Libya "Before And After" Photos Go Viral

Bush tried to fix? Throwing more soldiers at it is not trying to fix. Bush was under the Neocon's thumb with their "give them freedom" B.S.

Obama did the right thing in getting our troops out. It was an unwinnable quagmire. The trouble with Neocons and conservative alike is that they think taking out the head of these places and replacing it is all it takes. They fail to see the local politics and the history behind said politics.

 

"Just war" "Arab Spring" it was all just rhetoric, Stanley Baldwin understood,

Rhetoric, which I regard as one of the greatest dangers of modern civilization..."Self-determination" is another rhetorical term that may some day lead the nations into a bloody war. That is what rhetoric does. "Homes fit for heroes to live in," and "A world safe for democracy!" These, to my mind, are the quintessence of rhetoric, and it is against rhetoric in this sense that I am going to vote to-night.

Many off us got fooled by the rhetoric of Blair, Cameron, Clinton and Bush who thought all you need to do to create a functioning democracy is remove the tyrant.

 

We should have let Gaddafi exterminate the rebellion. I'm globally a non interventionnist. If a dictator win, he win, if he loses, he loses. It's not our problem if a few thousand get killed.

 

I'm not talking historically. I'm talking about today, when every single uprising against a dictator, especially one that was in any capacity supported by the last administration, is called Islamic militarism and terrorism.

 

I wonder if Kim Jung Un remembers what happened to Gaddafi as he ponders whether to give up his nuclear weapons or not.

 

He was trying to fix it as he understood the problem. It wasn't unfixable he just didn't have a local strong man to do the job for him.
I agree that what the west thinks of as freedom is not a concept Arab Muslims can get their heads around.
If you think that only neo-cons and conservatives think that taking the head out and replacing with some fluff dried alternative you haven't been paying attention to Obama/Clinton in Libya or JFK in Vietnam.
When we find a man like Saddam in control of a place like Iraq we should realize that first of all the people have the government they deserve and that shaking that box up will free all the demons the strongman is riding herd on. Its not our job to fix these places. Even if we knew how it would not be our job.

By the same token its not our job to stand aside when a freely elected government such as that in Bolivia, Chile or Grenada back in the day is being subverted by totalitarian influences such as foreign or domestic Marxists for instance.

The rule should be leave the Saddam's alone but stop the Che(s)

 

I doubt if your point is valid.

 

I expect he will of pondered on the fact that Qaddafi thought he had become a friend of the west just before he was completely shafted by them yes.

 

You think that the guys who sell people in Lybia or Al Nosra are nice secularist ? Almost every muslim countries has shariah at a different degree, almost everybody there are for political islam.

 

Hillary said her biggest success as Obama's Secretary of State was Libya.

 

In my opinion the best action concerning Islamic nations is NO ACTION. Unless they do something stupid against us then just leave them alone to kill each other instead of us. IF they do attack then eliminate the nation as retribution and example, we need to play by THEIR rules in this and lose the nice guy act.

 

I should add that going by what appears in the western media one could easily get the picture you describe. The media which is very liberal by any reasonable standard is also very lazy and when they get decide what the story is, in other words when a suitable "narrative" has been decided on by leftwing opinion leaders in government and academia, the media will run with it and no evidence to the contrary will make it onto their news pages or broadcasts.

 

Yep, I'd go with that. They deserve the shitholes they find themselves in. Its not our problem to fix.

 

Let's not, since those who do not know history are bound to repeat it - as we have done, and are doing in Syria.

 

Well, perhaps because they are, and only radicals are doing it?

Libya was on the PNAC list. Doesn't matter if we personally take it down, or assist radicals as we did in Syria, the end result is the same. The end result is what PNAC wanted, what the neocons wanted.

Of course it is purely coincidental that the nations taken down were on the PNAC list. Right!

 

Maybe because they are ?

 

Because they are worse than who they are overthrowing.

 

Qaddafi was a more benevolent leader than any U.S. president

 

Gotta warning. Sorry MODs. We will be nicer. RIGHT?

 

A music break...……………..

 

Do you understand my post now? I didn't say Bush understood the problem, clearly he did not. I was saying he tried to fix it AS HE UNDERSTOOD it which was not at all. He didn't understand the problem he had created.

 

gotta love that sax!

 

Yup.

 

Libya, just another country destroyed by the criminal organizations known as "governments" in the west.

 

If you actually believe NATO intervened in Libya because of a desire to protect human rights, then you will probably believe anything.