There is Northrop Grumman advertisement on Politico website. Is Politico read by big people? Who else will buy big planes?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#
Arab league now condemns USA for attacking another Moslem country.
- Thread starter Grandluxe
- Start date
Quote from 377OHMS:
Sadly that pic about sums it up. This guy can't lead. He has abandoned the working class and sold out to Corporate America, has demonstrated zero leadership on trying to balance the budget, and now this. We're neck deep in this ME shit storm and he just keeps wading in deeper.
One must ask the question, is he so opposed to drilling locally that he'd rather spill blood for oil than drill here? Is he so against using our own natural gas for fuel that he'd rather see our young men and women die protecting the flow of foreign oil? Not to mention the killing of innocents in that region just to keep the oil flowing?
I cannot believe Obama's level of incompetence actually makes Bush look like an intellectual giant, and we all know what a dope he was.
Arab League WIthdraws Support For Libyan Action
President Obama consulted with the UN and the Arab League before sending our planes into Libyan Air Space. The fact that he did not consult Congress ought to be grounds for impeachment.
http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com...ague-withdraws-support-for-libyan-action.html
President Obama consulted with the UN and the Arab League before sending our planes into Libyan Air Space. The fact that he did not consult Congress ought to be grounds for impeachment.
http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com...ague-withdraws-support-for-libyan-action.html
Obama played it perfectly, given our overextension worldwide, and our finances.
He played his cards slow, got everyone in the pot, except for the strong adversaries who abstained (instead of voting nay). So what we have is a mandate by the world's powers, and we have someone else largely bearing the cost (so far). That some little guys are against it, well, you can't please everybody.
He played his cards slow, got everyone in the pot, except for the strong adversaries who abstained (instead of voting nay). So what we have is a mandate by the world's powers, and we have someone else largely bearing the cost (so far). That some little guys are against it, well, you can't please everybody.
You're kidding, right? The perfect play would have been to give Sarkozy a big slap on the back and say, go get'em tiger, we're rooting for ya'.
Who is paying for what? Will we be getting a check for those cruise missiles and bombs we're dropping, not to mention the cost of all the logistical support? The Frenchies still owe us money for bailing their asses out during WW II. I won't hold my breath waiting for their check.
LOL, Sarkozi and Cameron played it perfectly, they are taking the credit, the USA is once again doing the heavy lifting. Their goals are "noble" - to help liberate Libyan people from the oppressive dictator and that's where their involvement ends. If something goes wrong (which in all likelihood it will) the entire world will point finger at the botched US implementation of all so noble objectives of the Arab league and their European lapdogs.
I think this is exactly right.
The French, Italians, and Brits have their eyes on getting control of Libya's oil, either directly or through some bogus UN-sponsored entity, like the utterly corrupt Oil for Food program in Iraq. Of course, they would prefer not to do the actual killing and dying. Sucker Obama and Hillary "Where's My Nobel Prize?" Clinton into that chore.
This has plenty of elements in common with Bill Clinton's war on Serbia. No vital US interests involved, egged into it by the euros, large-scale bombing of civilian areas ostensibly to protect "refugees", who turned out to be islamist gangsters. Of course it allowed Clinton and Wesley Clark to strut around like Teddy Roosevelt. Ironically, Wesly Clark published an op-ed last week in the Washington Post advising against this adventure.
There are many reasons to oppose this mad venture. One, no congressional approval, but we all know Obama regards the Constitution as not binding on him. Two, no vital US interests at stake. Three, we've got our plate full. Four, We don't seem to have a clear objective. Is it regime change or not? Five, no exit strategy. Are we heading for another nation-building exercise that will likely end up with another afghanistan or worse yet somalia? Six, can we really afford the cost of all this, not that Obama seems to care or even be able to comprehend our fiscal crisis.
And finally, it is totally unacceptable for the President of the United States to order men into combat while he is off partying in Rio. WTF is he thinking about? Is there any other leader who would do such a thing?
He probably does... on his terms. That is, same BS he's shown since his day-1 in office.
Is there any question, however, that we cannot afford to have him serve a 2nd term? His $5 TRILLION in deficits (including 2012 proposed budget) IS THE... T-H-E MOST DAMAGING THING ANY PRESIDENT HAS INFLICTED ON THE US SINCE WOODROW WILSON GAVE US THE FED IN A DARK, BACKROOM DEAL.
