Drone Attack

Neat :)

Oh, he publicized the call-off of the attack, in time to occlude the news reports that his administration has failed to perform in other ways (notably, the inadequacy of federal facilities in handling baby-sitting chores).

He's the showman-in-chief.

Rick C wrote in news:1d62c4f8-0714- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

They are one of the most powerful nations in the world right now, and are sovereign, short of a couple of bases, and control over their governmental system, and military hardware, etc.

Did not work out for them very well in the moment(s) they were being aggressive.

I mean even before the bomb droppings of 'the big ones', didn't we firebomb Tokyo?

I'll bet the Emperor did not like the result of his use of a kitchen knife to stab at the heart of Gahd-Zirrah... and only cut him on the thigh a bit.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:9e06a39b-7419-40cb-ba13- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

FOAD, f***ss.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:986d5755-63c4-40e0-97e4- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Get this, you retarded, zero memory PUNK! HE WAS A TERRORIST.

As far as I am concerned, there was a worldwide open contract on his ass.

Of course it is a good thing he got dead. And it was also good the way he got dead.

Get over yourself, twitty, fat assed bitchboy.

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Absolutey not. Chauncey Gardner was absolutely innocent.

Donald J. Trump has been absolutely criminal... All of his life.

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

Which is irrelevant.

It showed that the USA wasn't be trusted and sent a message to NK and Iran that if you go e up your wmds, end your nuke program, make a deal with the USA, then when you are disarmed, we kill you. If you have nukes, like KJU, then Trump loves you and praises you.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 aim ed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convo y would have known that he was in it.

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 nu clear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.

e:

ressing 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.

rea

s 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.

p his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was a imed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the populati on at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the con voy 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.

g 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.

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?

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?

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:ae10cfd7-c4ab-4126-a419- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

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 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Thank you for getting it right.

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

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

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

He would never have had nukes.

ote:

tto

xpressing a favourite right-wing misconception.

No. You are ignoring the fact that these were popular uprsings, not enginee red 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 absol utely no evidence.

Korea

is rebelling.

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 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.

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 popula tion at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the c onvoy would have known that he was in it.

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

ing to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and grab th e nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells the m to the highest bidder.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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).

ate

he

Ditto

expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.

eered by any foreign power.

You are ignoring that when major powers encourage them, it gets noticed and helps. And how they started doesn't matter, the US participated in BOMBING the country to HELP the opposition. And at the time they were doing it, Obama/Hillary were calling for regime change. Capiche? No, libs never can. And are you happy with the results? First they sent a message to Iran, NK, that if you make a deal with the US, turn over your nukes, turn over your WMDs, then we come and kill you. Second, Libya is now a hell hole, with millions fleeing to Europe, drowning on the way. Why aren't the libs blaming Obama for those deaths? Every illegal alien that dies at the US border, they try to blame Trump for.

Your right-wing fantasies can't handle that idea, so you invent some foreig n intervention or other -for which there is absolutely no evidence.

h Korea

at is rebelling.

n economy and infra-structure inot non-existence?

You really are quite stupid. I never suggested that a country would use nukes on rebels. I said that if the country has nukes, then Obama and Fran ce would not have been bombing them to support the rebels. Capiche? Can you cite for us any country with nukes that we have bombed?

A total diversion into the wilderness. IT's what libs do.

That's the problem with authoritarian regimes - if there's one obvious hea d, you can always cut it off.

al,

ke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike w as aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the popu lation at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.

not

to right-wing conspiracy theories.

ROFL

"We came, we saw, he died" Hah, hah.

But heh, it's Hillary a big lib, so it's all OK, that wasn't gloating just brilliant statesmanship. Of course if Trump said it......

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 t hem to the highest bidder.

the hands of the regime that is being revolted against. As soon as that hap pens, international intervention becomes very likely, purely as a precautio nary measure.

Sure, countries are going to send troops into a nuclear power country to grab their nuclear weapons. Please keep representing for the libs, they must be proud.