Is anything beneath those whores Brown and Company?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6176808/SAS-trains-Libyan-troops.html

Surely Brown's overlords in Tripoli wanted this military collaboration to be 
concealed from the British public and everybody else. In Libya, all press is 
controlled at gunpoint by the regime, and the Gaddafis expect the same from 
the UK. But now that the story is out, what form will the Gaddafi tantrum 
take? I won't be a bit surprised if his next move is to take some British 
hostages in Libya.

And in what other ways, not yet revealed, has London accomodated that 
blood-soaked dictatorship? What about the recent release of a Libyan 
al-Qa'ida affiliate called "AF"? (If I find out his real name, I will 
certainly reveal it, by the way.)

"Larry Hammick"  wrote ...

> Surely Brown's overlords in Tripoli

Your evidence for this assertion is ... ?


> wanted this military collaboration to be concealed from the British public 
> and everybody else.

Your evidence for this assertion is ... ?


> In Libya, all press is controlled at gunpoint by the regime, and the 
> Gaddafis expect the same from the UK.

Your evidence for this assertion is ... ?


> But now that the story is out, what form will the Gaddafi tantrum take? I 
> won't be a bit surprised if his next move is to take some British hostages 
> in Libya.

That could be another thing you've got wrong to add to the growing list, but 
I guess we'll have to wait and see.

It would be somewhat stupid for Gaddafi to do such a thing if he is playing 
the UK for a sucker would it not ?


> And in what other ways, not yet revealed, has London accomodated that 
> blood-soaked dictatorship?

Plenty of others accommodating this "blood-soaked dictatorship". Canada has 
just signed nuclear and petroleum deals with Libya, the US moved to 
"normalise relationships" with Libya last year, so why are you making such a 
fuss about Britain ?

Isn't it entirely hypocritical to accuse London of sucking cock and not 
others who do much the same as Britain does ?


> What about the recent release of a Libyan al-Qa'ida affiliate called "AF"? 
> (If I find out his real name, I will certainly reveal it, by the way.)

I shall look forward to that.

In message <oNNqm.44659$PH1.12695@edtnps82>, Larry Hammick
 writes
>Is anything beneath those whores Brown and Company?
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6176808/SAS-
>trains-Libyan-troops.html

The USA declared Libya a friend and open for business LAST YEAR (2008)
BUSH did it. Business has been back in Libya for the last 2 years.

The only problem the US has it the Republicans (who agreed this) can not
get their people to realise things change and the old devil is now a
friend. I mean some of them are still fighting WW2 and communists.

This is the trouble with the American 1984 black-and-white politics.
When the game moves on some players "flip sides"

The Brits are well used to this having had to deal with this sort of
thing around the world for centuries.  American Republicans are still
like teenagers and have a lot to learn.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote ...

> In message <oNNqm.44659$PH1.12695@edtnps82>, Larry Hammick
>  writes
>>Is anything beneath those whores Brown and Company?
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6176808/SAS-
>>trains-Libyan-troops.html
>
> The USA declared Libya a friend and open for business LAST YEAR (2008)
> BUSH did it. Business has been back in Libya for the last 2 years.
>
> The only problem the US has it the Republicans (who agreed this) can not
> get their people to realise things change and the old devil is now a
> friend. I mean some of them are still fighting WW2 and communists.
>
> This is the trouble with the American 1984 black-and-white politics.
> When the game moves on some players "flip sides"
>
> The Brits are well used to this having had to deal with this sort of
> thing around the world for centuries.  American Republicans are still
> like teenagers and have a lot to learn.

Blair was one of the first into Tripoli and embracing Gaddafi in 2004, at 
the same time Royal Dutch Shell was putting pen to paper and signing 
lucrative oil and gas deals. Coincidence ? I wouldn't think so. That's the 
nature of the world; things move on, relationships change, we all take 
advantage of it. That's "normalising relationships".

It seems to me the "black-and-white politics" of the US has meant, since 
Gaddafi has been back on the world stage, the US and Aerican companies have 
not been able to take advantage of that. Not surprising Americans may be 
upset when all the juicy-deals have been struck long before the US could put 
the previous issues behind them.

While the rest of the world said, 'okay, Gaddafi and Libya are considered 
okay guys now, let's get together for mutual benefit', America has been 
reluctant to let go, on one hand saying the same but equally needling 
Gaddafi and Libya over past events. It's no surprise US-Libyan relationships 
have been slow to flourish in the face of what Libya probably sees as 
on-going antagonism.

It's a bit like a dinner party where discussion has turned to bitter row, 
everyone agreeing to agree to disagree and leave it at that, move on, but 
with one guest still banging on and trying to re-open the row. Eventually, 
that guest finds themselves isolated and no longer invited to dinner.

Now, it seems, that disgruntled dinner guest has taken to all and every 
public platform to shout down the others, and in this instance the US seems 
to be specifically picking on the UK.

The US, like with the rest of the world, isn't usually slow in taking 
advantage of a situation, striking deals, when it can, so I don't understand 
what the real underlying cause of complaint is other than their being too 
late in the game to really gain.