[achtung]

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 never implied Russia supported the change of the regime. Syria and Russia have enjoyed good relations. It is worth noting that Russia condemning the actions of Assad are tantamount to saying "OK NATO, do whatever the **** you want." All I'm trying to say is that it would be nice to see someone else step up and help. Never said it would be all that realistic. I do believe they are participating in/supporting sanctions though.

While you may not imply that you feel we are starting the revolutions, you do imply that we hold a tight grip on things. Your wife seems to think that we have started these revolutions, and you disagree, which is good. I was just answering your comment about my knowledge of the whereabouts of our agents. I misunderstood who was implying we were orchestrating revolutions. I was only pointing out that our government agents aren't that special.

[Nuke]

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.

peaceful countries are easy to nuke.

[Black Wolf]

The other big difference in Libya vs. Syria is that the Libyan rebels were significantly better organized and further advanced when help finally arrived. There was a concrete group of people who could act as a partner on the ground. AFAIK, there's no equivalent in Syria - it's a mass of popular anger, but it's neither organized nor successful enough yet to serve that same role. Western air forces can't just bomb stuff unless they can be sure that there'll be someone there to take advantage of it.

[BrotherBryon]

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...)

Dude what the hell are you smoking and where can I get some because that is the dumbest argument over this whole thing I have ever heard.

[Nemesis6]

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.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah I mean come to think of it that's really sad.


...

[NGTM-1R]

While Black Wolf et. al. make good points (better points then this one), there is an economic reason for why we got involved in Libya so early.

Libya sits next to some of the world's major shipping lanes and had the wherewithal to close them to unescorted commercial traffic. We've been down this particular path once, during the Tanker War in the '80s, and there's no reason to believe Mr. Q/K/G wouldn't go the Saddam or Khomeini route and attempt to hold world commerce hostage for support. Better to take away the option before he thinks to exercise it.

[Bobboau]

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.

[headdie]

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.

BBC news also said something about that the rebels believing he has a plane on standby and a lack of inclination to stop him if he makes a runner

[Bobboau]

except their is a no fly zone in effect, so if he does that his plane will get shot down.

[headdie]

So NATO/UN fighters are going to shoot down a Gulf Stream or a commercial airliner just because they suspect he is on board?

[NGTM-1R]

So NATO/UN fighters are going to shoot down a Gulf Stream or a commercial airliner just because they suspect he is on board?

They'll all but certainly force it down. Besides, where will he go? South? Chad will shoot them down and enjoy it. North? Intercepted and forcibly escorted to an Italian or French airport. East? Don't think the Egyptians will enjoy his company. West? Similarly not going to enjoy his company.

[Bobboau]

just because their is a no fly zone, and it would be flying.

so his only options at this point are space, or living with the mole men, though I doubt they would be enjoying his presence much either.

[headdie]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Bobboau]

yeah, what he said, that is an important difference.

[NGTM-1R]

Two of Gadhafi's sons have been arrested by the rebels according to them. The Associated Press is claiming organized resistance to the rebels in Tripoli never materialized.

It appears to be effectively over.

[Bobboau]

it's not over till they find the loud fuzzy haired one.

[NGTM-1R]

it's not over till they find the loud fuzzy haired one.

I'd almost rather he not be found so we can hear his take on "Libya Without Me".

[Bobboau]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/22/libyan-rebels-push-into-tripoli

My reaction: "Oh My..."