After Gaddafi, Libya splits into disparate militia zones

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by satron

 

We all no America will be the country to end this world, it wont be the Muslims, it wont be Koreans, it wont be the Chinese, it will be this nasty continent that ends life for man as we no it.

Out of all the races in this world, God and the heavens look down on America more than any other continent in the history of life it self. America will go down and be written in the text of history as the most disgusting continent that ever governed a populace in times in which growth just stopped.

When will America grow up?

It’s disgraceful now days to call your self an American, just utterly and blatantly…NASTY!

Its bad enough america has never contributed nothing to this earth as a whole, and when i say nothing i mean absulutly nothing...but 2 atomic bombs dropped on countries, and endless wars using more bombs on humans with sticks and stones.
It would be so unpatriotic for a human to be patriotic to a continent like this,really would.

edit on 10-6-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

Well, I disagree you saying America hasn't done anything for the world, there's plenty, but there is a point where you have to reflect on what you've accomplished compared to the suffering caused in the process. Look at the patent office submissions, we are patenting more things than we ever have. I do believe there is more we could do, but I'm afraid the people with the money are afraid to let go of the reigns because they are positioning their self with all this money for something.

Money is the problem and it's the problem in this fiasco. Meanwhile we are generating a lot of hate towards us, and what they might do to retaliate could justify to our rulers to tighten the vice grip on it's citizens. It's happening.

I don't mind being an American, but I do mind the image my country is painting of me.

Anyways, you've got a lot of ideas while painting them in broad strokes.

Link?

America is not your country unless your blood is inside the white house, or part of the 1%...Period !

But if you are than good for you .

Originally posted by LastProphet527

Originally posted by satron

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by satron

 

We all no America will be the country to end this world, it wont be the Muslims, it wont be Koreans, it wont be the Chinese, it will be this nasty continent that ends life for man as we no it.

Out of all the races in this world, God and the heavens look down on America more than any other continent in the history of life it self. America will go down and be written in the text of history as the most disgusting continent that ever governed a populace in times in which growth just stopped.

When will America grow up?

It’s disgraceful now days to call your self an American, just utterly and blatantly…NASTY!

Its bad enough america has never contributed nothing to this earth as a whole, and when i say nothing i mean absulutly nothing...but 2 atomic bombs dropped on countries, and endless wars using more bombs on humans with sticks and stones.
It would be so unpatriotic for a human to be patriotic to a continent like this,really would.

edit on 10-6-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

Well, I disagree you saying America hasn't done anything for the world, there's plenty, but there is a point where you have to reflect on what you've accomplished compared to the suffering caused in the process. Look at the patent office submissions, we are patenting more things than we ever have. I do believe there is more we could do, but I'm afraid the people with the money are afraid to let go of the reigns because they are positioning their self with all this money for something.

Money is the problem and it's the problem in this fiasco. Meanwhile we are generating a lot of hate towards us, and what they might do to retaliate could justify to our rulers to tighten the vice grip on it's citizens. It's happening.

I don't mind being an American, but I do mind the image my country is painting of me.

Anyways, you've got a lot of ideas while painting them in broad strokes.

Link?

America is not your country unless your blood is inside the white house, or part of the 1%...Period !

But if you are than good for you .

I disagree. It's a defeatism attitude I couldn't hold, because I would have to accept that the US is already lost. It will always exist as an idea. Just because you burn down Washington doesn't mean it's lost.

If it is lost, I will still declare my opinion of things that don't still well with me. Now, is it that lost?

Originally posted by satron

Libya was doing pretty well for being a 3rd world country. Then Good ol' US of A came along with the western allies and their global super power superior morality, decided it was time to vanquish Gaddafi, because he could have poised as a nuisance in the future sometime. He wasn't for globalization, and selling out of his country. Oh, yeah, he wasn't. I thought I had a little more wind in me, but there we have it, basically.

Yeah. That was then, this is now. what's done is done, and if you keep looking backwards, you'll never see what you're about to walk into. That could be a reason the thread title says "AFTER GADDAFI..." - you know, because it's a discussion of what's going on NOW, rather than THEN...

Centralized power and the dictatorial regimes it supports are bad for US and it's allies. (unless they are dictators we prop up

)

Centralized power and dictatorial regimes are bad for everyone - just look at the current US structure for an example!

You think they're GOOD for someone - as long as it's not the US and it's allies?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Yeah. That was then, this is now. what's done is done, and if you keep looking backwards, you'll never see what you're about to walk into. That could be a reason the thread title says "AFTER GADDAFI..." - you know, because it's a discussion of what's going on NOW, rather than THEN...

Uhh, it happened last year. Libya isn't the same. If it was, then western forces would still be pummeling them on different fronts.

Are you suggesting that Libya is just as stable as it was prior to the west's involved in their affairs in 2011?

Let it go? This isn't the slave trade by the Dutch East India Company we're talking about. This IS a current event. Don't even act like it's not. I don't know much about what your posting history, but I'm sure I can find something you're griping about that is less of a current event than what I'm posting about. Why do you gripe about it? The past is the past.

Centralized power and dictatorial regimes are bad for everyone - just look at the current US structure for an example!

You think they're GOOD for someone - as long as it's not the US and it's allies?

The only bad dictator, as far as western forces are concerned, are dictators they can't be manipulated for their own benefit. And what I mean by that is a ruler they can't take out when they decide their time has come.

Are they bad for everyone? Saying they are is a generalized statement.

Link?

I could provide a list of US backed dictators over the years. But you can google it. It's not hard, but it's obvious that the US has and does back dictators.

Originally posted by Rapha
TPTB remove dictators because the dictators hold their country together.

If countries have to be held together by dictators, they should not be countries.

Let 'em break. My own country, artificially united for the first time in a thousand years by the British in the early years of the nineteenth century, has been plagued with ethnic divisions ever since. After gaining independence soon after the Second World War, we've suffered through a generation-long civil war, a couple of popular revolts apart from that, and a long history of race crimes and atrocities, all to settle the question of who the country belongs to and who belongs to the country. It isn't settled yet and shows no signs of ever being.

If an artificial unity had never been imposed upon us from outside, our post-colonial history might have been one of peace and prosperity as two smaller but still viable nations.

The same may be said of many former European colonies in Asia and Africa. The old imperial powers cobbled these 'countries' together according to their own commercial or political needs, often completely ignoring borders and territorial boundaries between local peoples that had existed since time immemorial. Look at how Nigeria is dividing up into a northern Muslim and a southern tribal/Christian part. Sudan has already done the same. There are plenty of similar examples.

Many of these ancient ethnic and cultural boundaries define areas that probably don't have what it takes to be modern nation-states. That's tough, but that doesn't mean they should be artificially stuck together to make them viable. That simply doesn't work; in the end, nature (or history, which is the same thing) will take its course. The viable states will survive. The others will fail, eventually, and be swallowed up by others.

By the way, Rapha: I understand that you have a different view of the world, one in which an evil elite dominates history and nothing has ever happened by accident. My view of history is more conventional, and I don't propose to debate or defend it. I am merely using your quote to make what I think is a worthwhile point about the specific topic we are discussing in this thread.

Originally posted by satron

Uhh, it happened last year. Libya isn't the same. If it was, then western forces would still be pummeling them on different fronts.

The key there is where you say "last year", instead of saying "right now".

Are you suggesting that Libya is just as stable as it was prior to the west's involved in their affairs in 2011?

I'm suggesting that the decentralization of power and more power in the hands of local citizenry than is found in the hands of a centralized despot can't be a bad thing. As far as stability goes, you betcha the central despots are going to kick up a fuss over local seizure of power! Would you seriously expect that to flow smoothly? All births are accompanied by labor pains.

Let it go? This isn't the slave trade by the Dutch East India Company we're talking about.

Straw man. Nowhere have I suggested Dutch East India Company involvement.

This IS a current event. Don't even act like it's not.

THIS is a current event - i.e. "what happens after Gadaffi". THAT isn't - i.e. last year's news.

I don't know much about what your posting history, but I'm sure I can find something you're griping about that is less of a current event than what I'm posting about. Why do you gripe about it? The past is the past.

When you bring the "it" you claim I'm griping about, I'll explain the relevance. To expect me to explain some nebulous "it" without specifying what you want explained is ludicrous. Find "it", THEN ask.

The only bad dictator, as far as western forces are concerned, are dictators they can't be manipulated for their own benefit. And what I mean by that is a ruler they can't take out when they decide their time has come.

That does appear to be a rather subjective opinion, constructed solely to take a slap at "the west", which is also a rather generalized concept.

I may not be "the west", but I AM telling you that dictators and centralized power are BAD things for the welfare of the people and their liberty.

Are they bad for everyone? Saying they are is a generalized statement.

Ok, then get specific. Who do you maintain they are GOOD for?

Link?

To what?

I could provide a list of US backed dictators over the years. But you can google it. It's not hard, but it's obvious that the US has and does back dictators.

And?

I'm missing the relevance to decentralizing power in Libya circa 2012.... as a matter of fact, the ONLY relevance I can see is that the US seems NOT to be backing a dictator in Libya! Is that the point you're trying to make? If so, pointing at dictators they have supported in the past, or dictators they have in office now, isn't a very good way to make that point.

Originally posted by nenothtu



The key there is where you say "last year", instead of saying "right now".

I fail to see the significance of it you see in it happening last year. Is that like a life time ago or something?

I'm suggesting that the decentralization of power and more power in the hands of local citizenry than is found in the hands of a centralized despot can't be a bad thing. As far as stability goes, you betcha the central despots are going to kick up a fuss over local seizure of power! Would you seriously expect that to flow smoothly? All births are accompanied by labor pains.

They've devolved into tribal warfare. What was "birthed" was a monstrosity made the the west.

Straw man. Nowhere have I suggested Dutch East India Company involvement.

I never said you did. You failed to get the analogy because that happened a long time ago, and you say let it go like it occurred so long ago. If it happened yesterday, would you still say, "Let it go?"

THIS is a current event - i.e. "what happens after Gadaffi". THAT isn't - i.e. last year's news.

That sounds like the future.

I don't think you have a good grasp on what a "current event" is. It certain is still a current event because other countries will be balkanized in similar ways. IT'S STILL GOING ON.

Also, the truth hasn't been accepted as why Gaddafi was toppled in the first place, and it wasn't because he was a brutual dictator. So, it will remain a current story until it does, since it is still developing.

When you bring the "it" you claim I'm griping about, I'll explain the relevance. To expect me to explain some nebulous "it" without specifying what you want explained is ludicrous. Find "it", THEN ask.

So you're saying that you'll just justify yourself, because "I'm right, and that makes you automatically wrong."

Love it.

That does appear to be a rather subjective opinion, constructed solely to take a slap at "the west", which is also a rather generalized concept.

Historically, I'm correct. And it will be so in the future, my crystal ball tells me.

I may not be "the west", but I AM telling you that dictators and centralized power are BAD things for the welfare of the people and their liberty.

They need to undergo their own progression, but this isn't about over throwing dictators to "liberate" the people they rule. It's about controlling the ME and profiting off of it. I'm sick of the "spreading democracy, and fighting terrorism" BS. I don't buy it, and no one else should.

Ok, then get specific. Who do you maintain they are GOOD for?

They are good for people whom have benefited from it...like the people of Libya!!

To what?

To your claim that dictators are bad for everyone.

I'll give you a link. I'm guessing your going to say this was TERRIBLE!!

And?

I'm missing the relevance to decentralizing power in Libya circa 2012.... as a matter of fact, the ONLY relevance I can see is that the US seems NOT to be backing a dictator in Libya! Is that the point you're trying to make? If so, pointing at dictators they have supported in the past, or dictators they have in office now, isn't a very good way to make that point.

"Dictator bad."

Yeah, I guess the US doesn't have much interest in a guy that spoke about establishing a "United States of Africa", who wasn't necessarily US friendly. US would rather have "Disorganized State of World"