SmarterthanYou
rebel
no worries brother. you were gone a while
Hillary as Sec of State
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
no worries brother. you were gone a while
Warrior135
Verified User
I must Respectfully but most Fervently Disagree about your assessment of Socialism ..
socialism = surrendering individual freedom - replacing it with government control over means of wealth and production ..
there is a difference between Socialism and Communism .. but it is slight ..
Communism = the Government owns and Controls All Property and means of Production .. the People serve the State ..
Socialism = the APPEARANCE of individual freedom in that they allow People to 'own' Private Property .. But Tax them exorbitantly high rates and employ
a large and oppressive Police and Bureaucratic State to Cow the People into working in 'co-partnership' with the State ..
Socialism is a Hybrid Between Capitalism and Communism .. You can Still Earn money .. But they Will Steal it .. and Use it for The Government ..
You mention Cuba .. but other examples of Socialist States Were NAZI Germany .. and North Korea ..
A Communist or Socialist Regime is never for the People .. Often it's not even good for other Socialists / COmms .. Because usually the adherents have
their own idea of the Perfect Totalitarian State .. and they Purge even Like minded People .. that have some slight Difference in how this perfect State should look ..
Every time there is a transition from one Chairman or Secretary in the Politburo .. There follows a Purge for Gulags of all the High ranking party members ..
and Millions of Peasants ..
Capitalism .. is the worst economic system ever devised - Except all the Others .. Remember this is the Devils Realm .. and Money corrupts .. so in any event ..
it will be imperfect .. Socialist/Communits Schemes simply surrender personal and economic freedom to the Gov or it's leader to Control ..
People today .. Still sail away from Cuba in Bathtubs and Bedsheets ..
Risk landmines to cross the DMZ in Korea to get to Capitalism ..
I think that there can be an improvement .. But Socialism/Communism has led only to adject poverty and death for 10's of millions of people .. especially poor people ..
just in the last Century .. In every Case it has failed .. or is in the Process of Failing ..
Billy Batts
Verified User
You expect me to base my opinion on that nebulous garbage? Anyone can post something bogus on You tube. Libya under Gaddafi was like North Korea. People had enough of it and over threw him. The only thing tangible NATO did was establish a no fly Zone so the rebels could overthrow him faster with less casualties. Gaddafi was a ruthless dictator, that imprisoned and killed a lot of Libyans.
The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves. When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries.
The Great Man-Made River Project was started in in 1953, and is still ongoing. The funding for the project was from the U.N under Gaddafi. It was unfortunately bombed by NATO because Gaddafi had placed anti - aircraft guns at the site. But the entire system is still in place, my guess, now that Libya is free construction will resume,and the last two phases of the five phase project will finish with loans from European banks.
Billy Batts
Verified User
No it was not it was a reply to the no fly Zone. Please just admit you are using bogus info to frame your argument.
Billy Batts
Verified User
What is all this B.S being posted,conspiracy theories 101?
complete hogwash. If it was a popular revolution -why didn't the NTC pick up any popular support ?
NATO had to actively bomb their way forward - they didnt get any support from the non-combatants. NATO ACTIVELY intervened.
( why we own the aftermath)
Your N.Korean analogy is complete horse shit too. do you have any clue about the standard of living in Libya under qaddafi?
from Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention
n 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-...-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740
more horse shit.
The "Bengazi uprisings" never happened. as Qaddafi went on the counter-offensive he did NOT shell/bomb his people.
The NTC ( al-Qaeda beasts from Bengazi) hoodwinked HRClinton into intervention over something that never happened.
Trifecta of bullshit!!!
https://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/27/great-man-made-river-nato-bombs/
NATO has admitted that its jets attacked the pipe factory on 22 July, claiming in justification that it was used as a military storage facility and rockets were launched from there.
^ after the bombing ( pipeline storage)..all I see are ..pipes
Billy Batts
Verified User
You idiot! That Wiki reverence is in regards to Libyan Popular Revolution of 1973 - 77. Not the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011. Tell me again about your award winning blog.
did you clik the link?? where does it take you? are you high??? gawd-dam man -when you are in a hole -stop digging!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.[4]
Billy Batts
Verified User
That link takes you to United Nations Security Council Resolution #1973. That is not what you wrote in the reply, you wrote "it was done under UN auspice 1973". Cite the United Nations Security Council Resolution correctly next time. There is no such thing as a U.N "auspice".
fair enough. I used "auspice" as the basis for the 1973 resolution. as in - under UN auspice
I can understand the confusion then.
Please take a good look at what BAC and myself wrote - my blog is not "award winning" either -i never said that.
I kept watching Libya devolve in 2012 into city states, with militia rule ( after the NATO obscenity)..
I started a thread on another message board in 2013 as the militias were so bad even neighborhoods had to hire them
since there was no governments ( the NTC had no interest in governing).
By the end of 2013 -long after even BAC and the west lost interest in Libya. I saw the 2014 civil war inexorably coming.
The point is it's much like Iraq ( not the sectarianism) in that it unraveled after our intervention.
And that is Clinton's downfall IMHO -she not only led the US advocacy and international organizing
( that State Dept.tic toc on Libya memo I showed) -she fails to learn from her mistakes..Iraq/Syria/Libya.
The "blog" is all the pertinent articles I coul find put into 1 place. There is also some cultural background.
If you are interested at all in Libya - it is a quality source ( and lots of photos!)
evince
Truthmatters
he will just keep slithering
Billy Batts
Verified User
complete hogwash. If it was a popular revolution -why didn't the NTC pick up any popular support ?
NATO had to actively bomb their way forward - they didnt get any support from the non-combatants. NATO ACTIVELY intervened.
( why we own the aftermath)
Your N.Korean analogy is complete horse shit too. do you have any clue about the standard of living in Libya under qaddafi?
from Africa’s Richest State Under Gaddafi, to Failed State After NATO Intervention
n 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-...-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740
more horse shit.
The "Bengazi uprisings" never happened. as Qaddafi went on the counter-offensive he did NOT shell/bomb his people.
The NTC ( al-Qaeda beasts from Bengazi) hoodwinked HRClinton into intervention over something that never happened.
Trifecta of bullshit!!!
https://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/27/great-man-made-river-nato-bombs/
NATO has admitted that its jets attacked the pipe factory on 22 July, claiming in justification that it was used as a military storage facility and rockets were launched from there.
^ after the bombing ( pipeline storage)..all I see are ..pipes
Okay anyone that bevies the fall of Muammar Gaddafi was not an internal uprising,and in the U.S best interest is a fool. The links are conspiracy theories and not much else. And if you think Libyans had it great under Gaddafi, then you know little,and are basing your opinion on conspiracy theories. I do not waste time with conspiracy theorists.
It was an internal uprising, it was a civil war.
It was the NATO intervention that took him out -the NTC could not have done it, they were getting pounded.
There is no way in hell,or god's green earth you can say the assassination of Gaddafi was "in the US interests"
It's SO BAD..we - the US - just spent 2 months of bombing ISIS in the Sirte basin just last week.
You have no idea what you are talking about.you don't understand Qadaffi was vehemently anti-AQ; (etc)
and allowed the US CIA and Brits SAS to operate throughout the east.
I swear I have never seen anyone so committed to a failed idea.
One reason I did the blog was to push back on the revisionists/interventionists like yourself. to document .
You aren't going to find much of anything critical of Libyan intervention. Most of the CRAP is we "should have built the institutions"
-which is utter horse shit.no way in hell were we going to put any boots/advisors/civilian resources into Libya.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I think it is undeniable that migrants, legal and especially illegal, take away jobs from those at the lower end of the jobs market, how is that controversial? We have exactly the same problem with immigrants from Eastern Europe taking jobs. In fact you are now getting the situation where Poles and Czechs are complaining about the newer waves from Romania and Bulgaria taking their jobs. I can also say that Tony Blair made it deliberate policy to encourage as many as possible to come here to deflate wages and rub the Tories' noses in diversity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...K-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
What a crock of shit.
First of all money doesn't corrupt.
Power corrupts.
Money isn't the root of all evil even.
Money is neutral.
Your attitude towards money indicates that you have none by the way.
As to socialism, most of the governments of Europe are socialist and suffer none of the ails you claim.
Your entire argument is based on falsehoods and is a fail.
She meant the part about Dems wanting illegal imigrants. It simply isn't true.
We want legal, vetted and skilled imigrants.
It is a typical double speak talking point of the right, total bullshit and in fact only benfitting the right...just as you mentioned...by depressing wages.
The Dems will not agree to border security before immigration reform.
we saw how that worked out the first time.
If you want comprehensive reform,you have to get serious about checking illegal immigration.
Further you need to deport ( no sanctuary cities), and any criminal illegals here have to be deported/imprisoned
we saw how that worked out the first time.
If you want comprehensive reform,you have to get serious about checking illegal immigration.
Further you need to deport ( no sanctuary cities), and any criminal illegals here have to be deported/imprisoned
Yes,yes,yes anatta.
Only you are smart enough to know what really happened in Libya.
Despite the ongoing civil war,
despite the anger if the french,
the fear of the central bankers,
the threat to the petro-dollar.
What is so intetesting about you is your tiny fund of knowledge (very weak for a political commentator)
combined with your outsized ego/arrogance. If you were extremely knowledgable or intelligent it would just serm a little lopsided, like Superfreak for example but you have nothing to excuse nor explain your out sized arrogance. You have the bluster but not the brains to back it up.
So you think the Fed should disregard state's rights?
You best try to figure out who the bad guys really are chump.
OMG. the feds are in charge of immigration policy.So you think the Fed should disregard state's rights?
You best try to figure out who the bad guys really are chump.