It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
More speculation has been raised on the reasons for NATO's intervention in Libya. As RT's Laura Emmett reports, the organisation may have been trying to prevent Gaddafi from burying the American buck.
There were only two credible reasons for invading Iraq: control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Yet the government has kept silent on these factors, instead treating us to the intriguing distractions of the Hutton and Butler reports.
Originally posted by silent thunder
"Should we." lol. If you use plastic, travel on anything more advanced than donkeyback, or eat food grown with fertilizer (ie, well over 95% of humanity), then you have been accepting the situation every day of your life simply by walking around alive. Your every moment is an implicit cry of "yes, yes I accept," no matter how pious the sentiments your mind or mouth outputs
My point is not to belittle the OP or make light of the question, but to remind everybody how deep and close the issue cuts, and how truly difficult any finger-pointing actually is.