I guess Obama is now in favor of toppling brutal dictators before he was against it.
Amazing what can happen when there is a president with a "D" by his name as opposed to one with a" R" can do in terms of waging "kenetic military action" in other countries. When Barack Obama was still a state senator back in Illinois in 2002, he said that
"using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed".
Of course Barack was referring at the time to the Iraq War waged by the other president with the "R" by his name. So is Barack's Obama's Excellent Kinetic Military Action Adventure a "dumb war" as well? Barack once claimed that "deposing Saddam militarily was not necessary, because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United State". So are we to suspend disbelief and believe that Gadaffi is a threat to us now? I'm seeing so many parallels with Obama's war of today with Bush's war nine years ago, it's scary. Of course, the true believers of the man who dances with teleprompters will never admit as much.
So what is the objective in Libya?
What is the exit strategy?
How much is this going to cost?
Are we going to "nation build"?
Talk about Deja Vu. These were also the same questions liberals asked Bush about the Iraq War. The questions however this time around aren't nearly as loud nor repeated as back then for some reason, go figure why. I have to wonder, did Obama "lie" about the reasons our military has to fight Gadaffi's forces in Libya? By us being in Libya, are we "creating more terrorists"? Is this all bringing back the good ol days yet? I wonder will John Kerry come out and say to Obama "This is the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time"? I snicker listening to Barry claim the military involvement has to do with "protecting the Syrian civilians". I guess we are suppose to have a nice big red sucker painted on our faces. I have a feeling that the people in Darfur, Uganda and Rwanda know more about oppression, genocide and brutal dictators more so then the people in Libya ever will.
So why aren't these countries on Obama's "liberation radar"? Oh snap, I forgot. These countries don't have oil deposits, never mind. This is what happens when people who are so loyal to Obama try and justify his actions in Libya while still condemning Bush for Iraq. They sound naive and hypocritical.
"using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed".
Of course Barack was referring at the time to the Iraq War waged by the other president with the "R" by his name. So is Barack's Obama's Excellent Kinetic Military Action Adventure a "dumb war" as well? Barack once claimed that "deposing Saddam militarily was not necessary, because Iraq posed no “direct threat” to the United State". So are we to suspend disbelief and believe that Gadaffi is a threat to us now? I'm seeing so many parallels with Obama's war of today with Bush's war nine years ago, it's scary. Of course, the true believers of the man who dances with teleprompters will never admit as much.
So what is the objective in Libya?
What is the exit strategy?
How much is this going to cost?
Are we going to "nation build"?
Talk about Deja Vu. These were also the same questions liberals asked Bush about the Iraq War. The questions however this time around aren't nearly as loud nor repeated as back then for some reason, go figure why. I have to wonder, did Obama "lie" about the reasons our military has to fight Gadaffi's forces in Libya? By us being in Libya, are we "creating more terrorists"? Is this all bringing back the good ol days yet? I wonder will John Kerry come out and say to Obama "This is the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time"? I snicker listening to Barry claim the military involvement has to do with "protecting the Syrian civilians". I guess we are suppose to have a nice big red sucker painted on our faces. I have a feeling that the people in Darfur, Uganda and Rwanda know more about oppression, genocide and brutal dictators more so then the people in Libya ever will.
So why aren't these countries on Obama's "liberation radar"? Oh snap, I forgot. These countries don't have oil deposits, never mind. This is what happens when people who are so loyal to Obama try and justify his actions in Libya while still condemning Bush for Iraq. They sound naive and hypocritical.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 1:14 AM
4 Comments:
"During that [Iraq] war, American strategists became increasingly concerned by the number of foreign fighters who came to Iraq to take up arms against the U.S. In an October 2007 raid near Sinjar, Iraq, American forces captured a computer that had biographical information on about 700 foreign terrorists who had come to Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. An analysis of the so-called "Sinjar documents" found that Libya sent more fighters to the Iraqi front than any other country except Saudi Arabia; Libyans accounted for nearly 20 percent of the foreign fighters in the Sinjar documents.
Link
But I'm sure Mr. Soerbakah thought this through carefully and has a reasonable explanation for now reversing American policy and siding with them.
This might be the first time I agree with almost everything you've written! I disagree totally with the presidents decision to intervene in Libya.
Yet I don't believe I've ever read anything you've written regarding the sadness of Darfur, Uganda and Rwanda.
It seems as though many Democrats and Republicans have flip-flopped on their idea's of America's military involvement around the globe. So I guess it's the conservatives turn to hate America and the military.
Here's a good link on the fighting in the Ivory Coast. "Forces loyal to the UN-backed president of Ivory Coast, Alassane Ouattara, are pressing on the main city of Abidjan and are closing in on his presidential rival, Laurent Gbagbo." You could wonder why we don't go over there?
at least in Afghanistan & Iraq there was some semblance of a threat to the US. Libya poses no threat whatsoever to the US. I believe this hypocrisy and the obamacare debacle have basically destroyed any hopes of a 2nd term for Obama.
Post a Comment
<< Home