My true opinion is the West had no authority whatsoever to kill a world leader. Obama and NATO set out to kill him so the Muslim Brotherhood could take control. Who else would take control? Hamas is a wing of Muslim Brotherhood, so guess where a lot of the shoulder-mounted anti-air dart guns are showing up? Gaza. In effect, Obama is helping MB. NATO is helping MB. They would topple Syria in a moment if Russia would chime in. Iran is coming out of it all in a better state than anyone could expect. More sanctions against Iran?
Just let NATO handle it. They will surely get the best results, but for whom?
I remember when Gaddafi was on TIME magazine's cover as a statesman. I remember when he turned over his nuclear program to the world. I remember when NATO put out a hit against the man. I remember when Obama told Mubarak to hit the road.
If they are going to just allow whomever to take control of the country that can handle it, why did they not place Al Sadr in control of Iraq? I surmise NATO is doing the best they can with situational circumstances they understand so little. One can only expect things to get worse when a world leader is removed from power. They keep the peace the best way they know how. I applaud them for not trying to rebuild Libya like they wasted billions of dollars and many a life in Iraq and Afghanistan attempting to do. They should have left Iraq when SHussein was killed, too. Guess they didn't want Iran to march in and take the spoils. Maybe they just rid Iran of one of their biggest enemies?
The gold standard? At least governments had the clout to back up their mouths when they had gold to cover their assets.
It was not the people's revolution at all. I now see them as puppets placed about to achieve the desires of the few. I see it as a revolution only in the public's eyes.
Just let NATO handle it. They will surely get the best results, but for whom?
I remember when Gaddafi was on TIME magazine's cover as a statesman. I remember when he turned over his nuclear program to the world. I remember when NATO put out a hit against the man. I remember when Obama told Mubarak to hit the road.
If they are going to just allow whomever to take control of the country that can handle it, why did they not place Al Sadr in control of Iraq? I surmise NATO is doing the best they can with situational circumstances they understand so little. One can only expect things to get worse when a world leader is removed from power. They keep the peace the best way they know how. I applaud them for not trying to rebuild Libya like they wasted billions of dollars and many a life in Iraq and Afghanistan attempting to do. They should have left Iraq when SHussein was killed, too. Guess they didn't want Iran to march in and take the spoils. Maybe they just rid Iran of one of their biggest enemies?
The gold standard? At least governments had the clout to back up their mouths when they had gold to cover their assets.
It was not the people's revolution at all. I now see them as puppets placed about to achieve the desires of the few. I see it as a revolution only in the public's eyes.
Last edited:
