Obama's passive aggression isn't as bad as some make it out to be, have the other guys pay for this, we are paying for the other two wars, the War on Libya needs to be handled by someone else other than the infinite pockets of the American Tax Payer, thank you.
Anyone that thinks differently obvious in cahoots with those that think Americans should pay for every half cocked idea or position any politician comes up with and/or that we are responsible for the actions of foreign dictators, which is clearly not the case unless they take arms against our people or threatening the world. For going after one man (like Bin Laden) will most likely be an extremely expensive endeavor, as the General advised before hand. This is why one leader in the military said, anyone that puts their foot in the middle east needs to have their head examined. Now that's what I call being realistic!
How long will the troops be dispersed throughout the world, how long will we pay for Foreign involvement & wars? Do we really need to put our troops into every country to make a point? The Afghans are winning with passive aggression, so why can't it work for Obama?
I don't see why people would even take John McCain's stance, it's clear he is only posturing & criticizing for an election. When will the spending & wasting stop?
America is at the top of the Food Chain, all these desert people need to realize is, they can have their food and eat it too when they oust the bad guys and start selling the oil at reasonable prices. Till then, there will continue to be revolts, for the people want their food and water, and that's the bottom line! If you need some help in doing so, just ask, we will be more than glad to send a few countries' armed forced in to help ya..
Facebook
Twitter