TC: Do you now or have you ever understood the concept of sarcasm?

Kadhafi won't blow the capitol up. He's making empty threats that he will not carry out, if he even can.

It's hard to understand sarcasm if you have no connection to reality.

I think we should stop bombing this poor, misunderstood man's houses and let him go back to ruling his country with the love, generosity, and equality as he always has done

This might be pointless cause I'm fairly certain Tettleton's Chew has me muted, but wow TC, just wow. *headdesk*

ha can I unmute someone to see what TC wrote

1. Yes you can
2. Ha what a total idiot

Silly question but can one of you ''lets bomb Libya to support the Libyans'' guys please tell me what is different about Syria. Is it that opium of the west - oil?

It makes sense, Kadhafi would rather die with honour then be captured by the terrorists rebelling in his land.

Ha dieing with honor includes massacring thousands of innocent civilians with one order

"Silly question but can one of you ''lets bomb Libya to support the Libyans'' guys please tell me what is different about Syria. Is it that opium of the west - oil?"

Of course, everything has a ulterior economic motive.!Lets all ignore the fact if the allies didn't bomb Qaddafi's forces, the resulting massacre would have kept the oil flowing months ago without the need to drop a bomb or pay a penny.

*dying

"Ha dieing with honor includes massacring thousands of innocent civilians with one order"
A noble self sacrifice with the intention of bringing all his loved ones with him.

"Of course, everything has a ulterior economic motive.!Lets all ignore the fact if the allies didn't bomb Qaddafi's forces, the resulting massacre would have kept the oil flowing months ago without the need to drop a bomb or pay a penny."
Massacre? Is killing those rebelling from a just ruler a massacre? Thats like saying self-defense is a form of murder...

"A noble self sacrifice with the intention of bringing all his loved ones with him. "

You heart Adolf

"Massacre? Is killing those rebelling from a just ruler a massacre? Thats like saying self-defense is a form of murder... "

I won't even go into the fact that this all started as peaceful protests against a "just ruler" (I'd like the definition of a just ruler btw." But massacre was used in the sense that it would have been largely been a one sided killing once the rebels ran out of war materiel and equipment.

Santa, does what is going on in Syria matter or not?

Regarding oil the really important thing is to have a complaint supplier. Do ireally need to reference the UAE and Saudi (not forgrtting the new regime in Iraq, of course). Oil is the key to intervention or for that matter the lack of it. I think that it is staring us in the face to be honest.

# compliant

"Santa, does what is going on in Syria matter or not?"

It sure does,but intervention in Syria would topple all stability in the region.

"Regarding oil the really important thing is to have a complaint supplier."

Sort of like Libya was before the protests?

"Do ireally need to reference the UAE and Saudi (not forgrtting the new regime in Iraq, of course)."

I don't know why you would, the U.S. attacked Libya in your insinuation to get oil, why arn't we attacking Saudi Arabia and UAE?

"Oil is the key to intervention or for that matter the lack of it. I think that it is staring us in the face to be honest. "

Wow what a surprise, Ful seeing a economic motive to everything, even when it makes no sense.

Remember kids, Santa supposedly *isn't* pro-bombing Libya, he just responds to questions directed towards people who support bombing Libya.

I'm, not pro-bombing Libya, I'm concerned about this innocent dictator as much as you

"I don't know why you would, the U.S. attacked Libya in your insinuation to get oil, why arn't we attacking Saudi Arabia and UAE?"

Because Saudi Arabia and the UAE do our bidding. Libya "produces" oil far below what it could be under a western puppet. Last I checked, the Saudis and Emirates didn't buy Russian military hardware either.

Ful-

Basically, you spell this out for me and I'll believe you. If this was ALL about oil as you state, and all the US wants is a steady oil supply, why didnt the US just turn a blind eye to lybia and let the government keep sending oil? Hell why didnt they help the Lybian government squash any rebellion that would (and has, and continues to) cut off the flow of oil. It makes no sense.

"Because Saudi Arabia and the UAE do our bidding. Libya "produces" oil far below what it could be under a western puppet. Last I checked, the Saudis and Emirates didn't buy Russian military hardware either."

You mean the british hardware on the way to Kadhafi before the war? You mean the BP contracts in the work. Its such a joke. As I said at the time, if no action had been taken you two would be blaming the US government for turning a blind eye to keep the oil flowing.

I was against bombing because I felt both actions would result in this kind of nonsense, so the U.S. might as well take its licks for not killing anyone.

"I'm, not pro-bombing Libya"

Right, you're just a windbag reciting NATO press releases.

Anyway, here's some artwork from your "peaceful protesters" (who murder blacks for sport) .

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/funny-anti-gaddafi-cartoons-reveal-rebel-racism-anti-semitism/
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/05/01/protesters-in-libya-display-racist-and-anti-semitic-cartoons-see-note-please-and-see-the-cartoons/

Santa the key is compliance, preferably through bribary and corruption (Saudi etc.). When it looked like Gaddaffi was on the way out we rushed to support the rebels/terrorists/patriots/fundamentalists (strike out as appropriate). Before that we flogged his son a PhD, no questions asked. The only thing that matters is oil and the profits associated with it.

Syria has no oil hence no intervention, even though the slaughter there is an order of magnitude greater than that in Libya. Now watch carefully Israel/Cyprus/Lebanon and that newly discovered gas field, who is your money on there Santa?

"Right, you're just a windbag reciting NATO press releases."

Hmm, when did Russia (the source of this info of course) join NATO

"Anyway, here's some artwork from your "peaceful protesters" (who murder blacks for sport) . "

What does it matter, Kadhafi is planning to kill his "loyal" fellow Tripolitans! Im sure there will be a few Blacks in there as well. But no worries, he's your buddy!

@Santa
''I'm, not pro-bombing Libya, I'm concerned about this innocent dictator as much as you''

I must have misunderstood, do you support the NATO military campaign in Libya or not?

"You mean the british hardware on the way to Kadhafi before the war? You mean the BP contracts in the work. Its such a joke. As I said at the time, if no action had been taken you two would be blaming the US government for turning a blind eye to keep the oil flowing."

Next thing you'll say the Iraq war wasn't about oil since we sent dual-use technology and arms to Hussein during the 1980s. When the Libyan unrest started there was panic in the bourgeois media about the impact the civil war was having on the markets, in particular the energy market. Look at the Economist editions from when the unrest began.

" You mean the BP contracts in the work. Its such a joke. As I said at the time, if no action had been taken you two would be blaming the US government for turning a blind eye to keep the oil flowing."

No I wouldn't. You raise this canard every single time it is pointed out that you keep cheerleading for NATO. I don't support any intervention anywhere in the Middle East.

"Santa the key is compliance, preferably through bribary and corruption (Saudi etc.). When it looked like Gaddaffi was on the way out we rushed to support the rebels/terrorists/patriots/fundamentalists (strike out as appropriate). Before that we flogged his son a PhD, no questions asked. The only thing that matters is oil and the profits associated with it."

AGAIN So why didn't the US turn a blind eye when he was on the outskirts of the Rebel Capitol? Id be paing 2.50 for gas already damnit! You refuse to answer the question, because you can't I don't know what it is with you and needing to believe an economic rationale for everything. Do you think its cutting edge? You think others havn't thought about this already?

"Syria has no oil hence no intervention, even though the slaughter there is an order of magnitude greater than that in Libya. Now watch carefully Israel/Cyprus/Lebanon and that newly discovered gas field, who is your money on there Santa?"

Obviously an invasion of Israel by the United States

So what is the intervention about, then Santa? Human rights? Of course it is. NATO loves human rights, just ask the people they've carpet bombed throughout the 1990s. Just ask Gaddafi's dead grandchildren. Just ask the mothers who were at the maternity wards they bombed in Yugoslavia.

:Next thing you'll say the Iraq war wasn't about oil since we sent dual-use technology and arms to Hussein during the 1980s. When the Libyan unrest started there was panic in the bourgeois media about the impact the civil war was having on the markets, in particular the energy market. Look at the Economist editions from when the unrest began."

If the allies hadn't joined in, this thing would have been over months ago and whatever effects on the markets it had would have been over, and oil would be flowing out of lybia and Quadaffi would be buying more western war machines. What exactly is the incentive here. Neither of you have answered my question, if the west was only concerned about oil and markets, why not let Kadhaffi squash those racist anti-Semitic protesters.

"No I wouldn't. You raise this canard every single time it is pointed out that you keep cheerleading for NATO. I don't support any intervention anywhere in the Middle East."

Sure, aint a canard if its true