Well because that would be an act of war. We just can’t go into a country and take out its leader. Liked or despised. It’s not our place or anyone elses other than the Libyans. We went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Husein. Look at how long that war has gone on. WWII to stop the genocide of Hitler and his concentration camps. The assassination of the Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand, started WWI. Numerous wars were the outcome of ousting dictators. Of course other factors were involved in many of these battles, but I stand by my notion that interfering in taking out another country’s leader is not a good idea. Let the people with all of their passion and determination decide the fate of their country.
Gaddafi has already killed hundreds if not thousands, with his supporters shooting at the masses including children. He currently holds Tripoli with tanks and anti-aircraft guns. But it seems like the rest of the country has fallen to the protesters. Gaddafi’s response in his speech was in part to blame it on Al Qaeda, “Their ages are 17. They give them pills at night, they put hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafe,” Does anyone really know what his speeches are about? He’s all over the place. His speech was comic, buffoonery in action.
Consider the difference between Egypt and Libya. Egypt is a revolution for the people and they won their freedom from a leader they didn’t want. Who knows what’s to come, but Mubarak left power. Yes he was and still is a despot, but he gave into the protesters. After 30 plus years he stepped down without too much violence . That’s what democracy is about, let the people choose their leader. Let’s hope they choose wisely. But the outcome for Egypt seems better than the immediate outcome for Libya. His speech may have been something to laugh about, but his bloodshed and actions are not. He was and still is the face of terrorism.