Based on Pres. Obama's standard for when the US should intervene in the internal business of another country, despite that country posing zero threat to the US on any level, there are many countries around the world where we should be lobbing cruise missiles and pretending to care about the people besides Libya.
The best that I can tell, Obama's doctrine is to one: ignore human-rights hot spots, especially in Islamic/Arabic countries, until the international community notices it for political purposes and starts to wonder when the US is going to do something. Step two: call a hastily put-together press conference and act like we've been on top of the situation all along and state that "all options are on the table". Step three: wait until there is an international political consensus, ignore strident domestic opposition to intervention, then attack that country in ways that make no sense whatsoever.
Based on this doctrine of meddling in the affairs of other countries, we should have invaded North Korea, Cuba, Somalia, The Sudan, Ivory Coast, Myanmar, Chad, Laos, Cameroon, etc. Are you getting my point?
The countries in whose affairs Obama decides to meddle seem entirely arbitrary and political. Is this what we want in a President? Agree or not with Bush on Iraq, but at least he and the rest of the modern world believed there were WMD's and that Iraq and Afghanistan together with Iran made the nexus of terrorism exportation which threatened the West. I can't think of a single good reason to have attacked Libya.
7 comments:
Oil obviously.
I don't think it was for oil. Obama and Jeffery Immelt need gas to be as expensive as possible, that way Americans will be forced to use stupid Smart Cars, windmills, and solar to power our Soviet-style communal lifestyles they've imposed on us.
I think it's that Obama has never given careful, critical consideration to foreign affairs. He's too busy destroying what's left of America domestically. He was just in over his head and wanted someone else to take the lead so he could follow and then give a press conference as if he were leading.
Whether one agrees with the intervention or thinks it a mistake, how can anyone not just shake their head over the hapless way Obama has handled it?
All this done in late February when it looked like Qaddafi was on the ropes would have probably ended the whole thing by now with him either swinging from a lamp post or sponging off Hugo Chavis' Venezuela.
By his indecisiveness, the ditherer-in-chief will have allowed Qaddafi to remain in power for another few years, or until he's killed by somebody.
"I can't think of a single good reason to have attacked Libya."
According to Gen. Wesley Clark, the invasion of Libya was planned ten or more years ago. Obama is just following the script handed to him. The next president
(Republican OR Democrat) will do the same.
Americans don't go to the polls to elect a leader. If you aren't an obedient follower, your name doesn't get on the ballot.
youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=cUhlFO5qjVE
Glen, rather than a 10-year old conspiracy, I think it's more like the Pentagon has a plan for literally every eventuality you can dream up, including how we might attack Libya on a limited basis in order to control Qaddafi, not occupy the country. I'm quite sure it was one of their contingency plans.
If what you say is correct Glen, then for what purpose have we been planning this Libyan attack? Oil? We don't take these countries' oil when we destroy them. We should, but we don't.
"We don't take these countries' oil when we destroy them. We should, but we don't."
What do you think, Ed? Isn't it time you stopped pretending to be a "libertarian"?
Post a Comment