The fact is that Muammar Ghaddafi, this third world tin pot dictator and terrorist, has humiliated NATO and the Western powers for decades now. For all you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors, a little history lesson is in order. It was back in the 1980s that Ghaddafi sent a terrorist team to Berlin to blow up a nightclub frequented by American GIs. Several people were killed including Americans. Libya was quickly identified as the culprit. President Reagan ordered a bombing raid on Libya which actually killed one of Ghaddafi's children.
Then came the 1988 explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people including 11 people on the ground. Subsequent investigation revealed that Libyan government agents carried out the plot. It was at that point that we and the Brits (and NATO) should have gone in and taken Ghaddafi and his regime out. We didn't. Eventually, Libya gave up two agents, one of whom was convicted and given a life sentence in the UK.
Speaking of the UK, remember in 1984 when Libyan diplomats stated firing out of the Libyan embassy in London against Libyan exiles who were protesting-killing a British policewoman? That was when diplomatic immunity kicked in and the Libyans were allowed to return to Libya to a hero's welcome by Ghaddafi.
Her name was Yvonne Fletcher-Does anybody in the UK remember?
Humiliation.
But then in the past decade, something happened. Apparently "inspired" by the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi told the West he was tired of terrorism, that he would cooperate with the West and be a good boy. The West, ever aware of that Libyan oil, agreed and embraced this monster.
Now let's return to that Libyan agent locked up in Scotland for the Pan Am bombing. Shamefully, the Brits-involved in negotiations for British Petroleum to complete an oil deal- let him go and return to Libya (to a hero's welcome by Ghaddafi) because he was supposedly dying of cancer. Guess what. He is still kicking and doing fine.
Humiliation.
So here we are. A civil war is raging in Libya, and we have decided that we need to intervene-to protect innocent civilians from Ghaddafi's goons or whatever. Nonsense. I have written repeatedly that the only valid justification in getting involved would be to kill Ghaddafi for his past acts of terror against us. Other than that, it is not worth one American life. Thus far, we have not killed Ghaddafi, so we just let the Frenchies fly around and drop bombs. Now they are back to square one-if Ghadafi will just sit down and negotiate....
Is it any wonder that all the radical Islamists think they can conquer the West?
If our mission in Libya is to protect innocent civilians, then why, I ask, are we not bombing Syria? In that same vein, I have now come to the conclusion that it is time to question why we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. If it is cleaning up the last remnants of Al Qaida, that's one thing. If it is trying to build a model democratic state, I say forget about it.
I say enough with this nonsense in Libya. Find out where Ghaddafi is, blow him to smithereens and come on home. If they are not willing to do that, then there is no justification for being involved.
Frankly, I am weary of Obama and Hillary Clinton proclaiming that Ghaddafi "must go", while the French say that all he has to do is "sit down with the opposition."
It's enough to make one puke.
9 comments:
And Gary Fouse has said from the beginning that we should stay out of the mess in Libya, let the Colonel continue to thumb his nose at the world, not to mention slaughter thousands of his own people... Fouse has some nerve to complain about embarrassment, unless he meant to say we should send in overwhelming infantry forces NOW.
Actually, although President Obama has not shown the steel resolve to see this through without rhetorical sops to the disloyal opposition, hemming and hawing quite unnecessarily, Libya is moving in the right direction:
http://www.economist.com/node/18897405
http://www.economist.com/node/18958461
It isn't so dramatic as a John Wayne movie, but as long as responsible parties press patiently forward, rather than playing to the spinbyte of the hour or worrying about the latest demagoguery on the floor of the House, the result is looking very good.
That's right, Siarlys. Things are going swimmingly. Say hello to those Tahitian girls in the grass skirts fanning you.
The case against Libya over Lockerbie is dead. Gagaffy, Senouussi,Magrahi nor Fhimah had anything to do with athat atrocity. Pan Am 103 was bombed in a joint opertaio by Iran and the US, using their respective agencies the Pasdran anf the CIA to give Iran its one and only one revenge for the deliberate shooting down of the Iranian Airbus, IR655 by the USS Vincennes on 3rd July 1988. The US Government which had been seized by the VP HW Bush wanted to kill off Iran Contra and the gofer at the Iranian end of Iran-contra was Ahmad Beladi Behbehani. HWB had no time for Reaqgan's games playing foreign policy,so instructed the CIA to kill ABB. It was believed that he was to be flying on IR655, but the CIA was mistaken (it freeuentlty) so the plan the Vincennes shot down did not have ABB on it. But there was another family with that fairly rare Iranian name in that rare spelling on board.
Tran was incensed and demanded between 5 and 12 US aircraft down in reprisal. Eventually Richard Lawless bargained them to just one which became Pan Am 103. 244 Iranians died on IR655 and believe me exactly 244 countable lives on on Pan Am 103, those on the ground and US Government personnel being excluded from the count.
Charles,
I only published your comment in the interest of letting my readers have a few laughs.
You and Charles are outdoing each other Gary. Why don't you go find a nice desert island to have a few more founds. Let the adults, including President Obama, get on with doing their job.
You deal with politics like a day trader investing in stocks. It's not the long-term potential that counts, just the sound byte of the day. With an attitude like yours, we would have given up on WW II after the Battle of Midway.
Thanks for the laugh from Charles Norrie. He is always good for some yucks.
Cant really agree that Charles Norrie is good for laughs, but his email theories could be called manic. Whenever given the opportunity, he shills for Libya and the bombers who killed 270 innocent souls on Pan Am Flight 103.
Will the real frank duggan please stand up?
So now I know who Charles Norrie is.
Post a Comment