President Obama speaks out on the situation in the middle east

     First, I would like to apologize for not having posted yesterday in a timely manner. I was having a rough day, medical issues beyond my control. I'm feeling a bit better now, so I hope you don't mind a day old news topic, lol.

     President Obama gave a press release interview in an address to the nation, on the topic of the current rebellious unrest in the middle east. His message was clear and straight forward, we support the freedom of all mankind and it's inalienable rights. I agree whole heartedly with this, and as always, I support my president in all ways. He went on to say that in the majority of the cases of civil unrest in that area, the populace was reacting to regimes that had held them in a state of dictatorial slavery for decades. Also, in this I support his opinions one hundred percent.

     I do have a few reservations and questions, however. Before I address them I would like to ask you this: If George Bush, his father or (God forbid), Ronald Reagan, had been in this situation, do you think they would have even bothered discussing the issue at hand before reacting with armed response?

     These are my questions and issues:

1. Does our support of the unrest in these areas require military reinforcement of the rebels?
2. How much economic assistance will we be committing ourselves to if we do ally ourselves with the resistance movements?
3. If we plan to support democratic movements in these areas, will we still be committed to a continuing military presence in the theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan?

     I believe we have an obligation to support democracy for all mankind, no matter where it exists in the world. I do not, however, believe it is our responsibility to act as the world's private police force. If these countries want democracy, then by all means they should have it, and I think we would be remiss if we did not give them full technical support in the form of advisory liaisons, political and diplomatic envoys, and of course emergency aid in the form of the red cross, peace corps and other non-profit groups aimed at feeding and medically caring for the victims of the inevitable military actions that will take place within each of the effected countries. I also believe that it would be unacceptable if we did not offer to secure the movement of these noncombatant civilian volunteer organizations into and out of the regions, via naval and air presence of our military service men and women. The involvement of infantry and ground troops into the areas, however, would be a grave mistake. I am still confused as to why we are still in Iraq. I even question our continued presence in Afghanistan.

     We had a moral imperative to invade Afghanistan, the mission is complete, Al Quiada is crushed, Bin Laden is dead, let's go home. As for Iraq; I lost my ability to walk so that Bush could make a few more cents on the barrel and make daddy proud that sonny boy went and whooped some ass for him, at least that's how I see it. Correct me if I am wrong.

     I suppose what I am trying to say is this. Mr. President, by all means let us help these people in their efforts to form a democratic life style for themselves, but before we do, can we please recall our current military involvements, and set forth a preliminary rules of engagement policy concerning our new operative involvements, before we move forward. I don't need anymore wheelchair buddies.