When NATO wants to remove a political regime from a relatively organized country, it carpet bombs heavily-populated civilian areas until the leader, out of concern for his own people, leaves. The paradox is that the leader is portrayed in NATO propaganda as a ruthless monster who doesn't care about the civilian population, and yet the NATO plan depends on the assumption that the carpet bombing and mass slaughter of civilians will force the leader out as he actually does care.
This particular mass civilian slaughter was part of a 'duty to protect' movement from the so-called left, and involved the mass lying participation of the Western media (who are reaching new lows every day with their 'coverage' of Libya and Syria), leaving Gadaffi with no chance at any kind of humanitarian argument in the NATO countries. The 'left' didn't want to hear it, and there was nothing to hear anyway, given the news black-out.
Milošević gave up to save the Serbian people from further slaughter. What could Gadaffi do to save his people and yet continue the resistance against Sarko, Cameron and Obama? Pretend to give up, falling away to allow the NATO mercenaries to 'win' - thus providing an end to the need to carpet bomb civilians - and then continue the fight as long-term guerrilla warfare, eventually forcing the NATO countries into even more ruinous expense to keep the rebels in power.
It is a brilliant strategic plan, but does Gadaffi have the money and troops to carry it out?
Fill in the Blank: "Hillary Clinton is a _____________________?" - *Hillary Clinton is a ....* *1. Vile, petty, mean, sadistic bitch, who nurses grudges over slights, real or imagined for decades.* *2. Shameless whore f...
12 minutes ago