• Slideshow Image 1
  • Slideshow Image 2
  • Slideshow Image 3
  • Slideshow Image 4
  • Slideshow Image 5
  • Slideshow Image 6
sex hikayeleri rokettube

No Blood For Libyan Oil

Shame on us.

Philly journalist Chris Friend serves up some salient points on Obama’s war for oil.

The United States’ involvement in Libya, a nation that in no manner attacked America or caused it harm, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Ironically, this effort, executed with no foresight and one that has absolutely no endgame, further endangers our national security. Playing into the mentality of millions of Muslims that the U.S. seeks to dominate their countries will only enflame anti-American feelings.

Chris calls out what I’ve been questioning regarding the media’s coverage of the uprising by insurgents in Libya. Why is the MSM labeling insurgents as rebels in Libya? How different are they from the Iraqi insurgents or the muslim Brotherhood? On this blog, any reference to supporters of Libya’s uprising will be called by their proper name – insurgents.

A seasoned thinker who hails from fair England left a thought provoking message in the comment section of Philly Mag that is just too good not to share with my readers. Robert blogs at Atlantic Crossings and it is well worth the time to read his posts.

Just a minute. Gaddafi has never been just another ho-hum dictator sitting on oil. For one, imagine what Ronald Reagan would have given for this opportunity?

Yet you and so many others now contend it is unimportant whether that US airplane-blowing up lunatic is in power or not? While Gaddafi “settled” over Pan Am 103, a Gaddafi son (busy now slaughtering “rebels”) said in 2008 Libya had admitted responsibility just to get sanctions dropped. And that bombing was not a one-time thing: how about UTA 772? Heard of that? There were Americans on that too, including the wife of a US ambassador.

No one is comparing anyone involved with Madison. By the same token, since when is there a statute of limitations on murdering Americans by the planeload? Good grief, we launched a WWII-like ground assault against Saddam Hussein over less direct damage to Americans.

Feels good to treat those blown out of the sky in that December 1988 as just historical footnotes now? Guess what, millions of us don’t. Those of us who actually remember feel we still owe them something.

Indeed where was our military then, as they died deaths out of one’s worst nightmare, as their passenger plane was breaking up, blown apart by his sneaky luggage bomb, just days before Christmas? I would support this if Bush had ordered it, or Obama. Or the late Gus Hall for that matter.

This is what was needed: to take advantage of a situation. This should have happened two decades ago. But without a viable revolt to help, naturally we had to put up with him after 1988 – so eventually deals were cut with him the way deals with thugs sometimes have to be.

That did us no credit. But now that Libyans themselves have risen, and are begging us for help, you’re uninterested? You think our credibility in the region will be enhanced if they are defeated and swung from lamp posts and we seem not to care? Are you serious?

I, for one, sure hope if one of our missiles blows up over Gaddafi’s head (accidentally, of course) it had had a big “Pan Am 103″ scrawled on its side. Those Americans that ba-tard prematurely sent to eternity deserve at least that much now of us: better late than never. Somewhere, as US missiles rain down, smash his tanks and cripple Gaddafi, Ronald Reagan is smiling too. Finally.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Leave me a comment or two.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


5 responses to “No Blood For Libyan Oil

  1. Trevor Hilton

    This is the same guy who said that Iran and North Korea are tiny and are no threat to us. The guy who was against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, countries which were a threat to us and our interests.

    Now, when we’re embroiled in two wars and are going broke, he, on his own and without Congressional authority, goes to war with a country saying he wants to bring democracy to it, and the leader needs to go. No, wait, no he doesn’t. Wait, yes he does. Well, I’ll decide when I get home from my vacation and play a few rounds of golf.

  2. PapaMAS

    There is no statute of limitations on murder, and the Libyan regime is a brutal and oppressive thugocracy. So, I shed no tears we are blasting them. But, to what end? I have no idea what we are going for here. Regime change would be a good end (although at a bad time with what is left of our military stretched extremely thin), but that might not be what we want – I don’t know that the Libyan people want democracy. Blasting away at stuff so the President can show he has gravitas and as a diversion, a la Slick Willy Clinton? Seems like we just went along with the rest of the gang at the UN, who haven’t a clue what they are doing, either.

    What was the Powell Doctrine? Clear cut goals, no mission creep, and a defined exit strategy, right? I don’t see that here. How can we have gotten so far away from the lessons of Vietnam so fast?

  3. says:

    Using that logic, we know Iran has killed numerous US servicemen and probably women in Iraq/Afghanistan, should we then not have curbstomped Ahmadinejad in ’09 when he was subjecting democracy protestors to murder. They supported terror too.

    No, this is the use of a doctrine called “Responsibility to Protect”, which the UN would use to stop aggression. Supported by Soros’ Open Society Institute, this is what Samantha Power wanted. K/G/Qaddafi is an easy test case- a lot of us will go along with it, but what if the UN Security council, with strong support from the Arab League, called for a no-fly zone over, say, the Gaza Strip? See how quickly Libya got kicked off the Human Rights panel?

    But the problem with it, is like everything Mr. Soros fingerprints are on, somehow it leads not to an open society, but financial benefit for Soros.

  4. neocon

    Plan to bring up Libya during our next political book club discussion.

  5. Joel Farber

    Ok I have a different take on Libya ,Yemen,and other places in the middle east and here it is
    They know we do not have a President who has any backbone now hear me out
    Does everyone remember when GWB made the declaration “You are either with us or against us” Gadaffi right away jump in line he gave up his WMD and dismantled his nuclear program why because he know GWB would kick his butt he knows Obama is weak and that the USA for the most part doesn’t have a President
    That said I think that the animals that live over there will only respect and behave when they have a dictator like him I do not look forward to what will happen if a new Muslim Government takes over

Have Your Say