Does the US-UK imperial axis really want to ignite a new Great War?

 

Goddamn somebody break up the NATO already.

Not sure if serious.

Rumors like this are immensely beneficial to forcing the Ghaddafi loyalist into giving up, or giving a lot more than they would otherwise consider in a permanent settlement.

 

 

Also remember that the scope of the any military engagement is quite small in comparison to Afghanistan or Iraq. It might be best to just get it over with. I mean we know from the start that there is no political will to occupy and do nation building afterward, which might well prove to be a healthy attitude.

Nation building? What are you talking about?

 

The NATO under US leadership went into this war thinking it will be quickly over, but it turns out the situation is getting more complicated and they may send in ground forces. Things then get really ugly, and there's no way out withing many years. It's just that those imbeciles in DC and elsewhere don't learn. And they don't have the capacity to admit it, because there's nothing worse for Hillary Clinton & Co to admit that they politically lost a war.

If this is serious, then I hope you're all aware that RT is pretty much a direct mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

If this is serious, then I hope you're all aware that RT is pretty much a direct mouthpiece for Russian propaganda.

If it is, it's quite good. Better than Fox News and CNN for certain.

I have to say that I've seen some surprisingly good journalism from that channel as well. But there's also a lot of EU and US bashing too, which seems a little propaganda'ish.

It's nice if they have some quality stuff as well. You can check here for what I was referencing.

 

FWIW, I use BBC for my world news usually.

Edited July 11, 201114 yr by Purkake

RT's slant is a bit too much at times, just have to sift through/ignore it. Isn't this thing more due to France and UK, though ? So..the US is engaging on some grand scheme to start WW3, hm, good to know.

Edited July 11, 201114 yr by Malcador

Nation building? What are you talking about?

 

The NATO under US leadership went into this war thinking it will be quickly over, but it turns out the situation is getting more complicated and they may send in ground forces. Things then get really ugly, and there's no way out withing many years. It's just that those imbeciles in DC and elsewhere don't learn. And they don't have the capacity to admit it, because there's nothing worse for Hillary Clinton & Co to admit that they politically lost a war.

 

 

C'mon, pay attention. This is the UK and Frances war. At least get the basics right.

Nation building? What are you talking about?

 

The NATO under US leadership went into this war thinking it will be quickly over, but it turns out the situation is getting more complicated and they may send in ground forces. Things then get really ugly, and there's no way out withing many years. It's just that those imbeciles in DC and elsewhere don't learn. And they don't have the capacity to admit it, because there's nothing worse for Hillary Clinton & Co to admit that they politically lost a war.

 

 

C'mon, pay attention. This is the UK and Frances war. At least get the basics right.

So you're saying the US has no involvement at all?

 

C'mon, pay attention.

"If LoF did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

- Me, now.

Ya know, we can't all swim into the same direction. It would make discussion pointless. But maybe people around here like it that way.

Don't mind me, I'm just trying to draw a humorous parallel between your post and the late poster known as "Lord of Flies" general style of posts.

 

I welcome thoughtful discussion,

not enough to take part in it, though

.

Edited July 11, 201114 yr by Purkake

So you think the NATO are impeccable angels?

 

Really, the Cold war is over, so dismantle it.

Nation building? What are you talking about?

 

The NATO under US leadership went into this war thinking it will be quickly over, but it turns out the situation is getting more complicated and they may send in ground forces. Things then get really ugly, and there's no way out withing many years. It's just that those imbeciles in DC and elsewhere don't learn. And they don't have the capacity to admit it, because there's nothing worse for Hillary Clinton & Co to admit that they politically lost a war.

 

 

C'mon, pay attention. This is the UK and Frances war. At least get the basics right.

So you're saying the US has no involvement at all?

 

C'mon, pay attention.

 

 

*sigh*

 

Id love to pay attention to your inane rambling but you fall on your face right out of the gate. Lets review:

 

The NATO under US leadership...

 

So lets start out easy, whats wrong with the above statement? Thats right, we arent leading this one.

 

Now lets examine this piece of work:

 

It's just that those imbeciles in DC and elsewhere don't learn.

 

What, pray tell, should we have learned from the actions of France and the UK on this matter?

So you think the NATO are impeccable angels?

 

Really, the Cold war is over, so dismantle it.

I think that I don't want to partake of this discussion. I do however like making side notes of the informatory and often humorous nature. I hope you won't hold that against me.

You can turn and twist it whatever way you want, France and UK are just the little lapdogs.

 

It is an US lead mission (war). Pay some attention and do proper research.

I see. Well, with ironclad debate skill like that I guess Ill just have to widthdraw.

Nation building? What are you talking about?

 

The NATO under US leadership went into this war thinking it will be quickly over, but it turns out the situation is getting more complicated and they may send in ground forces. Things then get really ugly, and there's no way out withing many years. It's just that those imbeciles in DC and elsewhere don't learn. And they don't have the capacity to admit it, because there's nothing worse for Hillary Clinton & Co to admit that they politically lost a war.

No, NATO went into this war unwilling to commit to anything but air strikes, well knowing that their part in it would only be to provide the rebels with the advantage.

 

In this case the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan which are in fact first in everyone's minds are preventing a quick solution. Ghaddafi forces are tiny compared and would quickly crumble.

Man, why isn't the NATO then in Syria, Jemen etc. Lot's of atrocities going on there, too. But no mention in the mainstream.

Over three months of bombardements and Gadaffi still has not relinquished, that's some dip**** military doing their job there. Could be indeed the demilitarized UK RAF (Austerity measures, of course) that can't get anything properly done.

Because this was practical and Syria isn't. It's opportunism as much as idealism.

You mean, the oil?

No, just that it's doable without risking upsetting a hornet's nest. The Syrians are getting the raw end of the 'Arab spring'. No one is coming to give them self determination on a silver platter. That's just how it is.