US led coalition against Libyan Gov. forces & Gadhafi

[DerStrom8]

no offense, but i think that whoever wrote that must have been having quite the psychotic episode, or been really stoned, or both.

To tell you the truth, I am honestly waiting for everything written in the book of Revelations to actually come true...

 

[ronv]

Book of Revelations? Surly you jest.

Thanks, Eric!

 

[DerStrom8]

Book of Revelations? Surly you jest.

No, I do not jest. And don't call me Shirley

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Book of Revelations? Surly you jest.

Some people seem to struggle seperating real life from fiction

 

[Dr_Doggy]

the world had a birth so it will have a death, but dont hold your breath......

even though i know squat about politics Id hafta say for once i think this is a good idea, this is the first time the American govt has hesitated about goin to war, so it must be, especially since they havn't done anything like this before.......

I don't know much, but i do understand liberation for lybia, epically if their leader is an out of control commie loon

 

[HiTech]

the world had a birth so it will have a death, but dont hold your breath......

even though i know squat about politics Id hafta say for once i think this is a good idea, this is the first time the American govt has hesitated about goin to war, so it must be, especially since they havn't done anything like this before.......

I don't know much, but i do understand liberation for lybia, epically if their leader is an out of control commie loon

First of all he's not a "commie"
Secondly, he's "in control" not out of control.
Thirdly, there's nothing in it for the US in return for our investment thus far. It's a part of a vital area of interest, but not a vital interest in itself as much it is to Europe. Look at what nations were first to go in (France & England). Heck, even Spain (that pansy nation that cowers under terrorist threats) joined in. It's about oil and having a nutty dictator upset the free flow of oil and its cost on the world market. That's the bottom line here - the humanitarian, life saving efforts of the coalition is secondary, however it's put up front, as a front!

 

[killivolt]

not a vital interest in itself as much it is to Europe. Look at what nations were first to go in (France & England). Heck, even Spain (that pansy nation that cowers under terrorist threats) joined in. It's about oil and having a nutty dictator upset the free flow of oil and its cost on the world market. That's the bottom line here - the humanitarian, life saving efforts of the coalition is secondary, however it's put up front, as a front!

Sweet Crude. Iraq was the first hinge. Afganistan, was the screws holding it. The world economy hangs in their balance. It starts and ends with spending. But, tops over with churning economic downfall driven by energy controlled by the Middle East.

Not one shot fired. Just dead overdriving energy cost to the world. Spinning that wheel; is not a wheel of fortune.

In the end they stopped fueling the worlds energy needs at an affordable cost and the world or country's are responding in kind. The world won't care if it depletes all your energy.

This country learned early on during the Industrial age what the cost's were when the oil dried up in Texas. Black Gold Texas Tea.

 

[irbirb]

Heck, even Spain (that pansy nation that cowers under terrorist threats) joined in.

are you referring to something specific?

Sweet Crude. Iraq was the first hinge. Afganistan, was the screws holding it. The world economy hangs in their balance. It starts and ends with spending. But, tops over with churning economic downfall driven by energy controlled by the Middle East.
This country learned early on during the Industrial age what the cost's were when the oil dried up in Texas. Black Gold Texas Tea.

perhaps it's a little ironic, but the u.s. military has been called the largest user of oil in the world.
in fact, a peer reviewed study surfaced from princeton university recently which sought to discover the cost of just keeping aircraft carriers in the persian gulf from 1976-2007. the resulting figure for this 30 year period was $7.3 trillion.

 

[irbirb]

**broken link removed**

**broken link removed**
**broken link removed**

 

[killivolt]

**broken link removed**

**broken link removed**
**broken link removed**

That's what happens when you have the most to due the most against those who want the world to end the way a book was written. Either by one book or another take your pick.

All nations have their own spin on it and keep spinning it to create more conflict. Hoping the result will spin off something in their Bank account or better yet in their power books.

 

[HiTech]

are you referring to something specific?

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editorial: Editorial: Spain Sends Terrorists Wrong Message

 

[irbirb]

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i thought that that is what you meant.
but unannounced bombings aren't exactly a 'threat' as much as an attack.
their reaction was hardly 'pansy' or 'cowering'. people got off their asses and changed their government...
largely because the government went to great length to lie and automatically pin responsibility on ETA.

actual responsibility for those crimes has never actually been satisfactorily established...
it's just yet another case of 'believe whatever you want'.

Editorial: Editorial: Spain Sends Terrorists Wrong Message

well i can see what it's saying but i don't agree with it's conclusions.
if you think through what it is actually suggesting... what would carlos recommend? immediate suspension of democracy (martial law) and an active campaign of oppression against muslims both domestically and abroad?
a swift and militaristic response to aggression is just as politically exploitable as a peaceful one. perhaps even more so in my personal opinion.
i have strong doubts that the actual spanish response is what the bombers had in mind... but it is of course a very complicated issue and there's many facts which are just difficult to be sure of.

 

[BrownOut]

i thought that that is what you meant.
but unannounced bombings aren't exactly a 'threat' as much as an attack.
their reaction was hardly 'pansy' or 'cowering'. people got off their asses and changed their government...
largely because the government went to great length to lie and automatically pin responsibility on ETA.

actual responsibility for those crimes has never actually been satisfactorily established...
it's just yet another case of 'believe whatever you want'.

Hi irbirb, I don't know if your Spanish or not, but it doesn't really matter. I agree with you, and changing your government was certainly not an act of cowardice or being pansy. Problem is in the US, we have alot of media blow-hards who like to spew out this kind of ignorance, and for too many Americans eat it up, like a fat man at a buffett. This sector of American opinion seems over represented here, but it is a severe minority in the total US population. It's only the Fox News fanatics who regurgitate this sort of thing, while a vast majority of Americans can respect the chioces the Spanish made. I wish the US made the same choice when they had the chance.

BTW, that 'editorial' was on an Israeli propaganda web site.

 

[HiTech]

Weren't the Conquistadors a bad-ass bunch from centuries ago? That's when Spain was a feared nation. Now they throw tomatoes at each other as part of a national holiday and let bulls stampede loose in the streets needlessly injuring many folks. These are tough people? They seem pretty goofy to me.

 

[BrownOut]

What does being a feared nation do for you? Why does the US need a "back door" draft to keep a standing military in time or war?

 

[HiTech]

What does being a feared nation do for you? Why does the US need a "back door" draft to keep a standing military in time or war?

If you are addressing me with that comment, let me say that I don't believe the US needs to be nor should be feared throughout the world. People don't like a playground bully. What I'm referring to is standing firm against wrongful militant factions, be them Islamic, other religions, nationalities, etc.; basically, terrorists.

 

[BrownOut]

The logic of that is impossible to follow. What does Conquistadors, tomato fights, running of the bulls, being a feared nation, free elections, Israeli propaganda or the Iraq war have anything to do with standing firm against terrorists? How many US citizens ran out to volunteer in the war when it started? Vs how many stayed home? Where is Bin Laden? Why was he allowed to escape? Why is Al Queada still hanging around, despite all the talk about standing firm and being though? Too many questions and too few answers, but it's OK I guess, as long as you think you're tough enough. Still don't see how that helps the terror issue though.

 

[HiTech]

I am certainly for taking a hard stand against terrorists be them armed militants or domestic eco-terrorists. I was pointing out that Spain's choice to back down after the Madrid bombing was a small win for terrorism. Can you follow that now?

 

[ronv]

I was pointing out that Spain's choice to back down after the Madrid bombing was a small win for terrorism.

I would compare that to a "big win" when we have 40,000 killed and wounded and a trillion dollars lost in Iraq. Not to mention all the new people in Homeland Security. The shoes and the touchy feelies at the airports. That's got them laughing.

 

[arunb]

Weren't the Conquistadors a bad-ass bunch from centuries ago? That's when Spain was a feared nation. Now they throw tomatoes at each other as part of a national holiday and let bulls stampede loose in the streets needlessly injuring many folks. These are tough people? They seem pretty goofy to me.

The conquistadors were quite daring actually, they went to a place that the west only dreamed about. They were also quite cunning and could play politics very well, the had the Incan king Atahualpa garotted for murdering his own brother...