Like the rebels that were fighting Ghadafi.
Like the Iraqis and Turks that are fighting ISIS.
But I do disagree on the "harming us directly" bit. I'd never support a full scale invasion in the name of "pre-emptive defense", but I don't have any problem with us helping the enemies of our enemies if it's estimated to be in the interest of future security.
Libya might not be a beacon of stability but the government that's (mostly) in control now, I'd say is more friendly to us than the former.
Chemists Have Solutions .
Bumping up your thread TDS. Even Mexico jumped in.
How the world responded to Obama's Islamic State speech.....
In the Middle East, initial reaction was largely pessimistic, according to translations of local media reports provided by the BBC. A commentary in Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar English, published the day of Obama’s speech, writes that “the US war on ISIS is unlikely to succeed for many reasons.” Among them:
In a commentary before the speech, Mexican daily newspaper, La Jornada, slammed what it calls "inconsistencies" in US policy toward the Middle East:
"These facts are a clear examples of the inconsistencies characterizing US politics, and Western politics in general, in the conflicts unfolding in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Islamic world: extremely pragmatic, fluctuating, and unscrupulous policies, in which the villains of today are the allies of tomorrow and vice versa.'.....snip~
How the world responded to Obama's Islamic State speech
"It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump