Drone Attack

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.

Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

He was 'off the list' because he knew his ass was grass already,
and thought he could stave off worldwide condemnation by cooling
off.

We (the world) were also stupid enough to give Arafat a fucking
Nobel Peace Prize.

That year... Rodney King deserved it more than Arafat, and that
fucker spent the money on more explosives!

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together. Ditto
Sadaam and Tito.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 11:17:12 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:52f1f67a-8d8a-401d-ae66-
ee5adb65f7f5@googlegroups.com:

If any country did to the US what Trump is doing to Iran,
we'd consider it an act of war and even you know it.

You're an idiot.

I do not like Trump, but I do not like "the deal" either.

I didn't like the deal Obama/Kerry made, but it was a deal in
the name of the USA.



Iran did
> not need to be merely slowed down as the deal 'allowed'.

That's wrong, as usual. The deal didn't just slow Iran down, it halted
their development for 15 years. It required them to ship their enriched
uranium out of the country and they did. It limited enrichment to 3%
and quantities consistent with civilian purposes. It had UN weapons
inspectors in Iran verifying compliance.

One of the stupidest arguments for bailing on the deal was that it only
lasted 15 years. So? That doesn't mean that 3 years before it would have
ended that it could not have been extended. And in 15 years, there is
some chance that the govt could change in Iran. Trump tossed all that
to go back into the lurch, with no guarantee that he's going to get any
deal at all. And this time, it's the US against Iran, not six powerful
countries, including Russia and China. Trump campaigned on isolationism,
so why is the US the one that has to go "fix" Iran?

Iran has exactly ZERO business moving toward being a nuclear weapon
'power'. And it is the duty of the entire world to stop them.

Ab-so-fuckin-lutely.

They were halted, not moving. But now that Trump reneged, Iran has said
they will resume enriching to 20%. Nice going Trump! And it's not the
world against Iran this time. It's not even the five other countries that
signed the agreement! They are on the same side as Iran, saying that Iran
was complying, that they were satisfied with the agreement and they pleaded
with Trump not to renege. Only Trump could get Iran, UK, Germany, France,
China and Russia all on the same side, against the US.

 

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together. Ditto
Sadaam and Tito.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.

+1

And helping overthrow Gaddafi sent a terrible message to Iran, North Korea
and anyone else considering nuclear weapons. If you cooperate with the US,
do what we demand, make an agreement, hand over your nuclear material,
allow inspections, then when you're clean, we kill you. If you have nukes,
like NK, we won't.

 

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 11:30:31 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f005cfc5-d876-48f6-90ac-ebb179d5170d@googlegroups.com:

We don't tell you how to hump kangaroos, why do you persist in
trying to tell us what we should do? The founding fathers knew
exactly what they were doing with the electoral college process
and it works fine. It's just that libs like you don't like one
result, where they lost, so now any excuse will do, let's change
the rules, etc.


Decades of collegiate analysis decidedly shows you for the guess-
as-you-go, make-shit-up, know-nothing-asshole we all know you to be.

The reason folks want it gone, and it was long before THIS
election cycle, you putz, is because they have done the analysis,
and have found it to be one of the most corruptable aspects of our
government.

That's just another lie. Wrong, always wrong.

The current cycle is a perfect example thereof.

I've asked you to provide us with evidence that anything improper went
on in the electoral college, as opposed to them just casting their votes
as the voters in their states determined. As usual, you provided
nothing. You're just pissed because
Trump won, so now you want to claim it wasn't fair. Sore loser.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:45:24 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 11:30:31 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f005cfc5-d876-48f6-90ac-ebb179d5170d@googlegroups.com:

We don't tell you how to hump kangaroos, why do you persist in
trying to tell us what we should do? The founding fathers knew
exactly what they were doing with the electoral college process
and it works fine. It's just that libs like you don't like one
result, where they lost, so now any excuse will do, let's change
the rules, etc.


Decades of collegiate analysis decidedly shows you for the guess-
as-you-go, make-shit-up, know-nothing-asshole we all know you to be.

The reason folks want it gone, and it was long before THIS
election cycle, you putz, is because they have done the analysis,
and have found it to be one of the most corruptable aspects of our
government.


That's just another lie. Wrong, always wrong.

The current cycle is a perfect example thereof.

I've asked you to provide us with evidence that anything improper went
on in the electoral college, as opposed to them just casting their votes
as the voters in their states determined. As usual, you provided
nothing. You're just pissed because
Trump won, so now you want to claim it wasn't fair. Sore loser.

No. As usual, you missed the point. What Alexander Hamilton claimed (in Federalist 68) was that the electoral college would have rejected a petty demagogue like Trump, even if he had the votes.

They didn't. End of story. The electoral college didn't do what it had been claimed it was set up to do, which happens to have been to reject bad advice from states about who to put in as president.

Trump may be the worst minority president so far - Dubbya wasn't great either. The other three seems to have been less obviously bad.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:30:13 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together. Ditto
Sadaam and Tito.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.

+1

One of our more obvious idiotic right-wingers agrees with John Larkin expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.

And helping overthrow Gaddafi sent a terrible message to Iran, North Korea
and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons aren't a lot of help when it's your own population that is rebelling.

If you cooperate with the US,
do what we demand, make an agreement, hand over your nuclear material,
allow inspections, then when you're clean, we kill you.

Gaddafi was killed by rebellious Libyans. The NATO airstrike that broke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.

> If you have nukes, like NK, we won't.

Perhaps. If you've got nukes and your country is in disorder there's going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and grab the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together.

The whole problem with Gaddafi was that - after the Arab Spring, he couldn't hold his country together. The population (or substantial proportion of it) had gone into armed rebellion. Nobody in the West had encoruaged that.

It was Gaddafi's enthusiasm for particularly brutal rebellion suppresion that prompted Sarkozy to mobile his NATO allies to use air-power to impede Gaddafi's capacity to move his armed forces around to kill off everybody they could get at.

> Ditto Sadaam and Tito.

Tito died of natural causes. Sadaam got a bit too ambitious.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.

Sadly for Gaddafi, he couldn't keep his country glued together after the Arab Spring. He'd stopped provoking his neighbours, but wasn't doing enough for the people he rulled to saty in power after the Arab Spring.

Several of our more right-wing lunatics blame Obama and Clinton, as if they'd set the Arab Spring unwinding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

sees it as as home-grown phenomenon, quite possibly help by the new social media which seemed to have played a significant role in sreading the protests.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:07:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:30:13 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together. Ditto
Sadaam and Tito.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.

+1

One of our more obvious idiotic right-wingers agrees with John Larkin expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.

No misconceptions, you just ignore the facts, the results, what actually
happened in places like Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya.

And helping overthrow Gaddafi sent a terrible message to Iran, North Korea
and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons aren't a lot of help when it's your own population that is rebelling.

Of course they are. If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would not have
gone to war against him and he may have very well prevailed.

If you cooperate with the US,
do what we demand, make an agreement, hand over your nuclear material,
allow inspections, then when you're clean, we kill you.

Gaddafi was killed by rebellious Libyans. The NATO airstrike that broke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.

Yes, they can put that on Gaddafi's tombstone, the US air strikes were not
meant to kill you, but they sure help. And Hillary sure took credit and
gloated.

If you have nukes, like NK, we won't.

Perhaps. If you've got nukes and your country is in disorder there's going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and grab the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yeah, sure, go in and grab the nukes from a country that has nukes.
That's probably the stupidest thing you've posted here yet.

 

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:58:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together.

The whole problem with Gaddafi was that - after the Arab Spring, he couldn't hold his country together. The population (or substantial proportion of it) had gone into armed rebellion. Nobody in the West had encoruaged that.

It was Gaddafi's enthusiasm for particularly brutal rebellion suppresion that prompted Sarkozy to mobile his NATO allies to use air-power to impede Gaddafi's capacity to move his armed forces around to kill off everybody they could get at.

Would be interesting to see what Saskozy would do if confronted with the
same thing, organized rebels shooting it up, attempting to overthrow him
and the French govt. I suppose he;d send a cake and surrender?

Ditto Sadaam and Tito.

Tito died of natural causes. Sadaam got a bit too ambitious.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.

Sadly for Gaddafi, he couldn't keep his country glued together after the Arab Spring. He'd stopped provoking his neighbours, but wasn't doing enough for the people he rulled to saty in power after the Arab Spring.

Several of our more right-wing lunatics blame Obama and Clinton, as if they'd set the Arab Spring unwinding.

Well, they certainly did encourage the Arab Spring. And just because there
was an uprising against Gaddafi, that didn't mean the US had to go get
involved and help them, especially since Gaddafi had cooperated with the US/UN
demands regarding WMDs and terrorism. And are they happy now? Is France
happy with the millions of migrants flowing into Europe and terrorists
running around in Libya?

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:eb9485ab-0611-4616-83f9-49f435fb4314@googlegroups.com:

Yes, they can put that on Gaddafi's tombstone, the US air strikes
were not meant to kill you, but they sure help. And Hillary sure
took credit and gloated.

You know that when you post here with a ten year old pathetic twerp
attitude, it gets noticed.

What gets noticed is that it is not your attitude, but that you never
got any farther than a ten year old mentality on all things.

You are a self retarded, self impotent jackass.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:eb9485ab-0611-4616-83f9-49f435fb4314@googlegroups.com:

Of course they are. If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would
not have gone to war against him and he may have very well
prevailed.

You are so stupid. You make shit up based on your bent impressions.

He would never have had nukes.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c19356c7-2620-471e-b6e5-4629297b72ed@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of
state sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of
the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being
leveraged around to better behavior, and he did hold his country
together.

The whole problem with Gaddafi was that - after the Arab Spring,
he couldn't hold his country together. The population (or
substantial proportion of it) had gone into armed rebellion.
Nobody in the West had encoruaged that.

It was Gaddafi's enthusiasm for particularly brutal rebellion
suppresion that prompted Sarkozy to mobile his NATO allies to use
air-power to impede Gaddafi's capacity to move his armed forces
around to kill off everybody they could get at.

Ditto Sadaam and Tito.

Tito died of natural causes. Sadaam got a bit too ambitious.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the
short term.

Sadly for Gaddafi, he couldn't keep his country glued together
after the Arab Spring. He'd stopped provoking his neighbours, but
wasn't doing enough for the people he rulled to saty in power
after the Arab Spring.

Several of our more right-wing lunatics blame Obama and Clinton,
as if they'd set the Arab Spring unwinding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

sees it as as home-grown phenomenon, quite possibly help by the
new social media which seemed to have played a significant role in
sreading the protests.

Thank you for getting it right.

We did nothing to get it going it was Gaddafi himself sealing his
own fate.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:70cb756f-b2e9-4e58-876e-22595fdc4cd2@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 11:30:31 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f005cfc5-d876-48f6-90ac-ebb179d5170d@googlegroups.com:

We don't tell you how to hump kangaroos, why do you persist in
trying to tell us what we should do? The founding fathers knew
exactly what they were doing with the electoral college process
and it works fine. It's just that libs like you don't like one
result, where they lost, so now any excuse will do, let's
change the rules, etc.


Decades of collegiate analysis decidedly shows you for the
guess-
as-you-go, make-shit-up, know-nothing-asshole we all know you to
be.

The reason folks want it gone, and it was long before THIS
election cycle, you putz, is because they have done the analysis,
and have found it to be one of the most corruptable aspects of
our government.


That's just another lie. Wrong, always wrong.



The current cycle is a perfect example thereof.


I've asked you to provide us with evidence that anything improper
went on in the electoral college, as opposed to them just casting
their votes as the voters in their states determined. As usual,
you provided nothing. You're just pissed because
Trump won, so now you want to claim it wasn't fair. Sore loser.

That is exactly what I said you would say.

You are a fucking pussy, and you would lose teeth if we met.
Likely lose more than that.

You never asked me anything, fucktard.

And "voting like they are supposed to do" means nothing if the
circumstance is ALREADY CORRUPTED going in.

Also, the entire premise is not needed. Popular vote works fine.

The thing was implemented so THEY could exercise control over what
WE vote for. It should have been tossed out from the get go.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:ae10cfd7-c4ab-4126-a419-
aadf6eeb7c41@googlegroups.com:

The deal didn't just slow Iran down, it halted
their development for 15 years.

15 years.

What part of "that IS merely a slowing down" do you not understand?

It is NOT a halt. Period.

A HALT is what IS needed.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:43 AM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:07:11 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 4:30:13 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

Not for many years. The US had taken Libya off the list of state
sponsors of terrorism.



Ask Scotland if they think he was not a terrorist.

Oh and yes, for that alone, he deserved death, regardless of the
moments elapsed between his act and the act that killed him.

Sure, but bringing one despot to justice is not worth flinging
millions of people into chaos and civil war. K was being leveraged
around to better behavior, and he did hold his country together. Ditto
Sadaam and Tito.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.

+1

One of our more obvious idiotic right-wingers agrees with John Larkin expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.

No misconceptions, you just ignore the facts, the results, what actually
happened in places like Iraq, Syria, Iran and Libya.

No. You are ignoring the fact that these were popular uprsings, not engineered by any foreign power. Your right-wing fantasies can't handle that idea, so you invent some foreign intervention or other -for which there is absolutely no evidence.

And helping overthrow Gaddafi sent a terrible message to Iran, North Korea
and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons aren't a lot of help when it's your own population that is rebelling.

Of course they are.

How? Is the regime going to supress a popular uprisng by blasting it's own economy and infra-structure inot non-existence?

If Gaddafi had nukes, the US and France would not have
gone to war against him and he may have very well prevailed.

If Gaddafi had nukes, the rebels could well have turned them on him. That's the problem with authoritarian regimes - if there's one obvious head, you can always cut it off.

If you cooperate with the US,
do what we demand, make an agreement, hand over your nuclear material,
allow inspections, then when you're clean, we kill you.

Gaddafi was killed by rebellious Libyans. The NATO airstrike that broke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.

Yes, they can put that on Gaddafi's tombstone, the US air strikes were not
meant to kill you, but they sure help. And Hillary sure took credit and
gloated.

Only when the famous interview is looked at through the eyes of a addict to right-wing conspiracy theories.

If you have nukes, like NK, we won't.

Perhaps. If you've got nukes and your country is in disorder there's going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and grab the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.

Yeah, sure, go in and grab the nukes from a country that has nukes.
That's probably the stupidest thing you've posted here yet.

If a country is in disorder, the nukes aren't necessarily going to be in the hands of the regime that is being revolted against. As soon as that happens, international intervention becomes very likely, purely as a precautionary measure.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 28, 2019 at 3:01:51 AM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:58:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 3:59:25 PM UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f2c0a22c-cdfe-41cf-a4a3-a0bfa4d66257@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

The whole problem with Gaddafi was that - after the Arab Spring, he couldn't hold his country together. The population (or substantial proportion of it) had gone into armed rebellion. Nobody in the West had encoruaged that.

It was Gaddafi's enthusiasm for particularly brutal rebellion suppresion that prompted Sarkozy to mobile his NATO allies to use air-power to impede Gaddafi's capacity to move his armed forces around to kill off everybody they could get at.

Would be interesting to see what Saskozy would do if confronted with the
same thing, organized rebels shooting it up, attempting to overthrow him
and the French govt.

Absolutely nothing. He hasn't been the president of France for years.

> I suppose he'd send a cake and surrender?

When he was in power he would have reacted militarily, but he would have tried to limit collateral damage, which Gadaffi didn't.

Ditto Sadaam and Tito.

Tito died of natural causes. Sadaam got a bit too ambitious.

Some countries need a dictator, to glue them together in the short
term.

Sadly for Gaddafi, he couldn't keep his country glued together after the Arab Spring. He'd stopped provoking his neighbours, but wasn't doing enough for the people he rulled to saty in power after the Arab Spring.

Several of our more right-wing lunatics blame Obama and Clinton, as if they'd set the Arab Spring unwinding.

Well, they certainly did encourage the Arab Spring.

They expressed a certain amount of enthusiasm for the more democratic regimes that seemed to be emerging at the time, which isn't quite the same thing.

And just because there
was an uprising against Gaddafi, that didn't mean the US had to go get
involved and help them, especially since Gaddafi had cooperated with the US/UN
demands regarding WMDs and terrorism.

NATO wasn't helping the rebels, it was hindering Gaddafi, who had backed-tracked on his promises about terrorism. The help to the rebels was entirely incidental.

And are they happy now? Is France
happy with the millions of migrants flowing into Europe and terrorists
running around in Libya?

Nobody is. But putting Gadaffi back in power wouldn't have lead to any kind of better outcome.

A NATO invasion might have worked better than the US invasion did in Irak, but nobody in Europe was prepared to commit to the sort of effort that might have worked (and more than the US was in Irak, when they realised the size of the effort required).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:f50b63c6-6719-471e-8744-0b38e1060b6e@googlegroups.com:

So, according to you, a car traveling from NYC to Boston is not
halted while the driver has lunch along the way? It's just
"slowed down"? That would be a new version of physics, but then
you are always way out there.

"Stopping for lunch" along the way is a slower run than not stopping
for lunch.

Same car, same driver, different runtime. One is slower than the
other. Why? One stopped for lunch.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:07fec0cf-30a6-4601-854a-
b79d9f4d1b59@googlegroups.com:

It was implemented so states rights were protected and smaller states
could not as easily be ignored.

What part of 'no longer relavent" do you not understand?

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:07fec0cf-30a6-4601-854a-
b79d9f4d1b59@googlegroups.com:

I'll add that to your list of threats made, for possible referal
to the authorities.

I'll add this to the list of chuckles I have made at your inane
lits announcements.

And I'll have it available when you again deny
that you make threats.

Why don't you post your entire lits, boy?

It will sure make for some good, hearty laughter.

Bwuahahahahaa!