by William Skink
Before I get to the difference between amphibians and reptiles, I’d like to establish some pertinent information regarding how Libya functioned before Hillary Clinton pushed her humanitarian regime change, which turned Libya into a failed state.
This post claims to have relevant numbers regarding Libya’s Human Development Index. I certainly can’t confirm this source because I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist who should never be trusted. That said, it seems like Libyans didn’t have it too bad before America intervened:
Public Health Care in Libya prior to NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” was the best in Africa. “Health care is [was] available to all citizens free of charge by the public sector. The country boasts the highest literacy and educational enrolment rates in North Africa. The Government is [was] substantially increasing the development budget for health services…. (WHO Libya Country Brief )
Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption).
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World.
Because America needs vassal states, and not brash Africans getting all uppity, the Obama regime allowed Hillary’s State Department to use a humanitarian intervention smokescreen for regime change in Libya. For those who don’t know how Gaddafi was murdered, there’s this:
Muammar al-Gaddafi, Libya’s ruler since 1969, was murdered in Sirte at the end of the war. First, his convoy was bombarded by NATO-aeroplanes, and then he and his companions were seized by troops of the administration which had meanwhile been installed in Benghazi. Gaddafi suffered a head injury, was shot in the stomach and lost ever more blood until someone rammed a stick up his anus – in order for his humiliation to be complete. Eventually he died of severe blood loss. Subsequently, on October 31, 2011, NATO declared the war over and itself as the winner.
After NATO destroyed any semblance of civic life in Libya, and Hillary cackled her joy that Gaddafi was anally sodomized and executed, the country has become a breeding ground for jihadis and human traffickers. This reality has not negatively impacted Hillary’s candidacy, which shows just how dangerously vacuous Democrats have become with regard to foreign policy.
Cue the perennial partisan scold, Don Pogreba, to once again smear my humble efforts to bring attention to the insanity of America’s foreign policy:
The truth is that I have largely ignored one of the newest blogs in Montana, because it’s little more than a collection of conspiracy theories and smug derision directed at anyone childish enough to care about domestic politics when the world is at stake, man. That being said, the site is run by a bizarrely personal author who, more frequently and with more anger than I can understand, directs his pseudonymous rants at some of the authors who write here at Intelligent Discontent.
While I pop by once in awhile for amusement, the latest posts offered a reason to comment. In a rant that covered Bernie Sanders as a shill working for Hillary Clinton, the proposed Missoula gun ordinance, and Pete Talbot, the author proposed this fascinating contention:
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, presided over the utter destruction of Africa’s best hope for Democracy.
What country was that, you ask? Libya. Libya. A country under the rule of one man for decades, a man who consolidated his power through brutal repression and sham democratic institutions, was the leader of “best hope” for democracy in Africa until that globalist meanie Hillary Clinton ruined it. MA
I’m glad I have moved Don from ignoring this blog to writing something about foreign policy. Sure, he does it in the most condescending way he can muster, but any utterance by a pathetic partisan like Don is worth considering.
Why? Because when they’re wrong, they rarely ever admit it.
Don Pogreba has never, as far as I know, admitted that he was suckered by the humanitarian intervention propaganda regarding Libya. I continue to quote from this post to show how absolutely wrong Don has been:
I don’t celebrate the death of anyone, but it’s hard to feel terribly sad about the fact that the Colonel is no longer in a position which allows him to torture and kill indiscriminately. Eventually, people rise up to take down despots. It’s often ugly, even brutal, but it will happen—and I’d prefer a national security policy which works to prevent those people from being slaughtered.
In the end, the US and NATO did an admirable job. They used a relatively inexpensive mission which gave the rebels breathing room in which they could defend themselves against a despot. And then the people of Libya did the rest. We can’t know what kind of government or future Libya will have, but I think we can be sure that it will be better than the past two generations.
Nope, wrong wrong wrong. As of October 22nd, 2015, we absolutely do know what kind of future Libya will have, and it’s disastrous.
But Don doesn’t want to discuss that stark reality. No, he would prefer to keep bashing me and this blog with all the smug arrogance he accuses me of exhibiting:
The truth is that I have largely ignored one of the newest blogs in Montana, because it’s little more than a collection of conspiracy theories and smug derision directed at anyone childish enough to care about domestic politics when the world is at stake, man. That being said, the site is run by a bizarrely personal author who, more frequently and with more anger than I can understand, directs his pseudonymous rants at some of the authors who write here at Intelligent Discontent.
The world is at stake, man. And America is widely perceived by the rest of the world to be the biggest threat to world peace.
Democrats are a part of that threat, by the way. And in some ways, I would argue, they are more dangerous than Republicans.
PS for English teachers who might not understand the difference between amphibians and reptiles, this link may be helpful.