The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Report Claims Libya Protest Deaths Hit 200

laikaNYC said:
Reagan should have taken this scumbag out in the 80s. The guy was a huge financier of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Interesting though how under Bush in 2001 after 9/11, the US managed to come to detente with this thug dictator and keep supporting his regime.

Gee. I wonder if it had anything to do with the oil?
 
rareboy said:
Interesting though how under Bush in 2001 after 9/11, the US managed to come to detente with this thug dictator and keep supporting his regime.

Gee. I wonder if it had anything to do with the oil?
Click to expand...

It had more to do with a mood swing that had Khaddafi suddenly wanting to be nice with the West.

Speaking of oil, CNN was reporting that the rebels have control of Libya's oil fields and are saying that if the "Colonel" doesn't go soon, they'll turn off the oil.
 
I guess he's ready to go meet Allah and get his reward of women
 
waste of lives. :(
Gaddafi and his supporters will be punished by the people.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfVWc7Gbkk&feature=related[/ame]
 
The reports I'm seeing are really confusing. One says a third of the country is no longer under Ghadaffi's control; another says much of the army is no longer taking his orders; another says his supporters are crushing the rebels.

I say the U.S. should airlift personal weapons and drop them to the rebels -- if the Colonel is going to arm his followers, let's even the odds.
 
It was true in 1983, and it's STILL true - I see that nobody has formed a consensus on how to spell [STRIKE]Kadaffi[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Qa'daffi[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Khadaffy[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Gadaffy[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Ghadaffi[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Kaddafy[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Smith[/STRIKE] yet.
 
Kulindahr said:
The reports I'm seeing are really confusing. One says a third of the country is no longer under Ghadaffi's control; another says much of the army is no longer taking his orders; another says his supporters are crushing the rebels.

I say the U.S. should airlift personal weapons and drop them to the rebels -- if the Colonel is going to arm his followers, let's even the odds.
Click to expand...

It depends what part of the country they're talking about. I think they're all true. (well, with the exception of 'crushing' the rebels. I've seen nothing to suggest that)
 
Oh, and is anyone seeing a pattern emerging in the middle east? This turmoil has the potential of toppling most of the current regimes and sending the region into chaos.
 
frankfrank said:
It was true in 1983, and it's STILL true - I see that nobody has formed a consensus on how to spell [STRIKE]Kadaffi[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Qa'daffi[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Khadaffy[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Gadaffy[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Ghadaffi[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Kaddafy[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Smith[/STRIKE] yet.
Click to expand...

HA! Apparently in 1986, when he responded to a letter from some second-graders at a school in Minnesota, he signed the letter "Moammar El-Gadhafi. :confused:

I think "Qaddafi" is the most common spelling
 
JB3 said:
Oh, and is anyone seeing a pattern emerging in the middle east? This turmoil has the potential of toppling most of the current regimes and sending the region into chaos.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Or it has the potential to finally turn a whole bunch of medieval post-colonial tinpot dictatorship shitholes into functional modern democracies.

Who can tell?

It is probably the same as the anticipation when a whole bunch of rebels created the United States of America.
 
EastMed said:
Iraq is neither stable nor a democracy. It's run by a bunch of thugs backed up by their respective state militias.
Click to expand...

Please read for content, I did not say it was stable or a democracy. I said that it is currently MORE stable than the other governments in the region except for possibly Israel and Turkey (which since you brought it up also have democratic 'forms' of government). That stability though as I also said has nothing to do with its government democratic, puppet or whatever, it has to do with its people just coming out of a decade long civil war and having little energy or desire to be starting a revolution right now. But in my opinion, the democratic 'form' of government it has, regardless of if you think its real or not, contributes to that stability. Most of the forces that would rise for a revolution to overthrow the government either already have or have become involved in the process and would undermine their interests to change now.
 
Stardreamer said:
Please read for content, I did not say it was stable or a democracy. I said that it is currently MORE stable than the other governments in the region except for possibly Israel and Turkey (which since you brought it up also have democratic 'forms' of government). That stability though as I also said has nothing to do with its government democratic, puppet or whatever, it has to do with its people just coming out of a decade long civil war and having little energy or desire to be starting a revolution right now. But in my opinion, the democratic 'form' of government it has, regardless of if you think its real or not, contributes to that stability. Most of the forces that would rise for a revolution to overthrow the government either already have or have become involved in the process and would undermine their interests to change now.
Click to expand...

That last is what it takes to have a central government among people with competing interests: it has to be worth more to them to stay involved in the process than to oppose it. Sometimes that means compromise by one group or another -- an angle that kept the American colonies together by planting the seeds for a civil war in the future. The trick is to avoid institutionalizing that sort of divide.
 
It's just like this tinpot to bring in foreign mercenaries. He doesn't care about the people, and plainly doesn't even trust his own people, if he has to resort to that.

I wonder what the chances are of this becoming a standoff, with eastern Libya becoming effectively a separate country?
 
I keep wondering -- reporters have mentioned over and over that the government has shut down the internet. But aren't there satellite connections? If there are, we could do a world of good by handing out servers for free to people who have satellite service, so they can serve as hubs for hundreds or thousands of others. If not, we could do a world of good by handing out the gear for satellite service and servers to go with it.
 
Kulindahr said:
It's just like this tinpot to bring in foreign mercenaries. He doesn't care about the people, and plainly doesn't even trust his own people, if he has to resort to that.

I wonder what the chances are of this becoming a standoff, with eastern Libya becoming effectively a separate country?
Click to expand...

Libya is still very much a tribal orientated society. With several tribal chiefs encouraging their respective peoples to support the opposition forces, and with military defections adding armour, artillery, aircraft and military personnel to the opposition forces we are merely discussing the time when Gaddafi's regime crumbles.

We may expect the violence to escalate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top