Apply Now!

President Obama Okays use of Drones in Libya

greg334

greg334

Veteran Expediter
blackpup said:
For every one else concerned but the Libyan People, a stalemate might be a good thing. Hopefully tying up both Gadhafi and Al Qaeda in Libya.
Click to expand...

You know that last part is why I think the guy up there in the wh and those in congress have made a BIG mistake. See Gadhafi has kept those terrorist in check, even reporting to the US and others who and where they are at but since we went against him, we put ourselves in a very very bad position by not knowing what exactly we will get in the long run. Regardless who, the UK, French, some WH staffer or the UN claims, we really don't know who these "rebels" are or what their affiliation would be. I think maybe if we look back at history with Cuba, maybe we can see what happens when we try to work with people with other goals in mind.

So my first question is why are we even bothering which I know not one person can come up with a reasonable explanation other than OIL, but my second question is what happens if we actually have set Libya up to be a new base for terrorist to work out of, are we going to invade Libya?
 
chefdennis

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
This is going to bite barry in the butt...this is not going to end anytime soon and when it does, either with Gadhafi or his sons still in power, Al Qaeda or islamic extremist in power...its still going to be a mes that the UN and barry decided they needed to "fix and screwed up....

But beyond Libya...why isn't barry taking us everywhere else over there that are having the people riot and rise up against their leaders!?!? Syria comes to mind, but there are others...and why didn't he go to Darfur and Chad, which has been going on far longer then Libya and is far worse on the killing of the people... If this is simply "humanitarian" efforts, why are we helping all these other people!?!? :rolleyes:
 
greg334

greg334

Veteran Expediter
You're not asking the right questions ... why are we not securing our own border and stopping the bloodshed in Mexico?

If we are to act on Libya and Syria as they are dealing with their own internal matters,, we should be pouring troops into Mexico at this point with what they face - which is much worst.
 
B

blackpup

Veteran Expediter
greg334 said:
You're not asking the right questions ... why are we not securing our own border and stopping the bloodshed in Mexico?

If we are to act on Libya and Syria as they are dealing with their own internal matters,, we should be pouring troops into Mexico at this point with what they face - which is much worst.
Click to expand...

You have a very good point about Mexican drug wars and securing the border. I think neither political party, will do anything serious regarding the borders as they are afraid of losing votes.

Re an earlier post by chefdennis about Chad, Sudan, Somalia and heaven only knows where else, not as much oil, not as much potential threat to Israel .

Obamas trying to take attention off problems at home, is part of the reason he is making these foreign policy moves.

Also takes attention off of Mexico and border control.

jimmy



jimmy
 
Last edited:
chefdennis

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
No Greg, you missed my point..If it was strictly for "humanitarian" reasons, then he would be in the other problem spots...this is all bs and nothing more..as was pointed out some of it is about distractions , i don't pay into the oil issue and Israel can ad will take care of itself when the time comes and barry could care less about Israel to begin with...and I think also think it has more to do with the up coming election and needing to show he can be tough on foreign policy....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top