Gadhafi cannot be allowed to go free
I would not have gotten involved in Libya in the first place, but I think Alana Goodman is right on this. As Qaddafi’s options grows bleaker by the day, and Americans become more anxious for President Obama to outline an exit strategy for the war in Libya, allowing him an escape hatch might begin to look increasingly attractive. But this isn’t an alternative we can afford right now. There are other dictators like Qaddafi currently struggling to suppress similar uprisings – and they are keeping a close eye on his fate. If Qaddafi is able to massacre thousands of his people, drive his country into civil war, force the U.S. and its allies to intervene militarily, and then slip out of the country with no repercussions, then others will believe they can do the same.Yeah, that's you Bashar. If Obama ever gets up the you-know-what's to come and get you.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Libyan regime change, Muammar Gaddafi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:51 PM
1 Comments:
As an Israeli, not only don't we have a dog in this fight, the ability of the president to engage in war on a whim, without the involvement of congress, is very worrying.
If he decides tomorrow that the palestinians need to be protected from Israeli threats...what stops him from setting an aircraft carrier off the coast and doing so literally tomorrow?
The U.S. is the only military force in the world with the size and quality of force to present a direct threat that Israel would have to bow to.
[ For example, war reports have noted the British ABILITY in Libya involves 4 fighter-bombers shooting short range air launched cruise missiles...3 of them versus the U.S.'s launching of 110. And the British scrapped ALL of their aircraft carriers...so those 4 jets are flying round trip from England and back every attack. ]
The ONLY functional large power projection military force in the world right now is the U.S. of A. And the president just turned it into his personal plaything.
Post a Comment
<< Home