Choosing sides for the World War

The BRICS met and decided they support the efforts of the African Union to end the conflict in Libya via negotiation and stop outside military intervention in the issue. At the same time, Qatar has announced it will lend the Rebels $2 billion to buy stuff including weapons – in direct violation of the UN arms embargo on Libya.

So the world is aligning itself to escalate this into a global conflict… On one side:

Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Venezuela, US DoD, all of Africa, Turkey, Spain, Pakistan? Syria, Holland

and on the other side

France, England, Qatar, Billary Clinton, CIA, Canada, Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, General Dynamics, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Amnesty International, Ed Schultz, John McCain

Sitting on the fence – Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia?, Iran?, Japan? Egypt? President Obama

About Art Stone

I'm the guy who used to run StreamingRadioGuide.com (and FindAnISP.com).
This entry was posted in American Politics, Energy, Global Finance, Islam and war, Libya. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Choosing sides for the World War

  1. ICCDude says:

    How come lately every time Billery says something John McCain is right there with her?
    Maybe if he was doing that BEFORE the election the Tea Parties would have have been kicked off quicker.

  2. ICCDude says:

    Getting back to the original topic:
    Is anybody out there besides me wondering why Libya is worth having WW3? Don’t say oil, because there are plenty of other countries out there with oil.
    Libya is not worth a World War.

    • Art Stone says:

      1776 is starting to make more sense now.

    • Searreigh says:

      The idea is spread our armed forces thin. That is why the dictator upped troop strength in Afganistan and Iraq, surprising everyone. We are now providing air cover to Al Quida in Libya!

      Go Momar

Comments are closed.