Friday, March 25, 2011

Lincoln and Gaddafi: To hold a nation together, both willing to be tyrants

    So if leaders who put down revolutions by force of arms are despicable tyrants, what exactly does that make Abraham Lincoln?
    I'm no fan of Gaddafi, but I don't see why we are supporting the Al Qaeda rebels who are fighting him either. We say we're trying to protect civilians, but what about the civilians who support Gaddafi? What about the sub-Saharan Africans who are being ethnically cleansed from rebel areas?
    As awful as Gaddafi is, we had made our peace with him and he had renounced his terrorist past. Now we're apparently trying to settle old scores, proving that as a nation we can't be trusted. He is guilty of trying to hold his nation of squabbling tribesmen together by force of arms, just as Abraham Lincoln did 150 years ago.
    Perhaps he is a tyrant. So was Lincoln. The difference is because of President Obama's stupid actions Libya is going to fall into chaos and civil war. In short, we've picked the wrong side on this one, and the pricetag will be far greater than a few hundred million dollars for Tomahawk missiles.
    Haven't we learned anything from the mistakes of Iraq?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

And you Republican right wingers say we Democrats don't like wars...hah there.
World War I...Woodrow Wilson Dem
World War II..FDR.. Dem
Korean War...Harry Truman Dem
Vietnam War...JFK and LBJ Dems
(admittedly Nixon tried to make this war his own but failed)
Gulf War...George H.W. Bush...Rep
Iraq and Afghanistan and others ..George Bush but Obama is taking ownership of these wars and expanding throughout the Middle East so before it is all over, another Democratic War. Almost one hundred years and you guys get one little puny gulf war to your credit. Shame.