With the recent destruction of the Calm And Progressive Discussion Thread, I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that while the DPRK Thread's topic is wide and encourages frivolity, to not actually get the best thread to have ever on Bay 12 locked.
Considering Progresive Thread was lost to this exact topic, handle with care, or preferably not at all.
I noticed that was suddenly locked, but I've never read it myself.
This is from official government page of USA, so it's as far from fake as it could possibly be.
Notice that there isn't any word mentioned on stuff like "democracy, human rights, responsibility to protect" and other crap that was given to the public to justify Libya conflict. Not even as a tertiary reason.
No, it was all because of fucking gold, oil, and need to reassert military hegemony!
... You're jumping to conclusions.
That's an email. It's from "Sid" (Sidney Blumenthal) to "Hillary." He basically says "Well, we sanctioned Gaddafi, but he can still pay his troops because he has lots of SILVER AND GOLD. SILVER AND GOLD." And then he gives what he thinks are reasons Sarkozy might have decided to get involved.
His opinions aren't the opinions of the government. He wasn't even any kind of intelligence officer.
Let's see what Wikipedia says about him:
Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation. During the 2011 uprising in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi, Blumenthal prepared, from public and other sources, about 25 memos which he sent as emails to Clinton in 2011 and 2012, which she shared through her aide, Jake Sullivan, with senior State Department personnel. In the form of intelligence briefings, the memos sometimes touted his business associates and, at times contained inaccurate information.[19][20]
The wikipedia article also cites the New York Post, but I can't even imagine why a tabloid would be a worthy source of information for a wikipedia page, even prefaced with "The tabloid New York Post asserted that..." Whoever added that neglected to link the citation to the article either, even though it is online.