Looks like the US Ambassador to Libya got exactly what he deserves.

reply to post by milominderbinder


Japan, Philippians, China, puerto rico, Hawaii, the canal, etc etc.

All of them have their good and their bad, but a general pattern appears. These zones are better than they were before, and better than if Europe would have been present.


If so, you would never have brought up Ron Paul in the first place...


Free market capitalism and pure communism are just the same oligarchies run by different cultures.

You can support an action while not supporting the deaths involved in the action. For example, I rather like capitalism. I don't like the literal millions of slaves and death camps in china produced from it.

After reading the OP say Libya was a wonderful country, all credibility is ruined.

There is a corner store near my house owned by an older couple from Libya. They have been in this country for a little over 16 years, I've gotten pretty close to them as I'm in the store a lot and we chat. I'll trust what they tell me, that was bad enough to get them to move here, over what the OP or some other jokers claim about the true state of Libya. Far, far from "wonderful" unless you consider disgusting crimes against humanity "wonderful"

Japan, Philippians, China, puerto rico, Hawaii, the canal, etc etc.
All of them have their good and their bad, but a general pattern appears. These zones are better than they were before, and better than if Europe would have been present.

Oh...where to start.

OK...the Philippines became US Protectorates at the end of the Spanish-American war in 1898. The FOLLOWING YEAR the people of the Philippines revolted against US rule and we sent 126,000 soliders to fight the Philippine-American War. We suffered 4,234 casualties and 200,000 civilians died.

We then fought lengthy and costly political and economic battles attempting to control the Philippines for the next 36 years as the the Philippinos struggled for the right to govern themselves instead of being essentially a US colony. The transition of power was scheduled to be complete in 1946.

However...the substantial US interests in the Philippines that still remained gave the Japanese a bunch of conveniently located targets for them to attack us at during WWII. The US lost another 53,487 American troops in the Philippines during WWII attempting to defend the interests of private businessmen....including a whole bunch of them on the Bataan Death March.

As scheduled, on July 4, 1946 we permitted the Philippines to govern themselves once again...and made this possible by shoveling billions and billions of dollars of GRANTS to their new government in exchange for the governments help in hunting down and killing their own citizens who were suspected of being "socialists".

In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos won the Presidential election and continued the proud tradition of accepting US funds in exchange for persecuting and torturing his own people who were accused of being "socialists"...which many times meant simply people who thought that the rich should pay more taxes. In 1972, Marcos declared Martial Law which remained in effect until 1986.

By 1987 the leftists had finally won and People Power Revolution party candidate Corazon Aquino became President and began the long road to establishing a bicameral legislature and a constitution which recognized civil liberties. However, the US military presence continued to an issue with Philippino people and there would six different attempts at military coups during the next 10 years. In 1992 the Philippines decided NOT to renew or extend the leases on US military bases and for the first time since 1898 the average standard of living for Phillippino citizens began to increase.

In 2001, US-backed, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (daughter of the US backed president from '61-'65) became president and promptly began working to dissolve the bicameral legislature and replace it with a unicameral federal parliamentary system which greatly consolidated power back into the hands of the executive branch. Until, of course, she was convicted of election fraud. She's currently in prison and the Philippino people have once again elected a leftist, Benigno Aquino III...the son of Corazon Aquino who was responsible for delivering her people from the iron-fisted rule of US-backed Ferdinand Marcos.

If that's what you call a "success story" you are completely out of your mind.

The ONLY lesson to learn there is that setting up puppet governments might likely result in lots and lots of dead US soldiers and enormous amounts of tax dollars going overseas and even MORE dead civilians to force a way of life upon people which can ONLY be maintained by a dictatorship and a permanent US military presence.

Although in fairness...I guess you can claim that Puerto Rico and Guam might be better off as post Spanish-American War US protectorates...although...that's not saying very much considering that they are little more than rock outcroppings in the middle of the ocean.

Hawaii doesn't count...we didn't "nation-build" we annexed them into this country and gave them full legislative representation.

The US nation-building in Japan in the 1800's was more or less reserved to acting in a consulting role to help the emperor in modernizing his military...a decision which would result in the loss of 248,000 dead American soldiers and about 35 million dead civilians less than a century later. Proving once again that sooner or later we almost ALWAYS wind up fighting those that we arm and train.

You can support an action while not supporting the deaths involved in the action.

Not when that action is defined by killing lots and lots of civilians. I'm not saying that the GOAL of getting Ghadaffi out of power was necessarily bad...but the METHOD sure as hell was. I draw the line at US intervention when it necessitates violence. If the Libyans want to revolt...great. Call us when it's over, but not before because it usually ends badly

For example, I rather like capitalism. I don't like the literal millions of slaves and death camps in china produced from it.

Agreed. So...it's the METHOD that you don't li

Originally posted by James1982
After reading the OP say Libya was a wonderful country, all credibility is ruined.

There is a corner store near my house owned by an older couple from Libya. They have been in this country for a little over 16 years, I've gotten pretty close to them as I'm in the store a lot and we chat. I'll trust what they tell me, that was bad enough to get them to move here, over what the OP or some other jokers claim about the true state of Libya. Far, far from "wonderful" unless you consider disgusting crimes against humanity "wonderful"

Actually...I pretty clearly stated that Libya was a hell-hole. That it was the most stable, prosperous, and human-rights oriented government on the African continent is REALLY more a reflection of just what sh^thole Africa is as opposed to a glowing compliment to Libya.

That being said...it still undermines the idea of US interventionism was such a good humanitarian move. If we REALLY gave a damn about human rights in Africa...then Libya should have been THE LAST country we would have invaded considering that they BY FAR represented the best of what Africa has to offer.

reply to post by milominderbinder


Cool story bro. those countries are not ravaged by instability and war, and are our allies and economic partners. I call that a success story.

I'll just put it out there that if there's a war, I don't care about civilian deaths. I care that the war is justified so that those deaths are.

Hmm...let's review:

Saddam, a brutal dictator that used weapons of mass destruction on his own people; murdered, maimed and raped those who opposed him.

Qaddafy, another brutal dictator. Who knows what brutality he perpretrated on his own people, but judging by the squallid conditions there he certainly wasn't his countries "savior".

Stevens: tried to help improve the lives of the people of Lybia.

Who was it again that got what he deserved?

reply to post by Gorman91


Deuteronomy 22:13
[ Laws on Morality ] “ If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her,
Deuteronomy 22:12-14 (in Context) Deuteronomy 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Job 11:15
“Then, indeed, you could lift up your face without moral defect, And you would be steadfast and not fear.
Job 11:14-16 (in Context) Job 11 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
1 Corinthians 15:33
Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”
1 Corinthians 15:32-34 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
2 Peter 1:5
Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
2 Peter 1:4-6 (in Context) 2 Peter 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations

reply to post by Gorman91


If morals and values are relative like truth,
then all values and morals are identical
even if they are opposite.

So you only want a justified war.
Justified means that it follows your
train of thought and your analysis and your reasoning?

APA is looking to delete the diagnostic category of 301.81 NPD.
Have they interviewed you this month?

Some Gormanians are suggesting that you not rely on science as much as you do. Your science is just the result of random firings in your brain which you call thoughts.

reply to post by milominderbinder


So, he does what all diplomats do for the most part, espionage. and you celebrate his death. How this thread is allowed to continue is beyond me.

You are then in agreement that US troops who get shot and killed in combat "get what they deserve"?

Move already, why are you in the US if you don't like how we stay on top. There are no exceptions to this. All nations have intelligence services and diplomats that brief them.

Oh and there were many nations that "helped" the rebels. Not just the US. Look to how many were captured in Libya and Syria training and arming the rebels, as well as fighting alongside of them and check the country that asked for them back. As it turns out the US had a minor role on the ground.

It is no coincidence that bashing on the US has a home, even from Americans that buy into the programming the "multicultural" UN has been shoving down our throats.

I see this thread as akin to saying that US combat troops get what they deserve.
Your stars are marks of dishonor, enjoy them.

OH, and it was NATO and the UN that wanted intervention. Look to see who really leads them.

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

So, he does what all diplomats do for the most part, espionage. and you celebrate his death. How this thread is allowed to continue is beyond me.

In what universe to diplomats "always" infiltrate countries illegally as a stowaway on a cargo ship...then kill 50,000 civilians?

You are then in agreement that US troops who get shot and killed in combat "get what they deserve"?

Not at all. The 19 year old kid from Kentucky usually isn't in charge of arming, funding, and orchestrating a civil war, correct?

Move already, why are you in the US if you don't like how we stay on top. There are no exceptions to this. All nations have intelligence services and diplomats that brief them.

Oh and there were many nations that "helped" the rebels. Not just the US. Look to how many were captured in Libya and Syria training and arming the rebels, as well as fighting alongside of them and check the country that asked for them back. As it turns out the US had a minor role on the ground.

And I would say the same about any French terrorists as well. I'm a big believer that it is not acceptable to leave a trail of 50,000 civilian corpses in your wake no matter what country you come from.

It is no coincidence that bashing on the US has a home, even from Americans that buy into the programming the "multicultural" UN has been shoving down our throats.

I don't even understand what you are trying to communicate on this one.

I see this thread as akin to saying that US combat troops get what they deserve.

Well...you certainly shouldn't. Mostly because I did not anywhere say, reference, or insinuate that. But think whatever you want. It really doesn't matter to me.

Your stars are marks of dishonor, enjoy them.

I really don't care how many "stars" I get. If my kids are too old to be motivated by "stars" on their charts...I just can't understand why grown adults seem to care about them. I'm here for the conversation...nothing more.

OH, and it was NATO and the UN that wanted intervention. Look to see who really leads them.

I know. I never said it was otherwise. Nevertheless...Chris Stevens is still the guy or at the very least ONE OF the guys who actually made it happen on the ground.

Much like Eisenhower...I'm not a big believer in the Nuremburg Defense.

reply to post by slugger9787


Been a while since I was here, but I'll respond.

Morality as a concept is what I don't believe in. And morality as a word doesn't show up in the bible.

The reason for this is that morality is not defined. It can change as per society. In some cases, morality is so bad that the bible flat out says just don't do what your neighbors are doing.

Morality is a concept without point of origin.

Finally, language and translations. Yours are different than mine. Mine do not have it. And the title blocks that include the word morality are actually not in the bible, but add ons from translators.

At the end of the day:

biblez.com...



As for science, it stands. That's why it's great. It can be proven. Morality cannot be proven. Times change and people change. What was moral once is not backwards.

Wars happen. And as far as I care, I don't. If someone hits you, you hit them back, according to the world. I don't subscribe to that train of thought, but I probably would do that if I were a leader. Hell I'd have nuked Afghanistan in 2001 and saved us 10 years of war.

reply to post by Wookiep


American men have become crybabies,
and
American women have become tattle tales.

No discrimination here---I included both sexes.
No cyber bullying----I was not addressing anyone in particular.