Monday, April 4, 2011

Why Libya? Why not Iran?

Why Libya? Why Gaddafi?

Assad in Syria is much worse than, say, Mubarak in Egypt, but Obama vows not to interfere in that vassal of Iran, despite the slaughter of its people. And Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which is steadily taking control in Egypt. To what end? Why hasn’t Obama taken such action against the jihad pirates in Somalia? Why not a “secret war” in Ethiopia to aid their fight against jihad? Or aid for the fight against jihad in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia?

Because we can’t be everywhere, nor should we be. So we pick our fights based on where we can do the most good and remove the biggest evil.

Iran should have been the target. The mullahcracy should have been removed. The only revolution that was a genuine fight for life, liberty, and freedom was in Iran in the summer of 2009, and Obama ignored it. He sat back and watched the heroic Neda Sultan assassinated in broad daylight on the streets of Tehran, and thousands of others slaughtered. He backed the mullahcracy. He will always be remembered for that, especially after the coming catastrophe.

Why Libya?

It should have been Iran—if we had picked one country to set the example of muscular diplomacy while removing the gravest threat to the free world. It should have been Iran. Period.

Bombing Libya makes no sense. Recipe: disaster.

Pam Geller

No comments: