Posts tagged Lybia
“Innocence of Muslims” proven innocent!!
1Come on folks, are we serious?! Hundreds of thousands of Muslims are losing their minds over a ridiculously bad video?! Despite the media’s desire to make this look like a spontaneous reaction to the video, that claim is FALSE!!!
Check out the excellent, articulate, Princeton-graduate Ben Swann spilling some beans.
Scroll down for the previously posted “The Arabs are Angry” for a little more detail and or ask the Lybian President who said the video theory is ridiculous.
The Arabs are angry…
3
…but is it really just because of an indescribably awful movie?
Or is it because of blowback and the obvious consequences produced by the arrogant, violent, mostly unprovoked actions of our military that occupies The Middle East and the world at large?
Have there been plenty of crazy Arab attacks over “acts of Mohammed humiliation?” Absolutely. But we must remember the effects of our presence in the area; you certainly aren’t going to hear them in the media that seeks to rally us into a fervor to support yet another war.
Even good ol’ Noam Chomsky chimes in on the topic citing government documents to back up the theory.
Dr. Paul nails it in the vid below while Mr. Soetoro closes with his unique brand of handsome hubris: “We are the one indespensible nation in the world.” Wow.
Ready-made revolution
0The recent protests and revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, and Lybia (more a coup de bomb than revolution) have come to America. Their power, speed and dramatic rallies have brought some benefits along with horrific side-effects. We should therefore have a skeptical eye at the events taking place here in America. What if there are organized forces and—as is shown by this documentary—professional consultants at work?
Although I don’t agree with all of the logic trains they present I am intrigued by their evidence and find this to be a fascinating documentary.
Reports from the ground in Lybia
24Yes, I know this is from RussiaToday and comes with the risk of bias. However some investigation will prove they are not alone in their critique of NATO, Italy, Britain, The United States and other countries bombing the nation.
Intervention’s costs vs. Non-intervention’s benefits
0
By Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the bin Laden unit
In a world rife with examples of the damage done to the U.S. economy and our national security by Washington’s relentless and bipartisan overseas interventionism, two current situations can be cited to demonstrate the high cost of intervention, on the one hand, and the wisdom of national-interest-protecting non-intervention on the other.
The first deals with the growing likelihood of frequent and widespread attacks in the United States by Islamist militants, and the second deals with recent events in Syria and Somalia.
The coming Islamist attacks in America will be the direct result of our interventionist foreign policy, while our failure to intervene — so far — in Syria and Somalia provides clears evidence that disasters, insurrections, and wars can occur in many areas of the world, have no impact on U.S. national security, and will cost us nothing in terms of lives, funds, or security if we simply refrain from intervening.
Domestic Islamist violence is the price of U.S. interventionism
On 3 August 2011, the White House issued a new plan to combat violent extremism in the United States. The plan urges an outreach program at the state, local, and community levels to “explain more effectively our [U.S.] values, ideas, policies, and actions internationally and support moderate voices willing to confront extremists and discredit radicals.”
The federal plan says the bulk of our defense against Islamist militancy in America — the plan is aimed at Islamist extremism but never uses the words Islam or Muslim — will be handled through social-science-driven out-reach programs conducted at all non-federal levels of government, as well as similar efforts by private sector organizations.
Should The U.N. and NATO command our troops?
0The idea that global governing bodies can control our troops is a pretext to two scenarios: 1) a subjugated, weak nation that serves the interests of a global, unelected government. 2) a dictatorship that allows our President to bomb and attack around the world without recourse.
If we would only follow The Constitution this debate wouldn’t be needed.
Palin’s policy ≠ Obama’s?
0Sarah Palin recently said about President Obama: “I’m going to call him our temporary leader because my goal is to make sure that President Obama is not reelected in 2012 so that we don’t have to continue to go down this path of this foreign policy that really makes no sense.”
If she and McCain had gotten elected I can’t imagine our foreign policy being much different, can you?
Would she have nuked Lybia instead of putting our brave and honorable troops on the ground?
The difficult reality is that we simply aren’t able to save everyone around the world—no matter how glorious their various causes may be—and we need to mind our own business, put the trillions we are spending trying to be the world’s policeman back to work here in the American Republic, then slash taxes in the newly streamlined budget and unleash a wave of prosperity that hasn’t been seen in this country for nearly a century.
“Libya is US, China’s battleground” – Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
0The former Asst. Secretary of The Treasury and “the father of Reaganomics” shares some heavy details about the complexity of current US-Chinese-Russian relations and the escalating situation in Lybia.
Lybian resources, banking to be privatized
0Perhaps now we’re seeing the motivation for our involvement in the country while other conflicts go on around the world without our media telling us they are “humanitarian crises” and propagandize us to support our military putting on the cloak of honor while “bombing for peace.”
Until God-awful Gadhafi gives in we will be in Lybia
0
Although I have profound and limitless respect for our armed forces; and it is incredible to imagine The United States as the Christian saviors of the world it is a logistical impossibility that almost always comes with more problems than benefits long term. Everything I need to know on this topic I learned from Mickey Mouse and his tragic apprenticeship (hint: our arrogance creates monsters we can’t control).
Beyond the horrific reality of war and the cost to our youth’s humanity, mental health and quality of life outside of battle back in the real world; war is an economically devastating event. Prices on common goods like leather, steel and kevlar are increased exponentially, invoices are fudged, defense contractors rake Uncle Sam’s credit card through fire and much more en route to incredible profits for “defense” contractors and mile-high debts for American taxpayers. Not to mention the true lotto winners: the financiers who often finance both sides of a conflict and bankroll entire nation’s war chests.
Although we’re often told that WW2 got us out of the depression imagine what our economy would have been like with the resources spent in war being driven into socially useful goods, businesses and bank accounts.
For an infalliably precise perspective on this check out Austrian (in philosophy, not birth) economist Robert Murphy’s brilliant article on WW2 and our exit from The Depression here.
As Marine Major General Smedley Butler said, “War is a racket!” This same sentiment was echoed by President Eisenhower in his farwell address to America regarding the military-industrial complex, the corporations that run it, and the incredible risk to The American Way that it poses.
If we seek to return to prosperity, peace and passionate pride we must redefine what it means to be a “good American.”
Here’s the article about our involvement in Lybia continuing indefinitely, arg.