Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We've yet to put boots on the ground, and the only thing we're doing is enforcing a no fly zone.
Incidentally........you DO realize that in order to enforce a no fly zone, you've gotta remove the things that can blow you out of the sky, right?
Yea Iraq had a "No-Fly Zone" too. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you support that,you have to believe Iraq was a success. They're doing the very same thing in Libya as we speak. I see lots of posters on this Board cheerleading for this Libyan War on a daily basis. Unfortunately most are so caught up in that old 'D' & 'R' Game,they don't even realize they're actually on the same side as those they enjoy viciously attacking. Oh well like i said,ignorance really is Bliss.
'Regime Change' was desired and that's exactly what happened in Iraq. So it was a success. Their doing the same thing in Libya as we speak. So Foreign Interventionist Cheerleaders from both sides should agree on this one. You can't have it both ways. If you're a Foreign Interventionist Cheerleader,you would have to believe that both Iraq & Libya are successes. So forget about that whole 'D' and 'R' thing. If you support Regime Changes,you're actually on the same side in this debate. Period,end of story.
We've yet to put boots on the ground, and the only thing we're doing is enforcing a no fly zone.
Incidentally........you DO realize that in order to enforce a no fly zone, you've gotta remove the things that can blow you out of the sky, right?
Yea Iraq had a "No-Fly Zone" too. Regime Change is Regime Change. If you support that,you have to believe Iraq was a success. They're doing the very same thing in Libya as we speak. I see lots of posters on this Board cheerleading for this Libyan War on a daily basis. Unfortunately most are so caught up in that old 'D' & 'R' Game,they don't even realize they're actually on the same side as those they enjoy viciously attacking. Oh well like i said,ignorance really is Bliss.
Iraq was a failure, because not only were we lied to about the reasons we needed to go into Iraq, but Halliburton and KBR helped out by building showers in the green zone barracks that electrocuted 40 some odd soldiers, throwing obscene amounts of money into a place where the perpetrator of 9/11 WAS NOT IN!
Libya was a humanitarian mission because Qaddafy was killing his own people with cluster munitions and torture.
Iraq was for oil, no other reason.
Thats the first I have heard that
Here she is on Fox News last week. (Quote appears in the video at 0:24.)
I would not have done what the president did in Libya. I would not have intervened now at this time. We dont even know who the opposition forces are. We dont know if the opposition is being pushed by Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Al Qaeda in Northern Iraq. That could be a far worse outcome than dealing with Gaddafi. Gaddafi is not necessarily been the best friend of the United States, but in some ways hes been neutralized.
What role did Saddam play in the events of 9/11/2001?The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.
How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?
I am not sure your numbers are accurate
Iraq Body Count project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would say this one is which is 156,000 total deaths
from 03-11
A.Ps is less
WikiLeaks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justify?
This world changed 9-11-2001
Saddam was told weeks later what to do or else
the man was given 18 months
Is a 'Regime Change' Policy a just policy? Americans really need to think more about if it's right for our Nation to go all around the World picking & choosing who stays in power or is removed. Personally,i don't support this policy. Libya/Iraq? There is no difference. Some are desperately trying to convince themselves that there is a difference but there just isn't. Do you support Regime Change as a Foreign Policy or not? You can't have it both ways.
"EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath'’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."
Imagine.
A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.
False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com
"EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath' in Benghazi, Libyas second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."
Imagine.
A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.
False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com
This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.
"EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a 'bloodbath' in Benghazi, Libyas second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
"But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government."
Imagine.
A Democrat/Republican president lying about war.
False pretense for war in Libya? - Boston.com
This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.
How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.
This Libyan War is about Oil first and Regime Change second. All those who are cheerleading for this War really are no different than the people they viciously attack over Iraq. In reality their both on the same side. Any differences they perceive are only in their heads. It's all about the 'D' & 'R' thing for these people. Iraq/Libya are the same thing. And it doesn't matter how much some try to spin things. It is what it is.
How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.
Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.
How is it about oil?
Oil was flowing....there were no threats to cut it off as far as I heard, Ghaddafi was in the West's pocket...I would have thought it was in the West's best interests to maintain the staus quo.
Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.
Rubbish! The rebels are an unknown quantity...everybody's fretting about them being infiltrated by extremists and that has to be a danger.
A despot in the hand is worth two in the mosque.
Maybe it's a genuinely humanitarian action.
You might think that is no reason to be there even so - fine.
Better deals have been struck with the opposition/rebels. This Libyan War can be spun till the cows come home but it wont change the fact that it was totally unnecessary for our Nation to be involved with it. There are no valid reasons for us to be bombing & killing Libyans. Period,end of story.
Rubbish! The rebels are an unknown quantity...everybody's fretting about them being infiltrated by extremists and that has to be a danger.
A despot in the hand is worth two in the mosque.
Maybe it's a genuinely humanitarian action.
You might think that is no reason to be there even so - fine.
Our Government supports Regime Change in Libya. And so do the Western Europeans. And they're also arming and training the rebels. That goes along with their bombing & killing Libyans on the rebels' behalf. There is nothing "Humanitarian" about this War. That's just more lies.
Ghaddafi may have sealed his fate in a way similar to Saddam's last mistake when they attempted to sell their oil without using the US dollar. Qaddafi took it one step further and proposed the entire continent of Africa should use a new currency, the gold dinar, instead of dollars or euros.
Then there's the long arm of central bankers:
"Another provocative bit of data circulating on the net is a 2007 Democracy Now! interview of US Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.). In it he says that about ten days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. 'I don't know!' was the response. 'I guess they don't know what else to do!'
"Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
"What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers' central bank in Switzerland.
"The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted, 'ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency and its dominion as the petrodollar.'"
Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking? | Truthout
Oil or banking or some combination thereof, one thing that's certain is that there would be no war in Iraq or Libya unless it was making a few rich parasites even richer.
War is a Racket
