Why Are Pacifist Europeans Declaring War on Libya?
Sarkozy’s sudden zeal for the cause of democracy in Libya comes as his popularity is at record lows just thirteen months before the first round of the 2012 presidential election. With polls showing that Sarkozy is the least popular president since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958, he is betting that French voters will appreciate his efforts in Libya to place France at the center of the world stage and reinforce what Charles de Gaulle once famously called “a certain idea of France” as a nation of exceptional destiny.
In any case, Sarkozy’s main rival is not Gaddafi, but rather Marine Le Pen, the charismatic new leader of the far-right National Front party in France. A new opinion poll published by the Le Parisien newspaper on March 8 has Le Pen, who took over from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in January, winning the first round of next year’s presidential election.
Le Pen, who appeals to middle class voters, is riding high on voter dissatisfaction over the failure of the mainstream parties to address the problem of Muslim immigration. Since taking her post three months ago, Le Pen has single-handedly catapulted the twin issues of Muslim immigration and French national identity to the top of the French political agenda, and in recent weeks, Le Pen has been a permanent fixture on French prime-time television to discuss the threat to France of a wave of immigrants from Libya.
Doing his part, Gaddafi already has pledged that Europe will be “invaded” by an army of African immigrants. In an interview with the French newspaper Journal du Dimanche on March 6, Gaddafi warned: “You will have immigration. Thousands of people from Libya will invade Europe. There will be no one to stop them any more.”
Earlier, during a visit to Italy in August 2010, Gaddafi demanded €5 billion ($7 billion) a year from the European Union to stop illegal immigration which “threatens to turn Europe black.” At the time, Gaddafi asked: “What will be the reaction of the white Christian Europeans to this mass of hungry, uneducated Africans? We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and cohesive continent or if it will be destroyed by this barbarian invasion. We have to imagine that this could happen, but before it does we need to work together.”
Since the revolt in Tunisia in January, nearly 15,000 boat people (more than the total for all of 2010) have arrived on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, a 20-square-kilometer island that traditionally has been a major gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union. The panicked French minister for European affairs, Laurent Wauquiez, recently warned that up to 300,000 illegal immigrants could arrive in the European Union from North Africa during 2011. The influx of immigrants from Libya is a “real risk for Europe that must not be underestimated,” he said.
Threatened by Le Pen’s rising popularity, and in urgent need of a political boost, Sarkozy is now using the Libya intervention both to play the role of the respected statesman on the international stage and to address French concerns over mass immigration from North Africa. But during a March 21 interview with France 24, Le Pen dismissed Sarkozy as “a French president who is no longer running anything, who is governing on impulse or emotion, depending on the circumstances.”
Quite apart from the ongoing debate over whether the military intervention in Libya is wise or unwise, legitimate or illegitimate, or if it ultimately will succeed or fail, the European about-face on the use of military force has confirmed the sham that is post-modern European morality, where “cherished” principles are tossed to the wind whenever they are not convenient.
The antiwar idealism of Zapatero and other European fellow travellers is, in its essence, a neo-pacifist reality-evading political façade that Spain and other European governments have hid behind in recent years to avoid military alliance responsibilities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. And in an effort to conceal this duplicity, European post-modern pacifism has served as a high-minded, anti-American bully pulpit from which to bash the United States and Israel for refusing to embrace ephemeral concepts like “soft power.”
Boy George, a poster child for European post-modern popular culture, once described the chameleon-like reality of contemporary European morality: “I’m a man without conviction. I’m a man who doesn’t know.”
Because the euroweenies think they can win one?
But!!! None of them want to be in charge!!! Because, if it goes badly it would be on their tie.
You’re right that European pacifism was a facade. The mass illegal immigration of not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands, of Africans to the Spanish and French shores is the chief reason that the Europeans are suddenly embracing the idea of a military presence in the Mediterranean, especially if that military is American. Then the Americans can be blamed for a racist war against Africans.
…..and American taxpayers will pay for it (the war).
It doesn’t matter what happens. It doesn’t matter who (if anybody) wins. This is going to end as customary, with everybody complaining about the United States. Muslim fists will be raised and shaken. European heads will shake back and forth as they raise their hands in blank confusion.
I’m starting to think we should sit the next one out. We’re going to be screamed at anyway, and it’s cheaper to stay home for it.
You win the prize. Right On.
You never see nothing yet. Euro-pacifism is the genesis of the clash of civilization. America you better stay out of this one
Gladly, Leo. See you when the leaves fall.
Not possible! We’re into this to the tune $150 Million PLUS. That’s conservative, and is more likely closer to 1/4 Billion. And, all this so that Europe can get a better deal on OIL!!!
You just know that “Robert” (Can’t you remember your last name, Robert? I think your mum probably sewed it on to your socks – they should be somewhere near your feet) also believes that “Big Oil” funds “deniers” (better known as “realists”) in the climate debate.
Oh yeah I forgot, the other reason we shouldn’t kill people overseas is because the ones we miss we grant asylum and give them entire U.S. towns to live in.
I am becoming a pacifist even as I write this.
“I would rather be killed, than to kill”.Coming from the defense minister of an important European country, that sentence sums up why Europe is a suicidally degenerate,terminal entity, destined to be conquered by Islam.
Why even have a Ministry of Defense? Maybe he should just distribute clubs to his men, instead of weapons. Europe is a joke.
Why Are Pacifist Europeans Declaring War on Libya?
Two reasons: 1) It’s not a fair fight and 2) they know big brother USA will do the heavy lifting. Europeans should get in the kitchen and make me a sammich!
Exactly, the kids in short pants want to play grownup.
Fredo, if the whiny little bitches tried to make you a sammich, it would probably be a head cheese or blood tongue sausage sammich.
I say we let Europe deal with their own problems. They made their bed. Now it’s time for them to sleep in it. We wouldn’t want to be an insensitive bully and meddle in their affairs, as we did back in the ’40s.
And we’re still in NATO why? The Soviet Union is gone, the Warsaw Pact is gone, and Russia is having its own problems simply staying together in one piece. So why are we still hanging around with these parasitical, hedonistic, selfish, socialists? Even in Afghanistan, the only NATO country that’s really a big help is Britain, but the rest of NATO has contributed very little. But, how about a better idea? How about the United States only get involved with countries where it has a direct national interest? We are now in a war because the United Nations said it wanted a no-fly zone, which has now morphed into an all-out war. I think it’s about time we start leaving these “coalitions” which never seem to solve anything and only cause more problems than they are worth.
Britain of help? Just a few years ago they released the Lockerbie Bomber as a payoff to help secure a contract for BP. Libya is Europe’s problem, not ours.
Of course, we’ll make Libya safe for democracy…so they can elect another jihadist government. Al Quada with oil fields, what a lovely thought.
I think you’ll find that was Scotland, not ‘Britain’.
The Scots are a subset of British and have been since 1707. The country is the United Kingdom and its citizens are British. The distinction among English, Scots, Welsh, Irish (Northern Ireland) is an internal distinction, kind of like the difference between a Texan and a Sooner. But you are correct in that it was the local Scottish Crimminal authorities that released the convicted conspirator, much like being release from a state prison via a state parole board.
I remember after his release and the US complained, many Brits were bashing Americans as heartless as well as defending the guy for most likely being framed by the CIA.
Btw, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown agreed with the Scottish executive’s decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
I think you’ll find it was the Brits that, “Pushed” the deal.
Its easy to pretend to be a Saint when no consequences or price will fall upon you for doing so. But when you are presented with an actual bill for indulging in your Sainthood the masks come off, revealing the Saints for the pretenders they truly are.
They never were interested in actually being Saints. They were only interested in having other people perceive them as such. They are the shallow people–the closest that a human can approximate being a cockroach. And like cockroaches, they are everywhere.
The word Pharisee comes to mind to describe such people: those who have no interest in holiness, who rather only have interest in being perceived as holy by adoring masses.
DUMP the folks in Europe to stand on their own for once after 66 years of the U.S. giving them everything to include their defense. In fact, Europe has lived in peace and risk free for those 66 years while the U.S. has shouldered all the responsibility for their reconstruction, their economy and military development.
Today, Europe is starting to come to two conslusions. 1) Their socialism is non sustainable and failed and 2) they can no longer trust their reliance on the U.S. purse for its economic support. They need to dispose of the current NATO and form a new organization of allied european nations.
The U.S. should remove themselves from NATO as well should the French and the UK. The French, UK, Ireland, South Africa, Canada, Australia and the U.S. should form a new alliance organization as well as Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and India…yes, I said India!
Then blow up the United nations organizations reforming ONLY a new worldwide International Red Cross humanitarian health and food services organization headed ONLY by NGO organizations from around the world.
Anything short of this kind of thinking will only continue the cancer, division and mistrust we have worldwide under the current United Nations and NATO systems.
The Utopian philosophy and strategies have not only failed but run contrary to human nature…in fact, the laws of nature! The cold hard fact is that FEAR nurtures peace. Diposing of the UN and structuring new alliance organizations will go a long ways to slowing down the current world situations and instilling a new level of uncertainty and fear for those such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and the Muslim region. These countries with substantial realignment of alliances around the world will either conform to peace or……… The world doesn’t have to agree with each other but it has to learn to live in peace or suffer signficant and real consequences from [new] strategic and [independent] located alliances.
Europe…get a life!
Hold on there, Skippy. NGOs have become the most despotic entities on earth. They function under cover of humanitarian or environmental causes, have limitless private and governmental funding, make far-reaching public policy (privately) and answer to no one. Just ask the subsistence fisherman in the Indian Ocean who can no longer feed his family because some inexperienced wealthy young dreamer in a fancy office in Geneva has the power to close the ocean and his ancestral fishing grounds.
In a way the European leaders are being true to their past performance. While standing around twiddling their fingers, the picture of apathy, when looking out for their own people (white, Christian males). They push their people aside to appease muslims and stuff any protection.
Now of course, in order to keep their muslims happy, it is off to war we go. Typical behaviour of double dealers.
antiwar “idealism”? More like “cynicism” and “opportunism”. It worked great when we had trigger happy cowboys in the White House.
Are you calling FDR a trigger happy cowboy???
He meant Wilson.
Nicely observed, but let me reach around and pat myself on the back (ow!) for noticing this quite some time ago:
My standard bearer for this was Clare Short, a Labour Minister in the UK (not European per se, but, being British left, de facto…). Here is what I blog posted way back in the mid-ought’s -
If I may, here are two quotes from UK Labour Minister Clare Short, who resigned the Blair cabinet in outrage over Iraq. Yes, Clare, I can imagine how morally appalled you were….
—
“If there is not UN authority for military action or if there is not UN authority for the reconstruction of the country, I will not uphold a breach of international law or this undermining of the UN and I will resign from government.”
Clare Short, quoted in The Daily Telegraph, March 10, 2003
–
“The truth is this is a war. Wars are vile… It’s against an evil, monstrous regime that has caused a terrible war and displacement, raping and killing people. Now it is doing it again. This evil will be reversed. We will succeed, the sooner the better… But we will do what is necessary. It will be done and we will look after people and get them home…Please everyone think what is at stake here… This is a challenge for our generation. We must do what is right otherwise evil will triumph, Europe will have fascism back in it and all the instabilities that will lead to increasing conflict… Please be steady everyone. We’ve got to do what is right and we will do it”.
- Clare Short, May 23, 1999, on the need for war against the Serbs, a war that WOULD HAVE been vetoed by the UN (Russia), except NATO chose to ignore the UN specifically because of that fact.
—
Thus we see clearly, not an example of moral outrage, but of moral posturing. Put simply, when the knife is at EUROPE’s throat, everyone to the trenches, and thanks U.S. But when the U.S. asks Clare in return NOT to pick up a rifle, but merely to acknowledge the favor done, and to at least just shut the hell up if she cannot pitch in and help, this is MUCH too much to ask for, and she, and many others, re-boot and go back to their Windows ’68 default settings of “American Imperialism” and that sort of Marxian claptrap.
THIS is what leaves Americans outraged, and I think the damage to the transatlantic relationship might be salvagable, but the scars will not be forgotten, certainly not on this side of the pond.
Hear, Hear! Andrew X. The time has come for the US to withdraw from NATO. The Europeans are rich enough to defend themselves. Plus, we’ll be needing the $200 billion or so for our own financial problems.
Unfortunately, only the previously converted truly understand your message.
Me four.
Just to remove any potential ambiguity, I live in the UK….
With regard to the reasons for this debacle; haven’t got a Scooby! I’m guessing it’s about some combination of oil, because the Duck knows where a inconvenient number of embarrassing bodies are buried, he knows which closets contains which skeletons – and because the leaders of my own nation, that of the French and most particularly that of the US-ians are all clueless halfwits.
With regard to the constant assertion on nearly every thread on this board that the involved parties need the US to ‘do the heavy lifting’… not on your life, my friends. Collectively, the military of even the UK and France could get this job done. I was in the RAF for 8 years and have some idea of our capabilities. Which are, sorry to have to tell you this, perfectly adequate for the job at hand. Except…
We couldn’t afford to pay for it. And we lack the political will to actually do it. Most European countries, at present, lack the political will to order a sandwich, unless a committee has spent three years absolutely ensuring that it is indeed the free lunch we were led to expect. And, well, TANSTAAFL.
Which means the current situation makes sense, if you think about it, because I don’t think anyone involved actually has a clear mission in mind, here – no intention of ordering anything, just of smelling the kitchen and watching the purdy girls walk by.
Unfortunately, this time there’s a big sign on the wall, saying “Hell, Yes! This Lunch Is Unequivocally Free!” and the diners were led to wonder..
Hope they have their credit cards on them when the doors are locked and the 6’6″ chef walks in holding a cleaver and explains the cost.
You say, “the involved parties need the US to ‘do the heavy lifting’… not on your life, my friends…Except…We couldn’t afford to pay for it. And we lack the political will to actually do it. Most European countries, at present, lack the political will to order a sandwich.”
Doesn’t that pretty much invalidate your point?
I could not have put it better. Only adding, his point was just hypothetical.
To quote a freedom-loving military commander: “IT’S A TRAP!”
I dunno.
For some reason the terms “Europe” and “pacifism” don’t seem to mesh too well together.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the Euros are the most bloodthirsty, warmaking pack of loons that the world ever seen.
‘“a certain idea of France” as a nation of exceptional destiny.’
Unfortunately for the French, their exceptional destiny is to be pounded on by the Germans every generation or three.
OTOH, that has given them a chance to perfect the fine art of surrendering, which they do with great aplomb.
et ta soeur ?
in fact, it’s Germany that surrendered to local domestic pression
“By abstaining in the Security Council on the resolution authorizing military action to protect Libyan civilians — and by refusing on Wednesday to participate in the enforcement of an arms embargo on Libya that the United Nations authorized — Germany pointedly refused to go along with the political aims and leadership of its two most important European allies, Britain and France, as well as the United States.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/europe/24germany.html?_r=2&hp
Do the Germans notice something the rest do not?
The Germanz have turned on the Veste Wellen on Moscow sirens voices
Now they re really going to have to pact with Putin, bye bye ! or to promote gay prides !
ROFL!!!
Oh, and there goes Marie with her non sequiter response, since she really can’t disagree with your assessment.
uh the Germanz still worshipping la vie de soldat?
Nein, they prefer tourism
Travel agency offers holidays in war zones: Looking for a holiday with an edge? You could always try Iraq or Afg… http://bit.ly/e9c6nH
and now they are told in Afhanistan: “stop shouting and start shooting”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6730996.ece
The Germanz are thanksfull to the Americanz to have introduce them to the joy of becoming leasures trips and sodas worshippers, except that some troopers find that there isn’t enough beer in store to get high in shooting !
“Nein, they prefer tourism”
Yeah, and there’s nothing they like doing better than getting a couple of million guys together, and taking a little tour over to Paris, knocking aside French armies like tenpins, as they go.
We made them knock that stuff off after we set up our little Pax Americana thing in 1945, but we’re not going to be there forever, and once we pull out of NATO, pack our bags, and leave, the Germans will reopen tourist season again, in short order.
Get your white flags ready, Frenchies.
does “fool” is enough for your prestation?
2010 isn’t 1940, fast 3 generations separate these 2 dates, while the generation that fought 1914 was very diminished for WW2.
But you don’t care of facts, only your low IQ bashings count
“2010 isn’t 1940″
It isn’t 1815, 1870 or 1914 either.
However, while noting that the Germans frequently march into France for a little vacation on the Seine, one has to admit, that at least in one of the years in question, the French were able to keep the Germans from marching all the way to Paris. In that one year, the Germans ran out of steam, and had to settle for camping out on the Marne and nearby garden spots for the next four years, where they made perfect nuisances out of themselves (as pushy Germans are wont to do): firing off artillery rounds at all hours, digging trenches without permits, and making a fuss about promptly paying their hotel bills.
That one French “triumph” being duly acknowledged, the French have to understand that they can’t always count on America being there to either drive the Germans out, a la 1918 or 1944, or to keep the rambunctious Teutons under control so that they don’t go marching across France in the first place, like we’ve been doing ever since the end of WWII.
Eventually, we Americans are simply going to get tired of constantly saving and protecting a bunch of rude, ungrateful frog-eaters, and we’re just going to pack our valises and head back over to the New World where we belong.
And, for that reason, I suggest that the French invest heavily in white flags, tanks with several reverse gears, and the various articles that ensure proper surrender ceremonies, so they’ll be prepared once America raises its protective hand, and the Germans go back to doing what they do best, which is beating the tar out of the French on a fairly regular basis.
“a la 1918″
yes, when you came for extinguish the candles !
but I won’t discuss with you of the american contribution, as you keep insulting my country. There are more valuable contenders than you that know more about the subject with whom it’s a delight and educating to discuss.
Anyway, France wouldn’t want to put her confidence into fatty louzy PC fighters like you
Vas te faire voir chez les Grecs !
“Anyway, France wouldn’t want to put her confidence into fatty louzy PC fighters like you”
Hey, can’t be any worse than putting your trust in the French Army.
“Why Are Pacifist Europeans Declaring War on Libya?”
ummm. Oil?
Of course, not just any oil, that would be evil, even bush-like…this is about THEIR oil. So it’s ok, even noble that they are willing to sacrifice American lives for such a just cause.
euros are simply the quintessential “wolves in sheeps clothing”
understand this and you understand them and their history.
One would say, it’s Sarkozy’s fest !
I don’t think that Sarkozy made his decision on Marine Lepen’agenda, but rather that wanted to repear his image from having walked too much on her lawns, thus to appear like a “human rights” defenser, and it worked, almost the whole french political spectre approved his decision.
And the libyan refugiees aren’t coming to France, but rather to Italy, the pro Kadhafi would rather chose Germany ! We have the other french speaking Maghreb countries’ones !
I already posted that on BC:
you should question why France got/gets involved into such “crusades” (Medvedev’s word, but also Guegan’s a former Sarko’s adviser), it’s in the line of “Medecins sans Frontières” organisation, that intervens in countries where all sorts of conflicts, diseases, natural catastrophes happen. In countries where evident abuses of human rights are perpetrated by a leader, this organisation has always promoted a butting into a country inner policy, hence troops envoy to Darfour, Central Africa… Kouchner begin his political carreer as the creator of “Medecins sans Frontières”, he was amid the persons that pressed on Sarkozy to undertake something, but the determining factor was BHL (Bernard-Henri Levy) that went to Benghazi and made a emotional report on the people hopes and means there, hence the recognition of the intermediary government of Benghazi. So, from the beginning, there’s no hidden agenda, just that that was a opportunity for Sarkozy to reblush his political image
And the oil. And the fact that the American taxpayer will pick up the tab. Obama and Clinton got sucked in. He just loves the Europeans.
The Spanish probably think that if they intervene they won’t have so many black kids in the park in central Madrid who make me buy heroin every time I’m there.
What do you mean they “make you buy heroin”? Do they have a gun to your head telling you to shoot it up or get shot?
Italy should sent all the africans arriving in Lampedusa to Spain. In fatc, the whole of Europe will be inundated with more Muslim refugees. Why didn’t they leave Gadaffi alone? Now Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood(one and the same apparently )will step in. EURABIA is finished. I give it 5 ot 10 years.
and why on Earth do you assume that “Europeans” are pacifists?? and why on earth EU countries should not act in accord with national interest, as the US does?
whatever “Europeans” mean, since we have 27 different government, and you only cite one.
In Afghanistan, EU countries contribute around 40 000 troops. Italy alone has 12 000 troops all round the world.
it would be nice, for once, to read an article based not exclusively on trite stereotypes, but on some actual analysis
“In Afghanistan, EU countries contribute around 40 000 troops”
Of whom only the Brits, the Danes and the Eastern Europeans actually do any fighting.
“Of whom only the Brits, the Danes and the Eastern Europeans actually do any fighting.”
Liar :
http://www.liveleak.com/mp53/player.swf?config=http://www.liveleak.com/mp53/player_config.php?token=677_1220547746%26embed=1
“….why on earth EU countries should not act in accord with national interest, as the US does?”
Nothing wrong with acting in your own self interest. But when the U.S. does anything “for oil”, the Euros use that expression as if it were a curse word. At least admit it’s for oil, not “it’s for democracy”. The Brits and Frogs are sleazebags. They sucked Obama into this so American taxpayers would pay for this.
THE COMING US GROUND WAR IN LIBYA
Obama assured both the Congress and the American people this week that Operation Odyssey Dawn will not become a full scale ground war involving US troops. Fine. Unless Kaddafy launches a successful terrorist attack against us as he did with Pan Am 103 the war weary American people would be opposed to such a war; American soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq are enough for them. But when we follow Obama’s logic as to why we’re at war with Kaddafy the conclusion is inescapable that we’re headed toward a full scale ground war……
Click my name to continue reading this piece and my widely linked article Maummar Kaddafy: Terrorist Reborn.
The only country European “pacifists” would ever care to declare war on is Israel. The only people they hate enough to kill are Jews.
It would be nice to read an article on Europe not entirely based on trite stereotypes, for a change
It would to have the Europeans act in a manner that wasn’t so stereotypical.
Stereotypical? Euros will never fight a war unless the U.S. leads, is part of or pays for it. Truth can be stereotypical.
I’ve actually been to Lampedusa, as a weekend side trip from a Palermo vacation a few years ago. Sparse, rocky, hot, beautiful. Barely room for 1500 people, much less 15,000 or so.
There are consultations going on in the subject European countries to avoid leadership in this fiasco, lest one of them should be responsible for the aftermath.
What would be even nicer is to visit a comments page or talkboard somewhere in the UK, or anywhere in Europe (any nation)for that matter, that didn’t scapegoat/blame the US and its citizens for every single thing that hasn’t gone their way since the inception of the US.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you comes to mind.
Well, the French military was certainly enthusiastic. Finally, a chance to test some of the new hardware! CdG avant! In the UK, Cameron got to show his people that their military could still pack (sort of) a punch, after being gutted last fall.
The Germans are worried about their public image, don’t want to seem too bloodthirsty.
Spain? As broke as the guy hitchhiking out of Vegas at 4 a.m.
May be because of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgmJtkwRbtQ&feature=BF&list=ULxkX-kr_kxik&index=2 ?
Just my $0.02:
If Iraq was targeted for its oil, would not fuel prices be notably lower right now? I mean is it not easier for a politician to buy votes w/ lower fuel prices than with higher profits @ Chevron, Shell, et. al.?
It seems to me that taking out Quaddafi (however it might be spelled) should have been done a long time ago.
I can’t really say if removing ‘The Colonel’ would bring an element of stability, or if it is worth the lives of US or other nations service members….I can’t ponder such things.
But what I can say is either commit or remove yourself from the situation; A contingent of ground troops, in conjunction w/ the rebels, who leave shortly thereafter, can cut this fight short.
Failure to do so will embolden the West’s adversaries.
That’s about all I have to say on this one. Let’s hope for the best.
The time has come to cut the apron strings that the Euro Trash have firmly and almost permanently affixed to their skirts so that they are more then always willing to let the United States endure the costs in both material and especially men in fighting their wars. Let them fight Kadaffy, we have no dog in this fight. We get less then 1% (one percent) of our oil from Libya, we have no trade with Libya, we were not attacked by Libya (time out while I recover from hysterical laughter) and since we already have a strong presence in the Middle East have no need for Libya as a staging point. The Euro Trash, on the other hand, are closer to Libya, much closer, import as much as 20% of their oil from Libya, have tens of thousands of refugees from the Middle East streaming in Europe; I don’t know about any trade between Libya and Europe. Let the Euro Trash fight this one; we can make some money selling them bombs and bullets…win-win.
The title is an easy question to answer.
One Word: Hydrocarbons.
“The title is an easy question to answer.
One Word: Hydrocarbons.”
Another word: bulls***.
Gaddafi already sells all his oil as fast as he can get it out of the ground, so how is it about oil?
Answer: it’s not.
It is about grandstanding by lowlife Cameron (and others). If the Muslim Brotherhood take over, that’s a bonus as far as he’s concerned, the traitorous rat.
uh? Marie Claude again? where is pelao y-y to take care of her again? she needs her blue pills urgently!
The frenchs are there for the oil/gas only, they feel entitle to colonize Africa, they are the only european country extensively involved in wars all over Africa, and not only he Maghreb. That’s why without Nato nobody would follow the frenchs.
36. trumpet
there are mind shemes that are remnent
funny how each time there is a desert campain it’s for oil ! and if it was for water to make a change?
sorry, but blue pills are fr ya, that needs to get a “good” life
the french are the last colonialist power hallucinating with becoming a great empire again.
Fortunately there is Germany to punish them from time to time
you’re a bit short of arguments, does that has sumthin to do with “idiocraty”?
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/24/man-vs-nature/
arguments? but you only answer fallacies! (see all your posts above for an example) Why on the earth I should give you an argument? I’m writing here just for fun.
Ah, yes, the frenchs… the french are only making war in Africa because they need to fight smaller weaker countries, but… how about the times they faced a serious army (russian, german, etc)? no need to answer, we all know how it ended.
tompette de la Renomée, you are mal embouchée !
pove trompette de la connerie
“Why Are Pacifist Europeans Declaring War on Libya?”
That’s a silly question – obviously, it s to protect their oil interests, and nothing more.
Let’s try this on for size: no American blood for European oil! oooh, edgy, eh?
Maybe the Europeans are finally waking up to the danger they face from Islam, and are beginning to take action. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s an awakening.
I think the Europeans simply found a guy everybody hates, so he is completely non-controversial to get rid off. It’s sickening to watch them make the world safe for Sharia in an attempt to distract from their failures. And the US is there because the radical Irish anti-Israeli fanatic Samantha Power is establishing the legal precedent for the “Right to Protect” so that Israel can be invaded next to protect her darling Palis.
Anyway, anyone who believes that the Euros, as a group, have gone pacifist, after centuries of slaughtering each other (not to mention slaughtering non-Euro folks all over the world), is living in a fanatsy.
They didn’t all of a sudden magically transform into a continent of peace-lovers after their last outbreak of mass-murder ended in 1945. We’re just in a temporary cooling off period while they work themselves up for the next round of mass slaughter.
These old boys are total psychos, went it comes to killing and fighting and suchlike. The French might not fight very well (duh), but they don’t mind going out and trying to be warriors every 50 years or so. In WWI the French lost around 1.4 million soldiers, which is more than the United States, has lost (counting Confederate soldiers) in its whole history. And, the frog-eaters only had 40 million people then. They don’t have any philosophical problem with war, they just aren’t very good at it.
Don’t kid yourselves…pacifists the Euros ain’t. Mass-killers like the world has never seen, yes. Pacifists…not so much.
pathetic arguments loser
Euros always get testy when you point out what bloodthirsty maniacs they are.
Sometimes, they get so angry that they puff up like blowfishies and smoke starts pouring out of their ears. It’s kinda cute, actually. They look like little tea kettles.