Get Our Pilots Out Of There

I guess it will take some time before Americans realize that Obama is in fact a dictator. Who is challenging him? No one .... Well maybe the Krautman, but he's just a talking head.

They had better get rid of that Omba BiBi before it's too late.

Only a "Community Organizer" could rationalize that dropping bombs on people and cities is not being engaged in hostile activities.

'cause Barry is sooooooo smart.

But, we ordered 1000 new Bombs and we have to drop them somewhere. Where better than in worthless sand?

Bring our Forces home.

To do something like seeking approval would of been Presidential and Barry is incapable of that. Too many complex discussions to be had. His teleprompter would not have been able to keep up, resulting in embarrassment for child king...Seeing himself on Jon Stewart; the most watched news show for lefties.

His bosses; the OPEC bunch; the same bosses as the establishment Republicans, told Barry to take care of Libya...Why waste time pretending to have a debate when the end result would have been the approval to strike anyway...At least Barry is not an hypocrite. He's just testing to see how much the average American will put up with increasingly realizing they are no longer living under the rules of their Constitution. You know the ones, the older whiteys, the TEA party crowd.

The road to Hell, etc., etc.

Dropping bombs on Libya is NOT hostile. The Zero is just using modern technology to help the farmers mix their soil to produce more arable land

/sarc off for the trolls.

Or maybe he means his hero,Gaddifyduck is not being hostile by killing his own people? After all,all good dictators have to protect themselves from those that believe in little,inconsequential things like rights and freedom!

I agree geto ur troops out of there immidiatley as a matter of fact based on how tiresome this whole thing since 9/11 has become i say get everyone out of everywhere and wait and see what happens and start over and if your gonna say "that's easy for you to say but what about the innocent people over there "

Well to that i say at least now the world will see who truley has the bloodo n there hands if we are not there we cannot be blamed for "thousands of civilian deaths" .

Especially the u.s. just to show the owrld all of the good they do just by being there . I have person friends from south korea who adimantly demand the u.s. be there at any cost . they tell me if the u.s. was not there south korea in a matter of week's would not exsist period there military is far to small and far to week. no matter how you slice it , it will take generations for the south koreans to build there military up to fend off the north . so i say pull everyone out of everywhere and let the lefties see what kindo f a nightmare in reality there dreams create!!!

"so i say pull everyone out of everywhere and let the lefties see what kindo f a nightmare in reality there dreams create!!!
Posted by: paul in calgary at June 26, 2011 11:27 AM "

Unfortunately,Paul,the lefties NEVER see how screwed up their dreams are.They just try a different tack to rob me and you of our rights.And there are no nightmares in lalaleftieland,just pink unicorns and pixie dust.

Obamba lied, people died.

What's new from the left?

I'm still trying to get my head around all this "charisma" he's supposed to have.

The fact that this man still holds onto the “Nobel Peace Prize” with utter disrespect for humanity and “his countries” constitution should give even the most moonbat crazy leftist out there reason for pause. Yet zip, nada, nothing, only zombie faced, cultish adoration for their new emperor god king.

Since the Soviet Union fell, NATO continues to stick its nose into everybody else's business to justify its existence.

Time to scrap NATO.

What really bothers me is the uncanny ability of western leaders to accurately calculate the value of a human life. Dropping bombs on Ghadaffi supporters=GOOD. Accidentally dropping a bomb on an insurgent=BAD. And so on...Is there a guide they follow? It would be easier if it were Christian against Muslim, but in this case, I see very little difference between the combatants. The best policy, in my opinion, is to stop keeping score. The world is a better place every time either side takes casualties.

Well this Libya thing is the most assinine mess in a long while. In the urge to prevent "innocent loss of life"...NATO interveened...taking sides without vetting the alleged good guys.

The result is the "war on terror" has become weird in the extreme, with us giving close air support to an Al Qaida/Taliban campaign to over-throw a government.

At this point, the best policy would be ensuring there is no winner. That worked with the Iran/Iraq war and kept both sides from bothering anyone else.

The fact is that if Libya had no oil, there would be no “Kinetic Military Action” on Obamba’s part.

What does the US & Canada gain from this non-war anyway? Millions of dollars a week lost to bombs dropped on the heads of 10th century peasants scratching a living out of the sand praying to a paedophilic camel herder.

There just doesn’t seem to be any logical return for us, save for the inevitable Libyan refugee’s that Canadians will eventually give a home, welfare, health care and so on to along with their extended families.

“Because we owe it to them”.

I rarely agree with Kate but she is right here.

But I sense the reason Kate oppose that war is because it was started in large part by leftist people.

If Bush had started this war, she would be cheerleading this.

I oppose all wars, leftist or rightist wars.
Shame on Obama, shame on Sarkozy.

quebecois - what a trivial statement: "I oppose all wars". Meaningless.

So - when the Third Reich declared war on various countries in Europe - would you have, since you are opposed to war, done as France did - and surrendered? Hmmm?

There is such a thing as a 'just war'. Do you think that the Taliban should have, because they could, enslaved the Afghan people while the world stood by..because...'I oppose all wars'?

Do you think that the US should have succumbed to the colonial demands of Britain in 1773 - or should it have had its Tea Party and, in 1776, declared itself free..and entered a war to achieve that freedom? Hmmm?

Triviality is simplistic. Think.

quebecois NDPiste

No where not against the war because of lefties. Most of us have to this day no clue why where even their! IF we are going to war wouldent the Sudan or Syria make better targets? If only for humanitarian reasons? This is a war of distraction not security.
Obama can't even tell us why hes has troops thier. Get our people out.
Are we their just to support Europes oil claims?
The very people where helping are anti wetern zelots. Its madness.

ET, you beat me to the punch. Only an idiot mouths peacenik boilerplate such as, "War never solved anything", as your reference to the defeat of nazi germany notes.

Drones such as QNDPer hate wars, but they are the first to depend on the military when help is required, as they are the first ones to be rounded up by the nazis/others - and meekly so, at that.

mhb23re

mhb and ET - correct.

I'm been railing against this particular intervention for months. Letters, emails and FAXes to the government, PM, etc. Usual boilerplate in response.

I think our idiot politicians committed themselves to something very hastily, and now realize it's not so simple and want to back out but can't because of the resulting loss of face.

Still, "not losing face" is not a good reason to double down on a mistake. We have to continue to let Harper and his people know that no one supports this war - not the left, not the right, and not the centre. Many people are indifferent to it, but there are no strong proponents for this war except supporters of the rebel alliance.

And somehow I am certain that when this foolishness ends, whether 1 month or 10 years from now, Canada will get stuck with a bunch more refugees that will end up "culturally enriching" this country.

The problem is, old lori, is how the world community deals with dictators turning violently against their own people.

Does the world stand by, as it did during the reign of Saddam Hussein, during the Third Reich, during the era of Stalin, during the Hutu-Tutsi massacres, during the Iranian, Syrian..and Libyan..events where dictators, and they are always dictators..turn against their own people?

The UN was supposed to deal with these issues but has itself become nothing - nothing - but a morass of corruption. It is useless, utterly useless and an enormous waste of money.

So- what does the world do when dictators turn against and slaughter their own people?

The US Constitution means something; it talks about the basic human rights of people - and there are only three, despite the inanity of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (sic). These three basic and only three rights are: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit (not attainment) of happiness. Period.

IF one considers these as basic human rights, then, what does the rest of the world ..human beings..do, when a dictator slaughters their own people and deprives them of these three basic rights?

But I sense the reason Kate oppose that war is because it was started in large part by leftist people.

The war started as a civil war by Islamists who were trying to overthrow the Libyan government.
The Islamists were being beaten by the Libyan government.
The French government jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the Islamists were winning and recognized them as the new government of Libya in order to secure Libyan oil supplies for their country which put those oil supplies in jeopardy because the French backed the losing side in the Libyan Civil War.
The Islamist rebels lied about the Libyan government targeting civilians in order to give the UN an excuse to ask NATO to step in and keep the Islamist rebels from being annihilated by the Libyan government.
NATO started to bomb Libyan government forces, based on that Islamist lie, in order to reverse the course of the Libyan Civil War and secure oil rights for the French government with what NATO/UN/French government hope will be the new Islamist Libyan government.

The Islamist rebels that NATO is giving air support to in Libya just happen to be some of the same bastards that NATO has been fighting in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years.

The whole thing would have been over months ago, with Kaddafi still running Libya, the French getting their Libyan oil, a lot fewer dead people, and a lot less expense to the taxpayers of NATO countries if the damned French had just not missed a good opportunity to shut their stupid croissant holes.

oz- I don't think we know the facts on the ground as specifically as you state them.

We don't know that the 'rebels' are all 'Islamists'; we don't know that they are..what..desirous of a fundamentalist government and that is what they are fighting for'. There has been no indication of their desire for fundamentalism vs the Ghadaffi dictatorship. After all, both modes of government are identical; they are dictatorships.

We don't know that they are the 'same as the Afghanistan bastards'; we don't know that the Libyan government was NOT targeting civilians; we don't know that there are not basic economic issues among the population - of poverty, no jobs, etc.

You sound very sure of your data, and my point is that what we have received via public information, is ambiguous, conflicting and uncertain..and can't lead to the certainty of your conclusions.

June 23, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion
A new report explains the connection.

A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.”

http://tinyurl.com/6zs3g8z

read it all and grow wise

"I oppose all wars"

What a remarkably simplistic, idiotic statement.

It's easy to sit comfortably in Quebec and spout such nonsense since we in Canada have never experienced an invasion from a foreign aggressor other than during the War of 1812.

I strongly suspect that, if quebecois NDPiste had lived in Poland or The Philippines in the 1940's or South Korea in 1950, his (her) sentiments would be drastically different.

ET - I have no obvious answer to your dilemma. There have been time in history when intervention against a sovereign nation's abuse of its citizens seemed reasonable. Even in WWII, we did not go to war against Germany to protect the Jews, did we? We did nothing in Cambodia (Vietnam ended Pol Pot, not us). We did nothing in Afghanistan until attacks came to us. We did nothing in Rwanda. The benefits of our intervention in Yugoslavia are debatable.

But even if some sort of intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation were justify in some cases, it seems to me that Libya falls well well below the bar. Any but the most childish bserver of the situation would conclude that the reasons for our intervention have little to do with protection of human rights, but are strategic and economic. Kadhafi has done much more bothersome things in the past, and was pretty much a tame terrorist/dictator, taking his circus from one capital to another. What really was the basis for going after him in the manner that we have? It is so out of proportion to what he has done, and what others do elsewhere without any consequence, that it's laughable.

What I do see is that we are on a precipitous slope where we are increasingly intervening in the affairs of sovereign nations in violent and extremely destructive ways, even if they have not directly threatened us or our vital interests.

I agree with you that the UN is utterly worthless. I'd go further to say that the UN is the greatest danger to freedom and self determination in the world today. Undertaking military action at the behest of the UN in such a hasty manner, with such little excuse, is a terrible precedent. it empowers the UN, and I am certain that one day that will come back to bite us on the a$$.

In the specific case here, we appear to be supporting jihadists to a significant extent, and the "rebels" seem to be a rag-tag group that have no realistic chance of forming a national government after Kadhafi is killed or chased to Saudi Arabia. Will Libya really be better off?

Harper is leading Canada into this with little or no public support, and does not seem to be listening at all to the concerns that many are raising. He seems to be blindly loyal to NATO, and to my mind that's unwise, especially given the pathetic state of the current leadership of our NATO allies.

I recall when Afghanistan got under way, there was at least some public enthusiasm and good will there. There is NONE for this mission. NONE. It's going to be another example of "you broke it, you bought it" when Kadhafi is gone. Or if he is not, a huge punch in the nose of NATO and the West - Kadhafi will be a hero! I suspect that the latter is one of the main reasons NATO thinks they can't give up now, even though they should.

I think the reason why Harper is leading us into this war is very simple: Harper love wars, he was just waiting for an occasion out there to jump and do war. He would have done so in Iraq but (thanks God) he was not PM yet. He admires people like Bush and Ariel Sharon. He wants to show his Rambo side.

Harper has increased (unnecessarily) military spending in Canada. At one point you need to justify all this spending in some way. He probably wants to use those planes to make them obsolete faster so he can justify buying new stupid war planes at billions of dollars.

quebecois NDPiste: you are contributing nothing but mindless lefty drivel to the conversation. It's a free Internet, for now, so continue if you must, but also feel free to go elsewhere, like Rabble or NOW online, to find a more interested audience.

old Lori: I give my opinion just like you. Is it the goal of the comment section of this site to be a huge echo chamber?

Nope, ET and I, for example, were exchanging opinion. We don't always agree.

Exchange of dissenting opinion is welcome, but jingoistic nonsense like "Harper love wars" and "He wants to show his Rambo side" contributes nothing.

Had you left that out, we could have had a discussion about the relative merits of Bush vs 0bama in this context. Bush the "great warmonger", actually sought and obtained congressional approval for his wars. 0bama and Clinton, who were prime movers behind the initiation of the Libya fiasco, have not only failed to obtain congressional approval, contravening the War Powers Act, but have been humiliated as congress has actually declined to endorse this war in a vote a couple of days back.

Would you care to comment on that issue?

France did not want another onslaught of immigrants.
Italy is complaining France won't take refugees that are crossing to basically anywhere and the EU is not supposed to restrict them.
Better they fight where they are than spread out.

"Harper has increased (unnecessarily) military spending in Canada. At one point you need to justify all this spending in some way"

Too right. Much better to cut the military, and then shovel more transfer payments to the freeloading POQ to subsidize your worthless $5/day daycare, as opposed to wasting funds for defense of the country, right QNDP?

Simpleton.

mhb

oz - that's an opinion, and there are other opinions. I think we have to be careful of the various conflicting data bases and opinions. My point is that we don't know for certain what is going on.

What we know is that Ghadaffi is a dictator; he is attacking citizens. And some people are rebelling against him. Period.

old lori - yes, it's a very difficult dilemma. And you are right - we didn't go to war in WWII to protect the Jews, but, we (the west, that is) did go to war to protect the sovereignty of nations that the Reich was swallowing (Poland, etc). Canada participated as a member of the Commonwealth because the UK was being attacked.

It's a real and terrible moral dilemma. What does one sovereign nation do when another sovereign nation attacks its own people? The UN was set up to deal with this and has failed, not only abysmally, but has made the whole situation of nations worse - politicizing the world as 'them' vs The West.

When the UN began to show its partisan weakness - right from the start, the US began to step in. Indeed, peoples all over the world, when troubles began in their own nation, would ask: "When are the Americans coming to help us?" They didn't ask, ever, for the UN.

But the UN has turned people against the West, and the rise of Islamism - an ideology based on and only on, the INTERNAL repression of the Muslim peoples by their own dictatorial tribal govts...has polarized the world. I absolutely agree with your summary of the UN. Perfect description of it as a force of evil in the world.

And yes - why go into Libya and not Syria? But it's a real dilemma. The fact that, by virtue of our modern communication systems, we KNOW what is being done to peoples elsewhere - how can we morally stand by? That's the problem. And which nations should step in? Only the West? Where are the Arab nations? Shouldn't they care about their own people? Shouldn't they care when an Islamic ruler kills Muslim citizens?

It's a terrible dilemma - and without a genuine UN, and with the additional burden of an evil and corrupt UN - I don't know how we can stand aside and 'watch it happen'. The revamping ought to be to the UN..pull it down and begin again...

quebecois - would you please provide factual evidence that Harper 'loves wars'. I await your data. Without evidence, your opinions belong in the Stupid Pot.

I admire Bush as well but to conclude that 'I love war' from such an admiration would be sheer stupidity by anyone so doing. I don't admire Sharon. So?

You also wrote: "He probably wants to use those planes to make them obsolete faster so he can justify buying new stupid war planes at billions of dollars." Again, please provide factual - never mind logical - evidence for your opinion. Otherwise, throw it in The Stupid Pot.

You know, quebecois, spouting nonsense opinions is hardly the sign of a mature mind. You haven't answered my criticisms of your first comment. Are you going to do so? And provide the data and logic for your new comments? Or are you just someone who posts meaningless, illogical nonsense?

And old Lori has some valid points out Bush's congressional approval -oh, and are you aware of the 40 odd members of the coalition who went in, with the US, in the Iraq war? Care to comment?

Again, quebecois, any twit can spout stupidity. How about entering the adult world of debate? It's based on facts and logic.

So political assassinations are AOK as long as they are done with bombs from aircraft. Is that how Obama sees it?

So we can decapitate an evil regime without the responsibility to ensure an orderly transference of power to a democratic regime. In other words, it's AOK to criticize Bush for having no plan or a bad plan for post-Saddam Iraq, but it's not OK to criticize My Hero, Zero for having absolutely no plan and no intentions for action in a post-Gaddafi Libya.

So it's OK to oppose an "immoral, unjust, and illegal" war in Iraq which was approved by both Congress AND the UN Security Council, but it not "immoral, unjust, and illegal" to wage war against Libya's rulers without Congressional approval.

So Iraq was a "War for Oil" and a "War for Oil Companies," but Libya is not. If oil prices go up, that's great for oil companies and bad for consumers. If My Hero, Zero releases oil from the strategic reserve to keep prices down, that's great for oil companies and bad for consumers too. After all, we BOUGHT the oil from oil companies and that drove up prices from increased demand at that time. And when we replenish the reserves, then it will drive up oil prices again.

So, either way Big Oil wins and consumers must pay for the Libyan War.

Not that I necessarily oppose bombing Gaddafi to death. I just want to make sure that liberals and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee are paying close attention.

Ozero did NOT lead the USA into the Lybia conflict, as usual he followed, and it was a skirt this time, Hillary, who when in Europe, talking to the French and English, cowed Ozero, while he was in Brazil, to commit.

I support the intervention (I luv war quebecois Piste), just not the methods used. Also I support the idea of getting congressional approval. I also believe that this "intervention" is mostly about oil as fas as the Europeans are concerned, but feel that there is an element of pay back were the USA is concerned, pay back for Lockerbie and the release of the master mind who was in the scottish jail.

To think that Ozero ever leads is folly, he only follows, as he has done in every crisis so far.

What's puzzling for me is the apparent "consensus" from our government. I said specifically during the election that the Conservatives were "very" vulnerable on this issue; yet not a peep from the Dippers or the Liberals or the Bloc.

quebecois NDPiste >

“Harper has increased (unnecessarily) military spending in Canada.”

What you call unnecessary many or most call defence. Only delusion could lead someone to think Canada doesn’t need some amount of modern defence in today’s world.

Also you’re stating that Harper was just waiting to go to war is pure speculation. I think Jack Layton is dying to get into power and enslave Canadians in concentration camps and gulags like the socialist commie he really is. So I’ll stick with Harper for now instead.

I do agree, we have no reason to be in Libya. Who cares if dictators pick on their people it’s none of our business. They need to fight for their own Liberty if they want it bad enough. We have no business feeding them or bringing them here to live either.

Obamba has lied to Americans again, and stepped on the American Constitution again over Libya. For all the bleeding hearts thinking this is a “just war” saving the Libyan people you are being fooled. Kaddafi was never the worst dictator in the world to his people; in fact the Libyans had a higher standard of living and annual income than many other Arab nations. This is an Elitist war between Obamba administration, world bankers, corporate interests, and European governments.

It most definitely has nothing at all to do with us or saving little brown people in the desert. Our only roll is to fund & Legitimize it and then take the fallout when the sand settles. The Libyans get to die and have a future within a real totalitarian terror network operating under the boot of the elitists.

Let us see now,

it would seem that the current President of the US is living on easy street so far as decisions that are of a dictatorial nature. Nobody in the US congress is calling him on that.

Yes they give a lip, though nobody will say, president of the US is not allowed do that. Unless of course he is.

There are certain paralells to Hugo, now don't take it too literally, don't get carried away.

Hugo, as you may or may not know, if you follow the his doings, justifies every little chip-off the freedom in his country,not that it is justifiable, just nobody will say, "stop it", chiseling away bit by little bit off the liberty of the population.

If you did not notice, the socialists are very good at that, like, it's for the children, the weak, the vulnerable, the downtrodden, the down and out. The problem with that is that the socialists do not actually help, they make sure that those who need help, need it in perpetuity, so as to have a base that will vote for them.

What is even more tragic than that, is that there are people that grew in the country soaked in freedom up to their necks and many seem to be indifferen to and many agree with the dictatioral behaviour of the president.

There is so much to write about this, though one has to keep it brief.

Posted by: quebecois NDPiste at June 26, 2011 5:20 PM

"Harper love wars,"

Hey guy, do you have it all together?

Maybe you are not well at this time? Maybe you are not well permanently? What the hell is wrong with you.

What's puzzling for me is the apparent "consensus" from our government. I said specifically during the election that the Conservatives were "very" vulnerable on this issue; yet not a peep from the Dippers or the Liberals or the Bloc.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at June 26, 2011 9:28 PM

__________________________________________

I think they don't know how to say "sorry, we made a mistake when we voted UNANIMOUSLY to support this optics-driven decision without any real information on what was going on in the ground or thought about the laws of unintended consequences".

As for Harper, he's blindly loyal to NATO.

I don't think it's much more complex than that where Canad is involved - in contrast with France, Britain and the US, we have no geopolitical stakes here. We're just carrying water for the others. For no good reason.

What we know is that Ghadaffi is a dictator; he is attacking citizens.
~ET

Yes Khadafy is a dictator, NO Khadafy IS NOT attacking civilians.

April 14, 2011
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.

Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi … could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.

The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.

http://tinyurl.com/6dlnq5k

Friday, 24 June 2011
Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.

http://tinyurl.com/6zcp78l

....................
The pretext that NATO used to go to war against the Libyan government is false.

Does anyone know if radioactivity remains in oil after it's refined?

Some interesting facts about Libya pre-NATO bombings:

"Libya is one of the healthier African economies; it has the highest GDP in the continent..."

http://www.somalipress.com/libya-overview/economy-libya-1076.html

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/04/27/libya-john-perkins-it%E2%80%99s-not-about-oil-it%E2%80%99s-about-currency-and-loans-rothschilds-finish-off-gaddafi-the-price-of-freedom-highest-standard-of-living-in-africa/

oz - interesting. Amnesty International says one thing, the ICC says the opposite and has issued an arrest warrant for Ghadaffi, his son, and his intelligence chief for 'crimes against humanity'.

Now- is this for real, so to speak, or part of a political agenda? Or?

I read good opinions here. I see a lot of the best debaters scratching their heads trying to attach some logic or a means to an end to more and more world political or to be more accurate here, geopolitical events which seem to defy reason or at least why certain supposably independent sovereign nations like Canada, gets involved and why, in the first place.

GLOBALISM: That seems to be the best answer to all the 'hair pulling' I read. We are seeing more and more signs that banks, conglomerates and multinational corporations (Energy etc..) are truly behind all the international actions of late via our politicians of course, the ones that have the guns and the soldiers and the power to legislate laws and actions.

I know it has to be more complex than that but I truly don't believe anymore that elite politicians, specifically of the 'democratic' kind are truly there to serve their respective Countries but they seem to be acting increasingly for 'global money' first and foremost. Yes, we can debate the fact that "money" is our "livelihood" and in that sense, our leaders are in essence servicing "us" in trying to keep the economy rolling but what are the true meaning of "Democracy and Sovereignty" anymore then?

Are the world "dictatorships" the only ones keeping the globalist 'engineers' from succeeding? Explaining that Quaddafi is a nuisance who happens to sit on 'globalist' oil?

So then, where does China fit in all this? Are they also joining the Globalist union even though they are not a democracy like the West(Which seems to be the bulk of this 'union')?
Read Drudge this AM: "China to help save Euro".

If you can past the fact that this Documentary was made by Alex Jones and that you are smart enough to judge what 'strong probability' and 'tin foil hat' territory is then you are sure to enjoy this very long but immensely interesting 'point of view':
(Don't be fouled by the title, it's not all about the Obama Admin, far from it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Right Honourable Terry Tory >

I won’t disagree with you except for the labelling of leftist elitists, Liberal elitists, democrat elitist etcetera.

Elitists are elitists they are a political, economic and social reality of their own. It is an “us and them” reality, they believing that they are the betters of humanity, a superior being. The “Left” are the useful idiots of the elitists, who have been convinced that that they share the same values and goals as the elitists and are operating within their own independent thinking. They seem to be predisposed mentally to the manipulation by the elites via group think, emotional and social causes due to some inherent weakness in their mental logic and emotional chemistry.

The left fights the fight for the elitists on the political front believing it to be for their own causes. This is why people confuse the left and the elitists as one in the same when in fact their seemingly hypocritical actions appear as polar opposites to the realities of the world.

I agree that Globalism is the sinister force and ideology behind much of what worries me about the future. The UN is simply the visible 10% of that cancer.

The rest is behind the scenes,in corporations and cabinets and meetings we hear nothing about, and it upsets me to no end that I see no important politician with a realistic chance of taking power, discussing this issue and standing against it.

Liberal, CPC, NDP, Republican or Democrat, Labour or Tory, they all seem incapable of standing up to the forces that want to impose some sort of world-wide system of law, governance and economic regime on us, individual freedoms be damned.

old Lori >

I couldn’t agree more old Lori.

It sort of explains why, the peoples of any western nation have zero say in what their governments do. Aside from a little political pandering and some costless patronizing of the public from time to time, to keep them penned away and off the streets.

When was the last time the majority of the public (democracy) got their way on serious national economic/ security issues like mass third world immigration, multiculturalism and open borders?

The majority of people do not want to be in Libya, but as democracies we are told too bad so sad, it’s somehow for our benefit without any logical proof amongst a plethora of proven propaganda & lies. Obamba overtly has illegally given the US congress, the constitution, and the citizens of the US the middle finger and a raspberry tongue. We are all told that it’s ok; he’s black so gets a pass.

These are not the ways of democracies and countries of freedom & liberty.

Knight99,

Totally concur with you so I think you misread me here:

"...I truly don't believe anymore that elite politicians, specifically of the 'democratic' kind are truly there to serve their respective Countries..."

I did not mean to say 'democratic' as per US Democrat party or the left for that matter; although like you imply, the left is more prone to elitism because of their natural promotion of big Government control. I meant to say of democratic Country vs 'dictatorship' Country. I wasn't very clear there I guess. Dictators are elites too; more so in a sense they take power by decree because they assume themselves superior beings.

True Right wingers promote individualism and self reliance thus are less prone to worship elitism and to give elites blind trust; but when was the last time the World has seen a TRUE blue Right wing leader elected?
Margaret Thatcher? Maybe. Ronald Reagan? Uh, not really. Stephen Harper? Definitely not ( Not yet, anyway)...

There is definitely something going on and promotion for freedom-responsibility, individualism, small Government is all but in a few mouths...All broken promises because we are still moving left and have been since pretty much WWII.

I would say the last time a majority of the citizens got their way was the Iceland told the government to f**k off, and refugsed a bank bailout.

That hasn't worked out too badly for them, I'd say.

Before that.... I can't remember. The minaret ban in Sweden maybe.

But balance that against hundreds and hundreds of instances where the wishes of the citizens were ignored in order to further an agenda that went beyond what was best for the nation. The whole EU project is an example of that, and look how that pathetic "conservative" Cameron has continue to ignore his people.

Push them a bit further, though, and I wonder if we could see Prime Minister Nigel Farage... he talks a good show, but I wonder if he his any different.

Now- is this for real, so to speak, or part of a political agenda? Or?
~ET

Well we've got Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which actually sent investigators to Libya, on one side and the ICC which hasn't sent independent investigators but relies on the claims of NATO who used those very claims as their reason to begin bombing Libya on the other side.

I'd pick Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, not just because their claims match my assertions, but because the ICC and NATO are both tools of the UN and the New World Order.

The best reason NATO can't be trusted?
The Mission:

a) Mission starts as a No Fly Zone
b) Mission changes and NATO begins air support for "rebels" by bombing Libyan government heavy ground assets
c) Mission changes again and NATO is now trying to kill Kadafi

What happened to the limited mission of only protecting civilians?
That was just a pretext that the UN and NATO put out so that they could reverse the course of the Libyan Civil War after France screwed up and prematurely backed the wrong side, thereby endangering their relationship with Kadafi and their oil supply with it.
..............................
>Nato forces are trying to kill Colonel Gaddafi, the top U.S. commander in the Libyan conflict has admitted.
Admiral Samuel Locklear told senior American politicians air strikes were designed to kill the Libyan leader, despite White House reassurances that this was not the aim.
Such a goal would not be authorised by the UN mandate for the attacks.
Admission: Admiral Samuel Locklear, right, has said that Nato are using air strikes to target Gaddafi - despite White House reassurances they were not
Admiral Locklear is the most senior figure to claim Gaddafi is a target.
Critics said the admission was further evidence of ‘mission creep’ and that Nato was breaking the rules of engagement.
Yesterday marked the 100th day since military action against the Libyan regime began. Eighteen nations including Britain, France and the U.S. have launched hundreds of air strikes in Libya to help rebels to overthrow Gaddafi.

Mike Turner, a member of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, revealed that Admiral Locklear had told him removal of the dictator was on the table.
He said: ‘The UN authorisation had three components – blockade, no-fly zone and civil protection.

http://tinyurl.com/6fpgsmh