Why Obama sucks

I know I have written about Obama recently, but I wanted to add one more post about why I'm frustrated with our a-hole president.

Obama has claimed to have an anti-war stance for quite some time. First he wins the Nobel Peace Prize (*which, since it was founded by a Swede and is adminstered in Norway, is really just a way for super-liberal Scandivians to support a cause they want and provide some financial backing) for speaking out on nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, the only reason he made those speeches was because of a political move against Iran, who Israel is justifably scared of.

Also, he has made many Middle East ass-kissing speeches over the last few years, mainly to distance his administration from the approach that Bush had taken in the past. Then, upon first opportunity, he sends troops into a area where we shouldn't be getting involved, simply to install a presence in an oil-rich (general) area. Sound familiar? Meanwhile, Bahrian is being invaded by Saudi Arabia but we choose to do nothing because we're about humanitarian issues, not oil. Yeah right.

It just bugs me that the first chance we get to bomb a country, in an instance when we don't truly need to get involved, Obama sends our Air Force out without a second thought. With so many issues at home that need to be taken care of, there is no justification for this stupid mission.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually believe that W would have done a better job as president over the last few weeks. Instead of wasting time in gathering some multi-lateral hippie coalition (and still ignoring Congress), Bush would have went in first thing and spoke openly about the need to oust Gaddafi. Obama still says Gaddafi doesn't need to go because the UN resolution doesn't support it. Then why did we bomb his compound the first day the No-Fly Zone was established? And how can you say Gaddafi has nothing to do with this? That he doesn't have to go? Obama has done the same thing Bush would have, expect that he wasted time and took some hippie, liberal methods that are supposed to create some ethical justification. Yeah right. This guy really sucks; and this is coming from a liberal.

Is this our problem?

Recently in Libya, Gaddafi has begun an attack on the nation's uprising through increasingly violent measures such as bombing raids. The protesters have been calling for help from the international community, citing Gaddafi's resources (billions of dollars, military support, hired mercenaries, etc.) as a potentially insurmountable obstacle for democratic change. The question is: should the US get involved?

A no-fly zone would entail disabling their air defense (so they can't shoot down our planes) and establishing a security presence in the region. This would mean spreading our military thin (since we're already in two wars), increased military spending, and the potential repercussions of involvement in such a volatile affair. On the other hand, can we sit back and ignore the situation while Libyans are being slaughtered?

The US helped establish a no-fly zone over Iraq after the Persian Gulf War and it was in effect for over a decade, costing our country billions of dollars. I could see something similar (although not as lengthy or costly) happening here.

I say put pressure on the Arab League and African Union to provide support. Why does the US have to get involved in this? Instead of a military presence, do some sneaky-sneaky, behind-the-scene moves.

The US has become that meathead friend who gets involved in every bar fight no matter who is involved. When your cousin's neighbors babysitter is catching beef, you do have the right to sit that one out.