Joe Biden on Obama's great achievement in Iraq.

 

But it's for the children. And freedom.

 

The children in Libya used to have guaranteed quality housing, paid for education and other benefits that exceed anything here or in most of the world. All due to Gaddafi. Now, with a drawn-out civil war facing them none of that will happen.

 

Gaddafi was socialists dream. And he had the money to do it from his oil. He had to go since he was trying to stir up regional power and strong self rule throughout Africa. And he threatened the petro-dollar. But Susan Rice and the old CIA trick of spontaneous civil wars has destroyed a stable country. Now it Libya is a bloody mess and will be for years.

A new off group of Al Qaeda that even the real Al Qaeda stays away from since they are so much stricter. They have take major cities with weapons we left the army we tried to train? But since we left so soon we will probably have to go back.

 

Second Iraq city falls to Al Qaeda-aligned militants | Fox News

 

We never should have gone there in the first place.

On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today op-ed, "Relax, Celebrate Victory." The same day, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq—with the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner arrayed behind him.

 

http://m.thenation.com/blog/174127-ten-years-ago-bush-declared-mission-accomplished-and-media-swooned

The children in Libya used to have guaranteed quality housing, paid for education and other benefits that exceed anything here or in most of the world. All due to Gaddafi. Now, with a drawn-out civil war facing them none of that will happen.

 

Gaddafi was socialists dream. And he had the money to do it from his oil. He had to go since he was trying to stir up regional power and strong self rule throughout Africa. And he threatened the petro-dollar. But Susan Rice and the old CIA trick of spontaneous civil wars has destroyed a stable country. Now it Libya is a bloody mess and will be for years.

 

My comment was sarcasm.

 

I agree with your analysis. When politicians and special-interest groups start beating the war drum and call for invasion, they do it under the guise of "spreading democracy," "for the good of humanity," "freedom."

 

That was the excuse for Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Syria, etc etc.

 

The end result is, more often than not, destabilization, civil war, endless bloodshed and corruption. Which is what you just explained.

I never thought I would read such adulatory praise and sympathy for a brutal despot like Qaddafi on a Kentucky message board. Say what you will about the merits of NATO's intervention in Libya's revolution, but this whitewashing of Qaddafi's Libya into some kind of utopia is excessive to the point of satire. That could be an article out of The Onion if it weren't meant to be serious.

My comment was sarcasm.

 

I agree with your analysis. When politicians and special-interest groups start beating the war drum and call for invasion, they do it under the guise of "spreading democracy," "for the good of humanity," "freedom."

 

That was the excuse for Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Syria, etc etc.

 

The end result is, more often than not, destabilization, civil war, endless bloodshed and corruption. Which is what you just explained.

 

I knew it was. I am taking this stuff way to seriously.

I never thought I would read such adulatory praise and sympathy for a brutal despot like Qaddafi on a Kentucky message board. Say what you will about the merits of NATO's intervention in Libya's revolution, but this whitewashing of Qaddafi's Libya into some kind of utopia is excessive to the point of satire. That could be an article out of The Onion if it weren't meant to be serious.

 

He was a dictator and he was ruthless. But he was a 'benevolent ruthless dictator'. His enemies were outside his borders. He was trying to create a strong African coalition that would have made Africa more independent from Europe and he was trying to make deals with Chinese to trade oil outside of the petro-dollar market.

 

But the people of Libya shared in the oil wealth unlike most the African and mid-east countries. He should be a socialist hero.

He was a dictator and he was ruthless. But he was a 'benevolent ruthless dictator'. His enemies were outside his borders. He was trying to create a strong African coalition that would have made Africa more independent from Europe and he was trying to make deals with Chinese to trade oil outside of the petro-dollar market.

 

But the people of Libya shared in the oil wealth unlike most the African and mid-east countries. He should be a socialist hero.

 

:lol2: I guess that's why his citizens revolted and still curse his name. He treated them too nicely!

:lol2: I guess that's why his citizens revolted and still curse his name. He treated them too nicely!

 

Moving to new thread to avoid (or reduce) hijacking this Iraq thread.

My comment was sarcasm.

 

I agree with your analysis. When politicians and special-interest groups start beating the war drum and call for invasion, they do it under the guise of "spreading democracy," "for the good of humanity," "freedom."

 

That was the excuse for Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Syria, etc etc.

 

The end result is, more often than not, destabilization, civil war, endless bloodshed and corruption. Which is what you just explained.

 

Agree with pretty much everything you say. Not to mention creating a breeding ground for terrorists.

More than 30 years of U.S. foreign policy initiatives in Iraq headed for a disastrous end. It's been a pretty depressing news day all around.

We never should have gone there in the first place.

 

I agree

Or you have to have a strong non-dogmatic leader (who usually comes to power in a ruthless manner).

 

Egypt was stable - till the administration helped depose of Mubarak. Its not on fire since the military stepped in as is historically the case in Egypt in times of turmoil.

Libya was stable - till the administration helped depose of Gaddafi. It is now in chaos. Western countries are pulling out.

Syria was stable - but the administration keeps backing 'rebels' - many of which (as with Egypt and Libya) are from outside the country. Assad has no where to go and he will continue to fight brutally.

 

Iraq was controlled until our invasion. I would add that to the list.

The problem is that people don't try to understand there is not ONE Middle East but several. Each different than the other and not based on national boundaries but tribal histories and religious distinctions. It's like Iraq. The US toppled the Sunni government it deemed a threat but that some govt kept the Shiite's in check in Iran. Now the Shiite govt we installed is being attacked by militant Sunni's who were both "kicked out" and have gone more "Al Quaida" than the "Al Quaida" we knew.

 

I won't even talk about the Kurds, the Saudi's and the other branches and groups that make up "The Middle East."

 

This would be a great time to give incentives to the Kurds to cause havoc in Northern Iraq, but then you get the wrath of Turkey when the Kurds there increase their fight for independence.