• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Barack Obama Bombed the “Paris of Africa” into a Hell Hole of Murder, Slave Trade, Sex Trafficking and Mass Starvation

We did have involvement, but Gaddafi was not innocent. He was brutal dictator for decades. He was also a sponsor of terror (very limited but did happen) and he got bombed for it back in the 1980s.


Gaddafi hated Israel and supported terror attacks on them. He was a steaming pile of turds.

Be well.

The U.S. worked with him and many other dictators. That's why when the U.S. attacks it does so not to ensure "freedom and democracy" but to gain advantages over others. In this case, it was to stop Libya from forming an oil bourse. Similar happened with Iraq, which was selling oil on euros, and Iran also forming an oil bourse.

Meanwhile, other terrorists were formed stemming from radicals funded by the U.S., recruited by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, and trained by U.S. ally Pakistan.
 
He was also part of a pan-Arab nationalist movement that swept the region to counter Western imperialism. That's why his RCC was inspired by Nasser of Egypt, and that movement even included Saddam Hussein, who by the 1970s made Iraq one of the most modern secular states in that part of the world.

The problem is that although the U.S. supported Arab nationalism because it countered the Soviets, it also led to nationalization of oil industries, which threatened Western energy sources, especially when U.S. conventional production peaked after 1970.

That's why the U.S. routinely worked with "monsters" like clerico-fascist regimes in Saudi Arabia over the petrodollar scheme while keeping dictators like Saddam and the Shah of Iran propped up to maintain access to oil. In fact, it does that over money and various strategic advantages:


Finally, see also



The gist is that we're looking at multiple "monsters" attacking and working with each other, with some bigger than others.


The oil business in Iran and Iraq was developed under the British model.. Saudi Arabia was not.

Nationalization was written into the 1938 concession after 50 years.

In 1970 Gaddafi hired Abdullah Tariki and all but destroyed their oil business.
 
The U.S. worked with him and many other dictators. That's why when the U.S. attacks it does so not to ensure "freedom and democracy" but to gain advantages over others. In this case, it was to stop Libya from forming an oil bourse. Similar happened with Iraq, which was selling oil on euros, and Iran also forming an oil bourse.

Meanwhile, other terrorists were formed stemming from radicals funded by the U.S., recruited by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, and trained by U.S. ally Pakistan.

All that nonsense about the gold dinar and central banking in Libya was just rumor and ignorant speculation.

Al Qaeda was never a large group.. mostly recruited from Yemen and KSA for construction work in Afghanistan. They opposed the Soviets by building roads.
 
If any one thing should convince people that Hillary Clinton isn't fit to run a bath never mind a Country like America,it was her reaction on hearing of the lynching of Gaddafi,we came we saw he died,then she laughed like some crazed axe killer,disgusting Woman,those Islamists were also lynching black people,wonder what Obama thought about that? then to top it all they killed the US Ambassador who had been helping them.


You don't seem to know anything about ambassador Stevens or Benghazi.
 
You don't seem to know anything about ambassador Stevens or Benghazi.
I know the guy was attacked and sexually assaulted by the Islamist terrorists we supported to overthrow Libya,talk about blowback.
 
The oil business in Iran and Iraq was developed under the British model.. Saudi Arabia was not.

Nationalization was written into the 1938 concession after 50 years.

In 1970 Gaddafi hired Abdullah Tariki and all but destroyed their oil business.
Don't you mean destroyed foreign looting of the oil?
 
Ftji1E1XsAM_kgT
 
That nonsense just proves you lost the argument.

Just alerting the good folks in this neck of the DP woods about you.

You are a Russian agent. You support the war criminal V.V. Putin.

Anyone can verify this by visiting the Russia/Ukraine/Belarus forum here.
 
Obama's entire foreign policy record was nothing short of disaster. He continued the occupation of Iraq, stared a new war in Libya (and got a diplomat killed), and let Putin take over Crimea without consequence. And all of this after he won the Nobel Peace Prize (what a joke that award is).

The only thing he got right was killing Bin Laden, but that sort of fell into his lap.
Point of order: He got his peace prize before he did anything at all.

But yes, his foreign policy was cold shit on toast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Give it up you sound more silly by the day.

I've been here every day for a decade I'm going to be here for the duration. I've outlasted all the propagandists the Kremlin has sent here to DP.

This will be no different with you.
 
I've been here every day for a decade I'm going to be here for the duration. I've outlasted all the propagandists the Kremlin has sent here to DP.

This will be no different with you.
Looks like you didn't learn anything in that decade.
 
Looks like you didn't learn anything in that decade.
He didn't learn to parrot Russian propaganda? How awful.

Bad Rogue Valley! No Pravda!
 
<Stupid Lie Tweet Snipped>

That Tweet is a flat out lie.

But President Obama, as I said then, and still say now, did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and not just because he later proved to be a rampant War Monger, but because at the time he had received it he had done nothing for Peace in this World, and Lord knows he certainly did nothing afterwards, for Peace in this world.
 
<Stupid Lie Tweet Snipped>

That Tweet is a flat out lie.

But President Obama, as I said then, and still say now, did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, and not just because he later proved to be a rampant War Monger, but because at the time he had received it he had done nothing for Peace in this World, and Lord knows he certainly did nothing afterwards, for Peace in this world.

The tweet refers to The Guardian, a left-wing outlet which reported on the number of bombs dropped by the Drone King. If it's a lie, then what's the correct number of bombs dropped?
 

word-image-54098-1.gif

Why post nonesense?
 
The tweet refers to The Guardian, a left-wing outlet which reported on the number of bombs dropped by the Drone King. If it's a lie, then what's the correct number of bombs dropped?
I never said the LINKED Article in the Tweet was a lie, just the persons text in the Tweet is the lie.

Sorry for not being more clear before.
 
Back
Top Bottom