Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael on March 22, 2011 at 11:54am

We are counted as sheep gone to slaughter. It is because of the death of the martyrs dead in Christ, the earth is trembling as a woman in travial and shall work up to a crecendo at his coming and the dead in Christ shall rise.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 22, 2011 at 7:02pm

As you may have noticed, English is not my first language. In fact, I subcounciously translate anything written in English to my native language. Unfortunately, what you wrote does not make any sense to me in any way, and my speculation is that it is due to everyting you just wrote being expressions i don't know or words which have a certian emotional response that is not the same when translate to my language.

Could you please restate previous sentence such that the possible causes of me not understanding anything cannot be attributed to above mentioned speculations?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on March 22, 2011 at 11:00pm

 Pagan Roman parochial authorities have killed the Holy and elect people from Nero setting thousands on fire on Vatican Hill up through the Inquisitions. 

As such Rome and Istanbul (Constantinople)  are drunk with the blood of the martyrs.

As such this has precipitated great tribulation upon earth up until the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. But Rome and Constantinople  (the two horns of the beast that  looked like a lamb but spoke like a dragon) and all of its daughter cities around the world shall not be spared an earthquake bigger than any since man has been upon the planet, prior to the second coming. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alejandro M on March 21, 2011 at 1:05am

To answer your post, I am in favor of getting rid of this tyrant.

In addition, I feel the need to bring to the fore some quotes to compare, as for a sector of the public and the media there seem to be "good" wars (eg Libya) and "bad" wars (eg Iraq):

'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world...'
- Barack Obama, 03/19/2011

'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...'
- George W. Bush, 03/19/2003

Some further comparisons (ok, tongue in cheek):

Iraq – blood for oil, war for neocon corporate interests and U.S. hegemony only
Libya – no blood, no oil. Obama’s motives are pure because, well, good women are running the show for him – Hillary, Susan, Samantha – and everyone knows that when women (and the French of course) run a war good things happen!

Iraq – weapons of mass destruction... what weapons of mass destruction?
Libya – no weapons of mass destruction because, well, okay, because Bush invaded Iraq and Gaddafi shit his pants and gave up his nukes. Pshew!

Iraq – benign dictator who never hurt anyone, wasn’t a threat to his neighbors, did not support terrorists, and, through the Oil for Food program, only wanted to share his oil with Europe in exchange for food and medicine for his long suffering people.
Libya – Gaddafi is acting like a big jerk.

In light of the irrefutable evidence (that their protégé -the current President- is acting EXACTLY THE SAME as George W), I would love to see some people who have made a religion of insulting George W Bush and his legacy, to come to the front and say "I am sorry". And while we are at it, is it too late to return the Nobel Peace Prize?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scarlette Blues on March 21, 2011 at 12:39pm

I agree with you that the Iraq war and the Libya war have different reasonings behind them.

It really irritates me to see all these people comparing Obama to be exactly like Bush. I'd like to know what some of the irrefutable evidence is. Most of what I've seen always ties into the World New Order, or other conspiracies. I think some people just like to bitch at the president, no matter who's in office. lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on March 21, 2011 at 1:30pm

Enough flaws attributable to Obama, escalation of war in Afghanistan (Der Spiegel just issued some photos of Afghan progress delivered per "Kill Team") and Pakistan, leading to unnecessary and dangerous destabilization and future blow-back, Iraq, Guantanamo, the Manning affair, torture goes on, show-trials and on and on. No World Order here, rather more Disorder than they can handle.

But I hear that Obama has been convinced by Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power, and their motivation for each of them was their personal experiences in the roles they played with the genocide in Rwanda that heightened their sense of urgency facing now the slaughter that would have happened in Benghazi. I don't know if that is really true, but that's at least the tale that was put out for the moment.

It's a pretty dangerous situation. Alarmingly, the most basic intelligence, the background situation, the tribal structure and sub-groupings with different loyalties seems (once again) to be unmapped territory. 'We' literally don't know what were dealing with here.

Short story is, there is no turning back now. (Think Lockerbie, multiply it with 911 and add chemical weapons.) If Qadaffi holds out, this is going to be very ugly.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam Watson on March 21, 2011 at 9:04pm

Who spends billions in weapons and planes to save somebody in a faraway land? After all we all live in Capitalist Nations! Nothing comes for free!

It's all media wars masquerading this whole thing as a favour to Libyan people, But Libya has the best oil in the middle east!!

I'd like to see just which american puppet will become the new "Democratically" elected president of Libya!

And like to see if americans will be keeping their troops out of Lybia!

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William C. Walker on March 21, 2011 at 11:50pm

 

Perhaps we should post a sign : DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on March 21, 2011 at 11:58pm

Incredibly, here in the 21st century, terrible, prolonged, genocides have occurred in Rwanda and the Darfur region of Sudan.  Did the West rush out their militaries to stop citizen deaths and suffering?  They eventually supported U.N. peacekeeping forces but that's a far cry from the quick response to Libya's civil war.

Of course oil factors into our reaction.  It's the lifeblood of industrial societies.  It's a matter of national interests for all of the free world.  Yes, it sounds tawdry to think we respond quickest when our oil is threatened but what are we really to do?  We have to survive and can't allow the flow of oil to be threatened.

Please note that there's a huge difference between paying through the nose for foreign oil and colonizing oil-producing countries in the old-fashioned and thoroughly unworkable imperialist system.  We are willingly subject to an OPEC cartel but not to any serious threat to the flow of oil.

I wish we weren't dependent on foreign oil.  But as long as we are, we have to ensure the flow of that oil is not threatened.

It's an ugly fact of life that we need to change.  Our efforts to that end has been too little and too slow.  I have no idea what it will take to give the matter more priority.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 22, 2011 at 3:10am

Well, the West tried non-intervention in (oil producing) Sudan and we got the protracted genocide and Chinese involvement without reponsibility as a prize. Sure, we can essentially say to the Arab countres and other dictatorships "Do what you want". But then people who support that view also has to stand responsible when murder and suppression inevitably follows.

However, inaction is a geopolitical stategy which was dismanteled after WW2. Letting Germany and Japan run unchecked turned out to be not a very good idea for humanity, which is why the strategy was changed to continual geopolitical presence.

You specifically mention oil, but the exact same argument can be made for pretty much any resource. It is the responsibility of the host country of the natural resource to ensure that it available to those who need it and are willing to pay a reasonable amount. Having the power to put an arbitrary strangehold by rejecting resources to other countries who are paying you for it (instead of taking it through imperialism) demands responsible courses of action. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aliqsandre Suguitan on March 22, 2011 at 4:09am

Gas prices soar when Mid-east twitches - even with the slightest twitch.  If only we could produce half of our energy requirements from renewable sources, USA would be insulated from this nuisance and economically debilitating influence.  Since natural resources vary with each state, each state should determine how it can do this within 10 years, with the federal government lending the money needed.  This will not be free, but bear the minimum possible interest payable in 20 years starting with year 10.  By using today's uninflated $ to construct the facilities, the green electricity generated, in a way which may be expensive today, will tomorrow be competitive with that made with natural gas.  California, with its vast tracks of unused deserts should be loaned $20B to produce solar-thermal electricity. By producing green energy, we can idly watch Arabs kill each other without worrying about soaring gas prices, so long as they do not use nuclear warheads and do not involve Israel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aliqsandre Suguitan on March 22, 2011 at 4:01am

I'm not a great lover of Obama, but in this Libya business I want to call him the consummate politician.  He wanted to help the Libyans, but did not want to make the same mistake as in Iraq where US went in alone, in defiance of international opinion.  This time he played it coy, letting France, Britain and Italy take the lead.  I think it is all he can do anyway.  At this point in time when US is facing bankruptcy, the best it can play is supporting role.  Our time as world leader is over, at least until we improve our status from destitute to viable.

After allowing hundreds of Libyans to be sacrificed by Gaddafi's butchers, US is finally being persuaded to help stop this carnage.  In order for French, etc. planes to come in safely and strafe the loyalists and mercenaries, Gaddafi's air defense system must be effectively neutralized.  In this initial phase of the international attack, US is playing the leading edge role. Afterwards USA will play the miser, sit back, and conserve its resources.

Kudos to Sec of State Hilary Clinton.  She was the one most responsible to get the world leaders, including even the Arab League (for the first time), to get a unanimous agreement to stop Gaddafi from continuing to butcher his people, "without mercy", in his own words.  She's Americas's prime diplomat par excellence.

After Gaddafi loyalist and mercenary's planes, tanks and artillery are gone, the Lybians can finish the job themselves and end Gaddafi;s 41-year dictatorship.  I just hope they will show some gratitude to the international coalition that helped them, including US.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page