In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/03/2011 6:58 AM, John H wrote:
...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where
is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Gaddafi must have ****ed of someone in high power somewhere.

If it were about justice, how come for 3 decades the power that be did
nothing? I don't like him, he should have had his neck stretched years
ago, but why now? Our corrupt leaders say so? What is the real motive
for this?

Come now, pretty obvious some alliance exists with US-UN-France where in
about 1/2 dozen countries the UN backed man is trying to replace the
local dictators or even democratically elected. Remeber the people of
Libya wanted Gaddafi and still do, BBC news showed protesters in
Gaddafi's support.

Because US-UN-France is fighting for a minority of gun toting rebel
criminals.

If an armed minority marched on DC, and another country came in to
support them -- that is what the US is doing!

Basically US-UN-France is the drivin force with Europe and Arab rich
calling the shots.

The new world order at work.

Thank you for the insights into your brain. It's a scary place, what
with your endless conspiracy theories.

I don't like Muammer el-Qaddafi either, but...as bad as he is, he is a
piker when you add up his murders and compare that number to the
hundreds of thousands of innocents our troops killed in Southeast Asia,
Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Iceland might be to your liking.

On 19/03/2011 10:26 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/03/2011 6:58 AM, John H wrote:
...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where
is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Gaddafi must have ****ed of someone in high power somewhere.

If it were about justice, how come for 3 decades the power that be did
nothing? I don't like him, he should have had his neck stretched years
ago, but why now? Our corrupt leaders say so? What is the real motive
for this?

Come now, pretty obvious some alliance exists with US-UN-France where in
about 1/2 dozen countries the UN backed man is trying to replace the
local dictators or even democratically elected. Remeber the people of
Libya wanted Gaddafi and still do, BBC news showed protesters in
Gaddafi's support.

Because US-UN-France is fighting for a minority of gun toting rebel
criminals.

If an armed minority marched on DC, and another country came in to
support them -- that is what the US is doing!

Basically US-UN-France is the drivin force with Europe and Arab rich
calling the shots.

The new world order at work.

Thank you for the insights into your brain. It's a scary place, what
with your endless conspiracy theories.

I don't like Muammer el-Qaddafi either, but...as bad as he is, he is a
piker when you add up his murders and compare that number to the
hundreds of thousands of innocents our troops killed in Southeast Asia,
Iraq, and Afghanistan.


I am too small for them to worry about. I don't disagree, Qaddafi (one
of many spellings) is a bad dude and should have been incarerated some 3
or 4 decades ago.

But you stupid sheep haven't asked why our governments dealt so well
with him for so long and all of a sudden govenment says he is evil?
What you might want to ask is who has Qaddafi ****ed off so much that
warrents outsiders interfering in a civil conflict of armed
disobendience. Know these rebel are a MINORITY. That is why the UN is
hesitant to get in on the ground, they could get a bullet in the back
like Somalia.

Yet Obama does not care about the MAJORITY being shot at in Bahrain.
Hypocracy on democracy? The word democracy has been over used in this
conflict as a media ploy -- this whole mess over there is not about
democracy, it is about politicial wars going on.

Might I suggest that you Obama is answering to a differet drummer?

No reason for the US to interfere in Ivory Coast, Guana, Libya or some
other UN-French mess.

On 19/03/2011 10:36 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleZsKdnVZuaezWRBnQnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/03/2011 6:58 AM, John H wrote:
...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where
is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Gaddafi must have ****ed of someone in high power somewhere.

If it were about justice, how come for 3 decades the power that be did
nothing? I don't like him, he should have had his neck stretched years
ago, but why now? Our corrupt leaders say so? What is the real motive
for this?

Come now, pretty obvious some alliance exists with US-UN-France where in
about 1/2 dozen countries the UN backed man is trying to replace the
local dictators or even democratically elected. Remeber the people of
Libya wanted Gaddafi and still do, BBC news showed protesters in
Gaddafi's support.

Because US-UN-France is fighting for a minority of gun toting rebel
criminals.

If an armed minority marched on DC, and another country came in to
support them -- that is what the US is doing!

Basically US-UN-France is the drivin force with Europe and Arab rich
calling the shots.

The new world order at work.

Thank you for the insights into your brain. It's a scary place, what
with your endless conspiracy theories.

I don't like Muammer el-Qaddafi either, but...as bad as he is, he is a
piker when you add up his murders and compare that number to the
hundreds of thousands of innocents our troops killed in Southeast Asia,
Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Iceland might be to your liking.

I was thinking Costa Rica. They got rid of the national army on the
last copue d'etat attempt. They don't miss the army either.

We war mongers in the west spend far too much on WAR, and little on much
else.

Peaceful place too Costa Rica is. War mongers get dismissed pretty quick.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:30:51 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:58:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Why not help people that want to help themselves? I didn't see that in
Iraq.... except by the Kurds.

The Libyans people seem to need help and the world community
*including* The Arab League is on board.

I don't see ANY similarities between that and the Iraq debacle....
we're certainly not looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
Are we?

Why should we help the Libyan minority? Saddam was killing his people by the
hundreds of thousands. What was wrong with our helping them? Is it the right
thing to attack Libya because some Libyans have weapons, but the wrong thing to
have helped Iraqis because they didn't?

Are there more countries in favor of our attacking Libya than were supporting
our attack in Iraq? So what?

The fact that we're not looking for WMD, and that there's been no indication the
Libyans possess such makes the question that much more pertinent.

Where is the threat to the USA?

Your response was very weak. But, I can see you are in favor of attacking Libya.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:30:51 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:58:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Why not help people that want to help themselves? I didn't see that in
Iraq.... except by the Kurds.

The Libyans people seem to need help and the world community
*including* The Arab League is on board.

I don't see ANY similarities between that and the Iraq debacle....
we're certainly not looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
Are we?

Why should we help the Libyan minority? Saddam was killing his people by the
hundreds of thousands. What was wrong with our helping them? Is it the right
thing to attack Libya because some Libyans have weapons, but the wrong thing to
have helped Iraqis because they didn't?

Are there more countries in favor of our attacking Libya than were supporting
our attack in Iraq? So what?

The fact that we're not looking for WMD, and that there's been no indication the
Libyans possess such makes the question that much more pertinent.

Where is the threat to the USA?

Your response was very weak. But, I can see you are in favor of attacking Libya.

It's the French attacking Libya.
Blame it on the French, sucker.
Obama saw you coming a mile away.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:58:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

You've been off in the mental shallow end for quite a while.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:32:45 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:30:51 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:58:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Why not help people that want to help themselves? I didn't see that in
Iraq.... except by the Kurds.

The Libyans people seem to need help and the world community
*including* The Arab League is on board.

I don't see ANY similarities between that and the Iraq debacle....
we're certainly not looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
Are we?

Why should we help the Libyan minority? Saddam was killing his people by the
hundreds of thousands. What was wrong with our helping them? Is it the right
thing to attack Libya because some Libyans have weapons, but the wrong thing to
have helped Iraqis because they didn't?

We should have helped the Iraqi people, but Bush I decided not to do
it. Instead his son made up a bunch of nonsense and got us into a war
of choice based on lies.

Are there more countries in favor of our attacking Libya than were supporting
our attack in Iraq? So what?

Read the news yourself.

The fact that we're not looking for WMD, and that there's been no indication the
Libyans possess such makes the question that much more pertinent.

No it doesn't. It makes you look stupid.

Where is the threat to the USA?

Your response was very weak. But, I can see you are in favor of attacking Libya.

You're weak mentally. Feel free to vote for Palin if she doesn't quit
before she starts.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 08:58:15 -0400, John H
wrote:

...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Why not help people that want to help themselves? I didn't see that in
Iraq.... except by the Kurds.

The Kurds are a bigger problem due the their domain being within Turkey,
Iran and Iraq.

The Libyans people seem to need help and the world community
*including* The Arab League is on board.

I don't see the Arab League sending troops or assistance to help the
rebels in Libya.

I don't see ANY similarities between that and the Iraq debacle....
we're certainly not looking for imaginary weapons of mass destruction.
Are we?

The weapon of mass destruction in Libya is Gaddafi.

In article ,
says...
I don't like Muammer el-Qaddafi either, but...as bad as he is, he is a
piker when you add up his murders and compare that number to the
hundreds of thousands of innocents our troops killed in Southeast Asia,
Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Iceland might be to your liking.

I was thinking Costa Rica. They got rid of the national army on the
last copue d'etat attempt. They don't miss the army either.

We war mongers in the west spend far too much on WAR, and little on much
else.

Peaceful place too Costa Rica is. War mongers get dismissed pretty quick.

I have friends in Costa Rica. I have even slept with Miss Costa Rica.
Slept in the same house. She was the cousin of the guy my sister was
dating in college. They stayed at my parents house when they visited DC
about 30 years ago.

Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/03/2011 10:36 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleZsKdnVZuaezWRBnQnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Canuck57 wrote:
On 19/03/2011 6:58 AM, John H wrote:
...doing that is much worse than what Sadam was doing.

Now 'Bama wants to attack Libya. Where's all the liberal uproar? Where
is the
threat to the US from Libya?

This man has gone off the deep end.

Gaddafi must have ****ed of someone in high power somewhere.

If it were about justice, how come for 3 decades the power that be did
nothing? I don't like him, he should have had his neck stretched years
ago, but why now? Our corrupt leaders say so? What is the real motive
for this?

Come now, pretty obvious some alliance exists with US-UN-France
where in
about 1/2 dozen countries the UN backed man is trying to replace the
local dictators or even democratically elected. Remeber the people of
Libya wanted Gaddafi and still do, BBC news showed protesters in
Gaddafi's support.

Because US-UN-France is fighting for a minority of gun toting rebel
criminals.

If an armed minority marched on DC, and another country came in to
support them -- that is what the US is doing!

Basically US-UN-France is the drivin force with Europe and Arab rich
calling the shots.

The new world order at work.

Thank you for the insights into your brain. It's a scary place, what
with your endless conspiracy theories.

I don't like Muammer el-Qaddafi either, but...as bad as he is, he is a
piker when you add up his murders and compare that number to the
hundreds of thousands of innocents our troops killed in Southeast Asia,
Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Iceland might be to your liking.

I was thinking Costa Rica. They got rid of the national army on the last
copue d'etat attempt. They don't miss the army either.

We war mongers in the west spend far too much on WAR, and little on much
else.

Peaceful place too Costa Rica is. War mongers get dismissed pretty quick.

Three of my retired union buddies have moved to Costa Rica, and another
is thinking about it. They have national health care that even
"furriners" can buy into at a reasonable price. Imported manufactured
goods are very, very expensive, because of import taxes. There have been
some problems with kidnapping of Americans, and its neighbors to the
north and south wander across the border from time to time to start
trouble. But, mostly, it is a peaceful place with many assets to attract
U.S. citizens. Pretty country, too, with mountains and seashores and
excellent fishing. Almost every Costa Rican I encountered on my trip
there spoke pretty good English. And for the bachelors, the chica ticas
are...well, fabulous.