>>>>>>>>>http://www.france24.com/en/20110310-France-NTC-national-transitional-council-embassy-Libya
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>We've all seen the latest video of government forces destroying the rebels and civilians in Libya. Does anyone hear the whispers of backroom deals???? How many more countries before the U.S. does the same? Is the U.S. waiting to see the political fallout before making a decision? Is it waiting for a (behind closed doors) agreed upon international calling for the U.S. to take a stance? Is this an attempt to keep the U.S. from being a target for being the first or is the U.S. really behind on this one? Either our leadership really doesn't believe in supporting the transitional council of the rebels (yet) or it is now not willing to stick its neck out for political freedom when it may hurt its image in the Arab world. I guess the U.S. now (by appearances) only stands up for democracy and political freedom when it is politically advantageous to it. I've heard a lot of "don't do anything" as well as "we are no longer the first in supporting democracy and political freedom" comments in the news by supposed experts....both sides make "sense" but what is the right thing to do for the Libyan people and for the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Its worth remembering that its not as simple as get rid of Gadaffi.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He has a lot of support and careless intervention leading to the Benghazi side getting the upper hand could create another (well armed) insurgency problem. Letting the two side slug it out and then come to a deal themselves may be the best solution. What you probably don't want is for one side to win easily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd like to see them slug it out to the last man, but barring that, where the hell are their arab 'brother' nations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Since this is an internal problem which the US, NATO, any other far removed country has no business getting into, let the arab countries that spend billions of $$/euros/Yen, etc per year on arms including front line fighters go to their 'brother's' aid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And the problem with the Taliban in Afganistan was *not* an 'internal problem' ?
>>>>>
>>>>>The Taliban were never a threat to us. This is one of the poorest and most corrupt countries on earth. They still live in tribes! We could bomb them back to the Stone Age -- not all that long a journey for them -- in about 100 hours.
>>>>
>>>>They have a rich cultural history Mike. The USA belonged to the Indians when their civilization was already old.
>>>
>>>ROFL! No question. The Arlington Springs woman lived during the end of the Pleistocene era and that's about 43,000 years later than the stone age technology in Aq Kupruk is dated... I don't know what civilization looked like in the Americas around 3000 BC when there were already urban areas in Afghanistan :o) I guess it depends on what you consider "civilization" :o) Were hunter-gatherers "civilized?" Probably not :o) But maybe :o)
>>
>>I am always amused by arguments that involve what diverse sets of ancestors were doing at any point in time. Could be framed in a number of ways :
>>Baghdad had the greatest universities in the world when Britain as yet had none - but currently few would choose Baghdad U over Oxford or Cambridge.
>>
>>No doubt the Egyptians were building pyramids when my ancestors were clobbering big furry animals with clubs - but the trajectories of the cultures took very different turns for the next 4000 years.
>>
>>Recently reading something about Alexander's campaigns in Bactria and down into the Hindu Kush and what is most remarkable is that virtually no significant changes of attitudes, customs, or any evolution of thought seems to have taken place in that area in 2000 years.
>>
>>Give a Jivaro a chain saw and he'll just cut your head off faster <g>
>>
>>Give a group that plays buzkashi with human heads AK 47s and you have ...well, Afghanistan. <s>
>>
>>
>>"People are the same everywhere"' - but it's hard to see that because some cultures really suck !
>
>
>I'm never sure which ancestors I'm supposed to research :o) Do I consider the American Indians? Or the Norwegians? Or the Germans? Or the English? I can go back the furthest on my father's side (Norwegians), but even two generations ago the people were harsh (as a grandchild I considered them mean) and lived hard lives. The Germans, well, I won't go there :o) The English? My English ancestors don't have a lot to be proud of either. However, the Anishinaabe's have the most interesting stories, were the most snobbish actually (everyone except my great grandmother stayed within the tribe) - and they insist they are the first people so there ya go :o) My daughter has to consider the Scots as well...
>
>I love the comment that "people are the same everywhere." I've been to a LOT of places and it just hasn't been my experience in every case....

I don't find people even vaguely similar, a lot of times. <s>

I remember when I first discovered one strain of my ancestors had been in this country for almost 300 years and the great sense of pride a superiority that gave me. It was only when I factored in the singular lack of accomplishment in those three centuries that I got some perspective. You would have thought that somebody would have had the sense to buy an acre of farmland in lower Manhatten Island in the 18th century and just be smart enough not to be swindled out of it, go to Harvard College when you could still get in, or at least go to California and buy a cheap orange grove.

A good friend came of a family of Polish Jews who arrived when my grandfather was in his thirties, ignorant of English and with no more skills than what it took to push a cart. They currently own at least an acre of Lower Manhatten ( and Long Island and Westchester county and ... )

BTW, ( thinking of my ancestors made me think of this ) finally saw "Winter's Bone". Wow. It was hypnotic on a level I never expected.