Re: Libyan Rebels Advance as France, U.K. Say Qaddafi ‘Mus...

[Guest guest]

And Obama gave a most unconvincing speech to explain his doctrine, which is a complete lack of one, as he himself said. He said that "our values were in peril" and that he "wouldn't wait for images of mass graces and genocide" before acting.

I'll agree that our values are under threat, but more from his advisors, mentors, tsars and minions than from any outside force. They are also under dire threat because of the massive debt, a debt already large because of past presidents but rocketing up under Obama.

I don't agree that it is the job of the United States to be the world cop. The US can support allies through military alliances, but it can't go around fighting every little brushfire war in the world and then be peacekeeper for the next 20 years. We just can't afford that. Maybe if the UN, Europe and others footed a large part of the bill of our services, but that's not going to happen.

I also think that the action in Lybia wasn't thought out beyond immediate causes. Remember, Hillary had a big part in pushing for this fight. Her husband used the military many times to deflect attention from things like his shady real estate deals, lying under oath, etc. Several times right before a vote that might go against him, he threw a few missiles at empty tents in a desert. I think it was right before the impeachment vote he did this and a number of Republicans, who would have voted against him, instead voted against impeachment because "we have to stand by the president in this time of war." Simplistic, Pavolian morons. I notice that Obama's approval ratings are up, which is highly amusing since I'm sure many of those who approve of this action would have howled at Bush for doing the same with the same reasoning.

In a message dated 3/28/2011 5:21:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Libyan Rebels Advance as France, U.K. Say Qaddafi `Must Go' Now