Obama called Libya a sh*t show....

I actually think there's a semantic difference in calling a situation a shit show, and calling a country a shit hole.

Atleast he admits it. But that *was* a colossal fuck up, and he has to own it. Not good.
 
Article is from over a year ago....

OP is a clown
 
Sure, i just hate when people say we're trying to "conquer" anything. It's just the wrong word to use.

No if we conquered then there would be peace and the need for constant funding to raytheon would be eliminated.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-says-david-cameron-allowed-libya-to-become-a-s-show-a6923976.html?amp

This is strange. Obama and Clinton take out Libyas leader in gadaffi, but what were their plans for the country after taking out their leader?

just leave the place in anarchy?

Seems Obama blames the u.k. for the poor state of Libya after talking out gadaffi?
Calls Libya a sh*t show

Article dated March 2016. Come on man.
 
I think Europe already done a damage to itself with what has been done, let alone what will happen in future even at "regulated" pace
Europe already have tons of troubles on social level with 2nd, 3rd generations (those you can't deport) and new arrives will make it worse.
You already got areas where immigrants treat the place as theyr own nation and are hostile toward locals.
And it's not just some "new" temporary situation, in parts of France has been that way for decades

We will "make it work" as America does with it's melting pot, wich crime-wise is anyway a far lower standard than the one EU countries used to have, specially some ones
Of course it will be a bit better, as firearms are less common here, but you will get similar ethnic gangs phenomenon and shitty social substrate.
There's that push to become an european mirror of USA society model, when USA itself still after all these years did'nt found a way to make it work better than best european ones

Of course a mass deportation system (oh no!) that work not as exceptional event, but as regular daily routine to expel undesiderable subjects (as anybody commiting crimes in the host nation) will help a lot to prevent the worst of immigrants to stay and generate a shitty wave of 2nd/3rd generations you can't get rid of

It will also be an incentive to integrate and reward all these honest immigrants that actually follow host nation rules and became good citiziens, that as now are being treated equally as shitty ones because there's a blind standard of hypocrisy

But is pure sci-fi at this point to be honest, no politician will ever try it and even if he does the only actual effect will be on his career (hint: not a good one)

This on most low social basic level, on a bigger scenario the main simple issue no politician want touch and will duck worse than Conor duck belt defense, is the fact that

-Africa population keep and keep growing, while the continent is'nt getting better. There will be ever more peoples that want come here
-We are entering in an historical period that in close future will see an huge % decrease of low-skilled labor

Essentially there will be ever more coming here, we will have ever less need of them and there will be ever more unemployed ones that will be feed highing the taxes of the locals and/or using public €€€ that could be used for the actual good of the nation
Of course higher unemployment will also cause higher % of foreign problems

But no politician want touch a problem that from his point of view should fall on the head of whoever will succeed after himself, let them burn theyr hands touching it if they want... that's the mindset of that 50% of politicians that are supposed to oppose the phenomenon, meanwhile other 50% is blind pushing for it

At the end of the games, none of them will pay the price.
The real price will be paid by low/middle class locals and by all these honest immigrants that woked theyr ass to be good citiziens
All of this in the name of something sold as "left" that will stab first the same demographic that an healthy "left" is traditionally supposed to represent, and left the richest richer than ever lol

All this shit is not left or right, is globalization pushing for globalization
I guess most of lefty "Change!" enthusiasts have theyr heads to much into theyr propaganda ass to even remember just few years ago, first time "globalization" started to be a thing in common speech, the no-globals were actually angry screaming lefties for the most part.
Few years of facebook/mediashit propaganda and now it's theyr holy horse of justice

Globalist marketing literally just put a "that's chocolate!" memo next to the same piece of crap they fought against and suddently it's became theyr fav food

Imho you can be left or right, 2018 Europe is a shitshow from whatever perspective and honestly as apolitical person that does'nt get pleasure from "my team" winning meaningless elections, i don't see the music changing anytime soon

Possibly a cynical vision but if my peoples (either my nation or europe as a whole) are too stupid to change things throught vote, i can't give the slightest fuck about the situation aside see it as an element to consider when making choices.
On moral level i'm disgusted to see it as the most pratical approach, because it goes against any healthy society perspective of good future for me, my family and my fellow countrymen next generations, but still real life > muh morality

My simple point of view is that best mindset right now is not to "hope things will go well for the country/society" but to do your own best to accumulate money/professional power to improve your position and have the freedom to not be stuck into the cesspit, because even if you don't live into one, it may become one in future.
This as somebody born and grown in the cesspit area of my city lol

I don't see it like that. I also think the notion that Europe is dommed are not based in reality.
If you compare Europe 2018 to any version of Europe, 2018 is by far the best.
Crime might have gone up due to the migrants right now but other things are better compared to 10 years ago.

And as a German if I compare it on a generational level. My dad lived in a divided Germany were a third was under communist rule.
My Grandfathers fought in WW2. The generation before that had WW1. And before that they had to fight unification wars to have a Germany in the first place.
Having a bunch of Muslims and Africans here that shouldnt be here is really nothing compared to that.

While that is a problem that needs to be addressed. In 2018 we have more people of German blood than we ever had before.
We never had more allies and fewer enemies. We have never lived in a more unified Europe.
We have never been more educated, prosperous or healthy than in 2018. The Bolsheviks have been defeated.

The 21st century is going to be the German century also a bit different than we imagined before it should probably be called the Unified European century.
The Chinese won't survive the collapse of Communism. The American experiment has failed and the Japanese fell victim to misplaced nationalism.
German-style social democracy has shown itself to be the superior system.

Don't fall victim to the propaganda from Eurosceptic. Those Eurosceptics have been working against a unified Europe for almost 200 years.
They are trying to divide Europe by claiming its dommed when in fact you could not point to a better time in Europe.
All issues while serious are just a matter of policy.
 
So is it reasonable to say that the huge slave trade we see going on in Libya is a result of obama having Gaddafi taken out? Serious question....
 
Um no, he didn't want war with Syria, that's why the US never put boots on the ground or used Airpower to hit Assad. Recall that he was derided for not even keeping to the redline he gave Assad, after the chemical attack. If Hillary or McCain had been president, the US would have attacked Assad, and enabled a Sunni jihadist takeover. Because Obama was president, the world was spared this.

Thank goodness the Americans voted for Obama twice.
 
I actually think there's a semantic difference in calling a situation a shit show, and calling a country a shit hole.

Atleast he admits it. But that *was* a colossal fuck up, and he has to own it. Not good.

Really the only thing that needed to be posted in this asinine thread.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-says-david-cameron-allowed-libya-to-become-a-s-show-a6923976.html?amp

This is strange. Obama and Clinton take out Libyas leader in gadaffi, but what were their plans for the country after taking out their leader?

just leave the place in anarchy?

Seems Obama blames the u.k. for the poor state of Libya after talking out gadaffi?
Calls Libya a sh*t show



And naturally you don't see the difference between calling a political situation a shit show, and implying that immigrants are automatically bad people because they come from a country that is a shithole.

People immigrate, not countries.
 



And naturally you don't see the difference between calling a political situation a shit show, and implying that immigrants are automatically bad people because they come from a country that is a shithole.

People immigrate, not countries.


Not but, if....if if if
 
Not but, if....if if if

"And naturally you don't see the difference between calling a political situation a shit show, and implying that immigrants are automatically bad people because they come from a country that is a shithole.

People immigrate, not countries."
 
Yep, it was a mess.
Unfortunately, the blood-thirsty Obama, much like Bush before him, left the world in a far worse state than he found it in when he took the American presidency.
It was the UK and France that lead the way and within the Obama administration it was the likes of Gates and Clinton that pushed for the intervention. Not to mention there was actually regional support for the intervention initially so to blame it solely on Obama is myopic. Neither side in the Sunni and Shiite proxy war cared for Gaddafi because he was a radical asshole with beef with each side.
 
I think Kadaphi or Kazafi might be my favorite ones. I might try to get my named changed to Kadaphi/Kazafi-kun one of these days.
Libya had one of, if not the, highest standard of living in Africa before Obama and Hillary's fun run.
Funny then that Libyans still decided to rise up against their dictator.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-says-david-cameron-allowed-libya-to-become-a-s-show-a6923976.html?amp

This is strange. Obama and Clinton take out Libyas leader in gadaffi, but what were their plans for the country after taking out their leader?

just leave the place in anarchy?

Seems Obama blames the u.k. for the poor state of Libya after talking out gadaffi?
Calls Libya a sh*t show
Obama is right.
The UK and France were 2 of the parties really pushing for intervention. They pressured the US to bomb Assad. Obama didn't want to, but a president can only resist so much.
 
Obama NEVER wanted to intervene in Libya. He was pushed to by Hillary, Neocons, UK and France. The GOP was critical of Obama's reluctance to overthrow Ghaddafi, that they would derisively say he is "leading from behind".

What a lot of Palecons and old school non-interventionist Conservatives might not admit, is that Obama is very much like them when it comes to foreign intervention. Obama was very reluctant to intervene anywhere, unless it was self-defense, like with Af-Pak.
Not reluctant enough to not spread our bombing to Libya, Yemen, and Syria while increasing our drone strikes 10-fold. Not reluctant to spread special forces operations into another 40? countries. Not reluctant to classify all males of military age as “combatants”.

Claiming to be a reluctant interventionist with that resume wouldn’t work in Nuremberg. If anything he was just less obnoxious than Bush & Co. that’s not saying a lot.
 
Obama is right.
The UK and France were 2 of the parties really pushing for intervention. They pressured the US to bomb Assad. Obama didn't want to, but a president can only resist so much.
Poor POTUS. Bullied into another conflict by France.

Remember how Obama wanted to go all in on Syria, but the UK decided to be democratic about and put it to a vote? So then Obama had to put it to a vote and didn’t get to go hard on Assad?
 
I think Kadaphi or Kazafi might be my favorite ones. I might try to get my named changed to Kadaphi/Kazafi-kun one of these days.

Funny then that Libyans still decided to rise up against their dictator.
He also says as if Kadaphi had anything to do with it. Oil sales account for 80% of the GDP in that country, the rest is accounted by slavery and people smuggling.
Anybody can lead a country to a mediocre standard of living when you have a small population atop massive deposits of oil.
He was never able to develop the country at all, he did some irrigation work for an exorbitant amount of money and gave free gasoline to everybody to keep them happy.
After his death, although the country is more violent and overall worse, the economy is similar as they keep selling oil, weapons and slaves.
Actually, I think Libya is one of the few countries on earth that has not evolved in the last 2 centuries.
Libya in the 1800s:
captured-victims-barbary-coast.jpg

Libya in the 2000s:
modern-day-slavers-escort-a-slave-to-the-auction-block-in-libya.png
 
He also says as if Kadaphi had anything to do with it. Oil sales account for 80% of the GDP in that country, the rest is accounted by slavery and people smuggling.
Anybody can lead a country to a mediocre standard of living when you have a small population atop massive deposits of oil.
He was never able to develop the country at all, he did some irrigation work for an exorbitant amount of money and gave free gasoline to everybody to keep them happy.
After his death, although the country is more violent and overall worse, the economy is similar as they keep selling oil, weapons and slaves.
Actually, I think Libya is one of the few countries on earth that has not evolved in the last 2 centuries.
Libya in the 1800s:
captured-victims-barbary-coast.jpg

Libya in the 2000s:
modern-day-slavers-escort-a-slave-to-the-auction-block-in-libya.png
Well in Kadaphi's defense I think he did improve Libya but as you said that's not all that hard when you have the ration of oil resources to population he did at his disposal so its not like that demonstrates his political genius or anything. And the system he created, while raising the standard of living and providing basic goods, was incredibly corrupt and convoluted in a way that made reform very difficult. Its not a system that could see smooth succession or democratic reforms or anything.

Anti-imperialists like Kazafi because he was part of the anti-imperialist clique with the likes of Castro and Mandela but he was still a brutal and corrupt dictator. The weird thing is even some right wingers praise him, mainly because his overthrow was a big mistake on the part of the Obama administration even though he should represent so many things they hate.
 
Back
Top