Hey, I’m all for smacking the crap out of Q’Daffy and turning him into a cloud of vapor for all the terrorist garbage he sponsored over the years, but who are we going to replace him with?
That’s right, questionable and uncertain opposition who may have far more radical ties and intentions, and backed by people who want to revive the Caliphate. So although the use of military force is certainly justifiable, but is it the wisest course of action?
In my opinion, hell no.
“Hey, I’m all for smacking the crap out of Q’Daffy and turning him into a cloud of vapor for all the terrorist garbage he sponsored over the years, but who are we going to replace him with?”
I understand your sentiment, and normally would agree, but we actually traded that right for something else. One of the real accomplishments of the Bush efforts in recent years was to turn Qaddafi to one of OUR assets during the decade long “War on Terror”. He has been playing ball with us, and in his bizarre way, doing so in good faith.
If you turn someone, then later turn on and kill them, you will NOT get such cooperation from others down the line. I think this is yet another reason Obama/Clinton want to kill him. It will cut off our ability to turn others in the future, when we are demonstrably treacherous ourselves.