I am a reader, it's my effort to seek out the truth, to understand issues so that I can base my opinion on those issues. I try not to be swayed by any one particular point of view, rather by several opinions and I use my experience, whatever intellect that I posses on a subject and formulate my opinion.
I wonder how many have taken the time to investigate Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, the rebels and what is transpiring right now in that middle eastern country. It seems, "at least to me," that world media is kind of taking a "soft ball" view of reporting what is going on there. I mean, whenever there is an armed conflict, death and carnage follow, unless there using rubber bullets.
I realize that Gaddafi isn't a household name when it comes to peace, prosperity and human causes, I remember when he was on America's hit list just several years ago, and what a big deal was made out of the fact that he "gave up" his evil ways during the Bush administration back in 2008. Even before that, during the early part of the Reagan administration, 1981, Gaddafi feared what the United States might do, and began to lower his hostile attitudes.
Now during the last six months or so, many world leaders have "lowered the boom" on "old Muammar," calling for his disposal as Libya's leader because he was such a "nasty boy" to his country-men. I'm not sure I can understand the seeming "sudden" change in thinking.
Was it a whole bunch of illicit activity, a "rash" of murders, was it the political protests in Libya against the Gaddafi government, or was it simply time for him to go, "after all, he is approaching his 69th year.
From what I can understand, the political unrest has engulfed the country and Gaddafi was exercising his political will through an armed response. Hypothetically.....for the sake of conversation, lets say that the Tea Party decided to oppose the current President of the United States, Barack Obama with protests and street demonstrations, would the National Guard be called out?
Quickly a "line in the sand" would be drawn, sides would be established and bloody violence would begin. No matter the issue, if a foreign country attempted to interfere, a measure of wrath would be brought against that country. Even many Tea Baggers would rally around the President and war would soon break out with that country.
Now we have Libya, granted, with a "dink" for a president, king, ambassador, or whatever you want to call the guy. He is not good to his country, he is a dastardly despot and the country will be a better place without him. But....."in hindsight" was getting ride of Saddam Hussein worth the bloodshed and money, I think many would make a strong argument that it wasn't.
Now here we go again, "from the air," attacking another country that has a troubled past, and is an "unstable" country in the middle east. I wonder, if Libya had cabbage fields instead of oil fields, how strong would the effort be?
I wonder how many have taken the time to investigate Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, the rebels and what is transpiring right now in that middle eastern country. It seems, "at least to me," that world media is kind of taking a "soft ball" view of reporting what is going on there. I mean, whenever there is an armed conflict, death and carnage follow, unless there using rubber bullets.
I realize that Gaddafi isn't a household name when it comes to peace, prosperity and human causes, I remember when he was on America's hit list just several years ago, and what a big deal was made out of the fact that he "gave up" his evil ways during the Bush administration back in 2008. Even before that, during the early part of the Reagan administration, 1981, Gaddafi feared what the United States might do, and began to lower his hostile attitudes.
Now during the last six months or so, many world leaders have "lowered the boom" on "old Muammar," calling for his disposal as Libya's leader because he was such a "nasty boy" to his country-men. I'm not sure I can understand the seeming "sudden" change in thinking.
Was it a whole bunch of illicit activity, a "rash" of murders, was it the political protests in Libya against the Gaddafi government, or was it simply time for him to go, "after all, he is approaching his 69th year.
From what I can understand, the political unrest has engulfed the country and Gaddafi was exercising his political will through an armed response. Hypothetically.....for the sake of conversation, lets say that the Tea Party decided to oppose the current President of the United States, Barack Obama with protests and street demonstrations, would the National Guard be called out?
Quickly a "line in the sand" would be drawn, sides would be established and bloody violence would begin. No matter the issue, if a foreign country attempted to interfere, a measure of wrath would be brought against that country. Even many Tea Baggers would rally around the President and war would soon break out with that country.
Now we have Libya, granted, with a "dink" for a president, king, ambassador, or whatever you want to call the guy. He is not good to his country, he is a dastardly despot and the country will be a better place without him. But....."in hindsight" was getting ride of Saddam Hussein worth the bloodshed and money, I think many would make a strong argument that it wasn't.
Now here we go again, "from the air," attacking another country that has a troubled past, and is an "unstable" country in the middle east. I wonder, if Libya had cabbage fields instead of oil fields, how strong would the effort be?
No comments:
Post a Comment