On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:50:55 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

What? Which 2 years?

The 2 years he simply maintained the no fly zones. (that were already
9 years old).

We will be left with the same question here. What do we do if Qdaffy
is still there in 11 years, simply oppressing his people up close and
personal, not by air power?

We were told the Iraq no fly zones were to save the Kurds with the
implication that the Northern Alliance could topple Saddam on the
ground. We all seem to forget that part.

My bet, we dig up the terror link again and invade to "get the
terrorists" like we did in Afghanistan. We know there is one there.
The Brits sent al-Megrahi back for oil leases.

You're talking about GWB???? While he lied to the world about Saddam?
That's your argument? Good grief.