Speakeasy forum: Current Adminstration still wants to send aid money to Libya

After the CIA determined that Libyan forces had killed Americans in Germany, President Reagan bombed Gaddhafi's house. We didn't have anymore trouble out of them for a long time. Obama is pretty disgusting when it comes to foreign affairs. IMO.

in that terrorists killed innocent Americans in both situations then you are about as clueless as Joe Biden and John Kerry. The difference is that Reagan let them and the rest of the ME know that America would not stand for such terrorists actions. Obama, on the other hand gives lip service from the podium and then likely told the Egyptian Brotherhood president over the phone that if he wants the aid monies to keep coming in he better step forward (after 2 days of nothing) and act concerned. That's about the size of it.

Point being, Reagan took charge and nobody for one minute saw him as a weak leader. Obama makes apologies to the muslim world they do not respect him.

it's not about what terrorist group/leader did what and where. It's about terrorism in general and the attacks on innocent Americans. Are we going to allow such evil malicious actions to happen unanswered? Why the hell would we want to send aid to the so called peaceful muslims who are supposedly crying and grieving with us when they sit back and allow this crap to go on right in their own front yards? It was obviously a planned attack and not that it matters.

The Libyan government are responsible for their peoples actions they should have to answer for them. Instead, they expect aid money to be sent to them and for the US to damn the makers of some film.

we should be asking. (BTW, I never suggested bombing)

Q: Could the Libyan govt have protected our embassy from attack?

A: Apparently so. They say the attack was preplanned and Muslim leaders in Libya now say that embassy officials were warned three days in advance.

Q: Should we hold the Libyans responsible?

A: Of course we should and without apology for our right to expression of free speech. I am not implying that some movie is the culprit, too.

Q: Should we "bomb" a Libyan facility in retaliation?

A: IMO, not yet. However, we should withhold all financial aid to the Libyans until further investigation, hopefully, brings better light on what actually happened. Then we proceed with caution and the Libyans know that they all will be held responsible if Americans are slaughtered and the murders could have been prevented.

Rep Mike Rogers of Mi, gives a very good take on what our policy should be.

"..think it's probably better that we have some influence in Egypt that we can have conversations about, hey, you don't want to provoke Israel, you don't want to continue on with this anti-Americanism. But it has to be conditioned. We shouldn't just give the money and hope for the best. That's not going to work."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/09/16/amb-susan-rice-rep-mike-rogers-discuss-violence-against-americans-middle-east?page=4#ixzz26jmhEmE6

I never said the Libyan govt had something to do with the attacks and slaughters. What I did say is that the Libyan govt. are responsible for protecting our embassy and they should be held accountable for not doing so. They knew what was coming.

that would constitute "working with them"? Give some examples, other than tossing good money after bad, that would qualify as "working with them".

That's how you(America) ended up in Iraq?

We ARE doing what you want -- we've sent warships into the area. We're ready to act if we need to.

stay out of the world's hell holes until they've quit killing each other off first.

And THEN you go in? For what purpose?

Why go in at all?

The current administration would have us believe the latest violence is caused by a trailer for a movie that may not even exist. If it was a major factor, there is another question that we might ask. In a little while Hollywood will release the movie about the raid that killed. With the current demonstrations/attacks we have seen a sign put up on an embassy warning that there are a million and a half Bin Ladins. Crowds are shouting "Osama, Osama, We are all Osama!"
How will those people react when the movie comes out, considering the raid details put out by the Obama administration? Those details said when the Seals entered OBL's room he used a woman for a shield. I would think that hiding behind a woman will be taken as calling OBL a coward, and will enrage the further Muslims. We shall see what happens when the movie is released.
Here is just a thought that hit me. To diffuse such a reaction, you would have to go back and change history, eliminating Obama's information release that showed OBL as acting in a cowardly way. But, how can you change history?
My thought is a possible answer. There has been a lot of press about the book telling about the raid, authored by a SEAL who was on the raid. A lot of the press talks about why would a SEAL release that information, considering their oaths about secrecy. Could it be that that that book was created not by that SEAL, but by others, and the SEAL was assigned or volunteered to say that he composed it. The treason for such a thing would be that the book says that OBL, just heard the noise, peeked around his room door, and was immediately shot through the head. This eliminates any thoughts of him acting in what Muslims would feel to be a cowardly way. He just peeked around a door, and died before he did anything. No dishonor at all. If that version of his death replaced Obama's previous version, it could eliminate future rage about his death. Just a thought.........

and in need of help stabilizing Libya and fighting off the factions. The terrorists were not connected in any way to the Libyan government but were at the very least in sympathy with Al Qaeda. Additionally, some of them according to BBC News have been rounded up by the Libyan army which shows good faith on their part.

When I wrote my post supporting your position of cutting off aid et cetera I specifically exempted Libya because of these reasons. You can't hold a government responsible for the actions of terrorists, unless that government is giving aid and comfort to those terrorists and is aligned with them. This is clearly not the case in Libya.

Rob