Saturday, April 2, 2011

ZenTiger Reason for Obama attacking Libya #24

The military had a new "tent buster" bomb they needed to test.

6 comment(s):

I.M Fletcher said...

LOL.

And have you seen this John Stewart video about Obama's speech and America's 'No-War' on Libya?
He pulls no punches (I love the "they flipped on the Hope Signal"). Stewart is usually very much of the Left, so it's good to see him taking the mickey out of the other side for a change. Very funny.

LINK

Psycho Milt said...

How about reason number 1? He didn't want to see what Gaddafi showing "no mercy" to the people of Benghazi would look like. Too glib?

I.M Fletcher said...

PM, good reason, but it doesn't hold water for me. What about the people out on the street in Iran 2009 protesting Ahmadinejad stealing the election? That was a perfect time for Obama to jump in and stand up for democracy and to get rid of a dictator who poses a much greater threat to Western civilization - a man building nuclear weapons who wants to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam or Mahdi.

The govt responded with arrests, torture of prisoners, people were killed etc...

Funny how it's OK to stand up to one dictator, but not another. ps, it's also pointed out on Big Journalism that it's thanks to Bush that Gaddafi doesn't have nuclear weapons -

While I’m at it, Barack Obama can thank George W. Bush that Madman Gadafi doesn’t have nukes. It was Bush who talked Gadafi into sending his nukes to a warehouse in Tennessee where they can do no harm. This invasion of Libya would not be happening if Gadafi still had those nukes, without them, Gadafi is more of a neighborhood bully knocking his citizens around, those type are everywhere in the Middle East and Africa. Bad stuff indeed, but there’s no chance of a mushroom cloud right now and that fact changes everything. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize can look tough here because Bush had already removed Gadafi’s big gun. I’ve yet to hear the activist old media mention this vital fact.

Maybe Obama is just playing it safe, but Iran is where the real threat is - I say again, the same Iran in which he could have intervened and gotten rid of a mad man.

I.M Fletcher said...

ps, an article in Rolling Stone points out that the US is actually helping Jihadists, if you look at the history of the country and its three regions.

America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad.

In recent years, at mosques throughout eastern Libya, radical imams have been "urging worshippers to support jihad in Iraq and elsewhere," according to WikiLeaked cables. More troubling: The city of Derna, east of Benghazi, was a "wellspring" of suicide bombers that targeted U.S. troops in Iraq.

By imposing a no-fly zone over Eastern Libya, the U.S. and its coalition partners have effectively embraced the breakaway republic of Cyrenaica


MORE

ZenTiger said...

Far too glib PM. Air strikes necessary there, but Bahrain takes a very different course, as does Egypt. Obama was closest to the mark when he fessed up and said it's all about protecting US interests, which in this case might be proxy for Italian, French and UK interests (all to different degrees).

But one of the points of my post was to highlight that Obama, man of peace and changing times sounds no different to any other US President when it comes down to it. Except, I think there is less justification for intervention of the sort that sides with the rebels here than in other places.

I.M Fletcher said...

At least bush got congressional approval twice before going to war

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.