Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A Question Regarding the Intervention in Libya

Why is it that America is bombing Libya to stop its dictator from killing civilians while suppressing a rebellion when most Americans venerate Abraham Lincoln, a dictator who killed civillians while suppressing a rebellion?


  1. Those two events really have nothing to do with each other. The difference in time alone can account for a person having both points of view without internal conflict.

    The real question is: Why are we killing Libyans to save other Libyans? This was not a peaceful demonstration, it was an armed rebellion. Quadaffi's response should have been expected. This is what any government would do in the face of armed rebellion. Where does the USA get the authority to place ourselves in someone else's civil war? We don't have a dog in that fight and I can't see why we should care who wins.

  2. This is a Zionist-based action. They lost Egypt. That is so huge as to be almost immeasurable. They are absolutely desperate to counter-balance Egyptian power.

    Zionist policy makers have every intention of setting up another client state in Libya. It will involve a military base on Libyan soil.

    If they do not end up with a military base on Libyan soil, I will admit I am wrong. But to me, this has all the hallmarks of Zionist policy-making at work.

  3. Frankly, unlike "Professor Hale", I agree with the contention that there is the highest order of hypocrisy that permeates the minds of the West and Americans in particular. In fact, Lincoln was a mass murderer of epic proportions, violated the U.S. Constitution (The "Professor" should examine Chief Justice Tanney's rulings on his actions and Lincoln''s subsequent threats to both he and the Court)in ways before unimaginable, concentrated power in the executive branch, and in fact drove a dagger through the heart of the Republic. We venerate evil incarnate.

    Regarding Libya, you don't need a military base to control it, particularly since it is yet to be determined whether Egypt has been "lost" by Anglo-Israeli interests. Exactly where does one think those financially bereft rebels procured their weaponry and across which border did they come?

    I would suggest that one considers the arguments posited in Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" along with those in Naomi Kleins "Shock Doctrine" before any conclusions about this matter are drawn.

    Why? Outside of the obvious, that being oil, Libya is in possession of another commodity of sorts that is of a rather prized value, particularly in that region - water, and lots of it.

    "What?", comes the reply. "Ah yes, water." Google up "The Great Man-Made River" and then grab your pencil and begin connecting dots. A couple of aquifers of fresh water that contain the equivalent of 200 years of continuous flow from the Nile River lie underneath Libya, and these waters have been tapped and then plumbed all over Libya by the Colonel.

    Unlike Mubarak, Libya's leader did not enrich himself to any degree as did his other regional counterparts. Instead, the vast amounts of oil revenue was invested into the country's infrastructure, and water in that region is worth killing over.

    As a people we don't have a dog in this fight, but our leaders and the business interests that own them do. The lumpen are but programmed pawns in this game, while the "Great Game" passes them by unnoticed.

    Propaganda aside, Egypt still remains a "military base" for Anglo-Zionist interests. None of this is happening in a vacuum.


    Perhaps the Professor should indulge himself with Patrick Buchanan's perspective on this matter as well. "Lincoln" is mentioned as well.

  5. Officials in Washington DC and London have long desired to get rid of the Gaddafi regime.

    Despite the rehabilitation of Gaddafi and Libya these past ten years and the resultant business deals, the so-called pro-democracy uprising has provided a very convenient excuse to intervene in Libyan internal affairs to effect "regime change".

    Throw in the Israel factor, domestic power struggles and the possibility of "revenge" (by overseas countries etc)and you have the necessary ingredients for an official UNO war against an independent state - to wit Libya.

    Last year the British prime minister declared "we have no money". But clearly there is always money for foreign wars to give "democracy" to others - while genuine democracy has gone from the British scene.

  6. Follow up to my earlier post: they are now talking about funding the rebellion, as well as providing them arms. CLIENT STATE!

  7. anon@ 10:54 said 'The "Professor" should examine Chief Justice Tanney's rulings on his actions and Lincoln''s subsequent threats to both he and the Court'

    way to cite the most discredited jurist in American history you ignorant teabagger