Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libya

A major thrust of Schultz's argument here is premised on truth being told about Libya, I would say as opposed to sexed up dossiers on WMDs. Is that however good enough to justify yet another conflict? [On inherited conflicts] It's a risky argument considerin­g the last man is who short-term memory driven humans remember. Obama was seen as more conciliato­ry than Republican­s and there were hopes conflicts would be minimized.



I won't dwell on the GOPs attacks on Obama and his Dems. They're only doing what politician­s the world over do best, heckling their opposites. About another war with a Muslim country, let's not create emotion where there's none needed. At this particular point in Libya's history, Muammar Gadaffi is less of a Muslim leader and more of a tyrant whose own people don't want, but who has the instrument­s of power (thus his prolonged stay as ruler). That's the crux of the matter. He needs to be removed, as per the tenets of emerging democracy, but is a war really needed here?



That to me is what arguments on this matter should be wholly focused on. I remain unconvince­d on Schultz's points.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost