- At 15:57pm on 20th Mar 2011, James wrote:
- 12. At 15:58pm on 20th Mar 2011, Interestedforeigner wrote: 4. At 3:04pm on 20 Mar 2011, Lindsay
Quite so.
- 13. At 16:03pm on 20th Mar 2011, James wrote: Why are you using one of the American spellings of Gadaffi??
- 14. At 16:32pm on 20th Mar 2011, Nostrano wrote: 5. ScottNYC
Your opinion would seem to be an absolute minority one here, all political tendencies combined.
How does it serve British interests, in any case? Surely it would have 'served British
interests' by doing business as usual, by refusing to rock the boat. The Brits in fact could have used their veto to allow Gaddafi to regain his regal throne and consequently obain extra generous petroleum advantages with promises of lucrative contracts for the future. And what's the British lie machine? Could you elaborate on that too please?
'At the very least, we should seize BP property in Libya as a payback... etc. Payback for what? Working hand in glove with the British government, who gave so much aid an succor (?) to this thug over the years? This is all astonishingly new to me. If there's a grain of truth in all this rubbish, all more reason why the British should have used their veto to continue to 'work hand in glove with Libya, to continue to 'serve their interests'. You obviously have a tender spot for the Brits, or maybe you feel a wee bit left out of things.
12. James
You mean of course 'stopping a country's own army killing civilians'..
اخبار,دهب,سياسه,نجوم,فن,مشاهير.حوادث الفنانين,قضايا ونقاشات
صفحات
الأربعاء، 23 مارس 2011
Before anything else,
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
On a more subject oriented note, question the purpose of the military action by all means but it doesn't change the fact that it is UN sanctioned military intervention. It may of been a handy subject to write about in prior invasions but maybe an analysis of the broader subject (stopping a countries own army killing civilians) and the U.S.A's view of that would be more suiting?