Kernel gadaffi

  • Next Page
Author Message
flag anthonysjb
Posted: Dec 1, 2011 at 13:38 Quote
harriieee wrote:
I think that's more than a bit simplistic, and you didn't engage with the fact that the USA as it is couldn't survive without a constant flow of cheap credit. Ultimately we share the same view of FRB, just you're approaching it from a conservative libertarian point of view, I'm doing the same from a socialist one.

100% agree on Gadaffi. Shit human rights record, but fantastic for Libyan infrastructure and society.

HAHAHA. Yes, absolutely fantastic in the same way that Stalin was.
flag samsq
O+ FL
Posted: Dec 1, 2011 at 17:07 Quote
anthonysjb wrote:
harriieee wrote:
I think that's more than a bit simplistic, and you didn't engage with the fact that the USA as it is couldn't survive without a constant flow of cheap credit. Ultimately we share the same view of FRB, just you're approaching it from a conservative libertarian point of view, I'm doing the same from a socialist one.

100% agree on Gadaffi. Shit human rights record, but fantastic for Libyan infrastructure and society.

HAHAHA. Yes, absolutely fantastic in the same way that Stalin was.
And Hitler!

Also, he dead.
flag harriieee
Posted: Dec 1, 2011 at 18:01 Quote
Oooh, I'm getting snided.

One or two differences, bredrin.

Stalin killed fifty million of his own people. Gadaffi's is in the thousands. Wanna play the numbers game? Ronald Reagan had far more blood on his hands via authoritarian Latin American coups, only difference was he didn't kill his own people. Is that somehow worse than killing foreigners?

Second. The leader of the Libyan people's army still, after victory, numbers only 17,000 members - one person for every 353 members of the Libyan population. Before NATO intervention it equalled less than 6,000 - less than one member for every thousand Libyans..... and this was meant to be a popular uprising? Then why weren't they able to actually drum up support for it?

Third. Under Gadaffi's reign, Libya gained free secondary and tertiary education, and the best standard of living in Africa (extremely high GDP per capita, most egalitarian income distribution). Just a lil' thing to think about.
flag anthonysjb
Posted: Dec 2, 2011 at 8:38 Quote
harriieee wrote:
Oooh, I'm getting snided.

One or two differences, bredrin.

Stalin killed fifty million of his own people. Gadaffi's is in the thousands. Wanna play the numbers game? Ronald Reagan had far more blood on his hands via authoritarian Latin American coups, only difference was he didn't kill his own people. Is that somehow worse than killing foreigners?

Second. The leader of the Libyan people's army still, after victory, numbers only 17,000 members - one person for every 353 members of the Libyan population. Before NATO intervention it equalled less than 6,000 - less than one member for every thousand Libyans..... and this was meant to be a popular uprising? Then why weren't they able to actually drum up support for it?

Third. Under Gadaffi's reign, Libya gained free secondary and tertiary education, and the best standard of living in Africa (extremely high GDP per capita, most egalitarian income distribution). Just a lil' thing to think about.

"Stalin killed fifty million of his own people. Gadaffi's is in the thousands. Wanna play the numbers game?"

In principal and morality it is the same.

"and this was meant to be a popular uprising?"

Well yes, they achieved there aim, they didn't need any more soldiers. And props to the ones who did counter the government, if I was ruled by a violent dictator it would take huge influence in order to get me to go against him.

And yes they are developed I will give you that.
flag harriieee
Posted: Dec 2, 2011 at 9:34 Quote
They didn't achieve their aim. They were on the ropes before NATO took over. Why should we fight other country's revolutions for them?

I'd also wonder what you'd say to my Reagan point.
flag anthonysjb
Posted: Dec 3, 2011 at 6:05 Quote
If I'm honest I don't know much about Reagan so wont go there. And I personally don't think we should unless they are a threat, which they weren't, but with the help of NATO they did achieve their aim. Yes, it wasn't all them, but I believe an uprising of 17,000 people is pretty impressive, and surely if they did it with less people that just proves they are good?
flag harriieee
Posted: Dec 3, 2011 at 6:10 Quote
Not sure you understood. They would have lost if NATO hadn't intervened. They didn't do it. We did.
flag anthonysjb
Posted: Dec 3, 2011 at 7:07 Quote
No shit sherlock. The aim was achieved. "Kernel" Gadaffi is dead. That was their aim. It has been achieved. If they hadn't started revolting against the government then theres no way we would have flown in to support. Note that NATO had 0 foot soldiers and was only using air strikes. All we did was support and destroy defences.
flag harriieee
Posted: Dec 3, 2011 at 10:02 Quote
anthonysjb wrote:
[...] surely if they did it with less people that just proves they are good?

No, it doesn't. It proves that NATO disabled Gadaffi's military capability, enabling an insignificant and weak 'revolutionary army' to walk to a victory that they did not win themselves. Benghazi was screaming for support from NATO in March, on the verge of defeat.
  • Next Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.015065
Mobile Version of Website