It's a mess... I'm rather disgusted with the way Libya's being treated. They actually were developing out to be a very strong nation, their irrigation project, the gold Gadaffi owned, the oil that Libya posesses, don't believe for a second this is 'humanitarian' or 'liberation'. It's bombing rival countries to the stone age because you fear any form of resistance.You're seriously defending gaddafi's regime? Really? This was a textbook popular uprising that was sparked by the fervor created by the "Arab Spring."
Also they've suggested many things about Gadaffi, like fleeing to Venezuela (another future target). This with the war drums against Iran and Syria...
And the rebels, most of them that i saw in the videos, be it on local TV here or CNN/ABC/RT/etc. are not even Libyans, they're European and even American. They're mercenaries, working for others - notice they set up a oil trading company and a central bank in the first weeks - combined with the reports of special forces on the ground destabilizing the area.
But hey, what to expect?
Libya was mentioned -by name- to be attacked by the government of the USA and NATO (Working for the goals of others above them) - another sign Obama is simple 'same as the old boss', the two party system just two sides of the same coin..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ
(I'm sorry but stuff like this, seeing how the globalists take down another country, and there are some people that cheer the death of more innocents because their country didn't sell out...)
i just hope they can assemble a new government without it becoming a corrupt bureaucracy or another dictatorship.I hope so too. The real challenge comes when the battles are over. The UN is supposed to be providing oversight.
i just hope they can assemble a new government without it becoming a corrupt bureaucracy or another dictatorship.
...
But really, what would US driven/manipulated revolutions look like? What does that even mean? The Pentagon has a program to send suitcases full of networking equipment to these areas so that people can set up local ad-hoc networks if their net access gets taken down. But other than that, what would US manipulation entail, really? I mean, besides the obvious ones like NATO supplying arms and suspected special forces operators in places like Libya.
Well at least JDCN picks up his ideas both at the left and at the right, and if you see the video, it is somewhat scary to think that the US was planning to invade 7 countries. I'd like more confirmation than one single general reading some paper in the tv.
My wife keeps telling me that the uprising in the arab world is US driven / manipulated / created by. I don't buy that theory because it contradicts the facts on the terrain, however it isn't that far out to say that the US has been in the dark making a lot of calls in the backstages. It is even most likely.
...
The United States can't even manage its own finances, how do you suppose we're orchestrating all of these amazing revolutions across the middle east? We're not what we used to be during the Cold War.
I'd blame the discrepancy between NATO action in Libya and Syria is mostly to blame on resource limitations. Nobody is going to get involved in a land war, and considering the financial situations the western world is facing right now, about all we can reasonably afford is supporting ~1 revolution at a time. :p Syria will probably get its protection, but the West isn't going to provide it any time soon. Maybe the Russians/China should step up to the plate for once.
Egypt never really revolted, and it has slipped into military rule. While I detest violence, the "revolution" was much too easy. The people protested, and all of a sudden the old guard's military is in power? That doesn't look right. I think that qualifies as, "here's the old boss, same as the old boss."
I don't know where our agents are, but I know it takes more than a handful of agents to start a revolution, unless the revolution was already festering amongst the populace to begin with. Government agents aren't supermen.The United States can't even manage its own finances, how do you suppose we're orchestrating all of these amazing revolutions across the middle east? We're not what we used to be during the Cold War.
For one, how can you possibly know this? Are you knowledgeable of the whereabouts of american agents?
For two, I'd say that america's reach on the world has never been higher, with so many countries being attacked / occupied.QuoteI'd blame the discrepancy between NATO action in Libya and Syria is mostly to blame on resource limitations. Nobody is going to get involved in a land war, and considering the financial situations the western world is facing right now, about all we can reasonably afford is supporting ~1 revolution at a time. :p Syria will probably get its protection, but the West isn't going to provide it any time soon. Maybe the Russians/China should step up to the plate for once.
Russia and China won't, for obvious reasons, support a popular uprising. This is so utterly obvious that I don't know what you are smoking here :D.QuoteEgypt never really revolted, and it has slipped into military rule. While I detest violence, the "revolution" was much too easy. The people protested, and all of a sudden the old guard's military is in power? That doesn't look right. I think that qualifies as, "here's the old boss, same as the old boss."
Lets see what happens. In Portugal we had the luck of our army being commanded by very enlightened generals when the revolution happened who were respected and drove our country to full blown democracy. It may be so that Egipt might not be so lucky.
I know I'm not the only one that noticed the discrepancy in response times between Libya (which is where the UK and France get most of their oil, if I'm not mistaken) rebelling and subsequent NATO/UN action, vs. something that is a much greater humanitarian crisis, Syria, only now getting strong words from Obama for the country's leader to step down.
Condemning Assad's actions and endorsing a "revolution", regime change or some other "change" is completely different. Russia will not support any change of the status quo into something that can be manipulated by the USA / Israel. And nowhere did I suggest that agents started the revolutions, so again you are smoking the real thing man ;).
i just hope they can assemble a new government without it becoming a corrupt bureaucracy or another dictatorship.
Nuke? Appealing the better part of human nature?
This is supr srs gaise.
It's a mess... I'm rather disgusted with the way Libya's being treated. They actually were developing out to be a very strong nation, their irrigation project, the gold Gadaffi owned, the oil that Libya posesses, don't believe for a second this is 'humanitarian' or 'liberation'. It's bombing rival countries to the stone age because you fear any form of resistance.
Also they've suggested many things about Gadaffi, like fleeing to Venezuela (another future target). This with the war drums against Iran and Syria...
And the rebels, most of them that i saw in the videos, be it on local TV here or CNN/ABC/RT/etc. are not even Libyans, they're European and even American. They're mercenaries, working for others - notice they set up a oil trading company and a central bank in the first weeks - combined with the reports of special forces on the ground destabilizing the area.
But hey, what to expect?
Libya was mentioned -by name- to be attacked by the government of the USA and NATO (Working for the goals of others above them) - another sign Obama is simple 'same as the old boss', the two party system just two sides of the same coin..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ
(I'm sorry but stuff like this, seeing how the globalists take down another country, and there are some people that cheer the death of more innocents because their country didn't sell out...)
I'm kind of sad now, because soon, Gaddafi won't be producing any more of his hilarious rants. But maybe he has a few tricks left up his sleeve... we'll see.
I'm kind of sad now, because soon, Gaddafi won't be producing any more of his hilarious rants. But maybe he has a few tricks left up his sleeve... we'll see.
don't worry assuming he goes to the hague there will be plenty more rants to confuse and infuriate us all.
So NATO/UN fighters are going to shoot down a Gulf Stream or a commercial airliner just because they suspect he is on board?
just because their is a no fly zone, and it would be flying.
just because their is a no fly zone, and it would be flying.
International legal minefield not to mention the situation it sets up, what would be the different between the colonels plane being shot down by UN/Nato and the colonel or Iran or N Korea shooting down Airforce 1? and if you go on about the US being able to squash a country then you are badly missing the point because the president would still be dead.
it's not over till they find the loud fuzzy haired one.
just because their is a no fly zone, and it would be flying.
International legal minefield not to mention the situation it sets up, what would be the different between the colonels plane being shot down by UN/Nato and the colonel or Iran or N Korea shooting down Airforce 1? and if you go on about the US being able to squash a country then you are badly missing the point because the president would still be dead.
Are you kidding me? Three words that have already been repeated several times in this thread: NO FLY ZONE. If it flies, it gets taken out of the air, peaceably or otherwise.
The story here is getting stranger, as now I keep seeing two completely different stories - One that the rebels gave up in Misrata as was predicted a few weeks ago and that the rebels aren't actually in Tripoli aside from sporadic fire, and this.
just because their is a no fly zone, and it would be flying.
International legal minefield not to mention the situation it sets up, what would be the different between the colonels plane being shot down by UN/Nato and the colonel or Iran or N Korea shooting down Airforce 1? and if you go on about the US being able to squash a country then you are badly missing the point because the president would still be dead.
Are you kidding me? Three words that have already been repeated several times in this thread: NO FLY ZONE. If it flies, it gets taken out of the air, peaceably or otherwise.
No Fly zones apply to armed military craft, shooting down a civilian plane is just a illegal as sinking a civilian ship
Waiting on the bizarre, otherworldly pronouncements of the former government of Libya regarding this.
There are no promotions in <insert store name>!
Don't believe them!
This is silly! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA)
Libya is not 'north' enough :P.nor is it Atlantic enough
Libya is not 'north' enough :P.nor is it Atlantic enough
Libya is not 'north' enough :P.nor is it Atlantic enough
It probably could, to be honest. Turning the Mediterranean into a NATO lake would be in the alliance's interests, and Egypt/Libya have always been the traditional obstacles to doing so.
How would it be beneficial?
O Muammar, Muammar!
Wherefore art thou Muammar?
:lol:
O Muammar, Muammar!
Wherefore art thou Muammar?
:lol:
I dunno, I think it'd be better as a version of "Where In The World is Carmen San Diego."
Er... well.... One's name doesn't make them good or evil. I think the point was just that it's not as ludicrous of a name over there as it would be over here.