Libya

[cunt sauce]

FROM WIKI These are largely due to its large petroleum reserves and low population.[12][13] Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries.

2006 census 5,670,688

why dont you check your sources ? know it all

 

As a high school student I wasn't even allowed to use wikipedia when writing papers. Not a real credible source of information, but you could have at LEAST cited what wikipedia was using as a source:

 

Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (2009) (PDF). World Population Prospects, Table A.1. 2008 revision. United Nations. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/wpp2008_text_tables.pdf. Retrieved 2009-03-12.

[!@#$%]

^nice. i think a lot of people don't get the whole 'citing sources' thing [and not necessarily in here, just in general]

 

so, just a general response for anyone who reads it...

i read the BBC for a lot of my news. other outlets too, but that's probably the one i look to most often

i was checkin al-jazeera for info on the middle east developments

 

(just like i'd check the economist for financial analysis. it can depend on the type of story i want info on.. )

mostly non-american sources for non-american news.

 

and NPR usually, sometimes CNN, sometimes NBC, sometimes NYT, sometimes MoJo, once in awhile CSM for american news .

christof definitely hits the nail on the head when he suggest getting away from opinionists.

i'm sure i could learn a thing or two from some of the sources he suggests, as well as just getting to the raw, uninterpreted data.. as a scientist i can tell you, and you prolly already know, interpretation means everything.

 

i'll only watch clips of jon stewart on youtube as far as that's concerned. (and it's not news, it's humor)

 

i also read a lot of other stuff, non-fiction history books and national geographic. can be extremely informative when trying to understand social stuff, like culture and motivation

[Qawee]

CIA world factbook lists Libya population at 6,597,960

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ly.html

[!@#$%]

^yeah, world bank is close to that, 6,419,925

 

 

from BBC

 

#

2121: The American Security Project think-tank has grave doubts about the operation in Libya. Will it work? Can it be justified? Does the no-fly zone come too late? Executive director Dr Jim Ludes writes: "The neo-cons on the right (still!) and the progressive internationalists on the left dominate foreign policy in this country. They both see the use of American military power as the key to solving all the world's problems. But it's not ever that easy and we're just too financially strapped to tolerate that deceit any longer."

 

 

 

http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2011/libyan-misgivings/

[christo-f]

FROM WIKI These are largely due to its large petroleum reserves and low population.[12][13] Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries.

2006 census 5,670,688

why dont you check your sources ? know it all

 

Well, for a start 5.6 is a hell of a lot more than 4 million, so you just confirmed my point.

 

Second, as you can read below, the population is actually well above 6 million.

 

 

Don't waste your energy getting all upset when you're wrong about something. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

[JOEMACKSPAINTHXA]

Well, for a start 5.6 is a hell of a lot more than 4 million, so you just confirmed my point.

 

Second, as you can read below, the population is actually well above 6 million.

 

 

Don't waste your energy getting all upset when you're wrong about something. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

4 million 6 million whos gives a fuck?the point i was trying to make before you had to troll in on my post.it was about lybia's resources water and oil rich self reliant.we dont need to get involved and play god they pose no threat.if there was a place that poses a direct threat is mexico why don't we play god there instead of "getting involved in another conflict with another oil rich nation that poses no threat to us" btw nice post count get a life.going outside wont kill you.:D

[christo-f]

Yeah, facts, who gives a fuck about them when you're trying to make a point?!

[Qawee]

4 million 6 million whos gives a fuck?the point i was trying to make before you had to troll in on my post.it was about lybia's resources water and oil rich self reliant.we dont need to get involved and play god they pose no threat.if there was a place that poses a direct threat is mexico why don't we play god there instead of "getting involved in another conflict with another oil rich nation that poses no threat to us" btw nice post count get a life.going outside wont kill you.:D

 

[shai]

Hey Joe-

 

If you want to argue about politics with everyone and be wrong (which is cool) then act like they're the dick when really you're being the dick (not cool), here's some advice-

 

DON'T MAKE IT RIDICULOUSLY EASY FOR THEM TO FIND YOUR PHONE NUMBER, especially if it's a business line (as it appears to be).

[Zig]

the noble words are to frame it in a way acceptable to those that need to justify their actions to a domestic constituency (always good to keep in mind 'never take a politician's words at face value').

 

Usually when the truth comes out, if it ever does, people have either moved on, have had their attention diverted or are simply satisfied to say 'see, I told you so', but that's it. People are very motivated to talk about things but few are actually motivated enough to dedicate themselves to real, rational actions.

 

Sure, I know this. I don't think I need to explain to you that I already comprehend this, I would hope that you at least give me the benefit of the doubt, but what I'm trying to say is how come this is so easily dismissed by you personally. We have a nation that feeds off of this morality and consistently leads us into war based off of that morality, which is complete hypocrisy because here at home our very own citizens aren't even treated lawfully, with respect or decency and our universal rights are constantly trampled upon by our own government. We have a political system, which is now a globalist political system, that is basing it's power and right to invade and bomb other nations off of this moral stigma that from my point of view you don't seem to take very seriously. This is what the fools who actually do take a politicians word at face value feed into, and that is what allows those in power to do what they want for whatever the real underlying reasons are. The end result is a horrible detriment to society in general, yet this power structure constantly grows, constantly exerts its power and force onto the people of the world, and constantly continues on as if everything they do is for a just cause when it in fact is usually criminal, illegal, and immoral. That to you isn't personally concerning?

[christo-f]

Sure, I know this. I don't think I need to explain to you that I already comprehend this, I would hope that you at least give me the benefit of the doubt, but what I'm trying to say is how come this is so easily dismissed by you personally.

 

You should go back and look at the question you asked then as the way you worded it had nothing to do with my personal opinions. I answered your question faithfully.

 

We have a nation that feeds off of this morality and consistently leads us into war based off of that morality, which is complete hypocrisy because here at home our very own citizens aren't even treated lawfully, with respect or decency and our universal rights are constantly trampled upon by our own government. We have a political system, which is now a globalist political system, that is basing it's power and right to invade and bomb other nations off of this moral stigma that from my point of view you don't seem to take very seriously. This is what the fools who actually do take a politicians word at face value feed into, and that is what allows those in power to do what they want for whatever the real underlying reasons are. The end result is a horrible detriment to society in general, yet this power structure constantly grows, constantly exerts its power and force onto the people of the world, and constantly continues on as if everything they do is for a just cause when it in fact is usually criminal, illegal, and immoral. That to you isn't personally concerning?

 

My personal opinion is of no consequence so I keep it to myself.

 

 

Think of things this way; power is the ability to define rationality. That power then gives you the ability to define right and wrong as it is a social construct, not something that occurs naturally. The fall back position from this, if you lose the argument over right and wrong is physical force/coercion. Look back through history, this is the way it always plays out. So if this is the way of things, so far, why do you expect me to be shocked and dismayed now, 10,000 years on?

[Zig]

No, I don't expect you to be shocked and dismayed... what concerns me personally is that we live in a hypocritical society, where the global power structure of the world claims at face value that it is operating within the confines of law and justice, in the best interest of the people of the world to be free and secure. The actions of that same power structure though are an affront to those supposed principals. Is that not the case?

[christo-f]

Sure, that's one perspective on the matter.

[Zig]

Well, what other perspective is possibly even legitimate? It seems very convoluted to me, and I don't expect you to have answers to such complicated questions but I do respect your insight and appreciate your responses for the most part even if we disagree. We are increasingly to me living in a world that has so many double standards, where you see tyrants calling each other tyrants, rebels being called terrorists, enslavement being upheld as freedom, criminal behavior ignored in one situation but prosecuted in another based on the circumstances. This to me has always seemed like the world upside down, and I personally have gone through some situations in my own life that have seemed unfair and lopsided. Yet, we as a society collectively allow for this power structure to constantly string us along, just so long as they pretty up the rhetoric with that same morality that allows for them to carry out atrocity across the globe. It is the sole reasoning behind many people you speak with concerning todays political situations. There is always a justification, or a moral dilemma conversed within the political spectrum as to why it is necessary for us to commit such immoral behavior, such as war, and injustice, upon peoples of other nations or fellow citizens. It stems down to the very root of our justice system here in America, it extends out into the world through our foreign policy and our actions abroad. To me, I personally feel as if George W. Bush was better to have as a President, because at least our nation for the most part saw him for what he was, yet now today we have Barack Obama who at face value seems to be this good natured, moralistic individual, so the justification behind his actions is even more distorted. Do you think that at the higher levels of the power structures of the world, that these leaders and power holders actually believe in the rhetoric they spout or do you feel they are simply pushing forward military and corporate agendas, selling it to the people maliciously and knowing with full intent that it is a deception?

[shai]

One thing I've learned from Christo-f is to view political events as simply as possible. When you break things down to their most basic elements, morals and values are really just details.

[Uzzi 9mm]

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/

26:40min program under "monster makeover"

[christo-f]

Well, what other perspective is possibly even legitimate?

 

Legitimacy is a subjective concept. Others will argue that following the national interest is a more legitimate action to take for a president than allowing foreign policy to be bogged down in the partisan politics of Congress. I'm not saying that it is my argument, just that the argument exists. As per legitimacy, what the national interest is and the best way of protecting it is open to argument.

 

 

It seems very convoluted to me, and I don't expect you to have answers to such complicated questions but I do respect your insight and appreciate your responses for the most part even if we disagree. We are increasingly to me living in a world that has so many double standards, where you see tyrants calling each other tyrants, rebels being called terrorists, enslavement being upheld as freedom, criminal behavior ignored in one situation but prosecuted in another based on the circumstances.

 

I don't think this is increasing at all. This kind of political behaviour was certainly front and center during the Cold War (The Cold War is where the US really started supporting the tyrants as a standard forpol device en masse), look at the deal that Chamberlain made with Hitler before WWII and the people that suffered due to that. Shit, look at colonialism in and of itself if you want to see double standards and freedom fighters being called bandits, etc. We could go all the way back to the Crusades where the Turks were being framed as unholy, horned demons and other mythical type shit.

 

Have you honestly assessed whether your feeling that this 'political deception' is increasing is correlative with increasing exposure and interest in politics/social issues?

 

This to me has always seemed like the world upside down, and I personally have gone through some situations in my own life that have seemed unfair and lopsided. Yet, we as a society collectively allow for this power structure to constantly string us along, just so long as they pretty up the rhetoric with that same morality that allows for them to carry out atrocity across the globe. It is the sole reasoning behind many people you speak with concerning todays political situations. There is always a justification, or a moral dilemma conversed within the political spectrum as to why it is necessary for us to commit such immoral behavior, such as war, and injustice, upon peoples of other nations or fellow citizens. It stems down to the very root of our justice system here in America, it extends out into the world through our foreign policy and our actions abroad. To me, I personally feel as if George W. Bush was better to have as a President, because at least our nation for the most part saw him for what he was, yet now today we have Barack Obama who at face value seems to be this good natured, moralistic individual, so the justification behind his actions is even more distorted. Do you think that at the higher levels of the power structures of the world, that these leaders and power holders actually believe in the rhetoric they spout or do you feel they are simply pushing forward military and corporate agendas, selling it to the people maliciously and knowing with full intent that it is a deception?

 

I think many leaders do many different things for many different reasons. Some ideological, some selfish, some for what they see as national interest, some because they are drunk, some based on other people's decisions.

 

 

Have you noticed how it doesn't matter if it's Bush, who you think the nation saw for who he was, or Obama, who you think is deceptive, that is in power, the results are the same?

 

Look back through US history, can you see a time where it was any different?

[angelofdeath]

Why do you only offer other US outlets as alternatives?

 

As for where to find 'facts' I usually just sweep through a lot of stuff. I watch the wires like Reuters, AFP, AP, Kyodo, Yonhap, Xinhua, Dow Jones, DPA and so on. I check NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT and Bloomberg at least once a day. I also read regional stuff like Al Arabiya, Gulf News, Jakarta Post, Bangkok Post, Express Tribune, Dawn, Ria Novosti, Interfax, etc., when there is an issue that is localised. All that kind of stuff is for day to day issues, keeping

 

i think the issue you have with media pundits is the bias.

yet the new york times, war (whoops, wall) street journal, etc all have bias. associated press, reuters, etc... all are biased in some way even if its just the way they word things. simply changing someones 'house' to 'compound' in a story creates a much different picture in the readers head. 'islamic militant' etc are loaded terms.

 

but i think overall you are correct in that you consult many different news sources for the best information.

i dont think that because news is in paper format it makes it superior to tv, internet or radio news though.

 

some others mentioned 'non profit' radio sources as if these are not just as biased as fox. NPR is america's version of pravda. if the government funds something, it funds it because coincidentally whatever they are funding supports the regime. do we really think the government funds and subsidizes news that overall shows the government in a bad light? does it fund total state communists or anarcho capitalist rothbardian news outlets?

 

most news outlets, at least in america, support one thing, the state uber alles. the washington post, nyt, etc are essentially house organs of the federal government. im not saying some truth never comes out of these outlets, what i am saying is that there is no such thing as a non biased news source.

[toluene_causes_tumors]

It's the same old shit. America needs to stay out of the business of other nations, or at least have some consistent standard by which to take action. oh wait, there is a standard: the demand for oil.

[!@#$%]

^basically this. although it is a bit of an oversimplification by overlooking the socio-cultural war going on

 

but in a few decades, that won't matter anymore, probably none of this will matter, as our thirst for energy and power will be supplanted by the demand for clean water and dry land

 

 

............... now back to scheduled programming

as libya descends into civil war

[christo-f]

i think the issue you have with media pundits is the bias. ...., etc..

 

It's not only their bias but also their education in the matters they opine on. If I want some one's opinion I'm going to listen to some one with an education or experience in that particular matter. And yes, every living creature has a bias of some sort, that's impossible to escape.

 

Caveat on NYT, FT, WaPo, WSJ, etc. Yeah, biases there duly noted and to be honest I read WaPo and NYT for 'leaks' as that's where you get the big news Washington wants you to know without being responsible for it. Ft, WSJ, Economist, etc. I pretty much only read stuff on Chinese econ and east Asia stuff as they follow the regulatory environment quite closely. I also know a lot of these people that are based in Asia personally and see them pretty much every weekend in the bars so I get to talk to them directly, hear the editorial pressures they are under and so on. Helps me read between the lines a little better, I guess.

 

Only really meant to get away from the TV, not the net, radio and everything else other than pulp. The TV has some decent stuff (for Australia LateLine is about the best) but I find that you can find all that and more away from the TV, which I haven't watched in about 10 years now.

[!@#$%]

ok, srsly off topic..

 

since we've brought up TV a bit, i just have to mention, i've gotten educated by PBS' Frontline on quite a few matters, including the US financial implosion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

they seem to be brilliant at presenting a multitude of opinions on an issue as well. i also cannot recommend enough "the man who knew" about the US govt's repeated failure to act on intelligence warning of 9.11

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

 

..also just wanted to throw it out there, that while many right-wingers complain of the US 'liberal media bias' i don't see it even a little, in fact, the other way around. especially during Bush's tenure.. it was as though that was part of the campaign, to convince people there is some liberal bias so they'll run to.. faux news. as someone who leans so far left i wouldn't mind being called a socialist, i can assure you the mainstream US media has utterly failed me.

[christo-f]

Yeah, Australia has the ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, they are our public broadcaster. They have the only current affairs progs worth watching along with their nightly news.

 

Best part is, when the conservatives are in power they complain ABC is biased against them. When the liberals are in power they complain the ABC is biased against them. Lends them some credibility at least when they do have a bit of a left wing social agenda that's hard to miss.

 

 

 

I've seen some PBS docos that I've enjoyed in the past, mostly historical stuff. I tend to stay awa from political docos though as there is a great likelihood that it is only one step away from an opinion piece in many instances. PEople have to have an initial bias just to choose a story in the first place.

[Zig]

Legitimacy is a subjective concept. Others will argue that following the national interest is a more legitimate action to take for a president than allowing foreign policy to be bogged down in the partisan politics of Congress. I'm not saying that it is my argument, just that the argument exists. As per legitimacy, what the national interest is and the best way of protecting it is open to argument.

 

 

 

 

I don't think this is increasing at all. This kind of political behaviour was certainly front and center during the Cold War (The Cold War is where the US really started supporting the tyrants as a standard forpol device en masse), look at the deal that Chamberlain made with Hitler before WWII and the people that suffered due to that. Shit, look at colonialism in and of itself if you want to see double standards and freedom fighters being called bandits, etc. We could go all the way back to the Crusades where the Turks were being framed as unholy, horned demons and other mythical type shit.

 

Have you honestly assessed whether your feeling that this 'political deception' is increasing is correlative with increasing exposure and interest in politics/social issues?

 

 

 

I think many leaders do many different things for many different reasons. Some ideological, some selfish, some for what they see as national interest, some because they are drunk, some based on other people's decisions.

 

 

Have you noticed how it doesn't matter if it's Bush, who you think the nation saw for who he was, or Obama, who you think is deceptive, that is in power, the results are the same?

 

Look back through US history, can you see a time where it was any different?

 

I don't think there are many moments in any major government, empire, or imperial power's history where it was any different in regards to the way power holders, and authority in this world behaves. There were however, moments in history where leaps and bounds were made to bring about fair and decent treatment to humanity, bring freedom to peoples and nations, create more equality and establish a betterment for society. Shining moments in history that are taken for granted, often spoken about and worshiped in rhetoric and political speech, but in terms of political and authoritarian action is resented or simply ignored.

 

If morals and values are simply details within the larger context of war and strategy, then what is even the point of establishing nation's around such values as law and order, a constitution with checks & balances, justice and morality? How is it that we the people, meaning those of us who do not hold power, do not have authority in this world, can stand to sit around on our hands while those that do use these very same morals and values that are simply details to them to entice us into giving them the authority to break and disobey the very values they preach to us they are defending and attempting to spread throughout the world?

[RIPS]

not exactly the same story but ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir_Crisis

[PalestineForever!]

If the UN and US are so concerned about civilian lives, they should bomb israel and kill everyone in the israeli military cause they are killing so many innocent palestinina civilians it makes ghadafi look like an angel.

[christo-f]

They don't care, dude, nobody does, not even the Arabs.

 

 

Is that not obvious to you yet?!

[cunt sauce]

Hey Joe-

 

If you want to argue about politics with everyone and be wrong (which is cool) then act like they're the dick when really you're being the dick (not cool), here's some advice-

 

DON'T MAKE IT RIDICULOUSLY EASY FOR THEM TO FIND YOUR PHONE NUMBER, especially if it's a business line (as it appears to be).

 

if there was a place that poses a direct threat is mexico why don't we play god there instead of "getting involved in another conflict with another oil rich nation that poses no threat to us" btw nice post count get a life.going outside wont kill you.:D

 

Dude, we don't need to rule over Mexico with the sword, we already have them in the palm of our hands with our crippling economic policies: GATT, NAFTA, etc.... its called Neo-colonialism. Protected commodities for us, free markets for them. They pretty much just give their resources away!

 

:)

[cunt sauce]

Christo,

 

a little off topic, but have you heard anything on the subject that the US worked out a deal with the House of Saud back in the 60's guaranteeing that Saudi Arabia (the no. 1 oil exporter in the world) will always price their oil in USD, thus keeping our currency in use, and keeping our economy more stable, on the condition that we will always provide support for their regime?

 

If so, what's your take on that? I heard it in a lecture given by journalist, educator Richard Heinberg a year ago..

[RUNINE]

Dude, we don't need to rule over Mexico with the sword, we already have them in the palm of our hands with our crippling economic policies: GATT, NAFTA, etc.... its called Neo-colonialism. Protected commodities for us, free markets for them. They pretty much just give their resources away!

 

:)

 

and china and a couple other countries have the US by the balls with a 16+ trillion dollar debt. you need to thank god that thyere not sqeezing and think about paying shit off before you can think of ruleing a third world country with its economy. or at least get the debt transfered to a country that the US DIDNT try to overthrow it government and stop progression. Remember containment? chinas flown a communist flag with a socialist mask on and we owe them more than the US is worth.