Posted on 03/29/2011 9:23:26 AM PDT by Scottmkiv
ast night, Nobel Peace Prize Winning President Obama gave a speech justifying a third simultaneous military conflict. I can't call it a war, because President Obama didn't find it necessary to declare one.
In his speech, Obama says that America has "a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom"
Well, that's sort of encouraging. At least it would be if I thought Obama actually meant it. It's vaguely possible to believe Obama is acting as the world's police man. After all, we are no involved in 3 simultaneous military conflicts. I argue that he ignores far more crucial threats to America though. But there's, no doubt Obama is busy fighting wars across the globe.
However, it's simply impossible to believe that Obama, and his state department, as an "advocate of freedom." Where has his administration been on the protests in Iran? They want freedom, and instead of offering support, Obama snubbed and ignored them.
(Excerpt) Read more at rationalpublicradio.com ...
Afford it? We could if Obama would use the frozen $35 Billion of Qadaffi’s money to pay us back. Haven’t heard a word of this idea from our politicians. Why??????
I would rather have Gaddafi we know him.
Obama and Europe who needs the 1.8 million barrels a day and Europe doesn't care who they do business with see Iran.
Of course we can’t. Good Lord, folks, we’re broke!
Nope. Can't really afford the other two wars we've got going on. Or all the other ones that politicians on both sides are eager to get us in to for that matter.
BS, take it out of the obamma healthcare bill funds,.
I agree, but it's too late for that now. Obama wants this and even if he stopped helping the rebels, they would probably succeed.
The list of things we can afford is vanishingly small.
You mean: “Can we afford this Oil for Europe war”?
Someone please explain why the US is engaged in a battle against a dictator who was no threat to us directly and who is not being besieged by Al Qaeda terrorist “rebels”? While Gaddafi is not “good guy” by any stretch, why are we HELPING AQ??????
This is 100% grounds for immediate impeachment proceedings against BO.
Those who screamed about GW - at least he got the approval of CONGRESS!!! BO is just going about it how he wants - and in the process, SUPPORTING TERRORISTS. Maybe we need to list OURSELVES as a terrorist-supporting country.
Hello - where is our US military? The oath they have taken when they joined was to protect the US Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic. They also swore to follow the LAWFUL orders of their commanders. This conflict is UNLAWFUL. Period.
It cannot be afforded and that was the point of getting into it, to help ensure that America couldn’t afford to get out of its financial difficulties.
I really think it’s more of a Clintonian “Wag the Dog” distraction. We are all focused on the war, and how pointless it is, instead of screaming about being crushed by debt.
I don’t think so. With Kosovo, the case had been made that there was genocide happenening in Slovakia.
However, the media’s response with Lybia is more along the lines of WTF?
Sure there’s confusion, nonetheless they are talking about Libya and not domestic issues.
It would only be confusion, there were really multiple or conflicting goals.
However, since there is only one main goal, to bring down the US, all paths are intended to lead to it.
It would only be confusion, there were really multiple or conflicting goals.
However, since there is only one main goal, to bring down the US, all paths are intended to lead to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.