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.
JC
I would imagine that even your reader would understand that the reptile/amphibian observation was meant in mockery, but given the lack of reading skills displayed in the last post, that may be an unfair assumption. I apologize for the confusion.
Your game is a simple one. You’ve established a narrative that you believe in deeply, namely that the United States is the worst agent on the planet, that its foreign and economic policies are used exclusively to do harm to others, and that only a select few (including yourself) really understand the truth. To support your position, you marshall arguments that, upon inspection, are often factually false. That’s fine, too, but the smug condescension with which you attack other people for their lack of insight makes it occasionally too rich a target to pass by.
It’s certainly possible that I was too optimistic in my assessment of the Libyan intervention, but that’s somewhat understandable. It was an unclear situation. There’s no defense, however, for writing a post based on an easily proven lie. Did you correct your initial post? No. Did you do more reading to see if the situation is perhaps more complex than you make it out to be? No. Did you apologize to your reader for misleading him? No.
Because none of that matters. All that matters is the narrative you’ve chosen to see the world by, facts be damned. From defending the Russian regime to now defending the regime of Qadaffi, your position is unchanged by facts or evidence. Of course, you’re always right: you disregard evidence that disproves your position.
I may be partisan, but at least I have the critical reading and thinking skills to admit that the world is a bit more nuanced than your narrative, which offers the benefit of arrogance at the cost of accuracy.
it’s nice to see that you’re finally coming around to how wrong you were about the Libyan intervention. I’ll also point out that it’s not just me that sees this country as the biggest threat to global peace, it seems that is the global consensus.
Likewise.
I’ll look into it.
Couldn’t find anything in moderation or spam or wherever. Email the comment to me, JC, and the post and comment where you want it placed, and I’ll get it up.
I don’t remember what it was I was going to say. I did try and submit it twice, as the first time it didn’t show up. I got a error the second time saying that I had submitted a duplicate comment. So I know the first one posted to ID. Maybe Don deleted it before you had a chance to take a look.
And before any of that there’s this:
“While the statistics are notoriously unreliable, by conservative estimates roughly 229,500 Egyptians were working in Libya in 1975. That number would rise to 250,000 by 1980.
Problems did not take long to arise. First came a raft of accusations that the seconded Egyptian staff were disseminating Nasserist ideas, replete with pan-Arabist, anti-Western rhetoric. These allegations appeared across the Arab world, but were particularly sharp-edged in the Libyan case. Not only was the monarchical regime essentially a British creation, and Libya home to an American air base, but Egyptians were also to be found throughout the Libyan state apparatus. Egyptians taught at primary and secondary schools across the country. The Libyan University, established in 1955, was initially staffed entirely by Egyptian professors.” – Gerasimos Tsourapas [http://www.merip.org/mero/mero031715
All part of “The Great Game,” which we (U.S.) continue long after the original — pre-WWI — British and French imperial players have been sidelined with self-inflicted injuries. (The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia, May 15, 1992,
by Peter Hopkirk)
General Tommy Franks may be right about Doug Feith, I don’t know. But he obliviously never met Pogie.
JC,
You are not blocked, and I certainly didn’t delete any comment. Don’t post if you don’t want, but don’t play the oppressed martyr.
Don, you have deleted comments in the past and in the far distant past, and the recent past. The truth hurts. Though you don’t always delete everything all the time.
Anyone who says so isn’t paying attention.
So it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. Come on be honest with yourself. .
Don, I was just parroting your words above:
If you take those to be from one playing “the oppressed martyr,” well then you’ve only got yourself to blame.
As to my comments I tried to post at ID, as I said above, when I posted nothing showed up. So I tried posting again, and got an error that said duplicate comment detected, that the comment had already been posted.
What I do know is that you are a liar, and have been lying about either moderating or blocking my comments since you had your first hissy fit about me years ago. Maybe WordPress is to blame, maybe you still have me blacklisted… who knows.
In all reality, I don’t really care if I get to post at ID or not. Not being allowed to is definitely not oppression in my mind — you are unworthy to be granted the label of oppressor. Actually, it is your grandiosity that allows you to suggest that you may be considered such by someone as unworthy as myself. Conversely, I find it eminently satisfying that you take such distaste in the views and words of someone like myself that you can’t stand to see them on your blog.
And I find your statements about foreign policy posts here being “amusement” to be indicative of the decadency of the democrat party. As if nuance gives you the cover you need to play ostrich… never enough time or intelligence to unravel an issue and find its true nature, and take any responsibility for maybe having helped to contribute to it through your obsequious nature.
After all, Obama and the dems have now taken ownership of all the morass of middle east terrorism and death and chaos… them’s are your dems. What makes you think they’re any less morally decadent here in Montana or in Missoula County or Helena, after seeing what their leadership is capable of?
Don, I posted your
pearls of wisdomwords of oppression back at your blog. The first time I posted them they didn’t show up. The second time I posted them, this is what I get:So you are definitely either blocking me, or moderating me. And lying about it.
Beware the narcissistic “teacher.”
“Most smear campaigners are highly narcissistic, and narcissists cannot ever be expected to apologize, come clean or admit any wrongdoing, even if caught red-handed in their lies. They truly believe, in their own way, that a smear campaign is the right thing to do to you, because you have opposed them, and you should have known better than to do such an unthinkable thing, so it’s simply all your fault they’re smearing you anyhow. They’re teaching you a lesson — agree with whatever they want, or else. You “asked for it”, and they’re teaching you better.” https://www.facebook.com/notes/my-emotional-vampire/the-smear-campaign-view-it-as-a-badge-of-honor/327120180710384
Good blog article Steve Kelly. I have been dealing with a situation for the last three months where we have a narcissistic woman who has launched 3 smear campaigns against 3 different people in a political organizing group i’ve ben involved with. It’s caused a lot of drama, and it’s sucked up a lot of time and caused divisions that never needed to be in the first place because someone has bad brain chemicals or group of chemicals.
The most amazing part is how many people in the organization are entirely clueless that a predator is loose.
I see the similarities in Pogie with his reliance on ridicule to make his points and his inability to ever experience the feeling of being wrong. Pogie is, somehow, never wrong. And thus he never apologies.
This article may also interest you. http://io9.com/narcissism-is-one-of-the-most-misunderstood-psychologic-1588867730
Off Topic Alert.
It’s the weekend, cats and griz are way ahead, time for a funny tube.