How the fall of Qaddafi gave rise to Europe's migrant crisis (+video)

[nat4900]

This is what so damn frustrating about right wingers' mentality....Your rabid hatred of Obama, Clinton and anything concerning democrats completely clouds your judgment resulting in this thread.

NOT ONE mention of what Cheney and his sidekick Bush destabilized the region by taking out Hussein....thereby allowing the belligerent Iran to have free reins with Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc.

Further, to blame Obama or Hillary for the downfall of Ghadaffi borders on insanity......and here, again, not one mention of how McCain, Graham and a host of other neocons urged and instigated the limited US intervention in Libya.....

The reason there was no mention of taking out Hussein and destabilizing the reason is because that is a liberal fairy tale. Saddam and his sons raped tortured, murdered, used WMD against their own people, fought a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait. If that is a stable situation then I call BS. Why do you think that the protest from all Arab nations was ZERO when we removed Saddam? Because they knew he was the most destabilizing man in the region. Just because liberals invent lies doesn't mean they have to be taken seriously.

Mrs,Clinton was SOS and Obama potus who authorized the bombing of Libya leading to the torture and death of their leader. Obama also had Stevens running guns to the Syrian rebels which lead to the rise of ISIS. Face the facts.

Well, you're "correct"t.........The entire world is wrong and within the right wing bunker where you dwell.....you're right.

 

[Pheonixops]

It doesn't take much of a memory to remember that the left keeps blaming the Iraq war for destabilizing the ME. They do so without regard to the fact that the removal of Kadaffi really has destabilized the ME. Thanks Mr. President.

How the fall of Qaddafi gave rise to Europe s migrant crisis video - CSMonitor.com

Two horrible tragedies in or at least near Libya: Up to 800 migrants trying to reach Europe from Africa die after their boat sinks off the coast, and 30 migrants are murdered by the so-called Islamic State on the shore in the troubled country.

Libya's chaos has once more made it a major way station for Africans seeking a better life, as the European Union grapples with the morality of cutting back on patrols to rescue migrants. The argument for doing less is that increasing the risk of crossing the Mediterranean would save lives. Word that there was no safety net would filter back to people, many of them fleeing persecution, and they'd stop coming.

I'm from the "Left" and I was disappointed when the President flirted with acting like a neo-con republican. Just today at around 3-4pm , queen neo-con hannity (who never had any skin in the game) was lamenting at the fact that Saudi Arabia and Egypt were handling the conflict in THEIR region without Our "leadership". Do you remember the Conservatives crying about us not interfering and support Iran's "green revolution" and not supporting the "free syrian army"???

I think that we need to step back and let them sort their own shit out. China pretty much does that and look at how they are profiting from Iraqi oil, whatever happened to our "payment" in oil from the Iraqis after we "freed" them from sadaam?

Funny, you seem to condemn what is going on without condemnation of Mrs. Clinton or Obama. Obama leading from the rear, which is what cowards do, ain't working out well.

I am not a fan if Mrs. Clinton at all, I also think that she will be another foreign policy interventionist hawk as well. Where did "leading from the front" get us besides two costly wars and troubled "nation building" efforts. It cost us thousands of causalities and billions if not trillions of dollars and debt. It was not necessary to invade Iraq and it was not necessary to occupy Afghanistan. We could have set up a false flag and state that we were investigating someone else and let Bin Laden stick his head up and take him and his network out.

 

[nat4900]

I am not a fan if Mrs. Clinton at all, I also think that she will be another foreign policy interventionist hawk as well. Where did "leading from the front" get us besides two costly wars and troubled "nation building" efforts. It cost us thousands of causalities and billions if not trillions of dollars and debt. It was not necessary to invade Iraq and it was not necessary to occupy Afghanistan. We could have set up a false flag and state that we were investigating someone else and let Bin Laden stick his head up and take him and his network out.

For right wingers, perhaps "leading from the front" is the equivalent of fighting with your chin sticking out, and, beleive me, that is how you lose.

I too am not a big fan of Clinton although in comparison with the current GOP clown candidates, she'll have my vote.

GOPers will not see the inside of the WH for another decade and that may not be the best of situations in the long run; however, the fault for backing such thoroughly "tea-infused," hawkish (except for Paul), weak and hate-mongering candidates, is strictly on their shoulders.