RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

rowan wrote:Why bother? If you can fix the Republican primaries to get Trump, why not just fix the general election? Why not let one of the myriad politicians who supported and still support the war in Iraq winthe GOP nomination. Hell many of them are more hawkish thatn Hillary.

You're missing something, Eugene. The entire election is a charade. Hillary has already been anointed by those who decide these things. Long ago, in fact. Now it's just a case of fooling the general populace into believing they made this decision for themselves, and the only way that could be done is to create such a monstrosity as opposition that even a serial war criminal with a penchant for regime change would be regarded as the lesser of two evils.

No, I've got that point. It just doesn't make any sense. It is just much more difficult to organise things the way you suggest than just fix the general election.

The argument fails to take into account that the Republicans were already turning that way without any help from the Dems. Several members in the Bush administration were active Freepers at the time, after all.

The objective of the charade is to reduce American politics to a circus parade of shocks and sensations that hold no actual meaning and deflect attention from more serious issues. The end result is totalitarianism, absolutes and unaccountability devoid of critical thinking and informed judgement. This is the strategy Hannah Arendt famously referred to in her book on Adolf Eichmann as the 'banality of evil.'

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/12/ ... -politics/

A presidential candidate should not suggest violence in any way?!? Really?

This coming from a high-level supporter of a candidate who…

…has supported every war during her political career?

…supported the use of civilian-butchering cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza?

…supported the brutal invasions by the Saudi dictatorship of Bahrain and Yemen?

…enthusiastically pushed for the bombing of Libya that turned it into a failed state?

…threatened use of nuclear weapons vs. Iran?

…supported the military coups against the elected governments in Honduras and Egypt, turning both into violence-ridden basket cases?

…adores as her mentor the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger, orchestrator of the tortures and killings of 10s of thousands?

Tell me, please, Clinton supporters, how is this not “suggest[ing] violence in any way.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/12/ ... f-violence

rowan wrote:The objective of the charade is to reduce American politics to a circus parade of shocks and sensations that hold no actual meaning and deflect attention from more serious issues. The end result is totalitarianism, absolutes and unaccountability devoid of critical thinking and informed judgement. This is the strategy Hannah Arendt famously referred to in her book on Adolf Eichmann as the 'banality of evil.'

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/12/ ... -politics/

Are those not the very things you so admire in Russia and Iran?

Pointing the finger elsewhere is only a diversionary tactic, Digby, and thus a form of acknowledgement.

rowan wrote:Pointing the finger elsewhere is only a diversionary tactic, Digby, and thus a form of acknowledgement.

Last time I promise... could the exact same thing not be said about all the bluff and bluster that comes out of Russia and Iran, among others, about America? If you cant be arsed replying, that's OK as I think I know what you'll be saying!

rowan wrote:Pointing the finger elsewhere is only a diversionary tactic, Digby, and thus a form of acknowledgement.

Is that why you start banging on about the USA and the UK when China, Syria, Russia, etc. are criticised? I also note that you're not denying it.

Also, the GOP has been an unelectable circus long before that bloviating, small-handed Oompa Loompa got there. All he did was stamp his stupid brand all over it.

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote:Pointing the finger elsewhere is only a diversionary tactic, Digby, and thus a form of acknowledgement.

Is that why you start banging on about the USA and the UK when China, Syria, Russia, etc. are criticised? I also note that you're not denying it.

Also, the GOP has been an unelectable circus long before that bloviating, small-handed Oompa Loompa got there. All he did was stamp his stupid brand all over it.

Your first comment is ironic. The second I actually agree with.

Meanwhile, here's the latest on what the Saudis have been doing with those weapons Hillary helped sell to them: http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/2467 ... s-in-yemen

A Saud-led coalition’s raid in Saada claimed the lives of at least ten children and wounded dozens more on Saturday. The airstrikes carried out by warplanes struck in a residential area and a school in northern Yemen.

A bombardment in Birken, a village in the Razih District, struck a school principal’s home, killing his wife and four of their children. While rescuers attempted to free the others, a second airstrike claimed the lives of four more.

The airstrike in the Haydan District hit a school and killed ten students and wounded 28 others, officials have said.

What the Saudis have been up to lately with the weapons Hellary Clinton arranged for their staunched allies America to sell them. I had to go to the New Zealand press, in fact, to find an article which actually mentioned the perpetrators (Saudi) in its headline. The American & British articles I looked at either failed to mention this, or slipped it in somewhere further down.

An airstrike by a US-backed Saudi-led military coalition struck a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in northwestern Yemen, the latest bombing of a civilian site since a peace deal between the nation's warring factions collapsed last week.

Abs Hospital, located in the country's Hajjah governorate and supported by the international medical charity, was hit at 3:45 p.m. local time, Doctors Without Borders said in a statement. The strike killed at least 11 people and wounded at least 19 others.

"MSF is currently assessing the situation to ensure the safety of patients and staff," the aid agency, using the acronym for its French name, Medecins Sans Frontieres, said in its statement. "We will provide more information as it becomes available."

More than 4,600 patients have been treated at the hospital since the charity began supporting it in July 2015.

The bombing comes two days after a Saudi-led coalition airstrike hit a Koranic school in an enclave of the northern city of Saada, killing 10 children and wounding 28. All were between the ages of 6 and 15, according to Doctors Without Borders, whose staff treated the victims at their facility there.

Saudi Arabia's military has said that Saturday's airstrike struck a militia training camp but offered no evidence for its claims. A 14-member team set up by the coalition to investigate allegations of wrongdoing said it had opened an inquiry into reports that the school was hit and would make its findings public.

There was no immediate comment from Saudi Arabia on Monday's airstrike, which was at least the fourth on a Doctors Without Borders-supported medical facility in Yemen since the war began in early 2015. Last year, one person was killed in an airstrike on a health center in Saada province, and a mobile clinic in the southern province of Taiz was also hit, according to the aid agency. In January, another hospital in Saada was targeted, killing six.

Several organizations working in Yemen condemned Monday's attack and called for an independent investigation.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11694792

Good interview here (on video):

Dirty, Bearded Vince Foster Bursts Through Doors Of Clinton Fundraiser



COLUMBUS, OH—Clad in a tattered suit as he limped through the Hyatt ballroom toward the stunned Democratic presidential nominee, a dirty, bearded Vince Foster reportedly burst through the doors of a Clinton campaign fundraiser Monday to confront his former law partner. “Surprised to see me, Hillary? You thought you finished me off, didn’t you?” said the one-time deputy White House counsel, shouting that he had information that would bring Clinton down once and for all as he shuffled past tables filled with dozens of formally attired Democratic donors who fell silent at his presence. “Maybe everybody here would like to hear a story—I think they would. It’s all over for you and Bill now. Whitewater! Ron Brown! Benghazi! The charade ends today.” At press time, Foster had tackled and subdued Clinton after she grabbed a Secret Service agent’s gun and attempted to escape through the crowded banquet hall.

.

"I'd have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling alt right birthers"

rowan wrote:

Who was Gaddafi? http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten- ... ow/5414289

1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right

In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.

2. Education and medical treatment were all free

Under Gaddafi, Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Middle East and Africa. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.

3. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project

The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.

4. It was free to start a farming business

If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.

5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies

When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.

6. Electricity was free

Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!

7. Cheap petrol

During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.

8. Gaddafi raised the level of education

Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.

9. Libya had It’s own state bank

Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.

10. The gold dinar

Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.

The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.

Of all the refugees I've seen interviewed, the ones who had travelled through Libya seemed to be the most frightened. A very tatty but fairly professional bloke who had travelled from Eritrea used words to the effect of: 'In Libya rape and murder are everywhere'.

& to think it was Afric's most prosperous nation under Gaddafi. But we can't tolerate successful role models, now can we? We didn't tolerate Zaire or Iran or Afghanistan or Cuba when they threatened to thrive under an ideology we did not agree with. So we assassinated, overthrew, destabilized with terrorists and crippled with sanctions to destroy them; then pointed the finger at Russia and China as a diversion tactic

While I was having a flick through the Huffington post to find details of the rape case I found this article .....about Martin Wolf's article in the FT.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dem ... s_politics

rowan wrote:& to think it was Afric's most prosperous nation under Gaddafi. But we can't tolerate successful role models, now can we? We didn't tolerate Zaire or Iran or Afghanistan or Cuba when they threatened to thrive under an ideology we did not agree with. So we assassinated, overthrew, destabilized with terrorists and crippled with sanctions to destroy them; then pointed the finger at Russia and China as a diversion tactic

Did you go to Gaddafi's Libya?

When I was there, I asked about the Green Book and not a single person I spoke to was anything other than derisory about it. Even my government approved guide/driver/minder said it was bullshit. This was a guy who had reasonable connections to the regime (an uncle high up in the military, I think) and was doing pretty well for himself running his tour company. He had been to Britain and his absolute dream was to work in a pizza joint in London and drink beer and be allowed to talk about whatever he wanted.

Yes, there was plenty of state cash from oil but most of that seemed to go to the Kleptocracy. The nice buildings and new cars were all government. You could tell it was a relatively well off place because of the huge numbers of illegal immigrants from Niger and Chad looking for labouring work. Of course, "relative" is a pretty important word when you are speaking of Chad and Niger. (A mate of mine did Red Cross work in Chad for a few years, mostly negotiating with bandits/warlords/respected local chiefs (pick your terminology) as to how much of each aid shipment they could steal in return for letting the rest through and not raiding the Red Cross compound again.)

The man made river project was hugely behind schedule. The official reasons included "unforeseen evaporation." Remember this is a project involving open canals in the fucking Sahara Desert. It was viewed by those I spoke with as a vanity project, make work scheme and trough for corrupt officials.

When I walked over the border into Tunisia, I went past vast queues of shitty old Peugeot pick ups. Apparently the deal was that you filled up in Libya with massively subsidised petrol, drove into Tunisia where you siphoned as much fuel out as you could without stranding yourself, sold the fuel, used the proceeds to buy consumer goods (blankets and cooking pots seemed popular), drove back to Libya pretending the goods were your personal items (I suspect money changed hands to help the border officials pretend as well) and sold them.

When basic consumer items need to be sourced through a corrupt black market, your country has problems.

Yes, this is all anecdote and not hard data, but as far as I could tell people were pretty unhappy about living under Gaddafi. I'm not saying that the current situation is justified, or an improvement, but let's not pretend Gaddafi's regime created some sort of utopia.

No, haven't been there. I've worked with a lot of Libyans in Turkey, however. There was a huge influx after NATO destroyed the country. Before we were overrun with Syrians, we had the Libyans! The prevalent theory seems to be Gaddafi was taken out because he had planned to introduce an African currency, with which to purchase oil and other resources, and this would have shifted the economic balance in the world. Incidentally, many have also linked the invasion of Iraq to Saddam Hussein's plans to negotiate oil sales in euros, not dollars...

Good piece on Clinton here:

Her views on the military and on a long history of events from the FBI Waco massacre (she advocated for aggressive FBI action to get the event out of the headlines) and the bombing of Belgrade (which she advocated privately to her husband) to the invasion of Iraq (which she supported as a Senator) and the death of Libya’s Gadhafi (there’s her infamous, “We came, we saw, he died. Ha, ha, ha,” quote as Secretary of State) to the employment of paid terrorists and poison gas in Syria (an operation she oversaw as Secretary of State), could provide a good working definition of a tyrant’s temperament.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/31/ ... as-legacy/

rowan wrote:No, haven't been there. I've worked with a lot of Libyans in Turkey, however. There was a huge influx after NATO destroyed the country. Before we were overrun with Syrians, we had the Libyans! The prevalent theory seems to be Gaddafi was taken out because he had planned to introduce an African currency, with which to purchase oil and other resources, and this would have shifted the economic balance in the world. Incidentally, many have also linked the invasion of Iraq to Saddam Hussein's plans to negotiate oil sales in euros, not dollars...

Good grief. An african currency that would challenge US economic control. Not in a million years would even a continental wide currency manage that. I don't think Washington was losing too much sleep over that particular threat. You also need to consider that the US was a very reluctant partner in the removal of Gadaffi.

Some nice conspiracy theories fro ma region that is rife with them. But equally the truth behind Gadaffis removal might simply have been that there was a humanitarian crisis unfolding and the UK and France intervened.

There's also the fact that the only African leader who thought Gaddafi's Libya should have a leading role in Africa was Gaddafi.

He had some great billboards depicting himself as the sun rising over Africa. Africa noticed, however, that it was very much second choice after the Arab world stopped paying Gaddafi any real attention.

Sure, there are always humanitarian crises in the world's most oil-rich nations which require NATO intervention. There are also many more crises in nations which are not rich in oil and NATO does not intervene in them. But as far as the African dinar goes, I was only repeating what my many Libyan acquaintances here had informed me of, and all of them are directly involved in the oil industry. Meanwhile, I do know that since WWII the US and NATO have been responsible for the bulk of the wars and suffering in this world with now approaching 100 foreign interventions, and that soon after 9/11 former US general Wesley Clark included Libya - along with Iraq & Syria - among a list of nations that America wanted to take out out:

Lizard wrote:There's also the fact that the only African leader who thought Gaddafi's Libya should have a leading role in Africa was Gaddafi.

He had some great billboards depicting himself as the sun rising over Africa. Africa noticed, however, that it was very much second choice after the Arab world stopped paying Gaddafi any real attention.

Indeed.To an extent, even the west didn't see him as much of anything, other than an opportunity to sell second hand stuff (thanks Tony Blair).

Who in hell are England and France to invade Libya anyway? That's racist Neo-Colonializm, pure and simple, from two of history's most warmongering nations. But the truth is they were simply doing their NATO master's bidding for them (as Turkey is doing in Syria now), because the USA had already lost so much credibility after the invasion of Iraq for oil. There was no reason to invade Iraq, there was no reason to invade Libya. There was, however, a need for foreign intervention during the genocide in Rwanda - but it never came.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:No, haven't been there. I've worked with a lot of Libyans in Turkey, however. There was a huge influx after NATO destroyed the country. Before we were overrun with Syrians, we had the Libyans! The prevalent theory seems to be Gaddafi was taken out because he had planned to introduce an African currency, with which to purchase oil and other resources, and this would have shifted the economic balance in the world. Incidentally, many have also linked the invasion of Iraq to Saddam Hussein's plans to negotiate oil sales in euros, not dollars...

Good grief. An african currency that would challenge US economic control. Not in a million years would even a continental wide currency manage that. I don't think Washington was losing too much sleep over that particular threat. You also need to consider that the US was a very reluctant partner in the removal of Gadaffi.

Some nice conspiracy theories fro ma region that is rife with them. But equally the truth behind Gadaffis removal might simply have been that there was a humanitarian crisis unfolding and the UK and France intervened.

It depends on how you define control. It potentially could have broken the oil cartels with surprising ease.

rowan wrote:Who in hell are England and France to invade Libya anyway? That's racist Neo-Colonializm, pure and simple, from two of history's most warmongering nations. But the truth is they were simply doing their NATO master's bidding for them (as Turkey is doing in Syria now), because the USA had already lost so much credibility after the invasion of Iraq for oil. There was no reason to invade Iraq, there was no reason to invade Libya. There was, however, a need for foreign intervention during the genocide in Rwanda - but it never came.

So intervention failed in Rwanda but you criticize the Libyan intervention? You do realize that the policy o western intervention came from Rwanda? You do recall the issues around Benghazi?