The whole point is the obliterate the very notion of "truth". It's why the crowd size was the first thing he did. There are incontrovertible pictures of Obama's speech and Trump's speech. One can no more argue Trump's was larger than you can argue that grass is hot pink and not green. He did it anyway, to say "I create my own reality". It's called gaslighting, and it's a frequent tactic of abusers in relationships.
The crowd size issue shows the pettiness and hypocrisy in everyone involved, people who make a big deal out of it while simultaneously demanding why make a big deal out of it.
Faux-outrage for partisanship.
Faux-outrage or faux-moralism is your accusation to nearly every stance you disagree with.
Faux-outrage or faux-moralism is your accusation to nearly every stance you disagree with.
A simple test is why these trivial things cause more outrage then all of Obama's war-ring? the complete lack of news of Libya is a testament to that, as is the complete lack of interest in Libya, at least the conditions of Iraq was reasonably reported for awhile after the fact.
In my view most people have brought themselves down to Trump's level, while claiming moral outrage over civility.
Japanese companies are starting to pay their workers cryptocurrency as their salary, cryptocurrency has the potential to be the biggest disruptive force in finance in our modern age.
If someone can solve the volume validation issue, crypto-currency could wreck havoc on banks and most of our financial centralized institutions, speaking positive here.
The optimism and speculation over crypto-currency has created a bubble in the markets.
Regardless, more and more crypto-currencies are popping up and hasn't abated, it is the next innovation in finance that will eventually become prominent.
A simple test is why these trivial things cause more outrage then all of Obama's war-ring? the complete lack of news of Libya is a testament to that, as is the complete lack of interest in Libya, at least the conditions of Iraq was reasonably reported for awhile after the fact.
The U.S. intervened in Libya 3 years before this thread even existed. And this thread still contains discussions of the Libya intervention, if you actually go back and read it from the beginning, as I have once before.
The U.S. intervened in Libya 3 years before this thread even existed. And this thread still contains discussions of the Libya intervention, if you actually go back and read it from the beginning, as I have once before.
Mostly brought up by me, its lack of focus in the media has been an eyesore compared to the focus on Iraq. its high influence on the immigration/refugee problem plaguing Europe is also under-reported.
The slave-trade has exploded in tandem with the crisis.
But Libya is largely considered a failed state. Since Muammar Gaddafi, who ran the country for four decades, was ousted in 2011, the country has descended into civil war. A transitional government failed to implement rule of law in the country, which has splintered into several factions of militias, tribes, and gangs. In lawless Libya, many see the slave trade and smuggling as a lucrative industry. Tackling the country’s humanitarian crisis will require international assistance. http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
The situations aren't even remotely comparable. Iraq was instigated by the Bush Administration as an invasion of another country. The Obama Administration did not just walk into Libya with the intent of removing Gaddafi. He was in the midst of being overthrown in a civil war. When he started using his military on his own citizens a UN Force went in to provide air support. Then NATO took over. Comparing it to how Iraq came about is hogwash. Libya was an event the Obama Administration reacted to. Iraq was an event the Bush Administration created.
Moreover, Obama has explicitly admitted the handling of the aftermath is his greatest regret and mistake.
So the choice was let Gaddafi kill his own people to hold onto power after a civil uprising, or don't. The UN and Obama Administration went with the later. I highly suspect if the decision had been to let Gaddafi continue in power, we'd be having a discussion about how horrible it was we let a terroristic strongman stay in power and sat on the sidelines. Unlike Saddam, Gaddafi was directly responsible for terrorism against US citizens, the bombing of Pan Am 103.
So what's everyone think about the historic UN rejection of Trump?
The UK, france, Turkey including Trump's buddy Ergodan totally rejected Trump and the Republic party. 128 nations. Republics are trying to spin it as "it could have been more nations that rejected us" Ergodan gave a speech : "Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey's democratic free will with your dollars, our decision is clear," Erdogan thundered. "What is the cradle of democracy doing," Erdogan said. "They are looking for people they can buy with their dollars." And he issued an appeal to other world leaders, saying, "do not, for the sake of a few dollars, sell off your democratic free will."
Perhaps he was talking directly to Trump supporters about tax cuts for the rich with the last part
So the choice was let Gaddafi kill his own people to hold onto power after a civil uprising, or don't. The UN and Obama Administration went with the later. I highly suspect if the decision had been to let Gaddafi continue in power, we'd be having a discussion about how horrible it was we let a terroristic strongman stay in power and sat on the sidelines. Unlike Saddam, Gaddafi was directly responsible for terrorism against US citizens, the bombing of Pan Am 103.
The motives of the Obama administration and the U.N. might be more believable, wanting to remove a tyrant in power because of his humanitarian abuse, if they consistently actually removed them in Libya.
After the ouster of Gadaffi, the country descended into civil war with power-hungry leaders being just as bad as Gadaffi, i fail to see a consistent effort to punish them, not that i want America to intervene any longer like that.
I doubt Obama was thinking of an incident in 1988 as a justification to attack Libya.
Also Hillary's leaked emails showing correspondence of the threat of Gaddaffi's plans for gold-backed currency durying the Libya crisis raises very disturbing questions as to the real motive.
So the choice was let Gaddafi kill his own people to hold onto power after a civil uprising, or don't. The UN and Obama Administration went with the later. I highly suspect if the decision had been to let Gaddafi continue in power, we'd be having a discussion about how horrible it was we let a terroristic strongman stay in power and sat on the sidelines. Unlike Saddam, Gaddafi was directly responsible for terrorism against US citizens, the bombing of Pan Am 103.
The motives of the Obama administration and the U.N. might be more believable, wanting to remove a tyrant in power because of his humanitarian abuse, if they consistently actually removed them in Libya.
After the ouster of Gadaffi, the country descended into civil war with power-hungry leaders being just as bad as Gadaffi, i fail to see a consistent effort to punish them, not that i want America to intervene any longer like that.
I doubt Obama was thinking of an incident in 1988 as a justification to attack Libya.
I don't think it was the justification either. I think the justification was the country was in an uprising against him and it was way too far gone to let him stay in power. The fact that he was almost certainly involved in that bombing probably didn't do much to help his situation when push came to shove.
I don't think it was the justification either. I think the justification was the country was in an uprising against him and it was way too far gone to let him stay in power. The fact that he was almost certainly involved in that bombing probably didn't do much to help his situation when push came to shove.
Possibly, however the confidential email chain leaked of Hillary talking about the threat of Gaddaffi's gold-backed currency plan and it being the reason for the intervention is disturbing.
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc
French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicholas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.
The emails also reveal they were very much aware that the 'rebel groups' were just as bad as Gaddaffi committing gross human rights abuse, as they were aware removing Gaddaffi would cause another Iraq with a resurgance in Jihadists filling the vacuum.
Also the pseudo-ethnic cleansing of blacks in Libya is hard to hear about, blacks were always considered low in Libya but now in the chaos many are summarily executed, caged like animals or enslaved.
The bonus that Comcast will be paying their employees is .00125% of their annual revenue.
Its a cheap publicity stunt.
If Comcast likes your policies then you are doing something wrong like giving them billions of dollars in additional tax dollars every year by cutting the corporate tax rate in half.
They've not admitted throttling their older phones, but rather older batteries - you can get speed back by replacing the battery rather than having to replace the phone.
One of thing's to consider is what if you replace your battery with third party ones? It seem's this function assumes the pre-existing battery with an iphone.
So the choice was let Gaddafi kill his own people to hold onto power after a civil uprising, or don't. The UN and Obama Administration went with the later. I highly suspect if the decision had been to let Gaddafi continue in power, we'd be having a discussion about how horrible it was we let a terroristic strongman stay in power and sat on the sidelines. Unlike Saddam, Gaddafi was directly responsible for terrorism against US citizens, the bombing of Pan Am 103.
I think it is easier to compare Syria, where there was no international assistance to Libya where there was.
If international forces didn't assist in Libya, it would just be another Syria. Who knows how far Gaddafi would go to quell the civil uprising. Would he have used chemicals weapons like Saddam and Syria on his own people? When would international assistance be validated?
It's a catch 22 here. The international community is damned if they invade too soon, and they will be damned if they wait too long. These two conflicts illustrate this.
Syria's problems were exarcerbated by foreign intervention not the lack of it, in fact that might very well be the only useful use of the U.N., Actually stopping foreign interventions instead of being used as a vehicle for them.
One of thing's to consider is what if you replace your battery with third party ones? It seem's this function assumes the pre-existing battery with an iphone.
It's apple, I doubt you can replace it with a third person part.
I need a new phone. I'm looking at an iPhone but i do not like some of their business practices.
We had quite a bit of discussion not long ago about Catalonia. We should get results from the local elections forced on them by Spain in the next couple of hours or so - opinion polls have suggested that parties calling for independence will fall just short of a majority.
There's been a falling out of the two main pro-independence parties - partly as a result of the strains caused by the leader of one of them being in jail while the other is in a self-imposed exile. That doesn't seem to have helped their cause, but the pro-government party has also apparently lost support - so it will be interesting to see who picks up some floating votes.
Syria's problems were exarcerbated by foreign intervention not the lack of it, in fact that might very well be the only useful use of the U.N., Actually stopping foreign interventions instead of being used as a vehicle for them.
I don't think this is right. As @deltago said there is a catch 22 here. The US did virtually nothing for the first 2 years of the civil war in Syria - in sharp contrast to the enforcement of the no-fly zones and overt assistance to the rebels in Libya. I don't know what the right action would have been, but I do know that whatever action was taken would have given rise to opportunities for criticism.
I agree there's a possibility that the intervention in Libya just made things worse, but not intervening could easily have led to as bad or worse a situation anyway. I'm inclined to accept Obama's view that the real mistake was not in intervening per se, but in not spending enough effort on considering what to do after the intervention.
I don't think this is right. As @deltago said there is a catch 22 here. The US did virtually nothing for the first 2 years of the civil war in Syria - in sharp contrast to the enforcement of the no-fly zones and overt assistance to the rebels in Libya. I don't know what the right action would have been, but I do know that whatever action was taken would have given rise to opportunities for criticism.
I agree there's a possibility that the intervention in Libya just made things worse, but not intervening could easily have led to as bad or worse a situation anyway. I'm inclined to accept Obama's view that the real mistake was not in intervening per se, but in not spending enough effort on considering what to do after the intervention.
The problems in Syria were exarcerbated by the arming of the different sides in the Syrian conflict, where the U.S. armed one side, Russia responded to aiding the Syrian Government.
Syria therefore effectively became a proxy war, and could never end.
Proxy wars are by definition foreign intervention.
Foreign intervention to war breaks all rules and norms of sovereignty of nations, one of the backbones of stability in our global world, it would therefore be fundamentally correct for any nation to literally intervene and attack America with the proviso of arguing America's continued existence constitutes a threat to global order and citing Iraq, Libya and America's past actions.
Regardless, its a settled matter in history, foreign intervention like this is bad and isn't a better alternative, countries in civil war that oust the former Government can still retain stability or recover it without the need for intervention like this (Egypt), countries in civil war that just crumble end up no better then Libya (Venezuala).
Foreign intervention like this has never produced a good result, with only one exception, you actually build up the nations infrastructure and rule it, only Britain was ever able to achieve this during their colonial years, and you have to accept colonial rule.
And we don't accept colonialism as a matter of moral principle.
Foreign intervention must never be supported or justified like this, the least of which on an argument of 'what if', you must KNOW and plan your actions so it will end up with stability at the least.
I thought we'd learnt our lesson as a global community after Iraq, but its pretty evident we never will. its rather ironic and sad to see the same people criticize Iraq, actually defend Libya in one simple political administration change after.
The problems in Syria were exarcerbated by the arming of the different sides in the Syrian conflict, where the U.S. armed one side, Russia responded to aiding the Syrian Government.
Syria therefore effectively became a proxy war, and could never end.
This is not true. The U.S. did not even contribute humanitarian aid until 2 years into the conflict, and military aid arrived even later still. The country was in full-blown civil war long before the U.S. became even peripherally involved.
This is not true. The U.S. did not even contribute humanitarian aid until 2 years into the conflict, and military aid arrived even later still. The country was in full-blown civil war long before the U.S. became even peripherally involved.
Foreign intervention into Syria happened right from the beginning, we know Russia gave military aid in 2012, we know Iran was there from the start as was Hezbollah.
American intervention happened almost immediately, first by attacking the financial structures of the Assad regime, then through CIA aiding the rebels in 2012.
I don't think this is right. As @deltago said there is a catch 22 here. The US did virtually nothing for the first 2 years of the civil war in Syria - in sharp contrast to the enforcement of the no-fly zones and overt assistance to the rebels in Libya. I don't know what the right action would have been, but I do know that whatever action was taken would have given rise to opportunities for criticism.
I agree there's a possibility that the intervention in Libya just made things worse, but not intervening could easily have led to as bad or worse a situation anyway. I'm inclined to accept Obama's view that the real mistake was not in intervening per se, but in not spending enough effort on considering what to do after the intervention.
The problems in Syria were exarcerbated by the arming of the different sides in the Syrian conflict, where the U.S. armed one side, Russia responded to aiding the Syrian Government.
Syria therefore effectively became a proxy war, and could never end.
Proxy wars are by definition foreign intervention.
Foreign intervention to war breaks all rules and norms of sovereignty of nations, one of the backbones of stability in our global world, it would therefore be fundamentally correct for any nation to literally intervene and attack America with the proviso of arguing America's continued existence constitutes a threat to global order and citing Iraq, Libya and America's past actions.
Ron Paul once asked during a debate, when arguing against the use of staging American military in foreign nations to expand our influence despite it causing tension with those countries.
How would you like it if China stationed their military in America?
Regardless, its a settled matter in history, foreign intervention like this is bad and isn't a better alternative, countries in civil war that oust the former Government can still retain stability or recover it (Egypt), countries in civil war that just crumble end up no better then Libya (Venezuala).
Foreign intervention like this has never produced a good result, with only one exception, you actually build up the nations infrastructure, only Britain was ever able to achieve this during their colonial years, and you have to accept colonial rule.
The Syrian civil war began in 2011. The US only started arming one side in 2013, despite many calls for help from the rebels prior to that. If they had intervened earlier the civil war might not have been so bad (though it also might well have been). Just seeing your response to @semiticgod on this issue before doing my post I'll note that the article you linked specifically says that the US were not supplying arms to Syrian groups in 2012, though a small number of CIA officers were in the country gathering intelligence (that would be the norm in any such combat). There were humanitarian supplies being provided at that time, but arms were not provided via the CIA until 2013 and via mainstream support from 2014 (and as you say that was partly in response to Russian support for the regime) - here's a Wikipedia page giving details of the timeline.
As I said before there are no easy answers in this sort of situation. I agree with you intervention absolutely does infringe on national sovereignty and interventions should not be undertaken lightly, but there may still be reasons to do it. One possible reason would be to prevent one country getting away with attacking a weaker neighbor (first Iraq war), though one major problem with this rationale is that it's only possible against a relatively weak country (which is why Russia pretty much got away with annexing the Crimea and invading a neighbor).
Another possible reason is to avoid a humanitarian disaster and the intervention in Kosovo is an example of where that was done and it is generally agreed to have been successful and considerably improved the situation. Rwanda is an example of where that was not done, but should have been. As for Libya and Syria I think the jury is still out on both of those situations. The second Iraq war was different in that there was no compelling humanitarian reason for invading and I think most people now accept doing so was a mistake.
Comments
In my view most people have brought themselves down to Trump's level, while claiming moral outrage over civility.
Japanese companies are starting to pay their workers cryptocurrency as their salary, cryptocurrency has the potential to be the biggest disruptive force in finance in our modern age.
If someone can solve the volume validation issue, crypto-currency could wreck havoc on banks and most of our financial centralized institutions, speaking positive here.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-happens-when-the-bitcoin-bubble-pops
Regardless, more and more crypto-currencies are popping up and hasn't abated, it is the next innovation in finance that will eventually become prominent.
its high influence on the immigration/refugee problem plaguing Europe is also under-reported.
The slave-trade has exploded in tandem with the crisis.
But Libya is largely considered a failed state. Since Muammar Gaddafi, who ran the country for four decades, was ousted in 2011, the country has descended into civil war. A transitional government failed to implement rule of law in the country, which has splintered into several factions of militias, tribes, and gangs. In lawless Libya, many see the slave trade and smuggling as a lucrative industry. Tackling the country’s humanitarian crisis will require international assistance.
http://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
Moreover, Obama has explicitly admitted the handling of the aftermath is his greatest regret and mistake.
Then they tried to assassinate Gaddaffi by tomahawking his residence.
Resolution 1970 was just flat out ignored, arming people became the norm.
The UK, france, Turkey including Trump's buddy Ergodan totally rejected Trump and the Republic party. 128 nations. Republics are trying to spin it as "it could have been more nations that rejected us"
Ergodan gave a speech :
"Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey's democratic free will with your dollars, our decision is clear," Erdogan thundered.
"What is the cradle of democracy doing," Erdogan said. "They are looking for people they can buy with their dollars." And he issued an appeal to other world leaders, saying, "do not, for the sake of a few dollars, sell off your democratic free will."
Perhaps he was talking directly to Trump supporters about tax cuts for the rich with the last part
After the ouster of Gadaffi, the country descended into civil war with power-hungry leaders being just as bad as Gadaffi, i fail to see a consistent effort to punish them, not that i want America to intervene any longer like that.
I doubt Obama was thinking of an incident in 1988 as a justification to attack Libya.
Also Hillary's leaked emails showing correspondence of the threat of Gaddaffi's plans for gold-backed currency durying the Libya crisis raises very disturbing questions as to the real motive.
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc
French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicholas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.
The emails also reveal they were very much aware that the 'rebel groups' were just as bad as Gaddaffi committing gross human rights abuse, as they were aware removing Gaddaffi would cause another Iraq with a resurgance in Jihadists filling the vacuum.
Also the pseudo-ethnic cleansing of blacks in Libya is hard to hear about, blacks were always considered low in Libya but now in the chaos many are summarily executed, caged like animals or enslaved.
Its a cheap publicity stunt.
If Comcast likes your policies then you are doing something wrong like giving them billions of dollars in additional tax dollars every year by cutting the corporate tax rate in half.
Http://act.tv/articles/comcast-employee-bonuses
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/apple-battery-throttling-gives-customers-reason-to-distrust-2017-12?r=US&IR=T
I didn't believe this, but it turns out to be true, at least theres competition in the market for mobile alternatives.
If international forces didn't assist in Libya, it would just be another Syria. Who knows how far Gaddafi would go to quell the civil uprising. Would he have used chemicals weapons like Saddam and Syria on his own people? When would international assistance be validated?
It's a catch 22 here. The international community is damned if they invade too soon, and they will be damned if they wait too long. These two conflicts illustrate this.
I need a new phone. I'm looking at an iPhone but i do not like some of their business practices.
There's been a falling out of the two main pro-independence parties - partly as a result of the strains caused by the leader of one of them being in jail while the other is in a self-imposed exile. That doesn't seem to have helped their cause, but the pro-government party has also apparently lost support - so it will be interesting to see who picks up some floating votes.
Been an Android user for awhile though (without the bloat).
I agree there's a possibility that the intervention in Libya just made things worse, but not intervening could easily have led to as bad or worse a situation anyway. I'm inclined to accept Obama's view that the real mistake was not in intervening per se, but in not spending enough effort on considering what to do after the intervention.
Syria therefore effectively became a proxy war, and could never end.
Proxy wars are by definition foreign intervention.
Foreign intervention to war breaks all rules and norms of sovereignty of nations, one of the backbones of stability in our global world, it would therefore be fundamentally correct for any nation to literally intervene and attack America with the proviso of arguing America's continued existence constitutes a threat to global order and citing Iraq, Libya and America's past actions.
Regardless, its a settled matter in history, foreign intervention like this is bad and isn't a better alternative, countries in civil war that oust the former Government can still retain stability or recover it without the need for intervention like this (Egypt), countries in civil war that just crumble end up no better then Libya (Venezuala).
Foreign intervention like this has never produced a good result, with only one exception, you actually build up the nations infrastructure and rule it, only Britain was ever able to achieve this during their colonial years, and you have to accept colonial rule.
And we don't accept colonialism as a matter of moral principle.
Foreign intervention must never be supported or justified like this, the least of which on an argument of 'what if', you must KNOW and plan your actions so it will end up with stability at the least.
I thought we'd learnt our lesson as a global community after Iraq, but its pretty evident we never will.
its rather ironic and sad to see the same people criticize Iraq, actually defend Libya in one simple political administration change after.
American intervention happened almost immediately, first by attacking the financial structures of the Assad regime, then through CIA aiding the rebels in 2012.
Quite frankly anyone arguing that foreign intervention, let alone America was 2 years late into the conflict is not informed of it, a glance at a wiki page would confirm these things.
C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
Reported as early as 2012, not 2 years after the conflict began.
As I said before there are no easy answers in this sort of situation. I agree with you intervention absolutely does infringe on national sovereignty and interventions should not be undertaken lightly, but there may still be reasons to do it. One possible reason would be to prevent one country getting away with attacking a weaker neighbor (first Iraq war), though one major problem with this rationale is that it's only possible against a relatively weak country (which is why Russia pretty much got away with annexing the Crimea and invading a neighbor).
Another possible reason is to avoid a humanitarian disaster and the intervention in Kosovo is an example of where that was done and it is generally agreed to have been successful and considerably improved the situation. Rwanda is an example of where that was not done, but should have been. As for Libya and Syria I think the jury is still out on both of those situations. The second Iraq war was different in that there was no compelling humanitarian reason for invading and I think most people now accept doing so was a mistake.