BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Mr. Luddite

On 3/18/2015 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:51:49 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:04:50 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.

It is just their way of avoiding the real question. Why did we allow
Q-daffy to fall without having a clue who was going to take over?
Our support of the "freedom fighters" was short sighted to say the
least.

Quit complaining. You just said we shouldn't be over there.
Now you say we should have propped up Qadafi with our military.
That's why they don't come to you for foreign policy advice.

And we SHOULDN'T have (perhaps I phrased that wrong)
We didn't need to give him military assistance, we only had to NOT
assist the "rebels" or prevent other arabs from assisting him. The US
and the Brits gave the rebels active military assistance, fired a ****
load of Tomahawks and other stand off munitions and imposed a no fly
zone. (sound familiar).
That was the same pattern as our Iraqi misadventure except Saddam
didn't fall under that assault so we had to go get him. The end result
was the same tho. They are both a stronghold of islamic terrorists.
When are we going to learn?
We have asserted ourselves into a number of civil wars in that area
and every one of them turned out bad for us.

The US did not unilaterally go "after" Saddam. Saddam was increasingly
in violation of several UN Resolutions that he agreed to after being
kicked out of Kuwait.

What's the point in having the UN if it's authority and Resolutions can
be ignored at will?