UN Security Council approves No Fly Zone in Libya Vol: Declaration of War

Originally Posted by likethematrix

Gadafi wouldnt be doing this if saddam was still alive.

aside from all the bad he did, he had them +**%$* in check.

he was like the middle east suge knight
Gadhafi is a G... no doubts from the outfits we wore, the iron fist in how he control his people, the virgin female body guards, and his sons even had Beyonce, Mariah Carey and others perform for them.  
beyonce-performing-gaddafi-photos-surface_top.jpg


You know dude knows how to party.  I would be fine with what he's doing but when the people revolted and he started slaughtering them and the price of gas skyrocketing... well let's not be naive.. it was just a matter of time before the UN intervened. 
 
Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Great post. I agree that are still a lot of uncertainty even if Gadhafi is gone.  
But for now... with the rebels getting slaughtered in Benghazi.. international intervention is needed. I mean who doesn't want a peaceful resolution? However we all know this is all going to end in more deaths and tragedy... it's war after all. 

And regards to Libya's oil.... I mean yeah isn't that pretty obvious.  We all need oil.  I know I am not the only that is paying a grip these days to fill up my ride so I am not going to hide my opinions just to be politically correct.  It is what it is.  I want gas prices to come down and if it requires bombing the holy crap out of Gadhafi... I have zero objections. 
But, it will do just that with this war. That is the point of it.

A war directed against Libya would push the price of crude oil up to abysmally high levels, potentially triggering a global inflationary spiral, which would result in the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

A sizeable increase in the price of oil over a prolonged period would wreak economic havoc: production and transportation costs would increase dramatically. Hikes in the costs of fuel and energy would trigger a renewed string of bankruptcies in major sectors of economic activity. They would also contribute to a sizeable increase in the external debt of developing countries.

These price hikes, which are already ongoing, would occur despite the abysmally low costs of  Middle East oil.

What this means is that powerful institutional speculators on Wall Street with links to the US military and intelligence establishment will cash in on billions of dollars in speculative gains not only in the oil market but also in the commodity and foreign exchange markets.

This money is appropriated from households which must now pay a higher price for fuel. 

A "humanitarian war" would be "good for business". It serves the interests of the institutional speculators, it contributes to a further process of appropriation of money wealth.

Financial institutions which had prior knowledge or intelligence of events in Egypt and Libya have already made billions of dollars in speculative gains in the futures and options markets for crude oil. 

These global financial and banking institutions, which "placed their bets" several months ago, have "a vested interest in war".  The greater the turmoil and disruption of the crude oil market, the greater the speculative gains. Short term speculative gains due to market volatility are also part of this process. Foreknowledge of the sequence of political or military events and how they affect markets as well as control and/or manipulation of financial news pertaining to these events are an essential part of the betting process.  

In this regard we are dealing the with workings of the World's commodity exchanges, the most important of which is the powerful CME Group created following the merger of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). 


To read the rest of the article:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23741




  
 
Originally Posted by Animal Thug1539

Why do you keep saying AMERICAN and U.S.......when it was the UN that decided this would happen??  

Let's not act like we don't have our hands in places we shouldn't have them in. Look, I'm all for peace - what bothers me the most about these military strikes and operations is the deaths of civilians will eventually surface after this whole ordeal. But if the UN wants to state that the reasoning's behind this attack is to protect the people of Libya - than we need to also confront and attack Darfur - which has suffered since 2003. I don't firmly believe that the reasoning behind these military strikes is to protect the people of Libya - but more for the sake of the oil fields - which is the 9th largest in the world.

This is about a fight for power.
What have you done to make this Country what it is? No one is stopping you from going elsewhere and stand for their anthem and what it stands for.



Ironically, this is as ignorant as it gets. And with that being said - I'll say this and never come back into this thread: You can kiss my New York City-born %!*. This is my country.
This is going to sound bad....But if he is killing his own people voluntarily, what harm will there be in other civilians dying for the sake of peace in the country?  They might as well die for something instead of living for nothing and being killed just because they oppose their government. 
 
Originally Posted by Julian Wright

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

I don't understand why you guys find it so impossible to believe that more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. In all honesty, no one is even keeping serious count of how many Iraqis have been killed in the past 8 years.�
I think we're all agreeing that more than 100,000 have been killed. It's the 1,000,000 that people are not believing...

This is how ignorant you people are. Don't you understand how many people were killed by sanctions on Iraq?

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The U.N. embargo has devastated all of life in Iraq. But nowhere is the deprivation more evident than in the once-modern health care system, where sanctions deny doctors the medicine and equipment they need to save patients dying of the curable diseases burgeoning amid the wreckage of war. U.N. officials estimate more than 1 million Iraqis have died in the last decade as a direct result of the sanctions.

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The embargo is harvesting children. Before the Persian Gulf War, when food was plentiful and clean water readily available, the greatest pediatric health problem in Iraq was obesity. Now, with widespread food shortages and contaminated drinking water, undernourished children are stalked by cholera and typhoid. UNICEF blames the sanctions for the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 since 1991.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm
[/font]

Sanctions = Act of war



Anyone who thinks the U.N. set this "no fly zone is a moron. The U.S. has been planning this for weeks.



[h1][/h1]
[h1]Libya: US warships enter Suez Canal on way to Libyan waters[/h1][h2]Two US warships were passing through the Suez Canal on their way to waters off Libya on Wednesday as Western nations exerted diplomatic and military pressure on Muammar Gaddafi to step down. [/h2]7:48AM GMT 02 Mar 2011


The United States said Libya could sink into civil war unless the Libyan leader ends his four-decade rule amid fears that the uprising, the bloodiest yet against long-serving rulers in the Middle East, could cause a humanitarian crisis.

Gaddafi is defiant and his son, Saif al-Islam, has warned the West against launching military action. He said the veteran ruler would not relinquish power or be driven into exile.

Across Libya, tribal leaders, officials, military officers and army units have defected to the rebel cause and say they are becoming more organised. Tripoli is a stronghold for Gaddafi in this oil-producing north African state.

"We are going to keep the pressure on Gaddafi until he steps down and allows the people of Libya to express themselves freely and determine their own future," Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told ABC's "Good Morning America".

Captain Faris Zwei, among officers in the east who joined the opposition to Gaddafi, said there were more than 10,000 volunteers in Ajdabiyah, 500 miles from the capital.

"We are reorganising the army, which was almost completely destroyed by Gaddafi and his gang before they left," he said. "We are reforming, as much as we can, the army from the youth that took part in the revolution."

Two amphibious assault ships, USS Kearsarge, which can carry 2,000 Marines, and USS Ponce, entered the canal on Wednesday en route to the Mediterranean. The destroyer USS Barry moved through the Suez Canal on Monday.

The ships entered through the southern end of the canal, an official said, adding that they were expected to pass through by 3:30 p.m. (1330 GMT) or 4:00 p.m. local time.

Arab League foreign ministers meet on Wednesday at an extraordinary session in Cairo and are expected to reinforce their condemnation of Gaddafi. Some delegates want the meeting to underline the League's unwillingness to see foreign intervention in Libya.

The repositioning of U.S. ships and aircraft closer to Libya is widely seen as a symbolic show of force since neither the United States nor its NATO allies have shown any appetite for direct military intervention in the turmoil that has seen Gaddafi lose control of large swaths of his country.

"We are looking at a lot of options and contingencies. No decisions have been made on any other actions," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, noting the United Nations had not authorised the use of force in Libya.

Italy said it was sending a humanitarian mission to Tunisia to provide food and medical aid to as many as 10,000 people who had fled violence in Libya on its eastern border.

Tunisian border guards fired into the air on Tuesday to try to control a desperate crowd clamouring to cross the frontier.

About 70,000 people have passed through the Ras Jdir border post in the past two weeks, and many more of the hundreds of thousands of foreign workers in Libya are expected to follow.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said: "Libya could become a peaceful democracy or it could face protracted civil war."

The US Senate, in a unanimous vote, approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms".

The White House said the ships were being redeployed in preparation for possible humanitarian efforts but stressed it "was not taking any options off the table". Gates said: "Our job is to give the president the broadest possible decision space."

Alain Juppe, France's foreign minister, sounded a note of caution, saying military intervention would not happen without a clear United Nations mandate.

David Cameron, who said Britain would work with allies on preparations for a no-fly zone over Libya, said it was unacceptable that "Colonel Gaddafi can be murdering his own people using airplanes and helicopter gunships".

General James Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate hearing that imposing a no-fly zone would be a "challenging" operation. "You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone, so no illusions here," he said. "It would be a military operation."

Analysts said Western leaders were in no mood to rush into conflict after drawn-out involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The U.N. General Assembly unanimously suspended Libya's membership of the the U.N. Human Rights Council because of violence by Gaddafi's forces.

Gaddafi, a survivor of past coup attempts, has told television networks: "All my people love me," dismissing the significance of the rebellion that has ended his control over much of oil-rich eastern Libya.

The Libyan leader has, however, faced defections from soldiers, diplomats and ministers. Gaddafi replaced two of his ministers who had defected to support the uprising seeking to oust him, Libyan state television said on Wednesday.

Rebel fighters said the balance of the conflict was swinging their way. "Our strength is growing and we are getting more weapons. We are attacking checkpoints," said Yousef Shagan, a spokesman in Zawiyah, 50 km (30 miles) from Tripoli.

The rebel army officer in the eastern city of Ajdabiyah said rebel units were becoming more organised. "All the military councils of Free Libya are meeting to form a unified military council to plan an attack on Gaddafi security units, militias and mercenaries," Captain Zwei said.

Despite the widespread collapse of Gaddafi's rule, his forces were fighting back in some regions. A reporter on the Tunisian border saw Libyan troops reassert control at a crossing abandoned on Monday, and residents of Nalut, about 60 km (35 miles) from the border, said they feared pro-Gaddafi forces were planning to recapture the town.

Mohamed, a resident of rebel-held Misrata, told Reuters by phone: "Symbols of Gaddafi's regime have been swept away from the city. Only a (pro-Gaddafi) battalion remains at the city's air base but they appear to be willing to negotiate safe exit out of the air base. We are not sure if this is genuine or just a trick to attack the city again."

Many on the streets of Tripoli on Tuesday expressed loyalty, but a man who described himself as a military pilot said: "One hundred percent of Libyans don't like him."

The UN General Assembly on Tuesday unanimously suspended Libya's membership of the U.N. Human Rights Council. A UN Security Council resolution on Saturday called for a freeze on Gaddafi's assets and a travel ban and refers his crackdown to the International Criminal Court.

The United States has frozen $30 billion in Libyan assets.

Libya's National Oil Corp said output had halved due to the departure of foreign workers. Brent crude surged above $116 a barrel on Tuesday as supply disruptions and potential for more unrest in the Middle East and North Africa kept investors edgy.


The "no fly zone" was set in when Thursday?



I don't agree with Farrakhan on anything, but he dropped some serious knowledge.









WAKE UP YOU SHEEP!
 
I just have one comment... If you allow us to simplify things for a bit into sides (US/UN/etc vs. Iran/Cuba/etc), do you believe for one second that Iran/Cuba/etc are not actively supporting and interfering in the business of other countries when they can? Please tell me none of you are that naive.

Granted, a world with no interference at all would be better. I'm not arguing that. But, if a civil war breaks out in another country and one side is heavily funded and armed by one external force, what is our role? And how do we weigh humanitarian, economic, and security factors?

And US often positions warships around the world even when not planning to intervene, and the no-fly zone has been talked about from early on by many countries. We'd have a pretty 
7d51574a69d6fbf7c66591dcde7fe1322df06d2.gif
 military system if we delay any strategic positioning until after 
7d51574a69d6fbf7c66591dcde7fe1322df06d2.gif
 happens.
 
Also, let me poise a question to you War mongoring Neocons.


What happens if Gaddafi doesn't leave? Air strikes aren't going to remove Gaddafi, the military was saying this even in Iraq. They knew Air strikes wouldn't remove Saddam.

Do ya'll understand the repercussions? Do you guys understand that if Gaddafi doesn't leave you have just opened the door to an increase in "terrorist" attacks? I mean you guys are advocating an illegal and unjust invasion of this guys country and expect nothing to happen?


"no ground troops" 
laugh.gif
Yeah, ok. We'll see what Hillary pushes Obama into.
 
The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

1. There's a difference between security, and military support. Libya falls in the latter.

2. This is a multilateral effort. The United States, Canada, France, Denmark, Italy, and Great Britain have all contributed resources to this UNSC and AU approved mission.

3. Gadhafi has committed, and continues to commit, human rights violations-- chiefly, genocide-- on a massive scale. Military intervention is necessary in such situations.
 
Damn... saw some high-res pics of the initial airstrikes by allied forces on nytimes.com, go look it up. !%++ is getting real.

I just feel kind of guilty that we haven't even finished up our 'job' in Iraq and Afghanistan and are helping Libya. I mean if the whole thing is truly about saving the innocent lives at stake in Libya, then I guess it is somewhat justified, but I think we are just spreading our already strained resources more.
 
Originally Posted by True Blues

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

1. There's a difference between security, and military support. Libya falls in the latter.

2. This is a multilateral effort. The United States, Canada, France, Denmark, Italy, and Great Britain have all contributed resources to this UNSC and AU approved mission.

3. Gadhafi has committed, and continues to commit, human rights violations-- chiefly, genocide-- on a massive scale. Military intervention is necessary in such situations.
Ok, let me know when the no-fly zone and 100 tomahawk missiles are landing in Israeli cities.
Secondly, this is not a genocide. Stop believing Western imperialist propaganda and diluting the meaning of the word for people really suffering through genocides. Is Bahrain a genocide ? (pretty sure live ammo is being used and protesters are constantly getting shot in the head with sniper rounds, sound similar to Libya ? why we ignoring it ?
laugh.gif
) Was Gaza a genocide ? Was Iraq a genocide ? Was Lebanon a genocide ?  Just stop for your own sake.

Thirdly, saying we got some other countries (most of whom sold arms to Gaddafi) to thug it out with us means nothing and does nothing to strengthen your argument. We went in with a "coalition" in Iraq, no ? 
roll.gif
 
More people need to watch that video about Farrakhan. I'm astonished that they haven't killed him like they did Martin, Malcolm, and JFK.
 
Originally Posted by True Blues

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

1. There's a difference between security, and military support. Libya falls in the latter.

2. This is a multilateral effort. The United States, Canada, France, Denmark, Italy, and Great Britain have all contributed resources to this UNSC and AU approved mission.

3. Gadhafi has committed, and continues to commit, human rights violations-- chiefly, genocide-- on a massive scale. Military intervention is necessary in such situations.


You ever stop to ask yourself why we didn't intervene when Israel did the same?
 
Originally Posted by DAYTONA 5000

Originally Posted by True Blues

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

1. There's a difference between security, and military support. Libya falls in the latter.

2. This is a multilateral effort. The United States, Canada, France, Denmark, Italy, and Great Britain have all contributed resources to this UNSC and AU approved mission.

3. Gadhafi has committed, and continues to commit, human rights violations-- chiefly, genocide-- on a massive scale. Military intervention is necessary in such situations.


You ever stop to ask yourself why we didn't intervene when Israel did the same?


Don't waste your time. He won't have an answer.

The Farrakhan video provides you with the answers.


ph-libya-fly.jpg




[h1][/h1]
[h1]Arab League chief condemns killing of Libya civilians by Western powers [/h1] [h2]Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa calls for emergency meeting to discuss situation in Libya, says Arabs did not want military strike on Libya by Western powers when the League called for a no-fly zone. [/h2] ByNews Agencies


The Arab League chief said on Sunday that Arabs did not want military strikes by Western powers that hit civilians when the League called for a no-fly zone over Libya.

In comments carried by Egypt's official state news agency, Secretary-General Amr Moussa also said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya.

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.

"He requested official reports about what happened in Libya in terms of aerial and marine bombardment that led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians. He pointed out that he asked for the full data to know what actually happened," MENA said.

Western forces have unleashed their biggest military attack in the Arab world since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, targeting Muammar Gadhafi's air defenses and armored vehicles near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the east of the country.

A few hours after the first missiles struck, Gadhafi called on "citizens of the Arab and Islamic nations" and other developing countries to "stand by the heroic Libyan people to confront this aggression".

But Arabs from North Africa to the Gulf, many demanding political rights for the first time, dismissed the appeal from a leader whose four decades of authoritarian and capricious rule have exhausted any reserves of sympathy.

"It is now clear and understandable that Arab people want to get rid of their leaders, so leaders should simply leave and not fight their people and force foreign nations to interfere," said Mohamed Abdel Motaleb, a bank employee in Cairo, where mass protests toppled veteran president Hosni Mubarak last month.

"I am very much against foreign troops fighting in Libya, but Arab leaders should not let that happen through their stubborness and refusal to quit power".

A Libyan government official said 64 people died in the Western air strikes and the head of the Arab League, which supported Libyan no-fly zone, said the organization had not endorsed attacks on ordinary Libyans.

The overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and Tunisia's Zine al Abidine bin Ali -- as well as mass protests against leaders in Yemen and Bahrain -- have restored a dormant Arab pride which was crushed by decades of autocracy and foreign intervention.

But many people in the Arab world, while anxious to see the end of Gadhafi's rule, felt that the resort to Western military action has tarnished Libya's revolution.

"Who will accept that foreign countries attack an Arab country? This is something shameful," said Yemeni rights activist Bashir Othman.

Support for military action was also muted by deep-seated suspicions that the West is more concerned with securing access to Arab oil supplies than supporting Arab aspirations.

"They are hitting Libya because of the oil, not to protect the Libyans," said Ali al-Jassem, 53, in the village of Sitra in Bahrain, where protests by the Shi'ite Muslim majority against the Sunni ruling Al-Khalifa family have triggered military reinforcement by neighboring Gulf Arab forces.

A spokesman for Bahrain's largest Shi'ite opposition party Wefaq questioned why the West was intervening against Gadhafi while it allowed oil-producing allies to support a crackdown on protesters in Bahrain in which 11 people have been killed.

"We think what is happening in Bahrain is no different to what was happening in Libya," Ibrahim Mattar said. "Bahrain is very small so the deaths are significant for a country where Bahrainis are only 600,000."

In Iraq, where U.S.-led forces invaded eight years ago to topple Saddam Hussein, opposition to Gadhafi was tempered by the years of violence which Iraq endured after Saddam's downfall, as well as anger at perceived double standards.

Criticism of the West has not translated into support for Gadhafi, who has bemused or infuriated leaders across the Arab world during his four decades in power.

Saudi Arabia accused him of plotting to kill King Abdullah in 2003, Lebanese Shi'ites hold him responsible for the disappearance of charismatic cleric Musa al-Sadr, and in the 1990s he expelled thousands of Palestinians.

Libyan and Egyptian forces also clashed on their border in the early years of Gadhafi's rule, and he regularly harangued Arab presidents and kings at meetings of the Arab League, before turning his back on them in favor of closer African ties.

"Our friends, our brothers are in Libya and we need to support them there," said 42-year-old Mohammed Abdullah, sipping coffee in the business district of the Qatari capital Doha. "Gadhafi needs to be out. He kills his own people".





indifferent.gif
 
Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by True Blues

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

1. There's a difference between security, and military support. Libya falls in the latter.

2. This is a multilateral effort. The United States, Canada, France, Denmark, Italy, and Great Britain have all contributed resources to this UNSC and AU approved mission.

3. Gadhafi has committed, and continues to commit, human rights violations-- chiefly, genocide-- on a massive scale. Military intervention is necessary in such situations.
Ok, let me know when the no-fly zone and 100 tomahawk missiles are landing in Israeli cities.
Secondly, this is not a genocide. Stop believing Western imperialist propaganda and diluting the meaning of the word for people really suffering through genocides. Is Bahrain a genocide ? (pretty sure live ammo is being used and protesters are constantly getting shot in the head with sniper rounds, sound similar to Libya ? why we ignoring it ?
laugh.gif
) Was Gaza a genocide ? Was Iraq a genocide ? Was Lebanon a genocide ?  Just stop for your own sake.

Thirdly, saying we got some other countries (most of whom sold arms to Gaddafi) to thug it out with us means nothing and does nothing to strengthen your argument. We went in with a "coalition" in Iraq, no ? 
roll.gif
Certainly, all of the cases you mentioned qualify, and more should be done at an international level to prevent the violation of internationally guaranteed human rights. In Gaza, especially. I have been there, and the actions of the Israeli military are unnecessarily brutal, and clearly, violate international law. BUT-- and this is a enormous but-- the United States will never take military action against Israel. This is an unfortunate fact. Moreover, as the Clinton experience shows, attempts to mediate the Israel-Palestine conflict are futile.

Comparing the coalitions in this Libyan case, and in Iraq is literally like comparing apples and oranges. What some of you fail to understand is that there is nuance in international relations. What makes this intervention (if we can call it at this point) different from Iraq is that the UNSC has approved the Libyan NFZ, whereas in Iraq the UN never signed off on a US unilateral intervention. Further, the nations represented in the two missions are FAR different. For example, Canada refused to enter Iraq, but is doing so in Libya; Denmark, whose only foreign policy strategy is the promotion of human rights internationally, is also supporting this mission. So let's not confuse a largely unilateral intervention (Iraq) with one that enjoys broad international support.
 
UNSC is a joke. Much like the "Arab League"
roll.gif


Case in point: where is the no-fly zone/bombing campaign over Israel ? They have no legitimacy to declare anything. I don't care what the "law" may be when there is clear hypocrisy. Regardless of whatever "international support" you claim they have for "humanitarian" interests, you gotta ask why this is not present in any of the dozens of other situations that require this but have little to no oil and are not located in a strategically important area. There is clearly a hidden (Zionist/imperialist) agenda. Just look at the clear disparity in media coverage of all these issues. We blame China for its policies but turn a blind eye when Saudi Arabia does the exact same to crack down on protests. We sell billions in arms to Gaddafi then suddenly claim to be bombing him for humanitarian reasons ? Why are we ignoring the Ivory Coast ? 
 
Originally Posted by thadangerousmind

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by thadangerousmind

How long do you think it will be before an uprising happens in the USA?

It's started already.

Well I mean on the scale of Egypt's revolt.


Once the sheep in this country get out of their bubble thinking everything is "Left v.s. Right" and understand that their government has been lying to them their entire life.
 
Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by thadangerousmind

Originally Posted by rashi


It's started already.

Well I mean on the scale of Egypt's revolt.


Once the sheep in this country get out of their bubble thinking everything is "Left v.s. Right" and understand that their government has been lying to them their entire life.
That'd be the day. Americans now aren't down for that.
 
Even the civilians in Libya are praising these Air Strikes on the Libyan military because they're keeping Benghazi out of the militarys hand. Each strike has been on a military target and they've been successful
 
Originally Posted by rashi

Also, let me poise a question to you War mongoring Neocons.


What happens if Gaddafi doesn't leave? Air strikes aren't going to remove Gaddafi, the military was saying this even in Iraq. They knew Air strikes wouldn't remove Saddam.

Do ya'll understand the repercussions? Do you guys understand that if Gaddafi doesn't leave you have just opened the door to an increase in "terrorist" attacks? I mean you guys are advocating an illegal and unjust invasion of this guys country and expect nothing to happen?


"no ground troops" 
laugh.gif
Yeah, ok. We'll see what Hillary pushes Obama into.

You're trying but they aren't going to realize it until it happens. That's EXACTLY why I said earlier, we need to stay out of things like this. We're in two wars and going into a 3rd.

"NO GROUND TROOPS" Yep I'm sure.
eyes.gif


Also, who in the hell thinks its a good idea to just shoot missiles into other countries like this. What if coordinates are off? Then you have X amount of civilian deaths on your hands. Like with Iraq. This world is so screwed.
tired.gif


I'm all for freedom but I don't know about this everlasting war we're consistently in now. Next it'll be Iran or somebody. Give it time.
 
Back
Top Bottom