DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Hillary Clinton Calls For Regime Change In Libya

**Diwokfkq** · 06-05-2011, 02:23 AM

Prior to the recent African continent rebellions, we didn't have a problem with Gadhafi.

Then when Libyan rebels jumped on the bandwagon and Gadhafi took steps to defend his government, we took notice.

And when the rebels were initially appearing to win, we did nothing.

But when the uprising began to be quelled with Libyan government military force, we charged right in, with a U.N. excuse and in violation of the African Union.

At first, we just tried to make the fight fair and prevent a slaughter, keep matters to a standoff.

Then we became more .. invasive .. in our strikes.

So Muammar wrote a letter to his "brother" Obama and implored him to cease the invasive strikes and let the African Union appropriately arbitrate the dispute.

But in response, we're now calling for Gadhafi's "head" .. at least Hillary is: Clinton Dismisses Gadhafi Letter, Reafirms He Must Yield Power

Wow. A couple of months ago we had no problem with MG. Then his government was attacked by its own people. Now HC calls for his head.

Though dictator isn't my favorite form of government, to my knowledge the U.N. hasn't outlawed the form.

So what's with all this American apparent opportunism here?

Well .. America only gets a half of a percent of its oil from Libya. What do you want to bet that rebel leaders have promised us more oil if we help them win.

I wonder what The President has to say on the matter? Has he commented about our potential oil gain? Does he agree emphatically with Hillary about regime change in Libya, a sudden turn around from a couple of months ago.

You know, I can't help but wonder if this entire African uprising trend .. was CIA sparked. (Sorry, please pardon my conspiracy theory flare up -- I thought I had that under control.)

Regardless, I find it interesting that a few months ago, we were all happily quiet on the African front .. and now, you can't shut us up.

It's easy, though, to talk about regime change being okay if it happens to others. If a bunch of American rebels started efforts to overthrow Obama's government would he be as amenable to such changes as he is to the same happening to poor Gadhafi?

Probably not.

After all, it's all about whose ox is getting gored .. and whose might get oiled.

The US never had a good relationship with Gaddafi and always have had serious problems with him. In fact, IMO, he should have been removed long ago simply as a matter of self-defence alone, but better late than never is better. Only recently was diplomatic relations established, and it still wasn't good. From 1969, he made Libya a dedicated US hater and a state sponsor of terrorism where he repeatedly attacked US military and civilians and those of our allies.

With 'normalisation' finally supposedly occurring under Bush, he required the US to compensate him first for the Tripoli strike in 1986 in retaliation for him bombing US personnel and civilians in Germany before compensating the Pam Am 103 victims. He sent his daughter Ayesha as a proxy to defend Saddam Hussein at his war crimes trials in Iraq (she's a lawyer) and to support and hype the insurgents whilst US troops were in the field whilst he pretended to cooperate with Bush on renouncing his ways, he dragged his feet on destroying his chemical weapons stockpiles with his 'deal' for relations with Bush where he still possesses them, etc. In short, he was doing nothing but jerking the US around to get advantages for himself, but the leopard never changed his spots.

As soon as the Libyan uprising occurred, even the Senate passed a resolution calling for the UN No-Fly Zone and calling for regime change, the POTUS quickly sought that result, got it, and now the strategy has been to enforce the resolution whilst seeking to get him out of power.

Good for HRC for saying what she did. It's about time since 1969. It's also what House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) said when he gave an excellent, reasoned and informative interview the other day as to the reasons and the general plan for accomplishing it, including Gaddafi's horrible record and threat potential.

video:

Hulu - NBC Meet the Press: One-on-one With Rep. Mike Rogers

transcript:

Republican National Convention Blog: Mike Rogers Meet the Press 04/03/11 TEXT VIDEO

06-05-2011, 02:23 AM	#3
Diwokfkq Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 394 Senior Member	Prior to the recent African continent rebellions, we didn't have a problem with Gadhafi. Then when Libyan rebels jumped on the bandwagon and Gadhafi took steps to defend his government, we took notice. And when the rebels were initially appearing to win, we did nothing. But when the uprising began to be quelled with Libyan government military force, we charged right in, with a U.N. excuse and in violation of the African Union. At first, we just tried to make the fight fair and prevent a slaughter, keep matters to a standoff. Then we became more .. invasive .. in our strikes. So Muammar wrote a letter to his "brother" Obama and implored him to cease the invasive strikes and let the African Union appropriately arbitrate the dispute. But in response, we're now calling for Gadhafi's "head" .. at least Hillary is: Clinton Dismisses Gadhafi Letter, Reafirms He Must Yield Power Wow. A couple of months ago we had no problem with MG. Then his government was attacked by its own people. Now HC calls for his head. Though dictator isn't my favorite form of government, to my knowledge the U.N. hasn't outlawed the form. So what's with all this American apparent opportunism here? Well .. America only gets a half of a percent of its oil from Libya. What do you want to bet that rebel leaders have promised us more oil if we help them win. I wonder what The President has to say on the matter? Has he commented about our potential oil gain? Does he agree emphatically with Hillary about regime change in Libya, a sudden turn around from a couple of months ago. You know, I can't help but wonder if this entire African uprising trend .. was CIA sparked. (Sorry, please pardon my conspiracy theory flare up -- I thought I had that under control.) Regardless, I find it interesting that a few months ago, we were all happily quiet on the African front .. and now, you can't shut us up. It's easy, though, to talk about regime change being okay if it happens to others. If a bunch of American rebels started efforts to overthrow Obama's government would he be as amenable to such changes as he is to the same happening to poor Gadhafi? Probably not. After all, it's all about whose ox is getting gored .. and whose might get oiled. The US never had a good relationship with Gaddafi and always have had serious problems with him. In fact, IMO, he should have been removed long ago simply as a matter of self-defence alone, but better late than never is better. Only recently was diplomatic relations established, and it still wasn't good. From 1969, he made Libya a dedicated US hater and a state sponsor of terrorism where he repeatedly attacked US military and civilians and those of our allies. With 'normalisation' finally supposedly occurring under Bush, he required the US to compensate him first for the Tripoli strike in 1986 in retaliation for him bombing US personnel and civilians in Germany before compensating the Pam Am 103 victims. He sent his daughter Ayesha as a proxy to defend Saddam Hussein at his war crimes trials in Iraq (she's a lawyer) and to support and hype the insurgents whilst US troops were in the field whilst he pretended to cooperate with Bush on renouncing his ways, he dragged his feet on destroying his chemical weapons stockpiles with his 'deal' for relations with Bush where he still possesses them, etc. In short, he was doing nothing but jerking the US around to get advantages for himself, but the leopard never changed his spots. As soon as the Libyan uprising occurred, even the Senate passed a resolution calling for the UN No-Fly Zone and calling for regime change, the POTUS quickly sought that result, got it, and now the strategy has been to enforce the resolution whilst seeking to get him out of power. Good for HRC for saying what she did. It's about time since 1969. It's also what House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) said when he gave an excellent, reasoned and informative interview the other day as to the reasons and the general plan for accomplishing it, including Gaddafi's horrible record and threat potential. video: Hulu - NBC Meet the Press: One-on-one With Rep. Mike Rogers transcript: Republican National Convention Blog: Mike Rogers Meet the Press 04/03/11 TEXT VIDEO
	Quote