Rapturous Welcome Heros for cameron and sarkozy

This video makes me sick when i see it, looks like it was Stagted since there are only handfull of idiots welcoming the real war criminals.

soruce

Why is Cameron a hero? He has ploughed taxpayers money into this public schoolboys X Box game whilst his own country struggles to make ends meet. Unelected idiot on a massive ego trip at our expense.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Sarkozy and Cameron were the two most strident supporters of the rebel movement outside of Libya, it's no surprise that the rebels supporters would want to give them a cheer considering the amount of support they've just pledged to them (offering hospital space for critically wounded Libyans in Britain as well as freeing up assets for the NTC etc) and their early support of the rebel movement's aims and UN resolutions against Gaddafi.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


It does look staged. It has to be.

All these hero's welcomes and rounds of applauds for the elitists must be driven by people begging to move up the ladder. I doubt any one of us can go out in the general public and find one person who supports these crooks.

reply to post by lifeissacred


Well i know that i see alots of comments that dont have much support for cameron such as this

if the lybians like cameron so much-perhaps he should stay out there--he.s certainly not a hero in britain !!!!

Libya now is offically a puppet to the west.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Not nescssarily, the NTC has yet to announce when there will be elections, probably after the major loyalist strongholds surrender or are beaten by the NTC military, it seems alot of what constituted the remainder of the Gaddafi 'regime' has either fled the country or is holed up in the few urban areas still under loyalist control.

The NTC has pledged to hold elections as soon as possible, so it's up to the Libyans to decide who their future leaders will be. This welcome means nothing, at every official visit there is always a big crowd no matter what country it is in. What really matters is that the NTC are able to supervise democratic elections.

Good they can stay there until their trial.
Secondline.

reply to post by lifeissacred

so it's up to the Libyans to decide who their future leaders will be. This welcome means nothing,

The people in a democracy never decide the outcomes didnt you know that the democracy system is a Mob Rule?

the Libyans to decide who their future leaders will be.

sure it is just look at the american and euporean elections its always the elties winning.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Yes democracy is mob rule, the rule of the majority. In the west democracy works fine, the problem lies entirely in who the people choose to vote for, people consistently ignore the issues and vote the way their parents vote or the way their community votes. Hopefully a decent electoral system develops in Libya and the people are given a wide range of choices when it comes to the elections.

reply to post by lifeissacred

, the rule of the majority. In the west democracy works fine

Oh Really ? No it doesnt in the west democracy doesnt work, its always the elitist familes winning the elections the bilderberg election candidates, the pro Westernization agenda, the elite cabal

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

who the people choose to vote for

The people dont choose the elites do, sounds to me that your pretty much minded closet on this issue and that democracy is a great system? no it isnt voting and elections are meaningless.


Just look in Canada or America have these candidates ever made promise or kept one? they havent.
people are becaming more pooer because of them.


Look at bosnia all there candidates promised jobs but since the war ended none have ever brought jobs so now bosnia has the biggest unemployment rate in all of eurpoe, i could say the same thing for other countries aswell.

Even iraq has a huge unemployment rate.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


They (refering to the traditional 'ruling class') always win because the people consistently choose to vote for them. No one is forced to vote, if the people chose to we could elect anyone willing to take office however people tend to make do with status quo unfortunately.

In Britain we have 16 different political parties all with a variety of positions on key issues with representation either in the House of Commons, House of Lords or at the European parliament, I'd say that is quite a successful democracy (though technically in Britain we aren't a true democracy as we have a constitutional monarchy but still).

There is nothing wrong with the system, it's the candidates who the people consistently elect that are the problem.

Just out of curiosity what would be your ideal alternative?

reply to post by lifeissacred

always win because the people consistently choose to vote for them. No one is forced to vote, if the people chose to we could elect anyone willing to take office.

Again its not the people who consistently choose to vote for them even if they vote there votes are going to be thrown away into the trash after the polls close since they already know the outcome.

if the people chose to we could elect anyone willing to take office.

No you cant and wont because in the end the bilderberg decides that, the bilderberg even decided the election outcome in kosovo for them.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Votes are not just 'thrown out', at least in Britain they aren't, people can go and watch the ballots as they are counted. The only issue with potential 'vote rigging' over here is to do with the postal vote system which a minority of people use as most choose to go to a polling station to cast their ballot. One of the main issues with our democratic system is the influence of mass media over voters, the possibility of bias in the media however most people are wise to the political leanings of various media outlets so it's affect is relatively minimal though not so much that it cannot have significant influence.

The simple fact is, the people are responsible for who they elect, time and time again in Britain people have voted for the status quo and are not willing to try anything different. We've had lousy leaders for a long time, there has never been and probably never will be a perfect government but as long as the people choose the same leaders over and over then nothing is going to change. The choice is and always has been there for something different and time and time again the people ignored it and chose the status quo.

I hope that when the time comes the people of Libya elect a government who will put the people's interests first and one that will NOT be a lapdog for NATO, but like I said when the time comes it will be up to the people of Libya to decide on their own future. I will reserve my judgement for when they have their elections, for then we can judge whether the revolution was a success or a failure, in my opinion it is too early to tell what the outcome is.

reply to post by lifeissacred

at least in Britain they aren't, people can go and watch the ballots as they are counted.

in selected places i would imagine thats why in britian the elites always been winning such with the likes of Tony Bliar or cameron.

I hope that when the time comes the people of Libya elect a government who will put the people's interests first and one that will NOT be a lapdog for NATO, but like I said when the time comes it will be up to the people of Libya to decide on their own future.

sadly that day will never come because people dont decide whose going to be there leader, just look at bosnia iraq.

I wonder if Cameron will praise those in the UK when they go on strike caused by his undemocratic government based on lies and self fulfillment.

he did also announce we will be getting some oil deals to boot so job done.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

in selected places i would imagine thats why in britian the elites always been winning such with the likes of Tony Bliar or cameron.

Actually I'm pretty sure the candidates and party members as well as observers can watch as the votes from the constituency are being counted, there are usually live TV reports from these places also. For the most part Tony Blair had significant support until the Iraq war, and one of the only reasons the conservatives won was because people were abandoning labour due to Gordon Brown and the Liberals were willing to compromise with the Tories.

In Britain at least people tend to vote based on party affiliation. The working class typically votes labour as labour are historically a left wing party and are linked extensively to the trade union movement. The middle class and upper class typically vote conservative for their centre-right, neo-liberal policies. More recently the Lib-dems have capitalised on student voters and liberal middle class voters. These are the three biggest parties in the UK but there are scores of others with representation within the Commons, Lords and in the EU.

All of this is of course immaterial in relation to Libya but I am confident that democracy as we know it is for the most part a sound process and I hope that what unfolds in Libya after there are elections is a positive step forward from the Gaddafi regime and the interim government of the NTC. It's important to remember that democracy is a relatively new idea and that it does not appear overnight.