Brexit and Donald Trump: Lessons from History
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Thursday, March 19, 2026 03:03
VIEWED: 5931
PAGE 2 of 3
Even critics understate how catastrophically bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO bombing of Libya was
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastroph
ically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/
Hillary’s war: How conviction replaced skepticism in Libya intervention
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-ho
w-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html
Libya Was Hillary's War. Here's The Proof.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3398/libya-was-hillarys-war-heres-proof-
joshua-yasmeh
Rand Paul: ‘Hillary’s war’ in Libya contributed to rise of Islamic State
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/rand-paul-cites-hillar
ys-war-rise-islamic-state/
Libya is “Hillary’s War” – Released emails Show Depth of Hillary Clinton Ownership…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/13/libya-is-hillarys-war-
released-emails-show-depth-of-hillary-clinton-ownership/
And of course, Hillary celebrating her success in Libya
Yep, Libya is widely known as Hillary's war. Why? Because Hillary was the one who pushed for it nonstop. Even OBAMA regrets Libya!
So, GSTRING, you were wrong on this and, of course, on your other points. I'm too busy right now to hand you your ass on a platter, but You REALLY might want to take your head out of it once in a while. Yanno, just do a QUICK search on a topic before your spew nonsense.
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by G:
"Libya is widely considered to be "Hillary's war" - by you and your husband and you (sic) band of friends maybe.
And the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.ht
ml
My god, GSTOOGE. Don't you ever get tired of being a laughingstock?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Originally posted by G:
"Libya is widely considered to be "Hillary's war" - by you and your husband and you (sic) band of friends maybe.
And the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.ht
ml
My god, GSTOOGE. Don't you ever get tired of being a laughingstock?
Ok 1kiki just to explain it so even you may understand. The Secretary of State cannot send troops or order jets to bomb a country. That is up to congress and the President. She may have advised we go but she still does not have the authority to make that call.
Do you understand?
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can you read? Then read the article.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The question was - why was US involvement in Libya attributed to Hillary instead of Barack. Did you not understand the question?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Can you read? Then read the article.
I am responding to what you suggest. Which is that Hillary is the one responsible for our assisting our allies in Libya. She is not. As I said, she may have suggested we do it but she cannot make the call to go.
Further, I see you neglect to inform in your bashing Hillary that France played the lead role here not the United States. We owed it to them after 911 to support them here. But you are not bright enough to understand any of this I'm sure.
And as G asks, are you referencing the same NY Times that said Russia invaded Ukraine? Comrade :)
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I am responding to what you suggest."
I suggest you read the article, which documents the what, where, who, how, when, and why of Hillary's responsibility for US action in Libya.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Amazing, impressive that Firefly is still a preferred point of departure for discussion of foundational political issues. It speaks well to Whedon's creative vision. I think it is useful to start even further back, though. After the successful war against Persia, the Greeks wanted to make sure they always had a fleet large enough to oppose them. The richest and most mercantile state, Arhens, proposed funding a common treasury, on one their islands called Delos, to store the money that all participating city-states would contribute. At the time, nothing seemed to make more sense. Even defeated, Persia was a danger. And so, under Athenian leadership, the Delia League was formed. But gradually, Athens converted what had been a voluntary association for mutual benefit to an empire. This triggered a response known as the Pennsylvanian War, which in the course of thirty years devastated Greece and killed nenarly one third of its population.
The Alliance might have started out the same way. Space is big and dangerous. Just because no hostile life had yet been encountered in teh 'Verse did not mean it was there. So, rather than being at war with each other, the wealthier planets united. Having united intially for common advantage, Alliance determined that the best interests of the 'Verse required all of it be invigilated - including those not interested. The resulting war was devastating.
The EU began as an extension of the COmmon Market, which had worked rather well. With the end of the Cold War, there seemed to be a benefit to centralizing economic, social, and military policy. To those who first supported it, the EU looked like the Common Market only more so. But it went wrong. The EU began to conceive of itself not a a co-ordinating function between sovereign states, but a hyperpower to rule them all. Its beauracy, unelected and unaccountable to member nations, came to regard itself as a suprapower, superior to its members. Worse, it seemed willing, even desirouos, of extending its reach by admitting new members who were now part of the traditional West, notably the Islamic state of Turkey.
The final straw has been the invasion of Muslaim Arabs, a people openly hostile to the essential principles of Western European civilization - rule or law, secularism, civil liberties, free though and free speech. Brexit is the first step back to Independence. The Dutch nero Geert Wilders will lead his country into the next secession from the EU. Perhaps the EU can be turned back to its original charter of improving co-operation between independent states. But till that time, the sovereing peoples of Europe should and will reclaim their independence from what is essentially an Alliance of France and Germany's new Carolingian empire. Trummp undestands and supports this independence. For that reason alone, we must wish him well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And the US should take a lesson from it and apply it to their 'free trade' agreements, which act as supra-national laws and abrogate the national laws of each country.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Curiously, I'm reading an extremely well-researched book which takes place before, during and after WWI, Lawrence in Arabia. What I'm getting out of it, so far, is that it was the web of ALLIANCES which pulled nation after nation into war, and that the colonial Empires and their carving up of the world into spheres of influence set the stage.
So, NATO would be the most direct comparison to the alliances of that day, and that empire of today is the USA, trying to pull everyone into war with Russia.
NATO went from 12 countries to
First of all what book, secondly wow. You are trying to rewrite history. NATO is the result of Nazis trying to establish for themselves world domination. And as a way of heading off future world wars in Europe. Your problem comrade is that Russia was not invited to join. Why, because they kept a strangle hold on the countries they supposedly liberated from the Germans.
Lets talk about a want to be empire ( Russia ), carving up countries and annexing it neighbors into it's sphere of authoritarian influence. The purpose being to preserve itself and establish a communist zone centralized in Russia. With countries that now by the way, are falling all over themselves trying to leave that communist authoritarian zone and join NATO.
NATO has expanded from 12 countries to 29 and counting.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is established by 12 Western nations: the United States, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Canada, and Portugal.
The Nato countries today are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME