Mock

So, news reports are saying that Gadhafi forces are using cluster bombs in Misrata....

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/135050/2...-hague.htm

What's your current take on U.S./Nato involvement? I'm not sure we should have gotten involved but dammit, once we commit our troops/country to something, it kind of sickens me that we're (seemingly) doing it half-ass. We say Gadhafi must leave but we only have our toes in the water.

Do you think the current strategy (half-assed as it is) is sufficient? Too much? Not enough?

I'm still not sure this is our fight. I also don't like arming our enemy.

Obama needs to return that Nobel Peace Prize. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23...39310.html

I find it amusing that our current president is also being accused of warring for oil. Nobody comes out smelling like a rose when you dabble in the Middle East.

I don't see why Libya is being singled out, according to various sources the regimes in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are classed as being more authoritarian and oppressive than Libya, why aren't the UN and Nato enforcing no fly zones in these countries? Why aren't the west arming the rebels in these countries?

As for clusterbombs?, the US and UK used clusterbombs in Iraq, many off which didn't go off, many of which did go off when kids found them, causing death and injury.

As usual it's double standards, when we use clusterbombs? that's the nature of war, when Gadaffi uses clusterbombs? evil dictator.

Never underestimate the hypocrisy of our western democracy.

Perhaps you shouldn't take your "various sources", which are clearly called Penthouse, Hustler and George from the Pub, too serious mate. Bahrain is the size of Heathrow's parking lot and one of the most open spots here, which is why everybody went "Huh?" when it started over there.

The reason for Yemen is that there are 80.000 Americans living here, and for Saudi because they have no problem whatsoever sending their oil to America anyways. The reason why Sadam had to go was because he was planning to sell his oil for Euro's. Something America can't let happen. Let the Saudi's try that and you will immediately hear the phone in the captain's cabin of the Nimitz go "ring, ring".

(04-17-2011, 04:13 AM)Mohammed Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps you shouldn't take your "various sources", which are clearly called Penthouse, Hustler and George from the Pub, too serious mate. Bahrain is the size of Heathrow's parking lot and one of the most open spots here, which is why everybody went "Huh?" when it started over there.

The reason for Yemen is that there are 80.000 Americans living here, and for Saudi because they have no problem whatsoever sending their oil to America anyways. The reason why Sadam had to go was because he was planning to sell his oil for Euro's. Something America can't let happen. Let the Saudi's try that and you will immediately hear the phone in the captain's cabin of the Nimitz go "ring, ring".

Yemen is classed as an "authoritarian regime".

Out of 167 countries it ranks down at 146 on the "democracy index". Hustler?, no fuckwit try the Economist Intelligence Unit....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Just because you are living high on the hog as an ex-pat doesn't mean the ordinary people of Yemen are as well dipshit.

As for your point about Saddam trading Iraqi oil for Euros?, oh yes that was indeed the real reason for the invasion of Iraq, something that boils quackers piss because she knows its true.

Saddams hanging was deliberately botched so he would suffer and be throttled to death.

He was a genocidal fuckhead but as you say trying to take any kind of moral highground is an exercise in futility.

We condemn suicide bombers then drop bombs on farms and wedding parties.

We use clusterbombs then condemn Gaddaffi for......using clusterbombs.

The UK is right behind you, we are much loved in Europe both topically and historically.

Another "Democracy" junkey.

You see, once you step further than your evenings at the "Purple Lions Pints", you might realise that Democracy ain't such a wonderful thing after all. Many times it took a good dictatorship to move ahead, i.e. Singapore. But forget about that, take Africa for instance. Before it was full of tribes and they had all their areas. Kind of like the Scots, Irish and English.

Then white man came, or as in your case, the English, such irony, and put borders up where there where none before. And all of a sudden you find all those tribes in a single area. Just like you. The irony never stops.

Not only that, but now all those tribes are told there must be one single leader for everybody, who will be elected by everybody. Any idea what happens then? Of course you do, some of those tribes start spray painting their faces, preferably metalic blue, and run around wide, misty fields in dodgy underwear screaming "Freeeeeeedooooom!" or as in the case of Africa "I is freeeeee!"

You see, not only does such result in a most horrible fashion statement but also in a total mental confusion, because now all of a sudden you have 40 tribes coming up each with the leader of their choice.

I believe I mentioned it somewhere here before, a Sheik once said "My country? What about my country? It only exists since 60 years. My tribe however has been with me since 3000!"

Makes sense somehow doesn't it.

Yes, the hypocrisy of our so called democracy.

Only two people ever managed to keep Iraq at peace. One was in ancient times, the other was Saddam. Their methods might be questionable, but anybody just go and give it a try.

Just ask Idi Amin, another who was placed on the throne by the "Democracy" people. Funny thing is, they didn't create a monster, he simply just behaved like any other tribal chief, only he had more media coverage.

I suppose it's true that democracy can never really work in countries where the majority of the population bark at the moon and eat each other.

Saddam did have at least one common sense policy "religion?, Sunni?, Shiite?, keep it in the mosques where it belongs people"

What can I say. Coming from a country with all those butch and tree juggling hunks in skirts, it must be really hard to swallow to have only had a single guy standing up for your independence. Then your very own people go, betray him, and make sure he's turned into some sort of bizzare Haggis on the block. Not only that, but it took an Aussie to make him famous.

It's true, democracy works much better in places where people simply don't give a fuck or are just much more comfortable by being .... well, comfortable.

"Look, am sitting here in my lazy boy, got a bottle of Scotch from Tesco and watching telly. Don't fucking disturb me with all that crap. Am fab!"

Well, not everybody thinks that way you know.

Now this guy could tell you a lot about Saddam.



The funny thing is, at least from my own experience, it's usually the direct children of the big guy that will cause his downfall.

So remember, if you ever become a powerful Dictator with all the western powers blowing huge amounts of cash up your ass, don't forget to be a good daddy.

It is essential to your survival!

(04-18-2011, 02:52 PM)Mohammed Wrote: [ -> ]What can I say. Coming from a country with all those butch and tree juggling hunks in skirts, it must be really hard to swallow to have only had a single guy standing up for your independence. Then your very own people go, betray him, and make sure he's turned into some sort of bizzare Haggis on the block. Not only that, but it took an Aussie to make him famous.

Swing and a miss.

Braveheart is a load of old bollocks, William wallace was an educated land owner who once fought as a mercenary general for England against Scotland.

Now take another mouthful of the Hollywood koolaid and tray again numbnuts.

It's like the Patriot, the scene where the evil redcoats look the people into a church and set fire to it?

Well that did happen......in the Ukraine....in 1942.....by the SS einzatzgruppen.

Truth is the first casualty of war (and Hollywood).

(04-15-2011, 11:05 PM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still not sure this is our fight.

I absolutely agree but I feel like we completely fucked this up. Misrata is "under seige" today and I understand there are a large number of civilian casualties. The hospitals are overwhelmed and they're trying to shift patients to Benghazi (where the hospitals are also overwhelmed, lacking medical supplies etc.).

So we go in and say we're there to protect civilians--and we're not able to do that. We gave the rebels a certain amount of false hope. I'm not sure there wouldn't be fewer casualties if we'd just stayed out of it from the get-go.

I hate failure. I think it's demoralizing, it's a waste of money (bye-bye million dollar Tomahawk missiles), and it makes us look weak and ineffective.

If we couldn't (or wouldn't) do what it takes to accomplish our goals all the more reason we REALLY shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

I know the fate of the free world may be at risk, but every time I see Mo I hear Austin Powers in my head saying, "I bet he shags like a minx."

Something is going on with all of these Muslim countries having these "revolutions" and I suspect it's being manipulated by outside forces (as usual). I heard a reporter on Anderson Cooper say that there were fewer than 1000 "rebel forces" in Libya!!! He was a reporter from The New Yorker, has been there since it started, and is hanging with these rebels. We have NATO (the New World Order military) saying they aren't really sure who the rebels are,and accidentally bombing and killing a bunch of them because NATO said they didn't realize they were using tanks.

If the United States were to be in this to "win" (never mind the fact that we don't have the right, just the might), it would require ground forces and we would be looking ANOTHER war for empire that will cost lives and sink us further in debt.

I think some decision has been made, by globalist elites, that the middle east is going to be reorganized more to their liking. What's disturbing is they now have Syria on their radar. It all smacks of Brzezinski and his Grand Chess Game.