[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

not to forget the 1½ million vietnamese "drops in the bucket" and a few hundred thousand maimed or killed by bombs and mines not only in Viet Nam but in Laos and Cambodia too. in some areas people are killed or losing limbs to this very day. but then these are just "gooks"... they don't count and neither do a couple of hundred thousand "sandniggers" count.

is there any particular reason that you just posted the exact same thing that another member posted on the previous page?

Yes there is. i got one of those mesages that said that "the "quote" and the "/unquote" thingees didn't match. i fuc_ked around with it for about 10 minutes. Tried to post it several times and then ultimately said "fuc_k it", I'm posting it anyway regardless how it turns out.

I understand. I'm also having lots of problems with the forum the last few days.

Trying to edit quotes is tricky. I have the same problem.

I think the thread is becoming a little too personal in its attacks on each other. I don't think the Germans have a 'nazi' gene and whatever sins were committed in the past, they have managed to do quite well since that time.

Likewise, US citizenship doesn't have DNA that results in military adventures, or misadventures abroad.

Oh, wait, this thread is about Libya....so let's stay a little closer to that situation.

[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

Just out of curiousity, what is your definition of genocide?

You know, if you and the fellow you are resondinding to just happened to be banned from posting in this forum I think it would be a lot better forum. Both of you are so hateful and non discerning in your ways that you've corrupted what might have otherwise been a very informative and educational forum.

+1

changing from Libya to Iran

I

You know, if you and the fellow you are resondinding to just happened to be banned from posting in this forum I think it would be a lot better forum. Both of you are so hateful and non discerning in your ways that you've corrupted what might have otherwise been a very informative and educational forum.

+1

+1

changing from Libya to Iran

Don't forget Pakistan ......that will eventually need more than drones.....Obama promised jobs.

Who knew they would all be in the Military Industrial Complex

Don't forget the topic....UN.....Libya

changing from Libya to Iran

I was in Washington DC in 2002-03 and would attend anti-war protests and pro-troop rallies. One of the signs I saw at the anti-war rally was like that small drum, they had originally written "Iran" but you could see where they had changed the "n" to a "q".

I am posting an EDITORIAL that will have liberals the world over busting their garter belts and frothing at the mouth.

It is on topic.

_______________________________________________________

From Baghdad to Benghazi

By Charles Krauthammer (Archive) · Friday, March 4, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the U.S. has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism.

A strange moral inversion, considering that Saddam's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi's.

Rest of the editorial here: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2011/03/04/from-baghdad-to-benghazi/

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

Genocide is is wiping out a whole race. That is certainly not happening in Gaza.

That is a very narrow and limited, (and generally unaccepted) definition. In fact it is more commonly " the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group", with no mention of obliteration.

Indeed genocide is what the American sponsored acts of the Israelis are attempting in Gaza.

By that definition, every war is genocide because it usually involves one nationality or ethnic group trying to kill another.

In this thread Harcourt and Naam are reminding me subconsciously of my ex wife.

Look on the bright side, at least you aren't sending each of them a check each month.

I am posting an EDITORIAL that will have liberals the world over busting their garter belts and frothing at the mouth.

It is on topic.

_______________________________________________________

From Baghdad to Benghazi

By Charles Krauthammer (Archive) · Friday, March 4, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gaddafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the U.S. has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism.

A strange moral inversion, considering that Saddam's evil was an order of magnitude beyond Gaddafi's. Gaddafi is a capricious killer; Saddam was systematic. Gaddafi was too unstable and crazy to begin to match the Baathist apparatus: a comprehensive national system of terror, torture and mass murder, gassing entire villages to create what author Kanan Makiya called a "Republic of Fear."

Moreover, that systemized brutality made Saddam immovable in a way that Gaddafi is not. Barely armed Libyans have already seized half the country on their own. Yet in Iraq, there was no chance of putting an end to the regime without the terrible swift sword (it took all of three weeks) of the United States.

No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy -- the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism.

Rest of the editorial here: http://patriotpost.u...ad-to-benghazi/

I was for getting rid of Saddam but I'm not in favor of going into Libya. I guess mainly because of the last 8 years of Iraq. The USA doesn't need to get involved with another oil-rich, Muslim country. Let the Italians do it.

No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush's freedom agenda, it's not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed "realism" of Years One and Two of President Obama's foreign policy -- the "smart power" antidote to Bush's alleged misty-eyed idealism.

Charles Krauthammer is a genius!

I was for getting rid of Saddam but I'm not in favor of going into Libya. I guess mainly because of the last 8 years of Iraq. The USA doesn't need to get involved with another oil-rich, Muslim country. Let the Italians do it.

Agree with the first part, but the Italians were the ones who screwed up Libya in the first place.

It took WWII to get the Italians out of there, then the British installed King Idris, the Senoussi leader. That was to give the Cyrenaican half of the country dominance over the Western half.

Gaddafi restored the dominance of Tripolitania.

Now the Cyrenaicans tried to change the balance again and all the little groups around other cities joined in.

Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention...

Krauthammer's "around the world" geography is... ahmmm... innovative

I could have sworn Libya is a country in N. Africa.

Seems though that it is actually part of the Middle East, at least according to this thread.

I thought it was a ladies naughty bit......................Shows what i know

I could have sworn Libya is a country in N. Africa.

Seems though that it is actually part of the Middle East, at least according to this thread.

Geogrpahically it is in North Africa. Culturally it is in the Middle East. Kind of like how Israel is included as a part of Europe (Euronews TV channel always has Israel news, that silly Eurovision Song Contest includes Israel)

Euronews also broadcasts in Arabic and Farsi, i.e. clear evidence that some arab states as well as Iran are a part of Europe.

The BBC broadcasts in Swahili. Does that mean the UK is a part of Africa?

The BBC broadcasts in Swahili. Does that mean the UK is a part of Africa?

that goes without saying!

The BBC broadcasts in Swahili. Does that mean the UK is a part of Africa?

that goes without saying!

...and they speak English on The Falklands....no Español ..but The Falklands' Penguins are Argentinian since they speak Spanish and have Argentinian passports.....like the Aboriginals from Australia have their Queen in the UK...

LaoPo

The BBC broadcasts in Swahili. Does that mean the UK is a part of Africa?

Al Jazeera broadcasts in English....so then Dubai is part of the UK.....and if the UK is part of Africa, then Dubai is also.

This could get quite circular.

Isrealis (and I guess that means Israeli Arabs also) are European, people from the UK are African, and Arabs from Dubai are African, but only via their being a part of the UK.

Excellent reasoning koheesti.

Thank heaven The BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox and CNBC don't broadcast in Maori!

You guys are missing the point about Euronews. It has nothing to do with what language it is being broadcast in. The channel is called Euronews. It is about European news. When I used to live in Eastern Europe the local channel would have a 10-15 segment from Euronews. Two topics were covered every week- news from Israel and the changing of the Italian gov't.

With regards to Libya and the Middle East, the region is also referred to as MENA (Middle East North Africa).

You guys are missing the point about Euronews. It has nothing to do with what language it is being broadcast in. The channel is called Euronews. It is about European news. When I used to live in Eastern Europe the local channel would have a 10-15 segment from Euronews. Two topics were covered every week- news from Israel and the changing of the Italian gov't.

With regards to Libya and the Middle East, the region is also referred to as MENA (Middle East North Africa).

Easy there, Koheesti. You're going to confuse them with an information overload if you're not careful.

Euronews also broadcasts in Arabic and Farsi, i.e. clear evidence that some arab states as well as Iran are a part of Europe.

And Al Jazeera has an English-language channel.

So yes, the Middle East must be a part of Europe.

(or the 51st State?)

The BBC broadcasts in Swahili. Does that mean the UK is a part of Africa?

Walk around some parts of South London and you wouldn't need to ask the question.

You guys are missing the point about Euronews. It has nothing to do with what language it is being broadcast in. The channel is called Euronews. It is about European news. When I used to live in Eastern Europe the local channel would have a 10-15 segment from Euronews. Two topics were covered every week- news from Israel and the changing of the Italian gov't.

With regards to Libya and the Middle East, the region is also referred to as MENA (Middle East North Africa).

Latest international news available as free video on demand. euronews tv, the international and European news from a European perspective.

www.euronews.net

"Eurovision Song Contest"

Eligibility to participate is not determined by geographic inclusion within the continent of Europe, despite the "Euro" in "Eurovision" — nor does it have a direct connection with the European Union. Several countries geographically outside the boundaries of Europe have competed: Israel, Cyprus and Armenia, in Western Asia, since 1973, 1981 and 2006 respectively; and Morocco, in North Africa, in the 1980 competition alone. In addition, several transcontinental countries with only part of their territory in Europe have competed: Turkey, since 1975; Russia, since 1994; Georgia, since 2007; and Azerbaijan, which made its first appearance in the 2008 edition. Two of the countries that have previously sought to enter the competition, Lebanon and Tunisia, in Western Asia and North Africa respectively, are also outside of Europe. The Gulf state of Qatar, in Western Asia, announced in 2009 its interest in joining the Contest in time for the 2011 edition.

conclusion: Qataris will be Yewropeeans if participation is granted