How the US Government & It’s Allies Created a Slave State

[Ponca Dan]

There is now a literal slave market in Libya. Done in the name of liberty mind you.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/27/libya-chose-freedom-now-it-has-slavery/

 

[CowboyJD]

Interestingly enough the free market in slaves only came about after Gaddahfi’s repressive regime State was ousted by the masses with influence and assistance of the US, England, France, etc and became essentially a lawless, stateless area,

Which should give an idealistic anarchist some pause and food for thought about the natural state of man free from any imposition of a state.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

@Ponca Dan I'd sure like to hear your response to that. Not a good look for anarchy.

 

[Ponca Dan]

@Ponca Dan I'd sure like to hear your response to that. Not a good look for anarchy.

Not a good look for anarchy? What anarchy? A repressive regime was toppled and what ensued was a mad power struggle by competing organizations desperate to take over the reins of the existing government. Each one willing to do whatever it takes to grab ultimate power. Not exactly the definition of an anarchic society, eh?

I’ll be happy to discuss anarchism on another thread, but I really don’t want this one to get hijacked. The topic of this thread is how American foreign policy, led by rapacious Neocons, and backed by America’s sycophantic NATO allies have been responsible for laying waste to an entire population. What are your thoughts about that topic?

 

[CowboyJD]

It’s the very definition of anarchy by Merriam Webster:

a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

• the city's descent into anarchy

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

American foreign policy removed the authoritarian government in place run by Gaddafi and left a complete an utter absence of government in it’s place.

I.e. removal of Gaddafi led to a state of anarchy. Which led to the slave trade.

 

[CowboyJD]

In other words...staying completely on topic...NATO actions led to a state of anarchy (textbook definition), which did not develop into a utopian idealistic state of anarchy.

We should ask ourselves why didn’t it?

At some point...and for the most part even today....there is no government in Libya...there is no authority in Libya...there is no actual state of Libya....and there is a slave trade free market in Libya instead of a utopian anarchism where everybody avoids violating everyone eles’s natural rights to freedom and self determination.

This is a real world test of your theories.

 

[Ponca Dan]

It’s the very definition of anarchy by Merrimack Webster:

a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

• the city's descent into anarchy

c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

American foreign policy removed the authoritarian government in place run by Gaddafi and left a complete an utter absence of government in it’s place.

I.e. removal of Gaddafi led to a state of anarchy. Which led to the slave trade.

We’ll just have to disagree on this. Warring factions competing for rule, attempting to take over all the infrastructure and agencies previously run with an iron fist by the existing government I would call chaos, not a society living in an absence of government. One section of the city is ruled by one faction, another section ruled by a different faction, and on down the line, with each faction fighting to overtake the others and assume complete control I would call a plethora of government, certainly not the absence of same. Now that’s the last I’m going to talk about this on this thread. If you want to pursue this subject start a fresh thread and we can discuss.

In the meantime the US Government’s foreign policy, dominated by bloodthirsty Neocons are busy sewing the seeds sure to eventually lead to all out global war. That’s what this thread is meant to discuss.

 

[Alpha Poke]

This was a Hillary Clinton rodeo. Where are you getting neocon?

 

[CowboyJD]

We’ll just have to disagree on this. Warring factions competing for rule, attempting to take over all the infrastructure and agencies previously run with an iron fist by the existing government I would call chaos, not a society living in an absence of government. One section of the city is ruled by one faction, another section ruled by a different faction, and on down the line, with each faction fighting to overtake the others and assume complete control I would call a plethora of government, certainly not the absence of same. Now that’s the last I’m going to talk about this on this thread. If you want to pursue this subject start a fresh thread and we can discuss.

In the meantime the US Government’s foreign policy, dominated by bloodthirsty Neocons are busy sewing the seeds sure to eventually lead to all out global war. That’s what this thread is meant to discuss.

I’ll pursue whatever topic I want, thanks. You similarly can talk on it or not at your discretion.

This discussion is directly on point.

I understand why you want to define anarchy only in utopian idealistic terms, but the fact is Libya is presently in an anarchic state of being by any definition other than your utopian idealistic one. That state of being was generated by NATO action and with no government, you get the slave trade that is going on.

 

[Ponca Dan]

This was a Hillary Clinton rodeo. Where are you getting neocon?

Read the article.

 

[davidallen]

In other words...staying completely on topic...NATO actions led to a state of anarchy (textbook definition), which did not develop into a utopian idealistic state of anarchy.

We should ask ourselves why didn’t it?

At some point...and for the most part even today....there is no government in Libya...there is no authority in Libya...there is no actual state of Libya....and there is a slave trade free market in Libya instead of a utopian anarchism where everybody avoids violating everyone eles’s natural rights to freedom and self determination.

This is a real world test of your theories.

A second example @Ponca Dan might be the tribal areas of Pakhistan and Afghanistan. Any thoughts on how well things have worked out there?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Not a good look for anarchy? What anarchy? A repressive regime was toppled and what ensued was a mad power struggle by competing organizations desperate to take over the reins of the existing government. Each one willing to do whatever it takes to grab ultimate power. Not exactly the definition of an anarchic society, eh?

I’ll be happy to discuss anarchism on another thread, but I really don’t want this one to get hijacked. The topic of this thread is how American foreign policy, led by rapacious Neocons, and backed by America’s sycophantic NATO allies have been responsible for laying waste to an entire population. What are your thoughts about that topic?

Then wth is anarchy? Define it.

The only foreign policy decisions I have been critical are the Iraq War and Biff launching 57 missiles at an airport and warned the enemy before hand. They were flying out bombing runs the same day. I think second guessing potuses outside of that is hard. We dont know all the facts and a bad result is sometimes still the best result. I think foreign policy is 4D chess and the best ones will miss a few.

I can't say Bush was unreasonable for normalizing relations with Qadafi. I can't say it was unreasonable to take the sorry son of a b**** out either. Everybody needs to know uncle sam has a long memory. It wasn't just us, though...

I just saw jd's definition and your response. That's a fair definition and what you just described matches it. Objective facts.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

This was a Hillary Clinton rodeo. Where are you getting neocon?

= in reality she probably had nothing to do with it, then.

 

[Alpha Poke]

I read it, for some reason they neglect to name anyone from America involved in the decisions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/na...bya-that-still-haunts/?utm_term=.4219156128d0

 

[Medic007]

The only foreign policy decisions I have been critical are the Iraq War

You do realize our intervention in Libya is a replica of the Iraq shit show minus using ground troops, correct? Are you all in as long as our boys don't die while ruining a country?

Everyone in the idiotville of DC wonders why some countries are developing a nuclear deterrent at all costs. Gee, why would they want to do that? That seems so unnecessary for the countries we've overtly identified as our enemies.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

You do realize our intervention in Libya is a replica of the Iraq shit show minus using ground troops, correct? Are you all in as long as our boys don't die while ruining a country?

Everyone in the idiotville of DC wonders why some countries are developing a nuclear deterrent at all costs. Gee, why would they want to do that? That seems so unnecessary for the countries we've overtly identified as our enemies.

No, no, and to project power, prestige and it sounds kund of like you're an apologist for North Korea now.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I read it, for some reason they neglect to name anyone from America involved in the decisions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/na...bya-that-still-haunts/?utm_term=.4219156128d0

I apologize for my flippant reply, Alpha. I was in a rush to get home. Many people would argue that Hillary has been bought and paid for by the Neocons. I don’t know if that’s true, but the fact is their reach is global and includes players from both parties. Neolibs are just another branch. They are all getting fat on the spoils, and none of them seem to care who they hurt or what country they destroy as long as they control things. When Trump won the election they reacted as if they’d been electrocuted. He had hinted he wanted to bring the ceaseless wars to an end. John Bolton and Bill Crystal acted as if their whole world was being ruined. Then they finagled the generals they wanted into his cabinet and they publicly rejoiced. I swear you could see their hard ons on tv! They were convinced Hillary would win and things would continue as always. They really had to scramble to insinuate themselves into Trump’s inner circle. They knew they had Hillary in their back pocket.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Then wth is anarchy? Define it.

The only foreign policy decisions I have been critical are the Iraq War and Biff launching 57 missiles at an airport and warned the enemy before hand. They were flying out bombing runs the same day. I think second guessing potuses outside of that is hard. We dont know all the facts and a bad result is sometimes still the best result. I think foreign policy is 4D chess and the best ones will miss a few.

I can't say Bush was unreasonable for normalizing relations with Qadafi. I can't say it was unreasonable to take the sorry son of a b**** out either. Everybody needs to know uncle sam has a long memory. It wasn't just us, though...

I just saw jd's definition and your response. That's a fair definition and what you just described matches it. Objective facts.

Are you critical of this?

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-era-record-number-bombs-dropped-middle-east-667505

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Are you critical of this?

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-era-record-number-bombs-dropped-middle-east-667505

If true, I wouldnt defend this:

The pace of air attacks has led to dozens of civilian deaths, watchdogs say. From 28 to 88 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan, according to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism. And Airwars, which tracks international airstrikes against ISIS, estimated that U.S.-led airstrikes killed 1,060 civilians in Iraq and Syria in August 2017, compared with 138 in August 2016.

In its worst month, March 2017, it’s estimated the Trump administration killed 1,881. (The Pentagon admitted in May that a single airstrike in Mosul, Iraq, was responsible for 100 of these deaths.) In contrast, President Barack Obama’s bloodiest month, July 2016, claimed the lives of 312, according to Airwars.

But what's your definition of anarchy?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Are we discussing South Chicago or Detroit?

 

[Ponca Dan]

If true, I wouldnt defend this:

The pace of air attacks has led to dozens of civilian deaths, watchdogs say. From 28 to 88 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan, according to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism. And Airwars, which tracks international airstrikes against ISIS, estimated that U.S.-led airstrikes killed 1,060 civilians in Iraq and Syria in August 2017, compared with 138 in August 2016.

In its worst month, March 2017, it’s estimated the Trump administration killed 1,881. (The Pentagon admitted in May that a single airstrike in Mosul, Iraq, was responsible for 100 of these deaths.) In contrast, President Barack Obama’s bloodiest month, July 2016, claimed the lives of 312, according to Airwars.

But what's your definition of anarchy?

Start a thread and we’ll talk about anarchism.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Are we discussing South Chicago or Detroit?

South Chicago and Detroit are amateur hour compared to what our government is doing over there in our name. I’d bet 99 out of 100 Americans don’t even know this is happening.

 

[Medic007]

No, no, and to project power, prestige and it sounds kund of like you're an apologist for North Korea now.

Oh, ok, so Libya was just some thang. Funny how similar the results in regards to the Libyan people. Just a coinkidink I'm sure. Nothing to see. Brilliant move by the Stooges, yadda yadda.

Apologist to North Korea? . You busted me. Damn.

 

[CowboyJD]

Start a thread and we’ll talk about anarchism.

You seem to think you are a moderator around here that gets to dictate what happens in threads.

You’re not.

We’ll talk about anarchism in the specific context of the real world going ons in Libya and elsewhere in this thread instead of theoretical, philosophical musings and meanderings on utopian ideals elsewhere, thanks.

If you don’t want to participate, that’s all well and good.

 

[Alpha Poke]

I apologize for my flippant reply, Alpha. I was in a rush to get home. Many people would argue that Hillary has been bought and paid for by the Neocons. I don’t know if that’s true, but the fact is their reach is global and includes players from both parties. Neolibs are just another branch. They are all getting fat on the spoils, and none of them seem to care who they hurt or what country they destroy as long as they control things. When Trump won the election they reacted as if they’d been electrocuted. He had hinted he wanted to bring the ceaseless wars to an end. John Bolton and Bill Crystal acted as if their whole world was being ruined. Then they finagled the generals they wanted into his cabinet and they publicly rejoiced. I swear you could see their hard ons on tv! They were convinced Hillary would win and things would continue as always. They really had to scramble to insinuate themselves into Trump’s inner circle. They knew they had Hillary in their back pocket.

No need to apologize.

Also, Dan 'neo con/lib' is not the preferred nomenclature. Globalist, please.

DO YOU THINK I'M FURKING AROUND HERE!?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Start a thread and we’ll talk about anarchism.

You just started one about an anarchic society.

Oh, ok, so Libya was just some thang. Funny how similar the results in regards to the Libyan people. Just a coinkidink I'm sure. Nothing to see. Brilliant move by the Stooges, yadda yadda.

Apologist to North Korea? . You busted me. Damn.

No thang no thang, you're a thang. I'm not defending or attacking the libya deal. It generally blows up in our face when we wade into those mid-east fights, but if you're going to weigh in, don't get in a ten year war. It's not like the U.S. just decided to lie their ass off to justify invading a country. Which is better, letting Qadafi kill the people that were trying to fight back against his tyranny? It's a tricky deal and we have allies that didnt' want him at their doorstep any more.

I'm inclined to ask @GunsOfFrankEaton (you there Frank?) what he thinks about Biff ratcheting up Afghanistan.











Plenty more, too.

WTH FRANK.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I’d bet 99 out of 100 Americans don’t even know this is happening.

You're right. If those numbers are correct it's pretty awful and people don't care. @JonnyVito might have something to say about those numbers.

 

[Medic007]

Which is better, letting Qadafi kill the people that were trying to fight back against his tyranny?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How did you get your head so far up the collective Democrat ass? Kill people that were fighting back against his tyranny? You mean those terrorists from al Qaeda and similar groups that wanted to overthrow the government to install an Islamic state? Cankles and the donkey herder didn't have a clue what they were doing. I know you're all in on team Democrat and Broback Brobama, but the truth doesn't hurt . Really it doesn't.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

You just started one about an anarchic society.



No thang no thang, you're a thang. I'm not defending or attacking the libya deal. It generally blows up in our face when we wade into those mid-east fights, but if you're going to weigh in, don't get in a ten year war. It's not like the U.S. just decided to lie their ass off to justify invading a country. Which is better, letting Qadafi kill the people that were trying to fight back against his tyranny? It's a tricky deal and we have allies that didnt' want him at their doorstep any more.

I'm inclined to ask @GunsOfFrankEaton (you there Frank?) what he thinks about Biff ratcheting up Afghanistan.

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Plenty more, too.

WTH FRANK.

The recent Trump build-up was far, far less than establishment neo-cons and neo-libs wanted. I wish the president would get us completely out of the Mideast pronto, but I won't get what I want overnight. I predict our footprint in the Middle East will be greatly reduced by the time Trump's 8 years is through.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! How did you get your head so far up the collective Democrat ass? Kill people that were fighting back against his tyranny? You mean those terrorists from al Qaeda and similar groups that wanted to overthrow the government to install an Islamic state? Cankles and the donkey herder didn't have a clue what they were doing. I know you're all in on team Democrat and Broback Brobama, but the truth doesn't hurt . Really it doesn't.

Gotta read my post. I kind of agree with some of what you're saying if you subtract the hysteria and broken record sloganeering.

 

[Medic007]

Gotta read my post. I kind of agree with some of what you're saying if you subtract the hysteria and broken record sloganeering.

I did read it. Even quoted it. It was a full scale replica of the claim made by the dipshits that turned Libya into a hell hole for everyone. I'm sure you recall Hillary screeching about genocide.

Which is better, letting Qadafi kill the people that were trying to fight back against his tyranny?

My post was directed at this statement. Those "people" were Islamic terrorists, not Democracy craving Libyans.

 

[JohnVoight]

Leftists today: "WE NEED RERARATIONS FOR USA's HORRIBLE RACIST PAST YOU EVIL WHITE PEOPLE!!!!!" while silent on actual slavery going on in Northeast Africa

 

[davidallen]

Leftists today: "WE NEED RERARATIONS FOR USA's HORRIBLE RACIST PAST YOU EVIL WHITE PEOPLE!!!!!" while silent on actual slavery going on in Northeast Africa

Not really....

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

You're right. If those numbers are correct it's pretty awful and people don't care. @JonnyVito might have something to say about those numbers.

I guess not. They don't count, huh @JonnyVito?

 

[davidallen]

... Those "people" were Islamic terrorists, not Democracy craving Libyans.

That's gotta be what 18 inches? Where do you get a brush that broad?

 

[Medic007]

That's gotta be what 18 inches? Where do you get a brush that broad?

Sorry I triggered you. What words would be soothing to your needs? How about non-peace promoting people of religious persuasion? Or maybe religious people with ill intent? Just looking for help so I don't melt you in the future, oh precious snowflake.

 

[davidallen]

Sorry I triggered you. What words would be soothing to your needs? How about non-peace promoting people of religious persuasion? Or maybe religious people with ill intent? Just looking for help so I don't melt you in the future, oh precious snowflake.

Touchy today aren't we... you make an overbroad generalization, I call you out on it, you retreat to a crawdad pose.

How about you stop trying to force the world into your monochromatic world view?

 

[Medic007]

Touchy today aren't we... you make an overbroad generalization, I call you out on it, you retreat to a crawdad pose.

How about you stop trying to force the world into your monochromatic world view?

 

[davidallen]

You the only one crying here...

 

[Medic007]

You the only one crying here...

Lol. Weird. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who took issue with my use of Islamic terrorists. Too many edibles in one sitting?