Is anyone else tired of the hypocrisy that our leaders in Washington call our foreign policy. It is very interesting how we (and our allies) can be so adamant about military intervention in one country’s political turmoil (Libya) and completely ignore the plight of protesters in another country (Syria). Needless to say, if the French call for military intervention we should run the other direction as their sole purpose typically is for financial gain for them and them alone. And, as history has shown, we would surely end up bailing the French out since the French have not won a military engagement on their own since the glory days of Napoleon (whose military campaigns also ended in disaster for them).
Now don’t get me wrong, I am all for democracy. We have a flawed but better system of government than any other nation in the world. But let’s face the facts, the same rebels that are calling for over throw of their leaders will install, in democratic elections, authoritarian governments much like we see in Iraq and other Muslim nations, where there is truly no freedom, but rule by force.  Who then is the winner?
So I have to ask the question, isn’t it better to have a known quantity in power, such as Libyan strongman Ghadafi and Egyptian President Mubarak (who at least was a moderate), than rule by radical Muslims that have less respect for human rights than the strongmen that were toppled from power?
Just asking the question.
Hypocritical Foreign Policy
Is anyone else tired of the hypocrisy that our leaders in Washington call our foreign policy. It is very interesting how we (and our allies) can be so adamant about military intervention in one country’s political turmoil (Libya) and completely ignore the plight of protesters in another country (Syria). Needless to say, if the French call for military intervention we should run the other direction as their sole purpose typically is for financial gain for them and them alone. And, as history has shown, we would surely end up bailing the French out since the French have not won a military engagement on their own since the glory days of Napoleon (whose military campaigns also ended in disaster for them).
Now don’t get me wrong, I am all for democracy. We have a flawed but better system of government than any other nation in the world. But let’s face the facts, the same rebels that are calling for over throw of their leaders will install, in democratic elections, authoritarian governments much like we see in Iraq and other Muslim nations, where there is truly no freedom, but rule by force.  Who then is the winner?
So I have to ask the question, isn’t it better to have a known quantity in power, such as Libyan strongman Ghadafi and Egyptian President Mubarak (who at least was a moderate), than rule by radical Muslims that have less respect for human rights than the strongmen that were toppled from power?
Just asking the question.