A Complete Waste of Space

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against 'the foreign invasion' in Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... links.html

...and yet, folks criticize the Obama administration for not jumping in to support the opposition with both
feet. See how it might be an asset to have a cautious leader?

callmeslick wrote:See how it might be an asset to have a cautious leader?

Except for the fact that he wasn't so much cautious as he is indecisive. There isa difference. Frankly, I'm about fed up with helping muslims at all.

He should have not jumped in at all! I criticize the Obama administration for much worse! Last week our intelligence community said it did not know who was behind the rebels in Libya. US foreign policy in the Middle East has traditionally been directed towards advancing three goals: Guaranteeing the free flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Middle East to global market; strengthening regimes and governments that are in a position to advance this core US goal at the expense of US enemies; and fighting against regional forces like the pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.
Like it or not the above is needed for our survival. Other competing interests have periodically interfered with US Middle East policy. And these have to greater or lesser degrees impaired the US’s ability to formulate and implement rational policies in the region. These competing interests have included the desire to placate somewhat friendly Arab regimes that are stressed by or dominated by anti-US forces; a desire to foster good relations with Europe; and a desire to win the support of the US media.
Under the Obama administration, these competing interests have not merely influenced US policy in the Middle East. They have dominated it. Core American interests have been thrown to the wayside. You think Bush fracked things up? This guy is messing with our energy supplies at every level.

I also criticize Obama for being there at all.
It is in no way our fight.

On the plus side this is one more nail
in his political coffin

We will remember in November of next year.
First Black president. Not the first two term Black president.

HH

Didn´t read the article because i had some nice rum and don´t feel like reading too much but if it only states that they fought against the foreign invasion it doesn´t mean that theiy are al qaida. In fact it doesn´t mean anything at all as a big number of people have fought against foreign invasions in Afghanistan, man with whom the NATO and US work closely together today.

Those are mainly not people out to get back at the evil west but farmers and normal people as well as mujahedeen and druglards and so on who just want tthe west to leave them alone and go by their business.

Some of course are paid mercenaries and those might be the majority in Lybia, some of course may be out for mainly ideological reasons as well but when they are fighting on the same side as the west the "All Muslims want to kill us" train of thought doesn´t hold much water as well.

bush=war=good

obama=war=bad

Daiichidoku wrote:bush=war=good

obama=war=bad

the whole point of this topic is stupid. OMG Al Qaeda is tied to the rebels in Libya. SO WHAT. you people DO realize that Qaddafi is ALSO a terrorist. the ONLY good that can come out of this, would be for the terrorists to kill a bunch of each other off while fighting this battle. and HOPEFULLY we can get Qaddafi for what he's done to Americans. either way whoever wins there will be Terrorists again in charge of Libya

CUDA wrote:the whole point of this topic is stupid. OMG Al Qaeda is tied to the rebels in Libya. SO WHAT. you people DO realize that Qaddafi is ALSO a terrorist. the ONLY good that can come out of this, would be for the terrorists to kill a bunch of each other off while fighting this battle. and HOPEFULLY we can get Qaddafi for what he's done to Americans. either way whoever wins there will be Terrorists again in charge of Libya

That is the point!