With troops loyal to the reigning dictator Saleh of Yemen, firing on and killing dozens of marchers demanding regime change, you'd have to be an MSNBC Obama shill not to wonder why we don't attack Yemen because those were the exact criteria we used to attack Libya. Moreover, the reasoning is that regime change in Yemen would give rise to a very powerful AQAP(Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula), but Qaddafi is perhaps the most stridently anti-Al Qaida of all the Arabic dictators. When we demand regime change there for Qaddafi's human rights violations, aren't we giving Islamic extremists a golden opportunity at a foothold in an OPEC state?
The seemingly arbitrary nature by which the Obama administration chooses which Arabic countries to drop bombs on, illustrates what an indecisive, rank amateur he really is. He waits until there is an international consensus to finally "lead" on the issue.
4 comments:
And remember, Assad in Syria is called a "reformer" by Mrs. Clinton because he hasn't yet killed as many civilians as his father.
Did you see where Gates has finally had enough of this foreign-policy circus? He's been saying to anybody who's promise to print it the very opposite of this administration's positions on Libya, force investment, troop involvement, etc. He wants to get fired so bad he can taste sweet unemployment.
Well, he's already stayed double the year he first agreed to - the man is a true patriot as much as I disagree with his longer range vision. He'll be gone soon, and what a memoir that will be if he's candid.
Does Yemen have any oil? If not I think it should be obvious why we don't go there.
Post a Comment