>From the US perspective...what problem did they have with Gaddafi?? He was handling the oil situation just fine...he was relatively friendly to the West...
was there some policy that the West wanted to implement which he refused? This is why all those dictators are in power in the Middle East anyways. They all agreed to toe the line in exchange for being left alone. They arrange decent deals with Western companies etc. for drilling and distribution of oil. Most of them were installed and supported by the West initially. I still don't see, from a Western point of view, what was the issue with Gaddaffi in particular. It isn't as if any country at a government level really gives two figs about the Libyan or The Egyptian people. Is it that the media coverage was such that they felt politically they needed to respond in some way? The other thing is, what happened to the international arms merchants? Aren't they more than capable of arming the rebels? I mean...that's what they do isnt it? (Lord of War) :-) On 29 March 2011 13:33, Michael Dinowitz <mdino...@houseoffusion.com> wrote: > > Rice has said that Obama has not ruled out arming the Libyan rebels. Can he > do this without congressional oversight? > > As an aside, the more I actually learn about the rebels, the more I see > that > they are not the people we really want to be supporting. Are they the > lesser > of two evils? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:335673 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
