The fact there was an uprising is also a fact, a fact you chose to ignore because you evidently think they are obligated to live under a government you wouldn't tolerate for a second. It is every bit as much of a fact as the UN figures you sited to make clear you think the Libyans--the ones who rose up, the ones you clearly think count less because of their failure to pay fealty to a dictator--should have sucked it up and been happy with what they were given.
The only parallel is that they are both Arab countries, and the US intervened. The differences far outweigh the similarities.
I did not misstate facts. The existence of an uprising is not a misstatement. You completely ignored its existence and claimed the situation was identical to Iraq, which goes far beyond simple misstatement. To then accuse me of arrogance for daring to point out differences that you very conveniently left out in order to distort the situation is par for the course. Yes, an uprising existed. That is not a misstatement, no matter how much you seek to conceal that fact.
I told you my position. You don't get to recast it for me because you find the fact I mention some clear differences to be inconvenient.
You think Libyans shouldn't have risen up. Bully for you. You rattle off some stats from the UN that you insist are the only information acceptable to present, pretend you are asking for opinions and then get upset when people point out how weak your argument is. Let me make it clear. Whatever any Libyans choose to do in regard to affirming or overturning their own government is not subject to your or my approval, and that goes for every other nation on the planet. What you think about that is meaningless, and that you think it incumbent on you to pass judgment is precisely the arrogance I was addressing.
Whether the US should have intervened is a separate question from the uprising itself, which I submit you nor I have NO right to question. You have never even been to Libya. Who are you to decide they should have to continue to live under a dictatorship?
I feel quite certain that if Hillary Clinton had argued for intervention in Rwanda, most here would be justifying it. We get you want nothing more than to see her never seek office. It's pretty obvious as every position and event--including Benghazi--is resurrected for the all important goal of keeping a lone woman from ever becoming president. And I have no doubt that if the Democratic primary electorate chooses her, people will demonstrate as much disrespect for those voters as they now do to African Americans and other demographics who favor her, and as they do to the people of places like Libya, whose popular movements they have decided need to be invalidated in order to oppose the awful pretender to the presidency.
= new reply since forum marked as read