It is astounding what Gaddafi actually did for Libya. Yes, he used authoritarian and unorthodox methods to get there but he changed Libya for the better. I will forever believe that he was taken out because his goal was to empower Africa.
What, specifically, socialist programs are you referring to? The French protests are resulting from the French wealthy and working classes finally realizing who gets stuck footing the bill for all the socialism. The French protests are what Day 1 of the New Green Deal would look like if Americans were dumb enough to try socialism spray-painted green.
Why not? Because healthcare and education are far more important to every citizen than free food and new cars.
Healthcare and education are more important than food? And what about free condoms I think we can all get behind that.
Indeed, but it's an uphill battle to underscore the prevalent importance of Social Democracy (for ALL CITIZENS) in the US. People are not "turned-on" to the impending dangers of doing-nothing. More malarkey from the braindead who refuse to see/understand the Real Challenge facing Uncle Sam today and not tomorrow. Still, with this latest generation "awakened" perhaps there is indeed "mindchange" in the air. Time will tell ... As for Europe, all the Socialist Parties are distinct minorities in the countries where they still exist. See here. And for Americans who might be interested, this from WikiPedia: Social_Democrats,_USA - excerpt: (Where there's the will, there's also a way ...)
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52463 Hence, why I keep telling people that capitalism cannot exist without socialist (taxpayer funded) programs. No...social funding/programs are being cut as a means to compensate for tax cuts on the wealthy. These cuts on social funding hurts the free healthcare system. Hence, healthcare workers are protesting...as well as the ongoing "Yellow Vests" protests for the same reasons. Perhaps...but only because Americans are both ignorant about socialism and used to being entitled. Most lack an appreciation for the value of cooperation & sharing of resources. Is this a good thing in your view? If so, then wait until there's a major national upheaval. Americans are not the kind of people you will want to be near.
Yes it is. Gaddafi even wrote an interesting book called "The Green Book" which can be read for free online. It's a good portrayal of Gaddafi's attitude and way of thinking. Often he preferred staying in a huge tent in the Sahara desert rather than his palace or the city. He was a nature lover and also had a huge picture of the ocean behind his bed. He also chose only females to be his body guards because he trusted them the most (and he was very much loved by women in Libya). He also started an academy for women. But one of his most important goals was to unite all of Africa and the Middle East into a single nation with a single army and single independent currency as a means to break free of the U.S./Western global banking cartel & economic imperialism that was dominating the world's nations. Well...you can guess now why the Western powers deemed him a major threat to their globalist agenda and why he had to be eliminated.
Gaddafi took control of Libya, yes, to change it. But not for the better, given its present miserable situation. Yes, he did raise the average wage, build schools and hospitals. Libyans had a reasonable existence for a considerable period of time. Then, it all came apart. Like most "Benevolent Despots", he made the same mistake they all make. He stayed around far too long and the fact that his family seemed to be living "far too well" finally instigated those who eventually toppled him. Many Libyans welcomed his overthrow, but what usually happens happened. That is, once a dictator has responsibility for total economic management of a country - aside from milking it for his family - they get overthrown and killed. (Franco of Spain was the only one to die a natural death in office.) And those who take command are utterly incompetent at running the country. When that happens, "military groups" are formed and they take possession of the country. One such group in the east today controls the Libya's majority oil-production. (They then hire oil-companies to manage production.) Whilst another political group controls the west of the country ...
It's present condition, as stated earlier, is the result of Western imperialism. I lived in Libya for 4 years when my dad's company transferred him to live/work there. I loved it and miss being there. Life in Libya was safe, beautiful, and an exciting place to be with its crystal clear beaches & white sands/rocky coasts, desert oases, WWII ruins, the expansive Sahara, and ancient Roman ruins (I especially loved the ruins that lay along the coast with the beautiful Mediterranean sea as a backdrop!), and not a single poor or homeless person. Gaddafi established an international school for the children of foreign workers that taught all subjects in English, and whose students came from all over the world. Everyone mixed & got along great with zero racism or prejudism at the school. Gaddafi even sent our school on a fun picnic/field trip with food & transportation out in some beautiful remote area. I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I looked down on Gaddafi at the time because I was raised by typical conservative-thinking xenophobic parents, and Gaddafi's ban on alcohol & pork products probably had something to do with their views (my dad & his friends resorted to secretly operating a still to produce their own alcohol, and would even sneak cans for pork inside rolled up socks when re-entering the country.) I also remember a few of some of our well-liked teachers being kicked out of the country by Gaddafi after being accused of spying. I had thought it was just a dictator being naturally paranoid. But looking back and knowing what I know now about the history of US/Western imperialism, it's more likely than not that those teachers were indeed spies/assets. And at the time I had NO idea how progressive Gaddafi really was, the extent to which he heavily invested the nation's oil revenue into his own people/nation, nor how democratically innovative he was. Yet, even with my former views of Gaddafi (before I began thinking for myself) I still dreamed of returning to live permanently in Libya some day because I loved it so much. He did that and much more. Along with innovative ideas on private business & social welfare, he established a unique democratic setup. Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention -------------------------------------------------------------------- No, the toppling of Gaddafi had nothing to do with wealth disparity between a ruler and his people. His people were quite content, well fed, well housed, well educated, and well provided for. As is usually the case, the culprit is systematic regime change & socio-political destabilization perpetrated by US/European powers...and which included your beloved FRANCE. The Big Lie About the Libyan War [LINK] The Obama administration said it was just trying to protect civilians. Its actions reveal it was looking for regime change. Yes, he stayed in power a long time. However, Gaddafi had long-term goals involving the unification of many other nations, and which would've taken decades to accomplish. In the meanwhile he made sure to channel much of the nation's oil revenue into his people & nation (eg, his massive Sahara irrigation project). Gaddafi was actually very well liked & popular, particularly with Libyan women. Despite being a Muslim nation women were allowed to wear what they desired. Gaddafi also established a women's academy. If anything is more telling about his popularity it would have to be Gaddafi's bewilderment of how he was being treated before he died. Gaddafi's last words as he begged for mercy: 'What did I do to you?' [LINK] Franco was no Gaddafi. Gaddafii had no superseding quest for material wealth or personal power. His motivations & goals were far greater & more meaningful, involving the linkage of African & Middle Eastern nations into a coalition that could stand economically, militarily, and politically independent of the onslaught of Western global hegemony. By contrast, Franco would've gotten along quite well with Trump.
I wouldn't expect the minds of scholars who live in books & research papers to be agreeable to simple common sense logic.
GADDAFI WAS NO SAINT You have a "romantic" view of Gaddafi. Yes, he did reinvest much of Libya's oil-money in national projects. He also siphoned off a great deal for his own personal funding and that of his family. I suggest you read a more objective account (literally) of the funds he purloined from Libya and placed in Europe. See here: Millions flow from Gaddafi’s ‘frozen funds’ to unknown beneficiaries - Excerpt: I highly recommend the above article for reading about what has happened to Gaddafi's funds after he was liquidated ...
It seems you have a romantic view regarding the beneficence and devotion to democratic principles possessed by western governments.
That argument makes no sense. The money has to come from somewhere. How is an increase in price on business purchases different from an income tax? Why do you think one will be any fairer than the other? You do realize that it cuts into the profits of a business owner, to some extent. And the argument could also be made that a tax increase would also result in higher prices for consumers of business, since the business owner needs to maintain a certain profit to make it worthwhile to stay in business. So there may not really be any fundamental difference, in essence.
I stand by my logic as stipulated: *If private-enterprise must assume private healthcare-insurance for its workers (which is one of the highest in the world as exists in the US), then said cost must be recuperated from market-pricing of its goods/services. *Which means that the public is assuming the cost of healthcare for its employees when purchasing the company's products/services. *Whereas were Healthcare Insurance national in nature, the company would not need to recuperate it from its market-pricing, and product-costs would be correspondingly lower. *Which is just factual logic of any market-economy. Fruthermore: *If a National Healthcare Service existed in the US, much lower fixed-prices for Healthcare Services would apply. *All Americans would be covered by it, whilst at the same time, *Market prices for goods/services would be correspondingly lower. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...
Sorry for the lengthy delay. I've been out of town. I just wanted to briefly say.......GOOD! I'm glad these rich Europeans are out large sums of money, and I hope they don't get a red cent of their money back, considering what the Western imperialist nations have done to Libya & Gaddafi. So, good! Consider it a token of the much larger debt they owe the Libyan people. And by the way, Gaddafi said he would never abandon his country & people, and kept to his word even when he was on the run and in hiding. He could easily have fled Libya and lived off his stored millions, but he didn't. This suggests to me that the funds he was transferring overseas was probably not for him but for either his family and/or his nation's people once he was gone. It could've also been an emergency fund in case there was an attempt by the West to overthrow him through sanctions, freezing of funds, social/national destabilization, or a Western backed rebellion. Judging by Gaddafi's leadership, progressive social programs, his lifestyle, habits, and beliefs & attitudes I still don't believe his aim in storing funds overseas was for his own personal benefit.
Bollocks! What has happened in Libya IS THE COMPLETE FAULT OF YOU-PLURAL IN LIBYA!. The country is split in two (East vs West) and they are fighting over Oil Funds (which are mostly in the East - see map below!) That IS NOBODY'S FAULT BUT YOUR OWN! And people like you want the world to think it was OUR FAULT in the West - which sparks the question, "What planet do you live on ... ?" *See production map below: And like so many others who have their hands-on-the-money, you are pointing the finger of blame at EVERYBODY ELSE! (Nice try, but we aint as dumb as you may think!) Moreover, in another five-years western-countries will be abandoning Your Oil as they move to other less polluting sources. Like the sun! It's all over for BigOil! Get it? It's ALL OVER AND DONE!
NOT-QUITE-RIGHT And why, pray tell, should they do that, when the system is not the least bit "competitive". Do you really think people can pick-and-chose their healthcare like buying a car. Wakey, wakey! What others? If they have a National Healthcare System (as I do here in Europe), all of them finance that healthcare through taxation. (Some taxpayers more than others because they earn more, but that is just a fact-of-life.) Of course, rather than an expanded lifespan if you prefer to fund Guns rather than Butter, then that is purely your-amazingly-inconsiderate-choice! Can't possibly imagine how that happens with a functioning NHS, but never mind. No, what it means at present is that Americans pay for the most costly healthcare-system of any developed nation, and solely because it is (for the most part) private and has never been nationalized. As Europe has done postwar. And what is the consequence of that inanity? This is the percentage in the US who have no HC-insurance whatsoever: And, and, and - this as the consequence: Life-span USA: 78.69 years Life-span EU: 80.9 years I quite like that two-years of extra life-span that my National Health Insurance provides me in Europe! AND the fact that if I have a serious medical problem, and cannot afford to pay for hospitalization/medication/operation, my house is not seized to cover the hospital-bill! No it isn't. You've misunderstood completely. It is tiresome to reiterate to the ignorant who think "socialism" still exists. It's been dead since the Soviet Republic collapsed in 1991*! Try harder ... *What took its place in Europe? Social Democracy!
Drug dealers, pimps, gang-bangers, ne'er do wells, professional thieves, under achievers, welfare queens, basement dwelling sissies, illegal aliens (if the Dems have their way), lazy bums, dole seeking utopians, etc. A large percentage of Americans don't pay federal taxes, so yes, the hard working Americans would have their labor appropriated and would be exploited - forced to pay for not only their own health care, but also for those I listed.
The fact is that the nation pays for healthcare now, albeit poorly organized. The fact is that other nations have healthcare that is just as good, is available to all and at closer to half the cost. Americans are easily inventive enough to do better.
Yes, I can judge only one post at a time. The one at issue strongly suggests you buy into significant amounts of western propaganda. Maybe I will see future posts that might change my mind.