Libyan "rebels" show their gratitude

[Balti]

I agree that we have no interest in these countries. Leave them to it. The politicians may have their reasons but most of the rest of us don't give a shit. Stop the war. Stop the aid. Leave them to determine their own future and top each other to their hearts content.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I agree that we have no interest in these countries. Leave them to it. The politicians may have their reasons but most of the rest of us don't give a shit. Stop the war. Stop the aid. Leave them to determine their own future and top each other to their hearts content.

Amen brother ;-)

 

[cyberblue]

Such as pro-genocide?

First you paint me as indifferent to genocide. Now I'm pro-genocide. Fine, I'll bite your ridiculous bait...

Of course I hate genocide, what decent person doesn't. What I'm saying is that these excuses that the media spout are not the primary reason we invade other countries. Probably not even a secondary reason. For the people who decide what "wars" we fight, the primary goal, I believe, is to make a lot of money and control natural resources.

Mass murder for profit. That is what western armies are about, and I'd guess the eastern superpowers are just as bad too.

So you'd rather we'd not done anything (whatever the motive) and seen an even bigger mass murdger and genocide?

I don't care about alterior motives so long as the right thing is done. I wish Zimbabwe was sat upon oil so we'd have more reason to go in there and sort stuff out

The west only intervine if they think they can win & if there is a profit that why we doing sfa against Syria & Iran & Korea ect ect<br /><br />-- Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:01 am --<br /><br />

Not surprised really, seeing as we bombed the shit out of them. They are kicking over the gravestone of dead people. I think that's atrocious, however, it pales in comparison to what we, the western forces, did to their country.

And before the brainwashed "patriots" come at me with 'with fought to free them from an evil man' or 'give them democracy' or some other such bullshit, please consider the nature of all our so-called wars of the last 10-15 years.

War is big business. Perhaps the biggest. You can destroy shit, and then get paid to build it back up again. On top of that there's natural resources to consider, weapons contracts...

How do the ordinary folk of developed countries STILL fall for these tired excuses when it's even more blatant these days?

I'm not defending what they're doing on that video, it's sick. I'm just not surprised and think the military-industrial complex is far, far worse.

Spend 500 million pounds on war. Stand in line for a piece of 30 billion pounds worth of contracts. Take away the tragic loss of life and everything else that comes with war, and it sounds too good to resist.

You are right ofcourse. We should have stood back and watched the government destroy all the cities that the rebels were couped up in.

What's a bit of genocide eh? Nothing to the namby pamby liberal it would seem.

Well thats what is happening in Syria

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

First you paint me as indifferent to genocide. Now I'm pro-genocide. Fine, I'll bite your ridiculous bait...

Of course I hate genocide, what decent person doesn't. What I'm saying is that these excuses that the media spout are not the primary reason we invade other countries. Probably not even a secondary reason. For the people who decide what "wars" we fight, the primary goal, I believe, is to make a lot of money and control natural resources.

Mass murder for profit. That is what western armies are about, and I'd guess the eastern superpowers are just as bad too.

So you'd rather we'd not done anything (whatever the motive) and seen an even bigger mass murdger and genocide?

I don't care about alterior motives so long as the right thing is done. I wish Zimbabwe was sat upon oil so we'd have more reason to go in there and sort stuff out

The west only intervine if they think they can win & if there is a profit that why we doing sfa against Syria & Iran & Korea ect ect

-- Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:01 am --

Not surprised really, seeing as we bombed the shit out of them. They are kicking over the gravestone of dead people. I think that's atrocious, however, it pales in comparison to what we, the western forces, did to their country.

And before the brainwashed "patriots" come at me with 'with fought to free them from an evil man' or 'give them democracy' or some other such bullshit, please consider the nature of all our so-called wars of the last 10-15 years.

War is big business. Perhaps the biggest. You can destroy shit, and then get paid to build it back up again. On top of that there's natural resources to consider, weapons contracts...

How do the ordinary folk of developed countries STILL fall for these tired excuses when it's even more blatant these days?

I'm not defending what they're doing on that video, it's sick. I'm just not surprised and think the military-industrial complex is far, far worse.

Spend 500 million pounds on war. Stand in line for a piece of 30 billion pounds worth of contracts. Take away the tragic loss of life and everything else that comes with war, and it sounds too good to resist.

You are right ofcourse. We should have stood back and watched the government destroy all the cities that the rebels were couped up in.

What's a bit of genocide eh? Nothing to the namby pamby liberal it would seem.

Well thats what is happening in Syria

Could someone kindly give the Daily Mail their phrase 'namby pamby liberal' back once you've all finished with it?

 

[SWP's back]

Well thats what is happening in Syria[/quote]
And that's a good thing how?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Well thats what is happening in Syria

And that's a good thing how?[/quote]


It isn't.
Unless you see the positive side,in that The Times now has two job vacancies for a foreign reporter and a photographer.

 

[Skashion]

It isn't.
Unless you see the positive side,in that The Times now has two job vacancies for a foreign reporter and a photographer.

Was this really necessary?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

It isn't.
Unless you see the positive side,in that The Times now has two job vacancies for a foreign reporter and a photographer.

Was this really necessary?

It's called black humour.
I'm sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities.
I trust the irony is not lost on someone who regularly calls for the annihilation of jews?
Or is humour purely at your discretion?

 

[SWP's back]

It isn't.
Unless you see the positive side,in that The Times now has two job vacancies for a foreign reporter and a photographer.

Was this really necessary?

That you JMW?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It isn't.
Unless you see the positive side,in that The Times now has two job vacancies for a foreign reporter and a photographer.

Was this really necessary?

It's called black humour.
I'm sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities.
I trust the irony is not lost on someone who regularly calls for the annihilation of jews?
Or is humour purely at your discretion?