Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
4 Answers
- Anonymous10 years agoFavorite Answer
Yes! it allowed the Libyan rebels to get him and finish the job.
- Tom WLv 610 years ago
Well we were told by King Obama the Warlord, that we were just going to do that to keep the Libyan Air Force from attacking the "demonstrators" and we would only be involved for a couple of weeks as an excuse for Obama not notifying or consulting anyone else in government. But then seven months later we were still flying 24/7 close air support and bombing anything that moved from a fishing boat to a bus and the rebels were able to order up air power and bomb out any resistance. Really, why did it take seven months of constant bombing if this was a popular uprising? Iraq only lasted a week and they had the 5th largest army in the world inf Gulf War One. Two weeks ago Human Rights Watch (an international peace and justice group) begged King Obama the Warlord to have the "rebels" stop torturing people and committing mass executions and then we see the justice and trial that Moomar got. A bullet in the head execution style. Prior to this oil war, Libya had a large middle class and the highest standard of living in the MIddle East and enjoyed a secular government that did have laws and courts and not self appointed clerics. Women held important positions in government and business and could drive cars and wear western clothing and there was free medical care and education as far as you wanted to go. What was it that Obama was seeking in colluding with the "rebels" (I say that because I think they are just surrogates) to achieve here. We disliked Bush and complained that he took us to Iraq for no good reason, though Saddam did threaten us constantly and his neighbors and he did commit genocide years before with WMDs. That was all bad, going there. But Libya did not threaten the US and had all kinds of working agreements with us, in fact had just concluded a large arms deal two weeks before Obama decided to kill him. The arms were on a ship heading for Libya and had to be stopped by the US Navy. Kill him? Strong talk? Within the first month King Obama had authorized the firing of nearly 100 cruise missiles (a $1 million a piece) specifically to target Moomar and kill him. We killed a lot of his family including his grandchildren (Bush in office, we would call that a war crime wouldn't we?). But for sure the goal was to kill him quickly and I suspect that was because he had been involved in a lot with Obama and the US and needed him to be silenced just like a mafia informer before he can tell the truth. And now we are in Uganda too, a place that threatens the US somehow and we are going to the Sudan to join in that civil war that has been going on for 200 years. I voted for Obama the last time, I am looking for someone who might be interested in America more so than being a warlord this time around. Herman Cain, Romney...both gets my vote and I hope they will stop this military meddling around the world. What have we done to Libya? We have no idea yet.
- Anonymous10 years ago
It wasn't our battle. We took out a leader that was becoming increasingly friendly to us for the great unknown. Even though the Arab Spring has not installed a single US friendly government anywhere yet.
Billy - His convoy was bombed first.