Football » English » Open Discussion

Gadaffi dead

By jamiescfc2010 - 20-10-2011 15:02

[World]

According to the NTC due to wounds as he was trying to flee. Good riddanceAccording to the NTC due to wounds as he was trying to flee. Good riddance

 

Page 1

 

Reply

Last Message

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 20-10-2011 17:32

[BVB]

Conclusion of sorts to another modern travesty of foreign interference. Great message to other figures less-than-friendly with the UN/US/etc: Open things up more, scale back your threats and weaponry, most particularly nuclear, and we'll either directly or indirectly reserve the right to depose you, with the end result quite possibly being your death. Are you watching Iran? North Korea? Excellent... It'll be intriguing to see whether the power vacuum ends up with just some other warlord type coming in, with manner like Gaddafi 10-20 years ago, or just a puppet for the foreign interests.Conclusion of sorts to another modern travesty of foreign interference. Great message to other figures less-than-friendly with the UN/US/etc: Open things up more, scale back your threats and weaponry, most particularly nuclear, and we'll either directly or indirectly reserve the right to depose you, with the end result quite possibly being your death. Are you watching Iran? North Korea? Excellent...

It'll be intriguing to see whether the power vacuum ends up with just some other warlord type coming in, with manner like Gaddafi 10-20 years ago, or just a puppet for the foreign interests.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By frankzappa - 20-10-2011 19:36

[KERNOW]
President

US/UN (but obviously it's really just the US) don't have the nuts to take on Iran, North Korea or anyone else that posses a tangible threat. The likes of Somalia, Sudan and Syria should be the ones on their guard.US/UN (but obviously it's really just the US) don't have the nuts to take on Iran, North Korea or anyone else that posses a tangible threat. The likes of Somalia, Sudan and Syria should be the ones on their guard.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 20-10-2011 19:44

[BVB]

Quite so, but neither did they take on Libya, with all sorts of provocative history, until Gaddafi started being more open and ended any potential nuclear threat (attack or retaliation). Arguably they have been instrumental in him being removed from power and ultimately murdered at a time when he's been the least threatening or dangerous towards the West in his whole 40+ years in power. I just think it says to the Iranian and North Korean regimes, "Don't be too friendly or this is what could happen". Indeed perhaps it says exactly the same thing to Somalia, Sudan, Syria and the like. If I were them, I'd feel very wary of being too open or friendly and wouldn't think twice about looking into building my own nuclear deterrent.Quite so, but neither did they take on Libya, with all sorts of provocative history, until Gaddafi started being more open and ended any potential nuclear threat (attack or retaliation). Arguably they have been instrumental in him being removed from power and ultimately murdered at a time when he's been the least threatening or dangerous towards the West in his whole 40+ years in power. I just think it says to the Iranian and North Korean regimes, "Don't be too friendly or this is what could happen". Indeed perhaps it says exactly the same thing to Somalia, Sudan, Syria and the like. If I were them, I'd feel very wary of being too open or friendly and wouldn't think twice about looking into building my own nuclear deterrent.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By frankzappa - 20-10-2011 19:50

[KERNOW]
President

Thats very true. It has not sent a good message at all.Thats very true. It has not sent a good message at all.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 20-10-2011 20:17

Are you watching?? I am. France and the UK had fighters over Libya in March. The UK were the first to have their troops officially on the ground, 5 months before the US sent 4 advisers. Interesting rewrite.Are you watching??
I am.
France and the UK had fighters over Libya in March. The UK were the first to have their troops officially on the ground, 5 months before the US sent 4 advisers. Interesting rewrite.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By frankzappa - 20-10-2011 21:05

[KERNOW]
President

We do what we're told. Ask Milgrim.We do what we're told. Ask Milgrim.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By heddo - 21-10-2011 01:56

apwall is right, french and uk formed the spearhead. hague was hellbent on his ousting, can anyone guess why ?apwall is right, french and uk formed the spearhead. hague was hellbent on his ousting, can anyone guess why ?

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 21-10-2011 02:13

I would hope that the majority opinion in the EU was such that a democratic government was preferable to a dictatorship, so that when Gadaffi's enemies rose inside his own nation, the EU was willing to help oust him. No offense to the liberation army, but I don't believe he's dead until I see the body.I would hope that the majority opinion in the EU was such that a democratic government was preferable to a dictatorship, so that when Gadaffi's enemies rose inside his own nation, the EU was willing to help oust him.

No offense to the liberation army, but I don't believe he's dead until I see the body.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By heddo - 21-10-2011 07:05

there is video footage of his capture,well mobile phone footage, they have also showed a picture of the body of one of his sons, and there was also video footage of his defence minister posted on al jazheeri ( pardon spelling ) , this footage has now been banned from the internet, after viewing the downfall of gaddaffi, i dont think i wanted to see it anyway..there is video footage of his capture,well mobile phone footage, they have also showed a picture of the body of one of his sons, and there was also video footage of his defence minister posted on al jazheeri ( pardon spelling ) , this footage has now been banned from the internet, after viewing the downfall of gaddaffi, i dont think i wanted to see it anyway..

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 21-10-2011 22:57

[BVB]

"I would hope that the majority opinion in the EU was such that a democratic government was preferable to a dictatorship" That is probably majority opinion but that doesn't mean it's right or that such system should be imposed on all countries. If in Country A, there is democratic choice between 3 candidates, all of whom are evil scum, and in Country B an individual sweeps to power, bans/exiles all potential opponents and then proves a good, wise and just leader... Neither system is, in itself, in practical application, better or worse than the other when it really comes to it. Those rejoicing about the mob-murder of Gaddafi should take a few minutes some time to look up the good things he did for his country and his people, at least see the black and white for the grey it actually is."I would hope that the majority opinion in the EU was such that a democratic government was preferable to a dictatorship"

That is probably majority opinion but that doesn't mean it's right or that such system should be imposed on all countries. If in Country A, there is democratic choice between 3 candidates, all of whom are evil scum, and in Country B an individual sweeps to power, bans/exiles all potential opponents and then proves a good, wise and just leader...

Neither system is, in itself, in practical application, better or worse than the other when it really comes to it.

Those rejoicing about the mob-murder of Gaddafi should take a few minutes some time to look up the good things he did for his country and his people, at least see the black and white for the grey it actually is.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By rivercampion - 22-10-2011 03:01

[MZUSA]

@kj I agree with some of your statements but ... ""If in Country A, there is democratic choice between 3 candidates, all of whom are evil scum, and in Country B an individual sweeps to power, bans/exiles all potential opponents and then proves a good, wise and just leader...""" Of course none of these apply to Gadhafi does it?. He has killed many of his own people, was ready to kill as many as necessary to remain in power and his people in spite of being just 6 million and being super rich in oil were living pretty bad as I undrstand... I agree he was at the moment least bothersome to the West... I also agree that the only key to all these is 'OIL' , that in this particular case was specially important to France and Italy since they are the major importers. Oil from Libya is not critical for USA ...a very minor %. Nevertheless in principle I agree with the anti-imperialistic view , the Empire still being USA (at least for a few more yrs) and I'm opposed to the 'police of the word' attitude , even though did not put soldiers in the ground this time around it directed the scenography and plot. Now...it is truly repugnant to hear and read what is happening for instance at the moment in Syria, where many have been massacre. But is a much bigger fish to fry and there will not be intervention by the West. There is a real army there . And of course the biggest fish is Iran. The danger is if the true hawks take over once again the US administration, the republican candidates are 'all' a joke and they are easily manipulated (those that have a chance) ...Many already when Bush was in power were ready to bomb Iran...like the right of Israel was ready to take out the nuclear facilities... If that happens there will be 'real' trouble. North Korea? is just killing his own people just by not feeding them... really sad that this people don't have any chance since the military power is so overwhelming... I wish real revolution could and would take care of business in deposing their own butchers...and ending up like Ghadafi...or like Mubarak in Egypt. What comes after that? ...who knows...These are experiments that takes decades to settle down . I prefer that the experiment is initiated from within not from outside...@kj

I agree with some of your statements but ...
""If in Country A, there is democratic choice between 3 candidates, all of whom are evil scum, and in Country B an individual sweeps to power, bans/exiles all potential opponents and then proves a good, wise and just leader..."""

Of course none of these apply to Gadhafi does it?. He has killed many of his own people, was ready to kill as many as necessary to remain in power and his people in spite of being just 6 million and being super rich in oil were living pretty bad as I undrstand... I agree he was at the moment least bothersome to the West...
I also agree that the only key to all these is 'OIL' , that in this particular case was specially important to France and Italy since they are the major importers. Oil from Libya is not critical for USA ...a very minor %.

Nevertheless in principle I agree with the anti-imperialistic view , the Empire still being USA (at least for a few more yrs) and I'm opposed to the 'police of the word' attitude , even though did not put soldiers in the ground this time around it directed the scenography and plot.

Now...it is truly repugnant to hear and read what is happening for instance at the moment in Syria, where many have been massacre. But is a much bigger fish to fry and there will not be intervention by the West. There is a real army there . And of course the biggest fish is Iran.

The danger is if the true hawks take over once again the US administration, the republican candidates are 'all' a joke and they are easily manipulated (those that have a chance) ...Many already when Bush was in power were ready to bomb Iran...like the right of Israel was ready to take out the nuclear facilities... If that happens there will be 'real' trouble.

North Korea? is just killing his own people just by not feeding them... really sad that this people don't have any chance since the military power is so overwhelming...

I wish real revolution could and would take care of business in deposing their own butchers...and ending up like Ghadafi...or like Mubarak in Egypt.
What comes after that? ...who knows...These are experiments that takes decades to settle down . I prefer that the experiment is initiated from within not from outside...

Re: Gadaffi dead

By jamiescfc2010 - 22-10-2011 09:55

[World]

This looks like becoming an interesting international legal conundrum. Apart from any considerations of Gaddafi's crimes there seems to be some thin lines drawn in warfare about the deaths of significant people who are engaged in it. Air attacks were undertaken in Iraq in an attempt to kill Obama and this approach lead to his eventual demise. We set up unsuccessful operations during WW2 to assassinate Hitler and these have been represented in film. Senior Nazis were killed by the resistance movements and there were no reparations on the killers (although some did die when they were captured by the Germans). However, the most important problem in Libya now will be trying to get the NTC supporters to give up their arms. When a population has been allowed legitimately to carry arms it is very difficult, not only to get them to hand them over, but it is also difficult to get them to come out the ‘killing mode’. There will be more deaths to come in this ‘peace’ situation and it will be naïve to believe that some of the people will settle for an end to hostilities. They are too close in time to their ‘tribal’ history and action not words is the prime response.This looks like becoming an interesting international legal conundrum.

Apart from any considerations of Gaddafi's crimes there seems to be some thin lines drawn in warfare about the deaths of significant people who are engaged in it.

Air attacks were undertaken in Iraq in an attempt to kill Obama and this approach lead to his eventual demise.

We set up unsuccessful operations during WW2 to assassinate Hitler and these have been represented in film.

Senior Nazis were killed by the resistance movements and there were no reparations on the killers (although some did die when they were captured by the Germans).

However, the most important problem in Libya now will be trying to get the NTC supporters to give up their arms. When a population has been allowed legitimately to carry arms it is very difficult, not only to get them to hand them over, but it is also difficult to get them to come out the ‘killing mode’.

There will be more deaths to come in this ‘peace’ situation and it will be naïve to believe that some of the people will settle for an end to hostilities. They are too close in time to their ‘tribal’ history and action not words is the prime response.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 22-10-2011 20:53

[BVB]

You might also consider no-one elected the NTC. They're going to be drafting a new constitution. Elections, wonderful democratic elections, are penciled in to take place "by June 2012". So an unelected regime arbitrarily drafting a new constitution, holding power for at least 8 months? A wonderful democratic move. @river, I don't say Gaddafi fits that criteria as "good, wise and just", certainly not, I doubt anyone in history could be said, beyond any doubt, to have done so. That was just to illustrate my view on the principal of each system. Gaddafi, I see it as more a question of people have bought into this idea it was a black-and-white situation. Gaddafi attempted to suppress rebellion and threat to his power by more subtle means, it failed, he reverted to more brutal methods. But we're talking about a different culture, perhaps we could risk offence by saying a different stage on the path to democracy, if we assume proper democracy is the ultimate goal of developed and civilized society. It's not difficult, in just about any country, to find examples in history where a ruler has inflicted great harm and death upon his/her own people in order to maintain power. The period of time in which England/Britain has practiced proper democracy (of sorts), where voting wasn't restricted to this or that highly-selective demographic, is a fraction of the history of settlement, population and rule here. A blip compared to the hundreds of years where the question of who would rule, certainly maintenance of rule, was often a question of who would most successful deal with rebellion, by whatever means. The tribal culture in other countries, surviving into modern times, still calls for it to basically be the strongest who achieves and maintains power. It is a "system" generally alien to those who consider they live in civilized, developed countries, but that doesn't mean either that it's wrong or, even if it were wrong, that they have any imperative or right to interfere with it or change it.You might also consider no-one elected the NTC. They're going to be drafting a new constitution. Elections, wonderful democratic elections, are penciled in to take place "by June 2012". So an unelected regime arbitrarily drafting a new constitution, holding power for at least 8 months? A wonderful democratic move.

@river, I don't say Gaddafi fits that criteria as "good, wise and just", certainly not, I doubt anyone in history could be said, beyond any doubt, to have done so. That was just to illustrate my view on the principal of each system. Gaddafi, I see it as more a question of people have bought into this idea it was a black-and-white situation. Gaddafi attempted to suppress rebellion and threat to his power by more subtle means, it failed, he reverted to more brutal methods. But we're talking about a different culture, perhaps we could risk offence by saying a different stage on the path to democracy, if we assume proper democracy is the ultimate goal of developed and civilized society. It's not difficult, in just about any country, to find examples in history where a ruler has inflicted great harm and death upon his/her own people in order to maintain power. The period of time in which England/Britain has practiced proper democracy (of sorts), where voting wasn't restricted to this or that highly-selective demographic, is a fraction of the history of settlement, population and rule here. A blip compared to the hundreds of years where the question of who would rule, certainly maintenance of rule, was often a question of who would most successful deal with rebellion, by whatever means.

The tribal culture in other countries, surviving into modern times, still calls for it to basically be the strongest who achieves and maintains power. It is a "system" generally alien to those who consider they live in civilized, developed countries, but that doesn't mean either that it's wrong or, even if it were wrong, that they have any imperative or right to interfere with it or change it.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By rivercampion - 22-10-2011 22:10

[MZUSA]

@kj I guess I understand your point of view 'let history follow its course' . Unfortunately we this ...lets say contemporary anachronism (?) , is real is not just an abstraction we can see it on tv and read about as it happens . The question is whether a 'moral' obligation for contemporary so called XXI century society does exist or not? Do we all look the other way , close our eyes? Do we also do the same when in the horn of Africa kids are dying of hunger? After all is the course of history...they are simply two centuries behind...even though you will find cel phones in Sudan and HDTVs .. I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be done , I don't have it clear myself tbh. And of course I'm not even referring to interference due to geopolitical, financial interests , etc.. But the reality is that we cannot leave that out of the equation anymore like in the XIII century, that of course in Europe didn't know what was going on in America , that of course only until 1492. The Aztecs, Mayans were doing pretty good...in spite that we may don't agree much with the human sacrifices...But the Spaniards arrived to save them! :-)@kj

I guess I understand your point of view 'let history follow its course' . Unfortunately we this ...lets say contemporary anachronism (?) , is real is not just an abstraction we can see it on tv and read about as it happens .

The question is whether a 'moral' obligation for contemporary so called XXI century society does exist or not? Do we all look the other way , close our eyes?

Do we also do the same when in the horn of Africa kids are dying of hunger?
After all is the course of history...they are simply two centuries behind...even though you will find cel phones in Sudan and HDTVs ..

I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be done , I don't have it clear myself tbh.

And of course I'm not even referring to interference due to geopolitical, financial interests , etc.. But the reality is that we cannot leave that out of the equation anymore like in the XIII century, that of course in Europe didn't know what was going on in America , that of course only until 1492. The Aztecs, Mayans were doing pretty good...in spite that we may don't agree much with the human sacrifices...But the Spaniards arrived to save them! :-)

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 22-10-2011 22:54

[BVB]

The moral aspect, citation of that by the authorities in justifying their interference is of course destroyed when you look at other situations you rightly mentioned; Syria is probably the most obvious. A blind eye has been turned to full-on genocides in a number of African countries where the "moral incentive", to save people from being murdered or harmed in whatever other ways, was much stronger. I don't aim to paint Gaddafi as a good guy, just to try to show some why it's more grey than they think. Under Gaddafi, a number of positive things were introduced and maintained, things all-but inconceivable in Britain... For example: Household electricity and water supplies are/were free. Fuel was very cheap and cars were sold at cost. Banks did not charge interest on loans. Public pays no taxes or VAT, Any and every student who wishes to study outside Libya would receive significant payment help (not loans even!) for accommodation and tuition fees. Post-graduates receive a wage from the government until they find a job. Upon marriage, a couple would be gifted housing or a fairly large area of land on which to live. Every family in Libya received around 300 euros per month, gratis! So yeah jamie, "Gaddafi's dead. Good riddance"? To me just buys into the Western propaganda... I do re-state, I'm not attempting to paint Gaddafi as good. I wouldn't agree with him presented as "Good guy" in a black-and-white light any more or less than "Bad guy", rather that the actual grey be recognized. @river, I'm always conscious when I start to think about natural paths playing out that we've already irreversibly interfered just about everywhere ;) ...The tools and technology that enabled Gaddafi to achieve and maintain power was itself a result of foreign "interference" of a sort. Natural progress and development was corrupted. I suppose it's hard to make a case that any people or culture has been permitted self-contained natural progress, pretty much all see major changes at some point where they were conquered/skewed one way or another, perhaps by invasion/occupation or something more subtle such as introduction and dominance of a different religion. It is a big old maze. I suppose as I said, and like you alluded to mentioning other countries where oppressive/brutal regimes operate unchecked, the issue of taking a "World Police" or "Global Moral Army" stance, is when it's applied selectively. It has to be, really, because of the logistics, cost and political aspect to trying to be, even if coming from pure motive. But that the choices of when to interfere and how far to interfere conspicuously tend to coincide with areas rich in natural resources of one type or another. I'm not saying anything you don't know there of course :)The moral aspect, citation of that by the authorities in justifying their interference is of course destroyed when you look at other situations you rightly mentioned; Syria is probably the most obvious. A blind eye has been turned to full-on genocides in a number of African countries where the "moral incentive", to save people from being murdered or harmed in whatever other ways, was much stronger.

I don't aim to paint Gaddafi as a good guy, just to try to show some why it's more grey than they think. Under Gaddafi, a number of positive things were introduced and maintained, things all-but inconceivable in Britain... For example:
Household electricity and water supplies are/were free.
Fuel was very cheap and cars were sold at cost.
Banks did not charge interest on loans.
Public pays no taxes or VAT,
Any and every student who wishes to study outside Libya would receive significant payment help (not loans even!) for accommodation and tuition fees.
Post-graduates receive a wage from the government until they find a job. Upon marriage, a couple would be gifted housing or a fairly large area of land on which to live.
Every family in Libya received around 300 euros per month, gratis!

So yeah jamie, "Gaddafi's dead. Good riddance"? To me just buys into the Western propaganda...


I do re-state, I'm not attempting to paint Gaddafi as good. I wouldn't agree with him presented as "Good guy" in a black-and-white light any more or less than "Bad guy", rather that the actual grey be recognized.


@river, I'm always conscious when I start to think about natural paths playing out that we've already irreversibly interfered just about everywhere ;) ...The tools and technology that enabled Gaddafi to achieve and maintain power was itself a result of foreign "interference" of a sort. Natural progress and development was corrupted. I suppose it's hard to make a case that any people or culture has been permitted self-contained natural progress, pretty much all see major changes at some point where they were conquered/skewed one way or another, perhaps by invasion/occupation or something more subtle such as introduction and dominance of a different religion. It is a big old maze.

I suppose as I said, and like you alluded to mentioning other countries where oppressive/brutal regimes operate unchecked, the issue of taking a "World Police" or "Global Moral Army" stance, is when it's applied selectively. It has to be, really, because of the logistics, cost and political aspect to trying to be, even if coming from pure motive. But that the choices of when to interfere and how far to interfere conspicuously tend to coincide with areas rich in natural resources of one type or another. I'm not saying anything you don't know there of course :)

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 22-10-2011 22:57

[BVB]

Basically, the better aspect of Gaddafi's rule was that the oil-wealth was shared. Of course he profited personally, hugely, and his family, but he wasn't so much of a despot as to not share that wealth to a point. I'll be intrigued to see how far those kinds of policies apply when the NTC present the new constitution...Basically, the better aspect of Gaddafi's rule was that the oil-wealth was shared. Of course he profited personally, hugely, and his family, but he wasn't so much of a despot as to not share that wealth to a point. I'll be intrigued to see how far those kinds of policies apply when the NTC present the new constitution...

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 23-10-2011 05:33

@river: I like to think that Poverty, in and of itself, is not shameful, and does not make the value of a man or his life. There is nothing morally wrong with being poor. The idea that because people are being denied a walmart shopping center, then they must be in dire straights and are being beaten and mistreated, is not a moral argument I choose to engage in. There are people missing meals daily in the US. Many of them have missed meals for years now. As jaime pointed out, if the best of the worst is the best in the eyes of the locals, it may be best to stay out. However, it doesn't appear that such classical liberal ideals make much headway in the last few years. The US, and NATO and EU and the general English speaking public, including myself sometimes, seem to quite easily get on the fix-it-all at any price bandwagon in these recent years. This case is a bit more difficult, as those who were leading the fighting were local, whether there was outside encouragement or otherwise. "natural paths" - I think it is a mistake to believe that there is inherently no place for challenges to systems or ideas. I think it must be a shallow system or belief that would change lightly with no gain to those practitioners. Now, at this point, there may be some right question about the number of practitioners at gain, (for instance despots...or it may be wrong and despotism or oligarchy is just as useful) and there may be discussion about "lightly" (including total war or genocide), but I don't think it is right to isolate any civilization and call it ideal and untouchable (and we could argue "gain" until we are blue in the face, but I personally think that's the "path" that offers the most comfortable "pursuit of happiness" to the individual). I think that to inherently hold a "path" as "pure" and "correct" is disservice to history and human ingenuity, as well as a serious danger to the survival and comfort of humanity going forward. As Darwin said, "it is not the strongest that survive, but that which is most capable of adapting." or something like that... Yea, I think the world just got a little bit more boring, and a lot more dangerous for Libyans. I would hope that there is some sort of trial for the youngman who executed this unarmed and captive man. Even if he is exonerated and given a medal by the court.@river: I like to think that Poverty, in and of itself, is not shameful, and does not make the value of a man or his life. There is nothing morally wrong with being poor. The idea that because people are being denied a walmart shopping center, then they must be in dire straights and are being beaten and mistreated, is not a moral argument I choose to engage in. There are people missing meals daily in the US. Many of them have missed meals for years now.

As jaime pointed out, if the best of the worst is the best in the eyes of the locals, it may be best to stay out. However, it doesn't appear that such classical liberal ideals make much headway in the last few years. The US, and NATO and EU and the general English speaking public, including myself sometimes, seem to quite easily get on the fix-it-all at any price bandwagon in these recent years.

This case is a bit more difficult, as those who were leading the fighting were local, whether there was outside encouragement or otherwise.

"natural paths" - I think it is a mistake to believe that there is inherently no place for challenges to systems or ideas. I think it must be a shallow system or belief that would change lightly with no gain to those practitioners. Now, at this point, there may be some right question about the number of practitioners at gain, (for instance despots...or it may be wrong and despotism or oligarchy is just as useful) and there may be discussion about "lightly" (including total war or genocide), but I don't think it is right to isolate any civilization and call it ideal and untouchable (and we could argue "gain" until we are blue in the face, but I personally think that's the "path" that offers the most comfortable "pursuit of happiness" to the individual).

I think that to inherently hold a "path" as "pure" and "correct" is disservice to history and human ingenuity, as well as a serious danger to the survival and comfort of humanity going forward. As Darwin said, "it is not the strongest that survive, but that which is most capable of adapting." or something like that...

Yea, I think the world just got a little bit more boring, and a lot more dangerous for Libyans.

I would hope that there is some sort of trial for the youngman who executed this unarmed and captive man. Even if he is exonerated and given a medal by the court.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By heddo - 23-10-2011 06:56

the more democracy and democratic countries there are, then the more the non democratic countries become exposed and alienated and maybe frowned upon, if seeking total democracy does not destroy us, then having total democracy will, what else will we have to fight over, maybe the right to have non democracy back, but then after all does not having democracy indeed give us the right to fight, it is just so odd that we were ready to pounce on gaddaffi and yet in the meantime the exact same things that ignited the flame are happening in syria, this for me requires some explanation..the more democracy and democratic countries there are, then the more the non democratic countries become exposed and alienated and maybe frowned upon, if seeking total democracy does not destroy us, then having total democracy will, what else will we have to fight over, maybe the right to have non democracy back, but then after all does not having democracy indeed give us the right to fight, it is just so odd that we were ready to pounce on gaddaffi and yet in the meantime the exact same things that ignited the flame are happening in syria, this for me requires some explanation..

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 24-10-2011 06:30

i would guess that it has something to do with leadership and direct connections to outside assistance. there was, from the outset, a clear leadership of a number of prominent and long established officials who took up the rebellion leadership. you can call it cronyism, but dealing with people you know tends to be a preferred choice, even or perhaps especially, at the governmental level. all politics is local as they say.i would guess that it has something to do with leadership and direct connections to outside assistance.

there was, from the outset, a clear leadership of a number of prominent and long established officials who took up the rebellion leadership. you can call it cronyism, but dealing with people you know tends to be a preferred choice, even or perhaps especially, at the governmental level. all politics is local as they say.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By rivercampion - 26-10-2011 04:12

[MZUSA]

heddo said "if seeking total democracy does not destroy us, then having total democracy will" No democracy is not the problem... The problem is pseudo-democracy. The problem is the 'dark side' of capitalism...This dark side ends up controlling everything...no I'm not a conspiracy theorist . Everything becomes a house of cards. Unrestrained corporativism will destroy us. Unrestrained greed, exerted by corporations and plutocrats, will destroy the world if we continue on this path. They are the ones that control the puppets. We think we live in democracies, but our vote doesn't count much if anything at all, if those who we vote for have already sold their soul 'willingly or not' to special interest and greed e.g. Wall Street, multinational coporations etc. I'm not against capitalism , I'm against the deformed monster it has become because greed is the only game in town. Nor I'm against Corporations per se or thinking that they are intrinsically evil...no Corporations exist to produce some good but overall to make profits their bottom line is to make more and more profits...so they go. Corporations should exists to make society better and not the other way around. They fight anything that threatens their bottom line i.e. profit and more profit...Environmental or Labor Regulations attempt against the bottom line so regulations should be eliminated..and so on. Just take a look at what is going on right now in the US...The Supreme court has sanctioned in a famous case called 'Citizens united' that Corporations are individuals and have the same rights as individuals, as such they can divert as much money as they want via simple mechanisms to deeply pervert the democratic system...They decide who will be the choices , they will put up an down the puppets.... The plutocrats decided 'no more taxes' we are not making enough money...so they will be sure who makes it to power is on their side at all cost... They don't give shit about poor or hunger or environment or anything , they just care about the bottom line...profit... This is destroying not just democracies but the world , because our choices are worthless ... Sorry I went on this off topic rant.heddo said

"if seeking total democracy does not destroy us, then having total democracy will"

No democracy is not the problem... The problem is pseudo-democracy. The problem is the 'dark side' of capitalism...This dark side ends up controlling everything...no I'm not a conspiracy theorist . Everything becomes a house of cards.

Unrestrained corporativism will destroy us. Unrestrained greed, exerted by corporations and plutocrats, will destroy the world if we continue on this path.
They are the ones that control the puppets.

We think we live in democracies, but our vote doesn't count much if anything at all, if those who we vote for have already sold their soul 'willingly or not' to special interest and greed e.g. Wall Street, multinational coporations etc.

I'm not against capitalism , I'm against the deformed monster it has become because greed is the only game in town. Nor I'm against Corporations per se or thinking that they are intrinsically evil...no Corporations exist to produce some good but overall to make profits their bottom line is to make more and more profits...so they go. Corporations should exists to make society better and not the other way around. They fight anything that threatens their bottom line i.e. profit and more profit...Environmental or Labor Regulations attempt against the bottom line so regulations should be eliminated..and so on.

Just take a look at what is going on right now in the US...The Supreme court has sanctioned in a famous case called 'Citizens united' that Corporations are individuals and have the same rights as individuals, as such they can divert as much money as they want via simple mechanisms to deeply pervert the democratic system...They decide who will be the choices , they will put up an down the puppets....
The plutocrats decided 'no more taxes' we are not making enough money...so they will be sure who makes it to power is on their side at all cost...
They don't give shit about poor or hunger or environment or anything , they just care about the bottom line...profit...

This is destroying not just democracies but the world , because our choices are worthless ...

Sorry I went on this off topic rant.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 26-10-2011 04:55

Few creatures on the planet shrink, unless dead. Most living creatures grow, or at least sustain size, unless dying. This is not a new concept, nor is it required to that you only see Corporations in this light. Any agency(ability), for any creature, will always be protected in some fashion, before willingly abandoned. Also, if you hate corporations controlling your life, the best thing you can do is learn how to live without them. Until you can do this, you have little hope of effecting anything but your own impoverishment and likely starvation. This last was, if I may say, exactly what the Russians should have taught us after destroying their farmer rebellions. If you don't know how to do something for yourself, yet you will not allow another to do this for you for whatever reason, you will mostly likely lack that thing. As for conspiracy theorist, Adam Smith was. I laugh to imagine what popular press would try say of such things... "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public..."Few creatures on the planet shrink, unless dead. Most living creatures grow, or at least sustain size, unless dying. This is not a new concept, nor is it required to that you only see Corporations in this light. Any agency(ability), for any creature, will always be protected in some fashion, before willingly abandoned.

Also, if you hate corporations controlling your life, the best thing you can do is learn how to live without them. Until you can do this, you have little hope of effecting anything but your own impoverishment and likely starvation.

This last was, if I may say, exactly what the Russians should have taught us after destroying their farmer rebellions. If you don't know how to do something for yourself, yet you will not allow another to do this for you for whatever reason, you will mostly likely lack that thing.

As for conspiracy theorist, Adam Smith was. I laugh to imagine what popular press would try say of such things... "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public..."

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 26-10-2011 04:58

[BVB]

Democracy the way we operate it is a fairly pointless charade, recognition of which is why voter turnout is usually pretty poor I'd say. When selecting from the list of candidates, we have to ask ourselves how these people came to be the candidates. To reach that position, how many favours agreed, deals made, promises given, how much money accepted, given or exchanged? I frankly don't think it's possible to become a candidate for a position of any real importance in politics unless they've already tainted whatever pure (good) intentions they may've started out with. (Needless to say I'd anyway consider the ones who seek powerful political positions out of pure-good intentions a distinct fraction of a minority). Now if we live in a country where that becomes fairly clear as the norm, where the machinations of practical democracy mean no-one with straightforward "benevolent desire to do good for the people" actually even gets to become a candidate for the people to vote on, and that machine is basically omnipotent, it's inarguable that the only way a benevolent leader may achieve power is by other means. A coup, perhaps, through which they arbitrarily become figurehead for the nation. The classical "benevolent dictator" if you will. Now as for capitalism, it isn't necessarily an inherently bad system. None of the classical financial/social philosophy systems are fundamentally. The precise way they're implemented/enforced is where problems can arise. I think the countries which can say they've implemented and maintained a system of capitalism that's proven sustainable, stable and fair, in the long-term are few and far between. Off the top of my head I can only think of Germany! For most others the reality has manifested as or become vast gulfs between the rich and the poor, poverty, recession and extraordinary levels of national debt. Why is rampant, unchecked, under-regulated capitalism allowed to persist? Because as river notes it's a simple question of who it serves. Of course it serves the richest and most powerful to have the minimal constraints on their chances of harvesting more money and power. Do they want to see people in positions to change or increase those constraints? Of course not. Is it likely they therefore do the maximum, overt and covert, to minimize the chances of anyone unwelcome achieving such positions? Certainly. And there we come back to why democracy, in many countries, is ultimately something of a charade, a merry illusion many officially rejoice at having access to but which many also don't bother participating in, and which ultimately doesn't make much difference. In Britain of course even less so these days, with the lines between Left and Right in the main parties more blurred than ever so even the broadest strokes of policy aren't really that far apart. /vacate soapboxDemocracy the way we operate it is a fairly pointless charade, recognition of which is why voter turnout is usually pretty poor I'd say. When selecting from the list of candidates, we have to ask ourselves how these people came to be the candidates. To reach that position, how many favours agreed, deals made, promises given, how much money accepted, given or exchanged? I frankly don't think it's possible to become a candidate for a position of any real importance in politics unless they've already tainted whatever pure (good) intentions they may've started out with. (Needless to say I'd anyway consider the ones who seek powerful political positions out of pure-good intentions a distinct fraction of a minority).

Now if we live in a country where that becomes fairly clear as the norm, where the machinations of practical democracy mean no-one with straightforward "benevolent desire to do good for the people" actually even gets to become a candidate for the people to vote on, and that machine is basically omnipotent, it's inarguable that the only way a benevolent leader may achieve power is by other means. A coup, perhaps, through which they arbitrarily become figurehead for the nation. The classical "benevolent dictator" if you will.

Now as for capitalism, it isn't necessarily an inherently bad system. None of the classical financial/social philosophy systems are fundamentally. The precise way they're implemented/enforced is where problems can arise. I think the countries which can say they've implemented and maintained a system of capitalism that's proven sustainable, stable and fair, in the long-term are few and far between. Off the top of my head I can only think of Germany! For most others the reality has manifested as or become vast gulfs between the rich and the poor, poverty, recession and extraordinary levels of national debt.

Why is rampant, unchecked, under-regulated capitalism allowed to persist? Because as river notes it's a simple question of who it serves. Of course it serves the richest and most powerful to have the minimal constraints on their chances of harvesting more money and power. Do they want to see people in positions to change or increase those constraints? Of course not. Is it likely they therefore do the maximum, overt and covert, to minimize the chances of anyone unwelcome achieving such positions? Certainly. And there we come back to why democracy, in many countries, is ultimately something of a charade, a merry illusion many officially rejoice at having access to but which many also don't bother participating in, and which ultimately doesn't make much difference. In Britain of course even less so these days, with the lines between Left and Right in the main parties more blurred than ever so even the broadest strokes of policy aren't really that far apart.

/vacate soapbox

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 26-10-2011 16:59

Ahh, but aren't the richest simply those who maneuver to such status in the society we allow? I would question the sustainability of the wealth of Germany, with such external military support during the cold-war. Further, I believe that this show of wealth is temporary artifice from the banking establishments, as they conduct extraction of wealth. Having kept a gold standard until the EU, GE was not as previously entangled in mortgages, loans, and inflation, and thus has/had plenty of room for these. Influx of "cash" creates "opportunity". It is, in street terms, the freebie dose, to get the future user hooked.Ahh, but aren't the richest simply those who maneuver to such status in the society we allow?

I would question the sustainability of the wealth of Germany, with such external military support during the cold-war. Further, I believe that this show of wealth is temporary artifice from the banking establishments, as they conduct extraction of wealth. Having kept a gold standard until the EU, GE was not as previously entangled in mortgages, loans, and inflation, and thus has/had plenty of room for these. Influx of "cash" creates "opportunity".

It is, in street terms, the freebie dose, to get the future user hooked.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By rivercampion - 26-10-2011 17:56

[MZUSA]

(...climbing to soapbox...) As for your comment apwall... 'learn to live w/out them'... ?? . How ? not driving your car? no buying a computer or basically having this exchange thanks to what some corporation generated? , not turning the lights on? Getting to an island (swimming must I add) and live there from coconuts? We are talking XXI century ! we are not talking about utopia are we. There are mechanisms that could keep greed and corporations under some restrain and still making profit. Maybe I misinterpreted your comment. A disclosure on my part appears pertinent. All my retirement and probably yours too, depends on corportations doing well . They have destroy the pensions systems, and it is not possible to save money any other way , other than under your mattress. All our retirement is precisely under the control of Wall Street....yes , those people that play with numbers that make billions in minutes and produce nothing (at least Corporations produce goods) ...those people that pay themselves millions and millions of $ in bonuses even if their companies are not doing good...yes we, and I mean almost everybody that works in the USA and has a retirement or 401 K account, is in the hands of these people ...for good. Of course the less fortunate than me , not even have that ...they only have Social Security (and Medicare) , the only true socialist mechanisms to help the more disadvantage to (barely) make it in the later part of their lives... Interestingly 'they' also want to privatize that as well...the last standing bastion of fairness....they want to destroy Social security and medicare and give it to whom? .....yes ....to Wall street... That is why I say is simply a house of cards... I think that in that sense in the UK, Canada and other countries they are better off or at least have a safer security net than here. Too bad Ruper Murdoch appears not to be an MZ user...I perceive this exchange of opinions has become too one sided ;-) next?(...climbing to soapbox...)

As for your comment apwall... 'learn to live w/out them'... ?? . How ? not driving your car? no buying a computer or basically having this exchange thanks to what some corporation generated? , not turning the lights on? Getting to an island (swimming must I add) and live there from coconuts? We are talking XXI century ! we are not talking about utopia are we.
There are mechanisms that could keep greed and corporations under some restrain and still making profit.
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment.

A disclosure on my part appears pertinent. All my retirement and probably yours too, depends on corportations doing well .

They have destroy the pensions systems, and it is not possible to save money any other way , other than under your mattress. All our retirement is precisely under the control of Wall Street....yes , those people that play with numbers that make billions in minutes and produce nothing (at least Corporations produce goods)
...those people that pay themselves millions and millions of $ in bonuses even if their companies are not doing good...yes we, and I mean almost everybody that works in the USA and has a retirement or 401 K account, is in the hands of these people ...for good.

Of course the less fortunate than me , not even have that ...they only have Social Security (and Medicare) , the only true socialist mechanisms to help the more disadvantage to (barely) make it in the later part of their lives...

Interestingly 'they' also want to privatize that as well...the last standing bastion of fairness....they want to destroy Social security and medicare and give it to whom? .....yes ....to Wall street...

That is why I say is simply a house of cards...

I think that in that sense in the UK, Canada and other countries they are better off or at least have a safer security net than here.

Too bad Ruper Murdoch appears not to be an MZ user...I perceive this exchange of opinions has become too one sided ;-)

next?

Re: Gadaffi dead

By heddo - 26-10-2011 19:23

learn to live without them ,as apwall says, i agree with river, is very difficult, green issues, such as not owning a car and taking / choosing alternative transport, will not give you a jump ahead in any job application, nor will being single against being married, only when you have found your self in some self made or provided comfort zone, can you allow your self to take such a stance of living indepandantly away from the big machine, but as in my particular case, there is a good bet that you will be, and will have been heavily reliant, as river points out, on the big machine to have placed you there in the first place, and also to keep you there, with investments, pension plans, if you are saying that you can learn to live without, from an early stage, then i can only see a scene of blatant sacrifice, leading to deprived and impoverished circumstance, if your happy sitting in a tent outside st pauls then fine, but the winter has nt set in yet, and also what long term strategy do you have, and who is providing the soup kitchen, for me , if you place yourself in a hole, then you stay in a hole, until you decide to get out of it, and the longer you stay in the hole, the less point there is of you getting out of it, most hippies from the 60 s are probably shirt and tied corporative employees/ employers now, it will pass, at least democracy allows the protest to be now delivered to address via mass signature. with capitalism and democracy , maybe the theories are right, but the practices are abused and overstretched, but at least now folk can see who the culprits are, its not the machine but those mainly involved in its mechanisms, and i can see the full viability in any protest aimed at them..learn to live without them ,as apwall says, i agree with river, is very difficult, green issues, such as not owning a car and taking / choosing alternative transport, will not give you a jump ahead in any job application, nor will being single against being married, only when you have found your self in some self made or provided comfort zone, can you allow your self to take such a stance of living indepandantly away from the big machine, but as in my particular case, there is a good bet that you will be, and will have been heavily reliant, as river points out, on the big machine to have placed you there in the first place, and also to keep you there, with investments, pension plans, if you are saying that you can learn to live without, from an early stage, then i can only see a scene of blatant sacrifice, leading to deprived and impoverished circumstance, if your happy sitting in a tent outside st pauls then fine, but the winter has nt set in yet, and also what long term strategy do you have, and who is providing the soup kitchen, for me , if you place yourself in a hole, then you stay in a hole, until you decide to get out of it, and the longer you stay in the hole, the less point there is of you getting out of it, most hippies from the 60 s are probably shirt and tied corporative employees/ employers now, it will pass, at least democracy allows the protest to be now delivered to address via mass signature. with capitalism and democracy , maybe the theories are right, but the practices are abused and overstretched, but at least now folk can see who the culprits are, its not the machine but those mainly involved in its mechanisms, and i can see the full viability in any protest aimed at them..

Re: Gadaffi dead

By nikolazpsadmin - 26-10-2011 19:50

[ATG]
President

Are politics allowed to be discussed in MZ Forums? I am surprised that not only is this thread not closed yet, but also admins take part in this :SAre politics allowed to be discussed in MZ Forums? I am surprised that not only is this thread not closed yet, but also admins take part in this :S

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 26-10-2011 20:49

[BVB]

Is anyone upset or offended? Doesn't seem so. Perhaps we are being given a bit of leeway, benefit of the doubt. Glad you stopped by though, nice contribution.Is anyone upset or offended? Doesn't seem so. Perhaps we are being given a bit of leeway, benefit of the doubt. Glad you stopped by though, nice contribution.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By lavezzi177 - 26-10-2011 21:12

this picture sums up everything http://i44.tinypic.com/14j95it.jpg Missing the dish of UKthis picture sums up everything

http://i44.tinypic.com/14j95it.jpg

Missing the dish of UK

Re: Gadaffi dead

By kingjaime - 26-10-2011 21:56

[BVB]

I don't think it does, it's lazy. Corporations and certain influential figures will benefit from the travesty that took place, not nations.I don't think it does, it's lazy. Corporations and certain influential figures will benefit from the travesty that took place, not nations.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 26-10-2011 22:49

"...I buy a car to get to work, so I can afford a car. I buy a prebuilt house, on loan, so I don't have to build it myself and I can have it RIGHT NOW. I then plant grass seed for a yard, then go to work so I can get money to buy food from a grocery store to eat while I cook on my grill in my recently mowed yard. After work I go workout in my gym, so that when I get out of the tanning booth, I look especially sexy when walking from my car, across my yard, into my house, where I spend my time watching only the best programing on cable..." I didn't tell you you had to live as a Luddite, nor did I suggest you shouldn't engage in trade. I said you have to be able to survive. You have no foundation for authority at all if you cannot get your basics. If you cannot supply your own NEEDS you will always remain dependent. You are, in such case, essentially a child. Now for those of you in the UK who may never own land, I cannot help you. For those in the US who can, you have little excuse. I can find you acres of land for a few thousand dollars. I can find you enough to start living off of for a few hundred. You may have to live where most people wouldn't, but if you really want to avoid the "machine," it is not entirely impossible. You will never avoid society entirely on this planet, and the government will have it's toll, but you don't have to spend your days tied to corporations you hate. Further, it is your own responsibility to first remove yourself as much as possible before you claim undue entanglement. Claiming that a neighbor's dog continues to bite you every time you enter your neighbors back yard, which you repeatedly do every day, is only your mistake. When you stop going into that backyard, and that dog comes over and bites you, that is called love. Ok, no really, THEN it is the neighbor's responsibility and your argument of undue influence may be understood as relevant."...I buy a car to get to work, so I can afford a car. I buy a prebuilt house, on loan, so I don't have to build it myself and I can have it RIGHT NOW. I then plant grass seed for a yard, then go to work so I can get money to buy food from a grocery store to eat while I cook on my grill in my recently mowed yard. After work I go workout in my gym, so that when I get out of the tanning booth, I look especially sexy when walking from my car, across my yard, into my house, where I spend my time watching only the best programing on cable..."

I didn't tell you you had to live as a Luddite, nor did I suggest you shouldn't engage in trade. I said you have to be able to survive.

You have no foundation for authority at all if you cannot get your basics. If you cannot supply your own NEEDS you will always remain dependent. You are, in such case, essentially a child.

Now for those of you in the UK who may never own land, I cannot help you. For those in the US who can, you have little excuse. I can find you acres of land for a few thousand dollars. I can find you enough to start living off of for a few hundred. You may have to live where most people wouldn't, but if you really want to avoid the "machine," it is not entirely impossible. You will never avoid society entirely on this planet, and the government will have it's toll, but you don't have to spend your days tied to corporations you hate.

Further, it is your own responsibility to first remove yourself as much as possible before you claim undue entanglement. Claiming that a neighbor's dog continues to bite you every time you enter your neighbors back yard, which you repeatedly do every day, is only your mistake. When you stop going into that backyard, and that dog comes over and bites you, that is called love. Ok, no really, THEN it is the neighbor's responsibility and your argument of undue influence may be understood as relevant.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By rivercampion - 27-10-2011 02:50

[MZUSA]

@apwall... Did you read the excerpt I wrote above about Wall Street ..and retirement? do you have a big enough mattress :) ...If you are going to leave from the fruits of your land depending on where you live it maybe a zone soon be devastated by droughts or floods ....so not that simple isn't it... BTW1: I live in Austin, TX , I have lived here for 27 yrs I never saw the droughts we saw this year...I never lived a hotter summer The place I work was almost wiped out by raging wildfires...(But climate change is a topic for a different thread ...sorry..) BTW2: The expressed hatred for greed, corporations and 'the machine' is not just what they do to 'me' personally... is what they are doing to the so called current democracies and the world in general... I respectfully disagree with you , it is indeed impossible to be ascetic to the machine...When you buy gas...you are tied to the 'machine'...when you buy a light bulb...you are feeding the machine... The issue is not to 'kill the machine' the issue is to make the machine work for society and not the other way around. The issue is not to have 'your land' , and your farm and plant your own tomatoes. The issue is to keep the machine under reasonable restrain and control...let them have their profits , let them grow if they want but don't let them 'control the destiny of the world'.... A true 'democracy' or an 'ideal' democracy a common sense democracy by the people and for the people should be able to do that...(reasons why not extensively discussed above...)@apwall...

Did you read the excerpt I wrote above about Wall Street ..and retirement? do you have a big enough mattress :) ...If you are going to leave from the fruits of your land depending on where you live it maybe a zone soon be devastated by droughts or floods ....so not that simple isn't it...

BTW1: I live in Austin, TX , I have lived here for 27 yrs I never saw the droughts we saw this year...I never lived a hotter summer The place I work was almost wiped out by raging wildfires...(But climate change is a topic for a different thread ...sorry..)

BTW2: The expressed hatred for greed, corporations and 'the machine' is not just what they do to 'me' personally... is what they are doing to the so called current democracies and the world in general...

I respectfully disagree with you , it is indeed impossible to be ascetic to the machine...When you buy gas...you are tied to the 'machine'...when you buy a light bulb...you are feeding the machine...

The issue is not to 'kill the machine' the issue is to make the machine work for society and not the other way around. The issue is not to have 'your land' , and your farm and plant your own tomatoes. The issue is to keep the machine under reasonable restrain and control...let them have their profits , let them grow if they want but don't let them 'control the destiny of the world'....

A true 'democracy' or an 'ideal' democracy a common sense democracy by the people and for the people should be able to do that...(reasons why not extensively discussed above...)

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 27-10-2011 06:53

Death is inevitable, be it at 30 or at 79, it is one mighty, unifying force. The dream that one should stop working simply because one is old, and not due to health issues, is a very recent dream, and the fashion in which you have proposed your security under such a lifestyle is questionable, but I will explain that in a bit. Further, humanity had a solution to this problem of old age for thousands of years. For instance, we just took them old people way out into the woods, pissed off a bear or a wolf-pack, then kicked 'em in the knee and ran.... I will repeat the idea, in case it was missed. If one destroys their food supply, perhaps by incidentally so angering those who normally sell them food, without ability to get their own food, they will likely die much sooner than some other people. In such cases, retirement savings are a comedic joke. Additionally, by not utilizing the system that is so hated, one must inevitably impact the system. A sort of dual purpose endeavor. Further, in regards to where my money should go, I don't believe in gambling, or depending on gamblers to care for my future. You can, and that is fine, but I will warn you, gamblers have a bad reputation for a reason. Should I have the occasion to work for you, you can pay me what you would have placed in retirement stocks into salary instead, thank you. Some in the US are complaining about their long term situation, such as retirement, their home mortgages, and their children's future. Problem is, one has no way of affecting the future without being able to ACT in the immediate. Again, if one incidentally abandons or destroys that which feeds one, with no backup, they are pretty much guaranteed to die before they get to see that long term they are worried about. I don't care what your cause is, if you are my neighbor and you are going to impoverish or possibly kill yourself, it is my place, I believe, to at least warn you in advance and offer you an alternative. One's personal choice of living space is generally one's personal choice in this nation. Not to be cold to your droughts, but I see no reason to accommodate such argument as valid cause for not attempting personal responsibility for needs. One can validate the existence of any number of inhibiting factors, but this does not equate to allowance for surrender, or at least I would like to think it shouldn't. I sometimes find it amazing, listening to my neighbors talk, that mankind lived at all in the times before the 20th Century. As though the ability to survive is completely dependent on the latest technological widget, or the 300 energy slaves in a barrel of oil. Genghis Khan conquered Asia because he needed to pay the note on his condo. Edison built his light-bulb on the first try. Moses led his people out of Egypt with promises of $9.99 all-you-can-eat steak and shrimp buffet's in the Sinai. Homer wrote the Iliad to impress his friends on Facebook. Never-the-less, I again never said one had to be a Luddite, nor that one could not trade. I said one must be able to care for their basic NEEDS, or attempts, to alter those systems that feed and wipe the collective buns, will only impoverish, and eventually starve, themselves. Question for you river. Did you graduate from high-school on your first day of 1st grade? Of course not, you learned in a process. Did I tell you to walk away from your neighbors, abandon the english language for a new "riverine", and relearn how to make the wheel? I have some basic necessities. They are, water, food, and shelter, not necessarily always in that order. If I depend on someone else to get me these, and I dislike how they offer these services, why would I attempt to stop them from getting me these at their leisure, without first having another source? Why would I even bother to complain,as though there would be a sensible alteration in my status, for my good? One's dreams are always lovely, but if a biker in LA ignores the reality of a bus bearing down on him in the road, under a dream of riding in the tour-de-france, one is highly unlikely to see Paris. Is the dream the system? Is the system responsible for the dream? Or perhaps is the dream flexible enough to see completion under any system? As to your words about altering the course of the machine, I think the proper euphemism for this analogy is a retooling and refitting of the machine for a different assembly purpose. Don't gotta be a "new" schematic, but it really should be different than current output goal. Unfortunately, government is what you do when you act in your abilities, whatever those are, and not at all the paperwork that gives abilities and authorities to individuals. A CEO of GM has a greater ability to impact than myself, and hence his "government" will have greater impact into controlling the future, whether I like it or not. To allow corporations to grow without restraint, as you suggest, is for me to inevitably be completely out of control, unless I become them. There is no democracy (will of people) of any value in such case.Death is inevitable, be it at 30 or at 79, it is one mighty, unifying force. The dream that one should stop working simply because one is old, and not due to health issues, is a very recent dream, and the fashion in which you have proposed your security under such a lifestyle is questionable, but I will explain that in a bit. Further, humanity had a solution to this problem of old age for thousands of years. For instance, we just took them old people way out into the woods, pissed off a bear or a wolf-pack, then kicked 'em in the knee and ran....

I will repeat the idea, in case it was missed. If one destroys their food supply, perhaps by incidentally so angering those who normally sell them food, without ability to get their own food, they will likely die much sooner than some other people. In such cases, retirement savings are a comedic joke. Additionally, by not utilizing the system that is so hated, one must inevitably impact the system. A sort of dual purpose endeavor.

Further, in regards to where my money should go, I don't believe in gambling, or depending on gamblers to care for my future. You can, and that is fine, but I will warn you, gamblers have a bad reputation for a reason. Should I have the occasion to work for you, you can pay me what you would have placed in retirement stocks into salary instead, thank you.

Some in the US are complaining about their long term situation, such as retirement, their home mortgages, and their children's future. Problem is, one has no way of affecting the future without being able to ACT in the immediate. Again, if one incidentally abandons or destroys that which feeds one, with no backup, they are pretty much guaranteed to die before they get to see that long term they are worried about. I don't care what your cause is, if you are my neighbor and you are going to impoverish or possibly kill yourself, it is my place, I believe, to at least warn you in advance and offer you an alternative.

One's personal choice of living space is generally one's personal choice in this nation. Not to be cold to your droughts, but I see no reason to accommodate such argument as valid cause for not attempting personal responsibility for needs. One can validate the existence of any number of inhibiting factors, but this does not equate to allowance for surrender, or at least I would like to think it shouldn't.

I sometimes find it amazing, listening to my neighbors talk, that mankind lived at all in the times before the 20th Century. As though the ability to survive is completely dependent on the latest technological widget, or the 300 energy slaves in a barrel of oil.

Genghis Khan conquered Asia because he needed to pay the note on his condo. Edison built his light-bulb on the first try. Moses led his people out of Egypt with promises of $9.99 all-you-can-eat steak and shrimp buffet's in the Sinai. Homer wrote the Iliad to impress his friends on Facebook.

Never-the-less, I again never said one had to be a Luddite, nor that one could not trade. I said one must be able to care for their basic NEEDS, or attempts, to alter those systems that feed and wipe the collective buns, will only impoverish, and eventually starve, themselves.

Question for you river. Did you graduate from high-school on your first day of 1st grade? Of course not, you learned in a process. Did I tell you to walk away from your neighbors, abandon the english language for a new "riverine", and relearn how to make the wheel?

I have some basic necessities. They are, water, food, and shelter, not necessarily always in that order. If I depend on someone else to get me these, and I dislike how they offer these services, why would I attempt to stop them from getting me these at their leisure, without first having another source? Why would I even bother to complain,as though there would be a sensible alteration in my status, for my good?

One's dreams are always lovely, but if a biker in LA ignores the reality of a bus bearing down on him in the road, under a dream of riding in the tour-de-france, one is highly unlikely to see Paris. Is the dream the system? Is the system responsible for the dream? Or perhaps is the dream flexible enough to see completion under any system?

As to your words about altering the course of the machine, I think the proper euphemism for this analogy is a retooling and refitting of the machine for a different assembly purpose. Don't gotta be a "new" schematic, but it really should be different than current output goal.

Unfortunately, government is what you do when you act in your abilities, whatever those are, and not at all the paperwork that gives abilities and authorities to individuals. A CEO of GM has a greater ability to impact than myself, and hence his "government" will have greater impact into controlling the future, whether I like it or not. To allow corporations to grow without restraint, as you suggest, is for me to inevitably be completely out of control, unless I become them. There is no democracy (will of people) of any value in such case.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By rivercampion - 28-10-2011 02:39

[MZUSA]

@apwall , I never said "To allow corporations to grow without restraint, as you suggest, is for me to inevitably be completely out of control, unless I become them.".... all the way around...I want the corporations to be restrained , I clearly said the corporations should be at the service of society and not all the way around...(lost in translation?) It sounds to me like I'm talking esperanto and you some other language that I don't know. Sometimes is hard for me to follow your metaphors or figurative speech... sorry. I'm not sure if we are saying extremely different things... Just in case all I posses , I earned, with my tears, sweat and blood...working and studying since a was a young kid....I work in something that I have passion for too... I don't expect nor I want any handout by anybody ...I have no anxiety about my future or that of that my family they are and will be protected regarding, food, shelter and water. I have anxiety about the future of the word, for the future of democracy , the real democracy that is being destroyed by what we have said above... And yes 'the machine' should be restrain, or retool if you wish@apwall ,

I never said "To allow corporations to grow without restraint, as you suggest, is for me to inevitably be completely out of control, unless I become them."....

all the way around...I want the corporations to be restrained , I clearly said the corporations should be at the service of society and not all the way around...(lost in translation?)

It sounds to me like I'm talking esperanto and you some other language that I don't know. Sometimes is hard for me to follow your metaphors or figurative speech... sorry.

I'm not sure if we are saying extremely different things...

Just in case all I posses , I earned, with my tears, sweat and blood...working and studying since a was a young kid....I work in something that I have passion for too...
I don't expect nor I want any handout by anybody ...I have no anxiety about my future or that of that my family they are and will be protected regarding, food, shelter and water.

I have anxiety about the future of the word, for the future of democracy , the real democracy that is being destroyed by what we have said above...

And yes 'the machine' should be restrain, or retool if you wish

Re: Gadaffi dead

By apwall21 - 28-10-2011 07:45

Apologies if I misread "let them grow if they want but don't let them 'control the destiny of the world'...." as, "allow corporations to grow without restraint, " and you intended something else. The point yet remains, even if you did not desire to make such a point. :) "I have no anxiety about my future or that of that my family they are and will be protected regarding, food, shelter and water." Do you agree that this is when you can begin to work for yourself? If you are reliant on a "house-of-cards" system to provide those services for you, one must be terrified of any stiff breeze, and thus will likely tread overly lightly. Without the threat of serious hardship keeping you in wait, you can walk proudly, without fear of the effect of your steps. Having those basics allows you the foundation of freedom to walk away and attention your focus elsewhere than on that system. To open the windows or turn on a fan if needed. Besides, it can never hurt to have a skill you can build on, no matter what the rest of the world is doing. It may be illegal to burn down a warehouse full of chinese imports, but nobody has made a law yet saying you have to buy from that warehouse. If we are buying these things, isn't that our own choice of actions? Don't misunderstand what I have been, or am saying. I don't want anyone to be forced to give up needs, nor do I have any suggestion toward actions where your, or anyone else's needs are threatened. I would hope I would never say such things lightly, and since I have no clear solution, nor even clear view of the problem to solve, in my purview, I think it would be absolutely needless and essentially criminal to suggest such a step... However, when we have talk about changing a system involving large amounts of capital, one which essentially provides the needs for millions, I cannot eliminate the possibility that such an outcome is one of many extreme possibilities. When examining the field in front of me, I could see such a problem being very real, very easily, for millions. Clearly, in such a situation, it behooves all involved to take more than a cursory glance toward the basics for themselves, (perhaps especially those making calls to help those they are ostentatiously assisting) with these calls for alteration. What would happen to your neighbors if something, possibly terrible, happened and the supermarket had no food? How comedic would it be if that something were self-inflicted? What can be done? Again, please read this twice: I feel it is important for me to at least warn those who feel they are being, or may actually be, harmed by their own actions, of how they may be able to gain a basic leverage against some possible dangers, when in action. Especially I think of leverage involving those basic needs, without which will bring a quick, but painful end, to any suffering, self-inflicted or otherwise, holy and righteous and well guided or otherwise...Apologies if I misread "let them grow if they want but don't let them 'control the destiny of the world'...." as, "allow corporations to grow without restraint, " and you intended something else. The point yet remains, even if you did not desire to make such a point. :)

"I have no anxiety about my future or that of that my family they are and will be protected regarding, food, shelter and water."
Do you agree that this is when you can begin to work for yourself? If you are reliant on a "house-of-cards" system to provide those services for you, one must be terrified of any stiff breeze, and thus will likely tread overly lightly. Without the threat of serious hardship keeping you in wait, you can walk proudly, without fear of the effect of your steps.

Having those basics allows you the foundation of freedom to walk away and attention your focus elsewhere than on that system. To open the windows or turn on a fan if needed. Besides, it can never hurt to have a skill you can build on, no matter what the rest of the world is doing.

It may be illegal to burn down a warehouse full of chinese imports, but nobody has made a law yet saying you have to buy from that warehouse. If we are buying these things, isn't that our own choice of actions?

Don't misunderstand what I have been, or am saying. I don't want anyone to be forced to give up needs, nor do I have any suggestion toward actions where your, or anyone else's needs are threatened. I would hope I would never say such things lightly, and since I have no clear solution, nor even clear view of the problem to solve, in my purview, I think it would be absolutely needless and essentially criminal to suggest such a step...

However, when we have talk about changing a system involving large amounts of capital, one which essentially provides the needs for millions, I cannot eliminate the possibility that such an outcome is one of many extreme possibilities. When examining the field in front of me, I could see such a problem being very real, very easily, for millions. Clearly, in such a situation, it behooves all involved to take more than a cursory glance toward the basics for themselves, (perhaps especially those making calls to help those they are ostentatiously assisting) with these calls for alteration.

What would happen to your neighbors if something, possibly terrible, happened and the supermarket had no food? How comedic would it be if that something were self-inflicted? What can be done?

Again, please read this twice: I feel it is important for me to at least warn those who feel they are being, or may actually be, harmed by their own actions, of how they may be able to gain a basic leverage against some possible dangers, when in action. Especially I think of leverage involving those basic needs, without which will bring a quick, but painful end, to any suffering, self-inflicted or otherwise, holy and righteous and well guided or otherwise...

Re: Gadaffi dead

By tenebralis - 05-11-2011 13:25

[XA-FED]

Khaddafi is not dead... He lives in a Manhattan penthouse with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden...Khaddafi is not dead... He lives in a Manhattan penthouse with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden...

Re: Gadaffi dead

By emirates06 - 05-11-2011 22:37

Conspiracies. Gaddafi and Saddam are definitely dead, no doubt.Conspiracies. Gaddafi and Saddam are definitely dead, no doubt.

Re: Gadaffi dead

By tenebralis - 06-11-2011 13:20

[XA-FED]

You are familiar with the rhetorical device, literary technique known as "Irony" right?You are familiar with the rhetorical device, literary technique known as "Irony" right?

 

Page 1