"Oh, I forgot, all their $ goes to social transfer payments that their populace has voted for themselves and they can't afford a military. Yet these world class hypocrites propose a "unilateral" US intervention without a UN Security Council "mandate". "

I see, we should invade a third-wirld country, without a UN Mandate and in a unilateral fashion and we should not invade a third-world country, without a UN mandate and in a unilateral fashion. At the same time and on the same contnent.

Love it. Mean it.

Or is it wrong in case 1 because the Euros want it to happen, and right in case 2 because the euros didn't want it to happen? This is like shooting yourself in the foot because someone told you not to?

Also, as to the rest- I am no expert on African politics but your analysis seems to be about as thin, uncommon and valuable as a $2 bill. Africa is dominated not by socialism, but by Totalitarianism in general. Some of those totalitarians we support or did support (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc). Some of those we fought against (idi amin, Quack-daffy, etc).

The problem is not that Africa is populated by failed Dictatorships who use whatever 'front' they wanted to get Weapons and Money from either Russia or the United States. The problem is that Africa is populated by dictator ships. Africa, as was Central and South America, was our war-by-proxy, and what you see now is the direct effect.

Libya pretended to be socialist to get money from russia- but can you really and honestly tell me Libya was ever a socialist state?

I thinkyou used their lies to derive your thesis. I think it is unwise to believe a totalitarian crackpot. And where the hell does Europe enter inot this at all?

Do you have any evidence?

If not- here is my claim: Inda is being destroyed by the DAMN Chileans!