3 ms·

Libya is an especially good example, since it had a fairly advanced nuclear program at one point but gave it up.

cryptonector 8y ago
Keep going. Then what happened...? Ah, yes, Obama and Clinton went in, they saw, and they killed Qaddafi. The man surely deserved it, but! But he had made a deal with Bush 43 that needed to be respected so that others in the future too might pick a nuclear-free policy. Obama single-handedly made the world a more dangerous place by killing Qaddafi. He made it that much more difficult for his successors (not just Trump) to negotiate nuclear disarmament with NK or Iran, for example, though in the future there will likely be others too. To think, Obama won a Nobel peace prize... I wish sober people had argued this -and prevailed- at the time. I don't know, really, why the Libya adventure happened. It shouldn't have. I wonder if Bush 43 tried to get Obama to not do it, and if so, I wonder why Obama went ahead anyways.
- cmurf 8y ago
  It was an intervention in the Libyan civil war by 19 countries. And Gaddafi was killed by Libyan rebels. Blaming Obama as "single handedly" killing Gaddafi is anti-historical, you also left out that the outcome Obama considered to be his biggest regret. And what nuclear disarmament with Iran? They're already disarmed. All of the highly enriched uranium has been given up. The JCPOA was specifically designed with the expectation of Iran cheating. That unilateral withdrawal is far worse for nuclear non-proliferation going forward. But this is completely consistent with John Bolton who was likewise involved when DPRK withdrew from the NPT. But it's OK, we have a "very stable genius" in office who can only make himself look better by saying everyone else over the past 50 years has done a terrible job, and will never admit he made a mistake.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Keep going. Then what happened...? Ah, yes, Obama and Clinton went in, they saw, and they killed Qaddafi. The man surely deserved it, but! But he had made a deal with Bush 43 that needed to be respected so that others in the future too might pick a nuclear-free policy. Obama single-handedly made the world a more dangerous place by killing Qaddafi. He made it that much more difficult for his successors (not just Trump) to negotiate nuclear disarmament with NK or Iran, for example, though in the future there will likely be others too. To think, Obama won a Nobel peace prize... I wish sober people had argued this -and prevailed- at the time. I don't know, really, why the Libya adventure happened. It shouldn't have. I wonder if Bush 43 tried to get Obama to not do it, and if so, I wonder why Obama went ahead anyways.

cmurf 8y ago
It was an intervention in the Libyan civil war by 19 countries. And Gaddafi was killed by Libyan rebels. Blaming Obama as "single handedly" killing Gaddafi is anti-historical, you also left out that the outcome Obama considered to be his biggest regret. And what nuclear disarmament with Iran? They're already disarmed. All of the highly enriched uranium has been given up. The JCPOA was specifically designed with the expectation of Iran cheating. That unilateral withdrawal is far worse for nuclear non-proliferation going forward. But this is completely consistent with John Bolton who was likewise involved when DPRK withdrew from the NPT. But it's OK, we have a "very stable genius" in office who can only make himself look better by saying everyone else over the past 50 years has done a terrible job, and will never admit he made a mistake.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y