Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who runs Libya is kind of up to the Libyans, don't you think? Well, if RW, probably not, as they feel they have a God given right to decide all things, for all others.
Not really considering the USA and a handful of nations is taking sides in the civil war to see who will be in control...
Did you forget that?
This is reminiscent of the good old days of installing your own leader in other nations....
I thought you were for the Libyans to decide their own government,now you are for foreign nations to choose for them?
Now you are for intervening into other nations affairs to decide who will rule.
You ARE a neo-con....
In order to decide their own fate, they have to be allowed to live. In Libya, a few were over lording the many, and promising annihilation if they did not comply. Although that is a very Republican thing to do, it's not in the best interest of too many people.
In order to decide their own fate, they have to be allowed to live. In Libya, a few were over lording the many, and promising annihilation if they did not comply. Although that is a very Republican thing to do, it's not in the best interest of too many people.
It's mathematically impossible for the few to outlord the many, assuming the many truly want freedom.
The "revolution" was manufactured by the west ... specifically, US-British intelligence and special forces.
The Libyan military kicked their arses (broadcast to the western sheeple as Gadhafi killing his own people), so in order to facilitate a victorious uprising, US-French and now NATO forces had to go in to "save" their covert revolution with overt military assistance. It's really an old game ... pretty obvious ... and not at all what it is presented as by the western media.
Think of it as the Bay of Pigs .... the difference being ... Kennedy refused to order overt military involvement to complete the overthrow of the Cuban government. No such military restraint exists today ... I really don't even see why they bother with the "covert" actions anymore ... the sheeple have proven themselves to be oblivious to reality ... hell .. they could just say Gadhafi had WMD's like they did with Hussein ... and blow Libya up too.
And boy ... the UN, with their No Fly Zone over Libya pretty much OK'd WW III ..... they're already talking about Syria, and several other "rogue" nations that need a little dose of "freedom and democracy" ... otherwise referred to as cruise missiles and and total decimation.
JFK did indeed refuse to order the expected, and required, air support during the Bay of Pigs invasion, and managed to get hundreds killed as a result. JFK also publicly apologized for his lack of action during the Bay of Pigs invasion and took responsibility for his blunder.
It's mathematically impossible for the few to outlord the many, assuming the many truly want freedom.
"Darfur can eat cake" - An Obamatron
Sure. Militarily notwithstanding?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
