There was an arab leader facing insurrection from the people.
The people had suffered long enough - they were rising up and wanted change.
The leader, being a typical repressive arab leader used his armed forces to break the people's back. He used the armed forces and the air force to break the rebellion.
The world looked on in horror, and since the "free world" was already not a fan of the regime, it decided to take action. Afterall, something had to be done for the sake of the people.
Sanctions and no fly zones were the name of the game.
Now a question for you all: Am I talking about Libya in 2011, or Iraq in 1991?
We all know how the story for Iraq unfolded. Many died through the sanctions and many more died afterwards through war and its consequences.
Comments
That's what I was thinking about before!
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
we dont seem to be learning from our mistakes...
nyways, arent the West a bit reticent tp get involved?
well..they would be wouldnt they..after the consequences of Iraq happened.
but at least this time. there arent any "weapons". except, you know, Western weapons sold.
kinda ironic.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
The weapons Iraq had were also western weapons sold to it.
America thought Iraq had chemical weapons because it sold it the ingredients.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What you learn from history is that no one learns from history...
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
(Y)
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Cameron had mocked Blair's military interventions saying "You can't drop democracy from 10,000 feet" and what does he go and do himself?!
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi