That's all we need, another war, this time in Yemen.
So how is the Obama doctrine on foreign military entanglements different from the Bush doctrine? For one thing, Bush invaded whatever country he thought was a state sponsor of terrorism, so long as they couldn't fight back(Iraq and Afghanistan). Otherwise we would have invaded Iran and Pakistan years ago.
On the other hand Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner, seems happy to drop bombs on any country in the middle east whose regime is currently in disfavor over at the UN. Or conversely, drop bombs on rebel forces who threaten regimes currently in favor over at the UN.
Oil prices notwithstanding, do we have the right to attack rebel forces in Yemen in order to protect the sitting government from overthrow? Did they invite us to do that? Can we afford a fourth conflict in the middle east? How many wars is too many?
2 comments:
Are you sure these attacks aren't against people like Anwar al-Awlaki and his "al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula?" That was my understanding.
You have said you were in favor of bombing our enemies any time, any where, as am I.
I don't know how we can tell we're bombing our enemies when from the air, they look like civilians. Do we know that these are Al Qaeda terrorists? The article says that they are radical sympathizers opposed to a government that is in our favor right now. But is that enough to warrant action?
When I said attack our enemies anywhere anytime, clearly that was hyperbole. I don't think we should attack the Norks, Iran, Venezuela's government, Russia, etc. They are all our enemies and dream nightly about our downfall.
When we can pinpoint people who pose direct and immediate threats to the US or our assets, then yes, kill them, but dropping bombs on a civil situation in Yemen? What is the threat to us besides the price of oil going up?
Post a Comment