Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, if I was president I would have stated it isn't our
damn business, and preceded to try to balance my own
country's budget, pay off the deficit, and instill a climate
for job growth in my own country.
Remember, sometimes being strong, doesn't mean military - it means being smart and prioritizing
Another good post. I wish we had a leader that concentrated on those things as well. Sometimes I think we need to become isolationists for a while until we take care of our own problems and put ourselves back into the position to be ABLE to help others.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin
Well, if I was president I would have stated it isn't our
damn business, and preceded to try to balance my own
country's budget, pay off the deficit, and instill a climate
for job growth in my own country.
Remember, sometimes being strong, doesn't mean military - it means being smart and prioritizing
First it was the Arab League that pulled its support for the no-fly zone (no surprise there). Now we learn that Germany is pulling out of the coalition and removing its assets from the theater of operations. Meanwhile France and great Britain squabble about who's in charge. And the U.S. meekly stands by. This whole operation was a disaster from the start. Looks like amateur hour on the world stage. A stronger president would not have proceeded in this manner. Obama demonstrates once again that he is not ready for prime time.
Whether people like it or not, we are the leader of the free world. Our leadership keep much of the world from going into "disorder" of the worst kind. However, the efficacy of that role can only be maintained, if the head of the nation, i.e. the President, is up to the task.
Clearly, Obama is NOT, any more than he was up to the task of being a Senator in IL, where he voted "present" 170 times, and the collapse of much of the world we see around us is a result of that lack of competency, and it is only just begining.
The fact that the OP talks about Germany pulling out makes the rest of his post moote. I think it was a brilliant move on the part of Obama to wait until the Europeans had but little choice to be involved. They have become too used to the USA pulling all of their chestnuts out of the fire for them. All of the armchair critics miss some of the most important issues involved in the entire deal. Would it be good if the Europeans handled the entire thing without the USA? Well, it would be good for them to be able to greatly increase their influence and power in the region but it could greatly weaken American vital interests. America is a global power and if it wants to remain that, it is compelled to project it's power in the world. Obviously, you must pick your fights wisely and the Libya fight was a wise decision. Ghafaddi is horrible, there is no question about that. The backlash from USA allies in the region will be negligeable. The chances of success are high. you always have to remember that there is another player in the region who is detirmined to become a global player. Iran. Now the Iranians would be only too happy to intervene in these ongoing revolutions in the M. E. and thereby gain a great deal of power as a result. That is the main reason the Iraq war was a very bad choice of projection of American power. The weak and contained state of Iraq that really did not represent a threat to anyone by that time was defeated and as a result of that defeat Iran was greatly strengthened simply by Sadaam's removal. It would have been a far better thing to go in and crush the Iranian regime. That is something that will most likely have to be done sometime anyway. These revolutions and unrest in the region are a very good opportunity for the entire west to consolidate our power and influence there in a far better way than by proping up brutal dictators.
WHY? Why would a so-called stronger president choose to lead a coalition when so much at home needs attention?
Too bad he is both unwillling, and incapable of giving those priorities an appropriate, or even modest amount of attention. Instead, he vacations, golfs and generally screws off like there is no tommorow.
Well, if I was president I would have stated it isn't our
damn business, and preceded to try to balance my own
country's budget, pay off the deficit, and instill a climate
for job growth in my own country.
Remember, sometimes being strong, doesn't mean military - it means being smart and prioritizing
I wish you'd have run. You just elaborated a better solution for this countries problems than the putzes of either party (with the exception of Paul) that did run.
Germany was not part of the coalition to begin with.
It was providing some men and ships at the beginning but once the bombing started pulled out it's forces.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have stated it isn't our
