lizrising: Can you actually win a civil war? Not saying the "North" won or the "South" lost, but.... country men are killing country men, families split, infrastructure ruined.

I mean.. In ours, the Roundheads won. Yet, soon enough the Crown was restored under Charles II.

(V):

> Can you actually win a civil war?

Which bring us to the poiint: why did the Nato axis take sides in the Lybian civil war? After all, they ignored Bahrain and Yemen. They appeased Morocco's king, and for all the tough talk they do nothing about Syria. Is it just me or is Lybia the only country with oil in all the ones I mentioned.

Übergeek 바둑이: It must be just you. Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco and Syria – all of them have some oil reserves. Lybia – there is no such country.

Übergeek 바둑이: Because the other Arab countries think Gadaffi is a complete sadistic nutter and want him gone as well. The population of Libya want him gone, it takes attention of the rest of the countries away from their dictatorial governments.

..... The other states to 'democracise' would take more money and man power and potentially lead to another "Iraq".

"Is it just me or is Lybia the only country with oil"

With the intermix of borders I don't think it matters even if.

(V):

> With the intermix of borders I don't think it matters even if.

The point I am trying to make is how hypocritical our governments are.

Did you know that yesterday in Bahrain they passed sentence on pro-democracy protesters. 8 people were given life sentences. 15 people were given sentences ranging from 2 to 25 years. Then two weeks ago the Bahrain government tried 59 doctors and nurses behind closed doors. These medical staff were charged with crimes against the state because the hospitals they worked in were used to treat people injured by the police and the military during the crackdown. It is estimated that over 250 people "disappeared" and thousands were injured during the crackdown.

Why is it that the Nato axis did nothing about Bahrain? The answer is simple. The dictatorial king there allowed Bahrain to become the naval base for both the US and the UK in the Middle East. There are two huge naval bases there, one for the UK and one for the US. If the regime were to change, it is likely that ademocratically elected government would question whether it is appropriate to have those bases in Bahrain.

I guess the king there is not a despotic nutter, he is just a pro-western dictator, and as such he is acceptable to the Nato axis and the Empire.

As always, it is all about hypocrysy and greed. All the talk about Lybia is nothing but excuses to get that country's oil cheaply. If western governments really cared about democracy, they would have bombed Bahrain too. Not to mention Morocco, Yemen and Egypt. What a coincidence that those more "moderate" countries receive military aid from the west. Then of all the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the worst. That place is so backward that they don't allow women to vote in general elections, run for office or even go unaccompanied in the street without a male relative. I don't see any Nato axis planes over Saudi Arabia, even though no country has given more money to Al Qaeda than Saudi Arabia has.