.
Anyways, I am not knocking democracy. However, the larger picture needs to be taken into consideration. Removing monsters only to give place to far greater and more vicious monstrosities is not proper. It is wrong. Especially when there is no direct and significant national interest to the US.
By the way this is why I have left Iraq - another country that is currently more of a mess than it was under Saddam Hussein - from my list above. Sure, Saddam was a monster, and his sons had certain habits that were not pleasurable to anyone who had a daughter, was part of the national soccer team, or happened to be an ethnic Kurd. However, the situation currently for your average Iraqi is far worse - probably the only people who are better off are the ethnic Kurds, who have come together to form their own defacto state, and are protected by their (effective) Pershmarga militia. However, the saving grace is that the US had a direct and significant national interest, which is a case that is not applicable to Libya/Syria et al.
Democracy, and even 'democracy', is ok when there is a direct and significant national interest. However, doing it for the sake of it, or because a country's leader is a bad, bad man, is not proper ...especially when it leads to more bloodshed in two years than was caused by the bad, bad man in over a decade.
Soon, if someone wants the oil there, they will have to have a mercinary army to protect the facilities. Screw the rest of the country, and just set up Exxon zones.