I’m sorry you feel that way. My beliefs are sincere, but different from yours and the majority’s. From what I gather, minority views are not particularly welcome here, and I believe that this cheapens the quality of debates.
The request is, in its current state, impossible to meet. Tom never clarified it, and, as I said, it is impractical to expect me to spend years drafting a multi-volume treatise to outline my political and economic theory. For reference purposes, could you direct me to instances where other posters were given such orders and complied in a satisfactory manner? I would very much like to see an example of what you expect, as well as proof that this is not simply an attempt to single me out.
The whole issue reminds me of an old Russian fairy tale, wherein a king orders a subject to (roughly) “Go there, I know not where, and fetch that, I know not what.” I hope that you understand my confusion.
Sometimes; not always. But is the sharing of Western ideals (capitalism, representative democracy, imperialism, Christianity, etc.) a prerequisite for using these forums?
You’re both very likely correct, but what does this prove? That your position is the right one by default? For example, I note that I am an atheist, which is a distinct minority viewpoint in this largely theist world. Does this somehow prove that there is a god?
I’m an atheist also. And being on the side of those who hold power by being torturing, murdering scum and against those who don’t want to be tortured, murdered and oppressed pretty much puts you in the wrong.
You view isn’t unpopular because it is a minority view. It is unpopular because it is a monstrously wrong view. It would be wrong if 99% of the board agreed with you.
As it is - those who would agree with you are pretty much limited to Hitler, Stalin, Beria, Pol Pot, Yahweh and Gadaffi.
That’s a bizarre yet convenient position… Let’s see: you’re correct because you say so and the majority agrees with you… And even if the majority disagreed with you, you’d still be correct, because you say so. Pardon me, but who died and left you deity-in-charge of our humble little world?
You’re going to have to do better than that to prove that your position is correct to the exclusion of all others. You’ve conceded that the majority viewpoint is irrelevant, which is a good start. The next step is to prove that you and you alone have the authority to determine the worth of a position. For instance, I disagree with your portrayal of my view as “a monstrously wrong” one. My bias against yours; how do you convince me to join your side?
Dude, your beliefs are different from the majority of Communists’. In fact, you might well be the only person on Earth to hold and proclaim them seriously. Don’t you think that should give you pause, just a little? Is everybody out of step but Commissar?
The “brave loyalists” appear to comprise tribes that have received special treatment and favors from Gaddafi and mercenaries hired to fight for him. Nothing “selfless” ammong those groups.
The only “unity” in the country in the last forty years has been the united poverty in which the overwhelming majority of its citizens have suffered under the despotic plutocrat.
The “nation’s prosperity” is the personal wealth of the kleptocrat that employs the mercenaries and police to suppress the people who generally live in poverty.
So, basically, you are saying that you support a right bastard who keeps his people oppressed to enrich himself, solely because you like to make nasty comments about “the West.”
Now, each of the observations I have posted regarding loyalists, unity, and prosperity have been adequately documented with multiple citations over the course of several threads. To date, your sole response has been that you don’t like the news sources that have been cited, although you have not provided any citations from sources that disagree. So don’t bother responding to this post unless you can actually support your claims.
Yep. It stems from my humanity and the knowledge of right and wrong all us non-sociopaths share when it comes to deciding on whether to side with murderous insane tyrant or victims.
It really does not matter why troops are fighting for Gadaffy but that they are.
Soldiers are trained to, follow orders and they will. We have plenty of soldiers in Afghanistan without any understanding of why they are so far from home fighting backwards people who are no threat to our homeland. But they fight.
If a soldier thinks Gadaffy will remain in power, he will fight on his side. You do not want to be on the wrong side of a dictator who is hot for revenge.
That you are game-playing when you talk about the will of the people and then come out against elections and when violence is the only possible recourse for oppressed people (as you also support punishing/murdering people for simply speaking against their governments), you also oppose violence.
Rather obviously this isn’t a some issue with a “minority viewpoint”. Yes, despite the obvious compelling nature of your ‘gee I love brutal tyrany’ schtick.
I think it is telling that your position comes down to arguing that there is not a single Libyan that supports Colonel Gaddafi in the absence of a financial incentive. Why do you refuse to admit that there could be perfectly rational people on the other side acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their nation? It seems strange that you feel compelled to dismiss their position simply to bolster your own.
Also, I note that the “mercenary” claims have come almost exclusively from the rebels, who may themselves be a somewhat biased party. I am uncomfortable with drawing conclusions from a very one-sided report. Also, note that there appears to be a very real split in the Libyan military, with part supporting the government and part opposing it. How do you explain this if you refuse to believe that individual soldiers and officers are making good-faith decisions in regards to the best course of action for Libya? I assume that you wave away the pro-Gaddafi soldiers by maintaining that they’ve simply all been paid off handsomely. If that is the case, why didn’t Gaddafi simply buy the loyalty of the entire army? Did the checks fail to clear in the east and west? Did he simply forget that he had military forces in those regions? I find your position to be vastly oversimplified. Humans are complex, and tend to act in different ways. It hardly helps to simply dismiss those on the other side as fools, zealots, or gold-diggers.
Finally, you draw a picture of a nation completely impoverished by the government – one in which Gaddafi swims in gold coins Scrooge-style while everyone else freezes in cold, damp caves. You may want to read up on the actual reality, perhaps starting with the $25+ billion government-funded project to bring ample fresh water to the Libyan people:
Because if there’s one thing that kleptocratic “right bastards” always do, it’s fund major infrastructure projects to promote the common good…
You’re doing nothing but regressing your unsupported assumptions. I asked you to support your “I’m right because I say so” position, and you have given me what boils down to “I’m right because I’m a good person, which I know is true because I said so.” I trust you see why I am less than convinced by your reasoning.
Here’s a helpful way to look at it… You’ve mentioned that you too are an atheist, which is a minority position. Would you concede the truth-value of a theist’s statement that “You are wrong because I say so, as do most humans?” Of course not. Would it be any different if the theist expanded this argument into: “You are wrong because I am a good, god-fearing person, and all good god-fearing people share my views?” Substituting a premise for a conclusion does not a good argument make.
Here: I will provide what appears to be your philosophy in a few short lines and you can correct it, (if it is wrong, of course).
[ul]
[li]People are stupid and cannot rule themselves.[/li][li]Anything connected with “the West,” (a never quite defined entity, roughly corresponding to modern Europe and North America), is bad.[/li][li]Totalitarian states are good because they control the people living in them, avoiding messy things like human rights and freedom.[/li][li]Public news agencies are bad. [/li][li]Independent reporters and historians are bad.[/li][li]Totalitarian propaganda offices are good.[/li]
[li]Further, you don’t believe in supporting any of your assertions with references that you indicate that they are more than something you have invented for the purpose of argument.[/li][/ul]
But it is an effort to “single you out.” In every case where a poster expressed unpopular opinions, they were either backed up by a consistent world view or they were trolling. You support any number of unpopular causes, but your “reasons” are contradictory and fail to match any normal understanding of the philosophies you claim to hold. For example, you claim to support the Marxist ideas of history, yet you openly condemn the idea that the people can actually rise up in a Marxist revolution, (or, at least, you condemn the peoploe who are actually doing so). And, aside from a central control of capital, Libya cannot be described as “socialist” under any definition I can find. That you make the spurious claim that you support Qaddafi as a socialist means that you are using the word in a manner that makes no sense. This sort of thing places you firmly into the category of trolling. In an effort to refrain from banning you for trolling, we have sought a simple explanation of your actual views.
Failing that, we will simply dismiss you as a troll. (Dismissal, in this case, means banning.)
The thing of it is, is that Theocracy creates an oppressive government, and by extension, religion creates an oppressive atmosphere. Me, I believe in God, but I don’t follow the theology of any particular religion. People ask, “What God do you believe in?”. I give the response, “The God that created the Universe.” This is upsetting to all religious people, because they are so convinced that they are right.
I have made no such claim. We are talking about the aggregate numbers of people as identified by the groups to which they belong. Your “not a single Libyan” is a red herring. As to individual soldiers choosing one side or the other, in a tribal society, most trroops are going to have been recruited from among the tribes–either pro or con. In addition, any troops who have been involved in previous atrocities are going to support their loeader to avoid retribution.
Ri-i-i-i-ight! Oh, that is just so obvious.
You really are pretty ignorant of the history of despots, aren’t you. Despots going back to the Roman emperors and before, Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, and dozens of others have all expended energy on large public works. As to the “public good,” I would note that the water was all piped to locations where Qaddafi wanted to secure the population base and none has been provided allow independent growth.
Spot on, but without the use of the word “stupid.” The average person is no more capable of politics than of brain surgery. This is not something that should be held against him or taking as an insult of his mental abilities. Some are born to rule; the rest must seek their true calling elsewhere.
Gross oversimplification. The “West” is not inherently “good” or “bad,” it simply is. Insofar as the “West” means NATO nations and their lapdogs, and insofar as these nations continue to practice imperialism, I am opposed to them. A complete rejection of imperialism and an embrace of sovereignty is one of my core beliefs. I have nothing against Western capitalist democracies that are not in the business of Empire (ex: Switzerland is just fine in my book).
Incorrect. As a general rule, an authoritarian system will keep the innate human mob mentality in check, which will give the nation a chance to flourish. Glorious nations such as China will take this chance and run with it, creating states that are the envy of all. Note, however, that authoritarianism alone does not equal progress. Nor do I automatically support all authoritarian states (ex: Saudi Arabia is a cancer on our world). Authoritarianism is a good starting point, but is not sufficient without more.
Also, I am a great supporter of freedoms and human rights - positive ones. Freedom of speech is useless when you’re dying on the streets.
Incorrect - there is no “good” or “bad,” but only bias. If you would prefer to delude yourself into thinking that Western media sources do not have a pro-Western bias, be my guest. I am not willing to blindly accept all Western assertions at face value simply because they happen to conform with your worldview. Truth is more complex than that. And, no, I do not believe that the state-owned non-Western media outlets are any less biased; they are simply biased in a different direction.
[QUOTE]
[li]Further, you don’t believe in supporting any of your assertions with references that you indicate that they are more than something you have invented for the purpose of argument.[/li][/QUOTE]
Incorrect. I fully believe that I provide more cites than most, but these tend to be either ignored or tap-danced around. For example, my last post had a cite completely undermining your argument that the Colonel has completely disregarded his people and bled the nation dry of wealth. When I rebutted your assertion, you simply moved the goalposts and said that such major projects are typical of “despots.” In other words, you simply contradicted your earlier stance (= no spending by the Colonel) in the face of my support for my argument. See - bias.
I support democratic socialism, or social democracy, still distinguishing the two, but either way democracy comes first, and then I hope socialism. If not, oh well, as long as the choice is made by an informed electorate and I can continue to campaign for my beliefs.
I also support Gandhi’s and Thoreau’s methods of civil disobedience and non-violent revolution, but in exceptional cases I support armed uprisings. Libya being a prime example, because the previous methods are not tolerated by the regime.
