With respect to the number of innocent lives, with respect to the stability of the country, with respect to the basic social services destroyed for nothing.Originally Posted by Viking
It would not have been in the regime's best interest to target civilians. Misrata, Zawiya, Zuwara, Ajdabiya - no bloodbaths when retaken and those were the ones that were actually retaken by the government.Hard to verify, either way - one of many problems with closed countries.
Air support and crippling the regime certainly did.Neither did the weapons outsiders provided.
Because they lack that sovereignty. It is only because of Saudi Arabia and USA's aligned interests in the region that makes the funding of Islamists a common foreign policy initiative.And what do you base this on? Why shouldn't the Gulf states fund the rebels, anyway?
Entrusting these militias to pull the country back together after bombing the hell out of it and kicking the regime that held it together for decades aside is the stupidity here. NATO shouldn't have done anything.Blame for what, exactly? If the Libyan militias wanted prosperity for their country, they could move towards it rather swiftly - NATO is not holding them back.
This:
Is enough to see through how the coverage of the war as it unfolded is propoganda. Same goes for Syria.Originally Posted by Viking
Bookmarks