You're ignoring the evidence. It has been clearly and explicitly shown that the actions taken in Libya were the result of a UN sanctioned joint operation by NATO. I gave you the link. Please read it. If you have a counter-argument backed by evidence I would love to read it. But don't resort to pedagoguery and you're own particular brand of anti-American fanaticism to prove you're point. It's irrational, subjective, and the very definition of closed-minded (that is, ignoring evidence that contradicts previously held opinions and unwilling to receive new ideas).

from the very moment this was happening it was already clear that the usa had atleast 51% of the vote.
trying to write it away as a UN mission. and you succeeded. =(
your evidence is a political game that you won.

If the United States had at least 51% of the vote, then the decision made by the UN was supported by at least 51% of the nations (although I'm guessing it was many more, given that the UN generally doesn't operate as a majority run democracy), and all the nations involved, including yours, supported it. But the assumption that this was all a conspiracy theory or a political game is rather paranoid.

If you have no evidence, then your argument is null and void.

and all the nations involved, including yours, supported it.

in europe, the moment of the 1st attack. only uk and france supported it.
the rest was dragged along.

If you have no evidence, then your argument is null and void.

like i said i didn't want to get in the topic now.

like i said i didn't want to get in the topic now.

Then I would greatly appreciate it if you would wait until you do want to get into it and provide evidence so we can avoid a completely subjective argument between the two of us.

Until then, I await your evidence with anticipation.

now you are an expert on Islam too?rnmusic is haram
and free gathering of male female interaction is also haram.
and these are the two fore most things done in night clubs.

I'm familiar with the basic beliefs of moderate Islam, though I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means. And of course, the internet is a wonderful thing; I could figure it out with enough research if I needed to. ^^

ofcourse he didn't fire a shot. we sold it to them.

2nd Dutch-Anglo War. England took over New Amsterdam, and the Dutch kept their colonies in the East Indies. The Dutch-Anglo Wars (three of them) were fought over which nation would essentially dominate the seas. England ultimately won, though both sides claimied a victory in the Second Dutch-Anglo War. More of a draw than anything, till the 3rd Dutch-Anglo War.

former local politicians yes. not the common man

Yeah, but there were so few Dutch Colonists, expecially compared to the English Colonists, that their affects were minimal. A few cultural things in the North East/Airondack area and thats about it.

we made the start, sold it, and then the others went on whit it.

Um, sorry? Spain got to North America first, and pretty much dominated South America, Central America, and the West Coast. Franch took Canada (eventually losing it in the French and Indian War/Seven Years War) and controlled the interior of the continent, and England had the Eastern Seaboard to start out with. France and Spain controlled the Carribean for the most part. As I said earlier, the Dutch were limited to the New Netherlands, which was largely confined to Manhattan for all practical counts. England came, and booted them off since according to the English, they were tresspassing in Virgina.

if we didn't bought the land of the indians to begin whit. then history would have been very different

Not really. And by European standards, you robbed the Indians of their land. But thats another argument for another day.

i never said we are better then anyone els. (except on the field of water management and logistics but that is because we are the best)
and on a side note. i meand that other guy that hasn't made a reply in a week or so...... why am i still replying to this? =S

The whole "black page with golden writing" is what I'm referencing.

And I have a personal life; I apologize if I can't come to this site on your every beck and call. :)

Lets open some new threads oh guys? It seems that this thread as got lost.

i think israel is gonna keep attacking palestine and the US is gonna find a reason to get involved so they can start a war with Iran

I'm familiar with the basic beliefs of moderate Islam, though I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any means. And of course, the internet is a wonderful thing; I could figure it out with enough research if I needed to. ^^

Define "Moderate Islam.

I belive he talk about secula muslims. You know, the one who do belive in god, maybe even pray, celebrate teh holidays, but are not deep into it. The ones who live western life style but with Islamic touch, like in Saudi Arabia {well, the rich peoples maybe}.