I never understood why the Obama regime went after Ghadafi. Why? They had fits when we ousted Saddam Hussein and “destabilized” Iraq, why are they suddenly going after dictators who were his equivalent?
Partly because McCain and a couple of other Republicans urged him to. So did Hillary. So did Soros.
Soros was already pumping money into the region by one of his satellite embassies (so to speak, one of his offices on foreign soil).
He was carrying out his own foreign policy.
Obama got sucked in, not that he wasn’t easily on board.
By this point Khadaffi was also a mellowed out old man, not looking for any more fights. He had turned over his nuclear program. He was no threat, and as I understand it, not oppressing his own citizens either.
Democrats don’t have any grasp of global dynamics, unless it’s related to turning a nation socialist. They don’t know who our friends are and why. They don’t know who our enemies are and why.
Back in Reagan’s day, sure Khadaffi was a problem. Now they thought they would gain brownie points by taking him out. Why? He was no longer a threat, and heaven only knew what would follow him on.
As for Hussein in Iraq, he was not mellowed out and was still looking for fights. Big big difference between the two there.
Because Qaddafi shifted his tactics from violence to successful Economic and Banking opposition to Western Globalists, resulting in a reasonably stable Libya.
Interesting. (I’ve long-heard it was because of their oil and money)
The April 2011 email, sent to the Secretary of State Hillary by unofficial adviser and longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold,” reveals predatory Western intentions.
The emails indicate the French-led NATO military initiative in Libya was also driven by a desire to gain access to a greater share of Libyan oil production, and to undermine a long term plan by Gaddafi to supplant France as the dominant power in the Francophone Africa region.
Source: