April 12, 2011
The tyrant was Abraham Lincoln.
Rebels came from America’s Southern states.
All of the above are facts.
The point is not to lionize Gaddafi nor to demonize Lincoln. Nor should it be taken to mean that the South was any more wholesome than the North. Obviously, it wasn”t.
It is merely to say that, as in most situations, perspective is needed to assess the Libyan civil-war-that-is-not-a-war and the identity of the rebels whom we are paying hundreds of millions to assist in their goals.
While today it is a social faux pas in many places to so much as display a Confederate flag, the American citizenry as a whole is funding the support of Libyans who almost to a man would agree that women are inferior and ought to be their slaves, that homosexuals should be stoned to death, and that freedom of speech should not exist insomuch as one word of it might question the Koran.
When one surveys such events from the vantage of a completely unbiased observer, it is perilously difficult to determine what is right from what is merely might.
Even in America, what is called the “Civil War” by most is still referred to as “The War of Northern Aggression” by more than a few.
Standing too close to either side in a conflict may be morally comforting, but it doesn”t ever improve the view.
And sometimes, believe it or not, when you take a discerning look at them, both parties can be almost equal in their evils.
While everyone seems very clear about what we fight in Libya, let us take a moment to examine what it is that we support as a consequence.
Because what the West has chosen to do will have consequences”whether we intend them or not.
