[ssijak]

My soul hurts a bit when I see people from a privileged position of power write this and judging the world in simplistic terms. You say Lybia is better now, destroyed and torn by war, with no real government in sight, with ISIS there and civil war, thousands dead and economy destroyed is better than with Gadaffi and with biggest economy by far in Africa and with law and order (however that law and order is achived)? War destroyed Syria is better than before? And dont give me that "Asad used poison gas on his people" dumb excuse as a reason why US got into that war. Because US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases, or when he used it on Kurd civilians, where US even supplied it to him.

I just hope US never experience this types of logic on their soil if in some future US loses world dominance and some other power decides that US "needs liberation".

[refurb]

I’m sorry your soul hurts.

I didn’t say it’s better now. What I said was that a lot of those places have a tumultuous history of instability (Afghanistan) or are run by dictators where a violent power struggle is a certain eventuality (Libya, Syria).

Gadaffi was going to lose power eventually (through death is certain) and the power struggle that results is going to be ugly.

[reallydude]

> US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases

And that was in the past? The US had no problem segregating schools at one point. It's not compelling to bringing up an ancient relationship, where not a single person involved in the whataboutism, is still in power.

We have the internet and extremely timely war coverage now. That no longer flies.