the U.S. and other foreign powers understand that a huge reason for these revolutions, if not the biggest, is the economic problems these countries have been facing (or rather, the economic problems the PEOPLE have been facing). A lot of that is due to the fact that such business has been completely privatized whether through foreign investments or through the few elite who have taken control of and monopolized many businesses in these countries. Now with these revolutions, such foreign interests are very worried that due to this instability, the people will seek out new economic alternatives that will threaten these foreign investments and privatized business. And they should be worried. because it is such business that has fucked up these countries' economies. i just hope the people are well aware of the issues that dismantling such a system will involve. no freedom is true freedom without political, social, AND economic freedom. the U.S. and foreign interests may be willing to let these people have the first 2 (to some extent), but it is the last one they are deeply worried about.
Dude, it has always been unstable. What is happening now is just the next step of the instability.
Instability just didn't fall out of the sky.
If it was stable you wouldn't have instability.
your last sentence makes no sense, lol. that means that everything is virtually unstable since everything at some point always experiences some sort of instability.
That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?
stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail
unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable
"EDIT: Let me be more clear: The region was pretty unstable before with assassinations and revolutions takign place a LOT decades ago. Finally these dictatorships rose that basically introduced some notion of a stable government into many of these countries. That was when the U.S. began playing a much bigger role and foreign interests began investing. After that, they did not want any more instability. Instability here basically means a few things: 1. unpredictability, where no one knows where things are heading. this was not present before in the dictatorial regimes, and 2. no known power head. this is unheard of. the U.S. and foreign interests at this point do not know who to deal with because of how much of a people's movement these revolutions have been. so before, there was some sense of stability in the dictatorial regimes, and the U.S. and foreign powers liked that. the thing you're talking about, which Naomi Klein also talks about in the Shock Doctrine to some extent and on her analysis on disaster economics, has already basically taken place. we're in a new phase where the U.S. wants to preserve these investments, not have them dismantled"
In the next phase ? Yes, I agree to an extent for some regions of the world
And that is a NOTION of stability like you said, but objectively speaking, is that not instability ?
Agree to disagree ... ah, humans ...
1996: Toronto 1998: Barrie 2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal 2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2006: Toronto X2 2009: Toronto 2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton 2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula 2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo 2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit 2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2 2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto 2023: Chicago X2 2024: New York X2
I find it curious that in cases such as Libya and Iran, our President doesn't feel the need to urge the leaders of those countries to step down as he did with Mubarak in Egypt. So last year when those kids were revolting in Iran and needed our support, where were we? If you were to get into a comparison of who's more oppressive I can assure you Iran would have won hands down, so why not speak out then? Same thing with Libya now. I noticed the President didn't even mention Kadafi's name during his speech today. I'm sure no one here can answer that, because there's no logical explanation.
That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?
stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail
unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable
Dude, WHAT arey ou talking about? Jesus christ. You're basically saying that the American government is unstable. Why? Because it MAY experience instability in the future, who knows, so it might as well be considered unstable. The whole POINT of these revolutions is that they toppled stable regimes. The regime in Egypt for example was completely stable. It was kept alive by the notion of fear and apathy that had plagued the Egyptians. It was not until a few weeks ago that they broke through that. The Egyptian regime did not become unstable I would even argue until a few days into the protests, when it became more apparent that the people were unwilling to give up. Stop arguing in absolutes, it's not helping your argument. A government can go through phases of stability and instability. And all this goes back to your earlier point when you said if you think the U.S. does not welcome this instability then you're wrong. The fact is you were wrong in that sentence. There's no agree to disagree here. It's like I say the sky is blue and you say it's yellow. Agree to disagree?
I find it curious that in cases such as Libya and Iran, our President doesn't feel the need to urge the leaders of those countries to step down as he did with Mubarak in Egypt. So last year when those kids were revolting in Iran and needed our support, where were we? If you were to get into a comparison of who's more oppressive I can assure you Iran would have won hands down, so why not speak out then? Same thing with Libya now. I noticed the President didn't even mention Kadafi's name during his speech today. I'm sure no one here can answer that, because there's no logical explanation.
He never urged Mubarak to step down, are you serious? He only did muuuuuuch into it. In fact, the U.S. administration was trying very hard to keep Mubarak in power, and when they couldn't they tried to force Suleiman into a position where he can take power.
Also, you can assure us that Iran is more oppressive? How and based on what? I agree that the U.S. should ask Qadhdhafi to step down, and they should have long ago. But don't fool yourself into thinking the U.S. ever encourages democracy in the Arab world. They did not do in Egypt, they are not doing it in Libya, and they do not do it anywhere else, except in those few countries where the government is not a crony U.S. puppet who will do what they ask, like Syria and Iran.
Gadhafi blames Osama bin Laden for savage clashes across Libya
Mr. Gadhafi accused al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden of being behind the uprising in Libya, in a rambling phone call to state TV. The Libyan leader said the more than week-long revolt has been carried out by young men hopped up on hallucinogenic pills given to them “in their coffee with milk, like Nescafe.”
“Shame on you, people of Zawiya, control your children,” he said, addressing residents of the city outside Tripoli where the mosque attack took place. “They are loyal to bin Laden,” he said of those involved in the uprising. "What do you have to do with bin Laden, people of Zawiya? They are exploiting young people ... I insist it is bin Laden.”
"Less than two weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund’s executive board, its highest authority, assessed a North African country’s economy and commended its government for its “ambitious reform agenda.” The I.M.F. also welcomed its “strong macroeconomic performance and the progress on enhancing the role of the private sector,” and “encouraged” the authorities to continue on that promising path. By unfortunate timing, that country was Libya. The fund’s mission to Tripoli had somehow omitted to check whether the “ambitious” reform agenda was based on any kind of popular support. Libya is not an isolated case. And the I.M.F. doesn’t look good after it gave glowing reviews to many of the countries shaken by popular revolts in recent weeks. Tunisia was hailed last September for its “wide-ranging structural reforms” and “prudent macroeconomic management.” Bahrain was credited in December with a “favorable near-term outlook” after the economy “managed the global crisis well.” Algeria’s “prudent macroeconomic policies” helped it to “build a sound financial position with a very low level of debt.” And in Cairo, the I.M.F. directors last April praised the authorities’ response to the crisis as well as their “sound macroeconomic management.”"
i am hearing rumblings now that people are wanting obama to give military aid to the people revolting in order to topple khadafi. most of them are on the right end of the spectrum. don't get me wrong, i am all for insubordination and overthrowing one's government, but i do not think we should get involved in this one for several reasons.
my questions to them are:
with what money and resources? these are the same people who are in favor of cutting taxes AND cutting spending AND cutting foreign aid. you can not have all three of those and commit to helping those revolting in libya.
what happened to "we are not going to engage in nation building"?if we go into libya to topple the regime isn't that what we would be doing?
is giving another country freedom from their leader enough justification to spend the required money, even in this time of cutting taxes and cutting funding to essential programs back home? and how can these people justify spending militarily to give freedom to others while cutting things in our own country?? how can congressional republicans talk of cutting spending and at the same time beat the war drums on yet another country?
if we go into libya wouldn't we then have a moral obligation to finally do something to force an end to the israeli palestinian conflict? i mean, why not, if we are going to be going into libya why not take care of the entire region right? unfortunately this will never happen because the estimated 4 billion dollars we give to israel in military aid every year to fund their apartheid occupation can never be cut....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Just like in the case of Iraq and, now in Libya, the US turns a blind eye as long as their needs are being served. Along with the oil benefits, Libya was part of ‘secret’ prison program against terrorists. Now Gahdafi has become the new Saddam Hussein and Libya the new Iraq.
If the US is going to play the global instigator, then they should be fair to all the people seeking relief from these dictators and Kings. If we are going to commit to military actions to help people achieve their economical and social rights could it not take ten years?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
i am hearing rumblings now that people are wanting obama to give military aid to the people revolting in order to topple khadafi. most of them are on the right end of the spectrum. don't get me wrong, i am all for insubordination and overthrowing one's government, but i do not think we should get involved in this one for several reasons.
my questions to them are:
with what money and resources? these are the same people who are in favor of cutting taxes AND cutting spending AND cutting foreign aid. you can not have all three of those and commit to helping those revolting in libya.
what happened to "we are not going to engage in nation building"?if we go into libya to topple the regime isn't that what we would be doing?
is giving another country freedom from their leader enough justification to spend the required money, even in this time of cutting taxes and cutting funding to essential programs back home? and how can these people justify spending militarily to give freedom to others while cutting things in our own country?? how can congressional republicans talk of cutting spending and at the same time beat the war drums on yet another country?
if we go into libya wouldn't we then have a moral obligation to finally do something to force an end to the israeli palestinian conflict? i mean, why not, if we are going to be going into libya why not take care of the entire region right? unfortunately this will never happen because the estimated 4 billion dollars we give to israel in military aid every year to fund their apartheid occupation can never be cut....
The last thing we need to do right now is get involved in a civil war in a different country.
Just like in the case of Iraq and, now in Libya, the US turns a blind eye as long as their needs are being served. Along with the oil benefits, Libya was part of ‘secret’ prison program against terrorists. Now Gahdafi has become the new Saddam Hussein and Libya the new Iraq.
If the US is going to play the global instigator, then they should be fair to all the people seeking relief from these dictators and Kings. If we are going to commit to military actions to help people achieve their economical and social rights could it not take ten years?
not saying this as a smart ass, but do you have a link to an article about libya being part of the secret prison system I am having a hard time finding anything
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Just like in the case of Iraq and, now in Libya, the US turns a blind eye as long as their needs are being served. Along with the oil benefits, Libya was part of ‘secret’ prison program against terrorists. Now Gahdafi has become the new Saddam Hussein and Libya the new Iraq.
If the US is going to play the global instigator, then they should be fair to all the people seeking relief from these dictators and Kings. If we are going to commit to military actions to help people achieve their economical and social rights could it not take ten years?
not saying this as a smart ass, but do you have a link to an article about libya being part of the secret prison system I am having a hard time finding anything
Not a problem, there's more, but here you go.
http://www.alternet.org/story/41923/
Trevor Paglen: I research military secrecy at Berkeley and there is a community there trying to figure out what military programs are. At some point, this hobbyist community became aware that there were these civilian planes flying around, acting as if they were working in military black programs. These people started tracking the planes and repeatedly seeing them in places like Libya and Guantanamo Bay. It became pretty clear that this was a CIA thing and that these were planes that were involved in the extraordinary rendition program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03412.html
A former CIA high-value detainee, who provided bogus information that was cited by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war, has died in a Libyan prison, an apparent suicide, according to a Libyan newspaper.
http://legalift.wordpress.com/category/libya/
Amnesty International confirms detention of at least 6 individuals transferred from secret US custody to Libya
Posted on 16 July, 2010 by Mathias Vermeulen
During its visit to Abu Salim Prison on 19 May 2009, Amnesty International was able to confirm the detention at the time of six individuals transferred from secret US custody to Libya, namely: al-Mahdi Jawda, aka Ayoub al-Libi; Majid Abu Yasser, aka Adnan al-Libi; Abdelhakim Bilhadj Al-Kwaildi, aka Abdullah al Sadeq; Khalid al-Sharif, aka Abu [...]
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?
stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail
unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable
The regime in Egypt for example was completely stable. It was kept alive by the notion of fear and apathy that had plagued the Egyptians.
That's instability.
Instability is a notion of stability. Instability is a notion of stability.
("notion of stability" <--Which are your words ... I knew you'd come around)
All is unstable. Everything. The way the U.S. likes it because they have set up shop to work along side of it because instability is all that exists.
We are not using the word 'stability' here to suggest something is actually stable. A 'notion of stability' applies. Not actual stability. Oh man
Also, I'm sorry you're unable to agree to disagree. I highly recommend it. You'll breathe better.
P.S. I've seen a yellow sky before
1996: Toronto 1998: Barrie 2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal 2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2006: Toronto X2 2009: Toronto 2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton 2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula 2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo 2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit 2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2 2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto 2023: Chicago X2 2024: New York X2
That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?
stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail
unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable
Dude, WHAT arey ou talking about? Jesus christ. You're basically saying that the American government is unstable. Why? Because it MAY experience instability in the future, who knows, so it might as well be considered unstable.
The instability of the American government is constant!
1996: Toronto 1998: Barrie 2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal 2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2006: Toronto X2 2009: Toronto 2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton 2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula 2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo 2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit 2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2 2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto 2023: Chicago X2 2024: New York X2
That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?
stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail
unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable
Stop arguing in absolutes, it's not helping your argument
My argument is that all is unstable. Do you understand that ? The U.S. benefits from the instability ? Do you understand that ? The U.S. encourages instability. Period. A NOTION of stability is what you're trying to pass stability as, but a notion of stability is instability which is directly related to this argument.
We are not talking about an object sitting on a dresser which is actually stable. We are talking about human behaviour which can only be a notion of stability making it unstable.
A quick question if I may just to get an understanding (possibly) of the person I'm speaking with.
___________, Is America a democracy ?
If you don't want to answer, that's cool ... i'll delete the post
1996: Toronto 1998: Barrie 2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal 2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2006: Toronto X2 2009: Toronto 2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton 2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula 2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo 2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit 2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2 2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto 2023: Chicago X2 2024: New York X2
That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?
stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail
unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable
Stop arguing in absolutes, it's not helping your argument
My argument is that all is unstable. Do you understand that ? The U.S. benefits from the instability ? Do you understand that ? The U.S. encourages instability. Period. A NOTION of stability is what you're trying to pass stability as, but a notion of stability is instability which is directly related to this argument.
We are not talking about an object sitting on a dresser which is actually stable. We are talking about human behaviour which can only be a notion of stability making it unstable.
A quick question if I may just to get an understanding (possibly) of the person I'm speaking with.
___________, Is America a democracy ?
If you don't want to answer, that's cool ... i'll delete the post
so there's no such thing as a stable government? theoretically your argument may be sound but it's fucking ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. when analyzing whether a government will get toppled or not, we try to analyze whether it is stable (i.e. powerful enough to maintain its hold) or unstable (i.e. unpopular enough so that enough people will be willing to overturn it). it's just rhetoric. you're trying to argue something much bigger and irrelevant to the conversation.
it's just rhetoric. you're trying to argue something much bigger and irrelevant to the conversation.
I do envy your ability to exclude the much bigger
Post edited by [Deleted User] on
1996: Toronto 1998: Barrie 2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills 2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal 2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids 2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2006: Toronto X2 2009: Toronto 2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton 2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula 2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo 2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit 2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2 2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto 2023: Chicago X2 2024: New York X2
This shows Obama's true colors. Protestors are getting whacked while he says nothing. History will remmeber him in this way.
what do you want him to do? you are a tea partier right? see my post earlier in this thread. what would ron paul do? would you rather george bush go in there with team america and end up occupying lybia and nation building just like iraq? what funds would you use, and what would you cut from our budget to pay for this little detour into lybia????
bush would get us into another B.Y.O.B. situation, Obama is not going to do that...
Hangars sitting dripped in oil,
Crying FREEDOM!
Handed to obsoletion,
Still you feed us lies from the table cloth.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
This shows Obama's true colors. Protestors are getting whacked while he says nothing. History will remmeber him in this way.
So did it show GB1's true colours when he did fuck all during Tiananmen Square? What about Nixon's during Kent State, his own people fired on protesters.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
This shows Obama's true colors. Protestors are getting whacked while he says nothing. History will remmeber him in this way.
So did it show GB1's true colours when he did fuck all during Tiananmen Square? What about Nixon's during Kent State, his own people fired on protesters.
You'll get no argument from me. Two good points regarding two horrible presidents.
This shows Obama's true colors. Protestors are getting whacked while he says nothing. History will remmeber him in this way.
So did it show GB1's true colours when he did fuck all during Tiananmen Square? What about Nixon's during Kent State, his own people fired on protesters.
You'll get no argument from me. Two good points regarding two horrible presidents.
I'm just not sure what Obama is supposed to do in this situation? And I'd say the same thing if a Republican was in office.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
There is not much Obama can say that would actually make a difference for the Libyan people and stop the violence. Sure, the president can show his support, condemn the violence and demand a resignation, but it won't matter to Khadaffi (or Gadhaffi, or Kadaffi, or Quaddaffi, or however it is spelled...seen so many different versions) what Obama says. Besides, the countries who should really speak up and demand his resignation, cut his assets etc, are European countries such as Italy, Spain, the UK. That's where the majority of Libyan oil is exported and they are the ones who have had close business relationships with Khadaffi in the past.
It wasn't until quite recently that the western world cut the sanctions that had been imposed on Libya for many years, so they are quite used to living under an embargo and sanctions. Even if those are re-instated, it won't make a difference. They have oil, and they have lived under an embargo before, they can do it again.
I believe the only way to stop the violence is if the U.S and EU treat the violence in Libya as genocide and take military action together. But I'm afraid that as usual, the EU will wait for the U.S to take action first, and by then too many lives will have been lost. I guess we didn't learn anything from Bosnia. It is all so sad.
Sanctions have been put on Libya. Not that this will matter at all to Qadhdhafi. I think he's a coward. I really don't see him fighting to his death. He'll run away when it comes down to it, possibly to Italy, though I would like him to be put to death for all those lives he's cost. It would also be a powerful message to the rest of the dictators. I hope they're shaking in their seats.
Besides, the countries who should really speak up and demand his resignation, cut his assets etc, are European countries such as Italy, Spain, the UK. ....
And they have. The UK have also frozen their assets in the country. Betcha he's got loads in countries which are too scrupulous...
I believe the only way to stop the violence is if the U.S and EU treat the violence in Libya as genocide and take military action together. But I'm afraid that as usual, the EU will wait for the U.S to take action first, and by then too many lives will have been lost. I guess we didn't learn anything from Bosnia. It is all so sad.
I don't believe that external interference as you mention is really the way forward. It would actually be quite hypocritical for any military action to take place when there are other 'internal' conflicts that are ignored.
It was foolish for the western world to think that this 'unrest' they so enthusiastically supported and even encouraged in the middle east would be more or less as peaceful as it was in Tunisia. What is happening in Libya and could happen in other countries is plain civil war, with all the violence and horror that goes with it. Simple. Harsh reality but this will eventually end on it's own without external 'action'. Lots more death and mayhem will go with it.
Comments
That last sentence makes perfect sense, lol
Everything will fail ... You don't believe or know that deep down ?
stable 1 |ˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler , -blest )
not likely to change or fail
unstable |ˌənˈstābəl|
adjective ( -bler, -blest)
prone to change, fail, or give way; not stable
In the next phase ? Yes, I agree to an extent for some regions of the world
And that is a NOTION of stability like you said, but objectively speaking, is that not instability ?
Agree to disagree ... ah, humans ...
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
Also, you can assure us that Iran is more oppressive? How and based on what? I agree that the U.S. should ask Qadhdhafi to step down, and they should have long ago. But don't fool yourself into thinking the U.S. ever encourages democracy in the Arab world. They did not do in Egypt, they are not doing it in Libya, and they do not do it anywhere else, except in those few countries where the government is not a crony U.S. puppet who will do what they ask, like Syria and Iran.
Gadhafi blames Osama bin Laden for savage clashes across Libya
Mr. Gadhafi accused al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden of being behind the uprising in Libya, in a rambling phone call to state TV. The Libyan leader said the more than week-long revolt has been carried out by young men hopped up on hallucinogenic pills given to them “in their coffee with milk, like Nescafe.”
“Shame on you, people of Zawiya, control your children,” he said, addressing residents of the city outside Tripoli where the mosque attack took place. “They are loyal to bin Laden,” he said of those involved in the uprising. "What do you have to do with bin Laden, people of Zawiya? They are exploiting young people ... I insist it is bin Laden.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le1918500/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/busin ... nted=print
my questions to them are:
with what money and resources? these are the same people who are in favor of cutting taxes AND cutting spending AND cutting foreign aid. you can not have all three of those and commit to helping those revolting in libya.
what happened to "we are not going to engage in nation building"?if we go into libya to topple the regime isn't that what we would be doing?
is giving another country freedom from their leader enough justification to spend the required money, even in this time of cutting taxes and cutting funding to essential programs back home? and how can these people justify spending militarily to give freedom to others while cutting things in our own country?? how can congressional republicans talk of cutting spending and at the same time beat the war drums on yet another country?
if we go into libya wouldn't we then have a moral obligation to finally do something to force an end to the israeli palestinian conflict? i mean, why not, if we are going to be going into libya why not take care of the entire region right? unfortunately this will never happen because the estimated 4 billion dollars we give to israel in military aid every year to fund their apartheid occupation can never be cut....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So we begin with UN sanctions and reviewing military options against Libya
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/23 ... must-stop/
Why aren’t these same measures taken against Bahrain?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... L420110218
If the US is going to play the global instigator, then they should be fair to all the people seeking relief from these dictators and Kings. If we are going to commit to military actions to help people achieve their economical and social rights could it not take ten years?
not saying this as a smart ass, but do you have a link to an article about libya being part of the secret prison system I am having a hard time finding anything
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Not a problem, there's more, but here you go.
http://www.alternet.org/story/41923/
Trevor Paglen: I research military secrecy at Berkeley and there is a community there trying to figure out what military programs are. At some point, this hobbyist community became aware that there were these civilian planes flying around, acting as if they were working in military black programs. These people started tracking the planes and repeatedly seeing them in places like Libya and Guantanamo Bay. It became pretty clear that this was a CIA thing and that these were planes that were involved in the extraordinary rendition program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03412.html
A former CIA high-value detainee, who provided bogus information that was cited by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war, has died in a Libyan prison, an apparent suicide, according to a Libyan newspaper.
http://legalift.wordpress.com/category/libya/
Amnesty International confirms detention of at least 6 individuals transferred from secret US custody to Libya
Posted on 16 July, 2010 by Mathias Vermeulen
During its visit to Abu Salim Prison on 19 May 2009, Amnesty International was able to confirm the detention at the time of six individuals transferred from secret US custody to Libya, namely: al-Mahdi Jawda, aka Ayoub al-Libi; Majid Abu Yasser, aka Adnan al-Libi; Abdelhakim Bilhadj Al-Kwaildi, aka Abdullah al Sadeq; Khalid al-Sharif, aka Abu [...]
That's instability.
Instability is a notion of stability. Instability is a notion of stability.
("notion of stability" <--Which are your words ... I knew you'd come around)
All is unstable. Everything. The way the U.S. likes it because they have set up shop to work along side of it because instability is all that exists.
We are not using the word 'stability' here to suggest something is actually stable. A 'notion of stability' applies. Not actual stability. Oh man
Also, I'm sorry you're unable to agree to disagree. I highly recommend it. You'll breathe better.
P.S. I've seen a yellow sky before
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
The instability of the American government is constant!
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
My argument is that all is unstable. Do you understand that ? The U.S. benefits from the instability ? Do you understand that ? The U.S. encourages instability. Period. A NOTION of stability is what you're trying to pass stability as, but a notion of stability is instability which is directly related to this argument.
We are not talking about an object sitting on a dresser which is actually stable. We are talking about human behaviour which can only be a notion of stability making it unstable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLph ... re=related :angel:
Ok. All that aside.
A quick question if I may just to get an understanding (possibly) of the person I'm speaking with.
___________, Is America a democracy ?
If you don't want to answer, that's cool ... i'll delete the post
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
I do envy your ability to exclude the much bigger
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
bush would get us into another B.Y.O.B. situation, Obama is not going to do that...
Hangars sitting dripped in oil,
Crying FREEDOM!
Handed to obsoletion,
Still you feed us lies from the table cloth.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You'll get no argument from me. Two good points regarding two horrible presidents.
It wasn't until quite recently that the western world cut the sanctions that had been imposed on Libya for many years, so they are quite used to living under an embargo and sanctions. Even if those are re-instated, it won't make a difference. They have oil, and they have lived under an embargo before, they can do it again.
I believe the only way to stop the violence is if the U.S and EU treat the violence in Libya as genocide and take military action together. But I'm afraid that as usual, the EU will wait for the U.S to take action first, and by then too many lives will have been lost. I guess we didn't learn anything from Bosnia. It is all so sad.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And they have. The UK have also frozen their assets in the country. Betcha he's got loads in countries which are too scrupulous...
I don't believe that external interference as you mention is really the way forward. It would actually be quite hypocritical for any military action to take place when there are other 'internal' conflicts that are ignored.
It was foolish for the western world to think that this 'unrest' they so enthusiastically supported and even encouraged in the middle east would be more or less as peaceful as it was in Tunisia. What is happening in Libya and could happen in other countries is plain civil war, with all the violence and horror that goes with it. Simple. Harsh reality but this will eventually end on it's own without external 'action'. Lots more death and mayhem will go with it.
http://youtu.be/gD7wodLT-BY - muammar gaddafi had under ground prisons
http://youtu.be/vhabIVAgWRw - muammar's son's secret palace
friggin wild shit
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce