09-07-2016, 08:50 AM
(09-07-2016, 02:33 AM)Galen Wrote:(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:(09-07-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote: There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies. Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi. No wonder the neocons support her these days.
Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.
Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.
Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better. I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people. What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar. This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.
It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.
That is what Trump and the Republicans are doing raising the Benghazi embassy issue.
You are not the only one here who has stated that aggressive US policy is aimed at protecting the dominance of the dollar. If that's what Hillary and others have thought, the concern is probably misplaced. It may not really matter to US interests if the dollar is supreme or not as a reserve currency, etc.
First, the Benghazi situation would not have arisen without the Libyan intervention. I am not particularly thrilled with Trump but I would be surprised it he didn't say anything about this since Americans tend to get more worked up about US troops getting killed.
...
This is a good example of the ignorance, willful or not, of the historical context, regardless of how recent, that drives the horseshXt that spouts out of those with Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome.
Libya was already in the toilet of civil war before there was ANY action by the US, NATO or the UN. Thousands were being killed; the country was already divided between warring groups loyal to the regime and many anti-regime groups that hatred toward each other was on-hold as they fought against their common enemy (see Iraq or Syria for example).
It was France that led the charge on getting a UN resolution for a no-fly zone to stop the bombing slaughter by Gadhafi forces of rebel-held cities that was killing thousands of civilians. It wasn't until Gadhafi choose to ignore that no-fly zone and resume killing civilians that all hell was rained down on his ass - as agreed to by the United Nations including, of course, the Security Council. Some would try to suggest this was similar to Bush ramming through his Iraq invasion based on lies, but the sequence of events, the seriousness and validity of events, and the lead drivers are completely different. To suggest otherwise, or to lay those events onto the US Secretary of State, is more than just a little disingenuous - it's idiocy that can only be derived from someone fully devoured by their Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome.
In the aftermath, our primary reason for our presence in Libya was to acquire or destroy as many of the thousands of Stinger Missiles as possible. These missiles can easily take down commercial airliners around airports with little risk to those firing them, and no one knew who had these. This was the stuff of the worse-nightmares of every intel operation of every nation in the area if not the entire world. Our Benghazi mission was a CIA mission to get those missiles - that is why it was low-profile, why Stevens didn't want a platoon of Marines there - the mission required our blending in as much as possible.
You Clinton haters always put these events in a context that we would be living in magic pony land but for Clinton's supposed mistakes. The real world isn't like that - grow up.