HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » My Defense of Hillary Cli...

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:08 AM

 

My Defense of Hillary Clinton for Libya Involvement

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the driving force to encourage the rebels on the ground in Libya to take out Mohamar Gadhafi.

I believe that terrorists who kill innocent Americans should be held accountable. Gadhafi sponsored terrorism that took down Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, in the waning days of the Reagan Administration. Gadhafi admitted his complicity in this dastardly act on 2003.

Let's look at the facts. Many of Americans died on that flight. Some service members returning home for Christmas and students from Syracuse University.

Donald Trump now says that it would have been better to leave Gadhafi in place. Does he think that Gadhafi should have been protected for killing Americans? Did he ever meet a dictator he didn't like?

Let's look at the facts. The worst terrorist attack against Americans was on September 11, 2001. A Republican, George W. Bush was the President who was assigned to keep us safe. The mastermind of that attack was Osama bin Laden. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton brought bin Laden to justice.

The second worst terrorist attack against American civilians happened under Ronald Reagan on December 21, 1988. Mohamar Gadhafi was the mastermind behind that attack. Once again, it was Obama and Hillary who brought that terrorist killer to justice.

Looking at these facts, isn't it clear that Obama and Hillary have proven to be a much better team in fighting terrorism and bringing perpetrators to justice than the Republicans, and especially Donald Trump?

18 replies, 807 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply My Defense of Hillary Clinton for Libya Involvement (Original post)
louis c Jul 2016 OP
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #1
louis c Jul 2016 #2
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #6
louis c Jul 2016 #10
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #12
louis c Jul 2016 #13
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #14
louis c Jul 2016 #15
Press Virginia Jul 2016 #16
Vattel Jul 2016 #3
bigwillq Jul 2016 #7
AngryAmish Jul 2016 #4
rug Jul 2016 #5
louis c Jul 2016 #11
deaniac21 Jul 2016 #17
louis c Jul 2016 #18
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #8
independentpiney Jul 2016 #9

Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:12 AM

1. Libya now resembles Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. There is no defense for creating a failed state

 

so Europeans could have cheap oil any more than there's a defense for creating a failed state in Iraq.

I don't care who was president when what happened. Libya was a stable country that posed no imminent or immediate threat to US security and should have been left alone

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:14 AM

2. Tell that to the parents of the Syracuse kids

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:34 AM

6. You think they support using their children to justify creating a failed nation

 

because Europe wanted cheap oil?
The relatives of the Lockerbie bombing were paid about 7mil per in compensation back in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:08 AM

10. No, for bringing their killer to justice

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:13 AM

12. Their killers were brought to justice. We bombed Libya so Europe could have cheap oil

 

nothing more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 04:52 PM

13. Ghadafi murdered Americans

 

He got justice. You can give me all the conspiracy theories you want, but the facts are the facts.

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/international/middleeast/16NATI.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 05:00 PM

14. Turning Libya into a failed state is justice? For whom?

 

Libya posed no threat to the US either immediate or imminent. Removing Qadaffy did nothing to bolster us national security.

It was about oil for Europe, nothing more.

Removing Qadaffy over Lockerbie is no different than arguing Saddam deserved to be removed for the attempt to kill Bush 41

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 05:11 PM

15. the rebels acted organically

 

we stopped Gadhafi's genocide in Bengasi. As a final measure, we blocked his escape from Libya, and he got justice.

He was a terrorist that killed Americans. You don't mind if I don't shed a tear for him, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 05:14 PM

16. And, now, Libya is a failed state...how does that improve US Security?

 

your argument is no different than the ones made to take out saddam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:22 AM

3. Okay, that defense is not the slightest bit convincing.

 

You don't wreak havoc a nation so that one bad person gets their just deserts. The difference from killing Bin Laden is huge. In the Bin Laden case, Obama wisely and ethically decided not to take Bin Laden out by bombing because innocent bystanders would be killed.

If you want to try to defend violent regime change in Libya, you would do better appealing to the fact that Gadhafi had threatened to commit a massacre and to the right of Libyans to self-determination. Those sorts of justifications can at least in principle justify war.

Sadly, using war to achieve regime change in Libya was a mistake. I wish Clinton would admit her mistake and indicate to voters that she has learned something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:39 AM

7. Good post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:27 AM

4. You and Ron Reagan have the same policy.

 

Let that baby sink in.

But of course Hillary is by far the best candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:32 AM

5. Your argument on retaliation 25 years later is weaker tha Bush's argument to invade Afghanistan.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:09 AM

11. What's the statute of limintation on terrorist murder?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 05:24 PM

17. I think it's the same as the

statute of limitations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deaniac21 (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 27, 2016, 03:44 PM

18. There is no statute of liminatations on murder

 

that's the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 09:38 AM

8. The Lockerbie bomber was released in 2011. If your theory is true then-Secretary Clinton

could have voiced her concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Original post)

Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:02 AM

9. Are you sure she was the driving force?

I recall her being the major advocate for use of force within the Obama administration, but wasn't the original intervention led by France and Britain under a UN resolution?
Also, Gadahfi had mellowed in 25 years and cooperated with giving up wmd's and I believe may have even formally renounced the use of terrorism. No doubt he was still batshit insane and brutally repressed all opposition, but defending the judgement to support Islamists overthrowing a secular dictator as revenge for events from the 1980's is really weak in my opinion.
The many other events that have happened in the interceding years should have indicated it was a bad idea. I think it was poor judgement on the part of all of the involved parties internationally including the then SOS. But Hillary Clinton didn't lead the charge, and I assume did what she was obliged to do as SoS in support of NATO partners and the UN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread