Posted on 04/07/2011 1:34:15 AM PDT by Scanian
President Obama has announced that America would stop attacking Col. Moammar Khadafy's forces in Libya. He instead hopes that others can force out Khadafy -- or that the dictator will leave through economic and diplomatic pressure.
It will apparently be up to NATO to finish the war-- without direct American combat participation. The relieved Obama administration had never quite explained what the mission was in the first place -- or for whom and for what we were fighting. Was the bombing to stop the killing, to help the rebels or to remove Khadafy?
Were we enforcing just a no-fly zone, establishing a sort of no-fly zone with occasional attacks on ground targets or secretly sending in American operatives on the ground to work with rebels? Did the Obama administration go well beyond the Arab League and United Nations resolutions by trying to target Khadafy for a while and ensure that the rebels won? If so, did anyone care?
Was the administration ever going to ask for congressional approval -- at a time when we are running a $1.6 trillion annual budget deficit and have about 150,000 troops committed in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Was Libya a greater threat to our national security than Syria or Iran, or a greater humanitarian crisis than the Congo or Ivory Coast? Are our new allies, the rebels, Westernized reformers, Islamists, or both -- or neither?
The abrupt abandonment of hostilities after about two weeks has set a US military precedent. True, America once lost a big war in Vietnam. It also decided not to finish a war with Islamic terrorists in 1983 after Hezbollah operatives blew up 241 US military personnel in their Beirut barracks. In 1993, a few months after the "Black Hawk Down" mess in Mogadishu, President Bill Clinton quietly withdrew US troops
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I figured that going to Libya (besides “O” involving US troops and resources in a deceitful and illicit manner) was an ill-advised, politically/militarily maladroit and a badly articulated action.
However, being the open minded and inherently fair person that I am, I did not switch to the test pattern…I thought I’d give Evita an opportunity to clear that up for me.
I watched as much as I could and it didn't take long to see that she has no f&^%$*g idea what the he^% she is talking about… SO she has no f&^%ing idea what the h*&^ she is doing, either! Nice, I tune her IN once in 7 years and she falls on her face!!!
Why can't these ‘leaders’ make themselves clear? Why do they have to hem and haw about basic facts? (”You don't really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.” A. Einstein) Well, it's obvious that no one in DC comprehends one iota of what they are doing or what they are involving us in!!
That's when I remembered WHY I don’t watch her on the news (OR the ‘President’, either). If you want to torture me into handing over my life savings, etc., you do not need a gun to my head. Just sit me down in front of either of these two boobs and MAKE me sit still for their BS!!
Here’s the thing…in the past, other US leaders have stumbled … BUT their actions played out EITHER as a benefit to our allies or to American interests. THIS HAS DONE NEITHER!!
Also, our *allies* are not only broke, they have politically corrected their military nearly into irrelevancy.
There was a recent article from the Australian Age stating that Australia is reassessing their military readiness in light of American absence.
So we poop off hundreds of millions of dollars on fancy cruise missiles, and to what effect? All we have done is piss off more arabs. Let them kill each other over there for free, as they have done for centuries.
It might not be so bad except that it was sooo predictable.
The Russians are going to waltz in Eastern Europe in a decade or two by now especially since they realize now that NATO is toothless without U.S. Leadership.
Link to the article please.
I didn’t bookmark it. IIRC, it was posted by *naturalman* (there may be a number after his handle; I don’t recall exactly). It was within the past couple of days. It was definitely from the Australian Age.
President Obama has announced that America would stop attacking Col. Moammar Khadafy's forces in Libya. He instead hopes that others can force out Khadafy -- or that the dictator will leave through economic and diplomatic pressure.Thanks Scanian.
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.