DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 03, 2012, 04:57:43 PM
-
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3507.htm (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3507.htm)
-
Just because this guy says that missiles came from Syria does not make it true.
I hardly think that Lebanon won any war at all. The country was pretty much totaled.
The Israeli occupation wasn't a success, either. It was a war that everyone lost.
I do agree that Assad will eventually have to flee or die, but it wonlt be because of any missiles he may have supplied.
-
I do agree that Assad will eventually have to flee or die, but it wonlt be because of any missiles he may have supplied.
Missing The Point Alert...AGAIN!
Assad will be gone, not because of a few missles
you can't see the forest for the trees!
Assad will be gone because he is a pawn in the chess game between Iran vs. the West & Saudis
Obama is replacing "uncooperatives" with the Muslim Brotherhood
Obama thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is less likely to cause WWIII
I hope he is right.....it's a big gamble....but who knows...
Once the Muslim Brotherhood is "in charge" in Syria, Libya, Egypt, ect.....
I assume the oligarchy that controls Obama will then say Iran is next for a Muslim Brotherhood take-over.
The oligarchy seems to think a Muslim Brotherhood Middle East may be safer than rogue dictators and Mullahs.
I guess we'll see how this chess game plays out.......
-
President Obama has no interest in putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power. If the people elect them, then they SHOULD be in power. That is the way a democracy works. I doubt that you know enough about Syria to predict who might win a fair and free election there. I am all for letting the Syrians decide who runs Syria.
Stability is better than anarchy and chaos.
-
Stability is better than anarchy and chaos.
Go tell that to the slaves in 1845!
-
President Obama has no interest in putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power.
Oh yeah I am sure it's just a total accident that Obama gets rid of Khadaffi
and the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to take-over....as will happen in Egypt
and Syria. Obama does what the oligarchy tells him to do. The oligarchy
has decided to give the Muslim Brotherhood a try.
If the people elect them, then they SHOULD be in power.
Yeah I am sure them elections in Libya and Egypt will be "far & sqaur"! LOL
I am all for letting the Syrians decide who runs Syria.
Where you "all for Germans running Germany" when Hitler was in charge?
Are you all for Texans running Texas if they so choose?
If Canada decided to elect al-Qaeda would you be all for it and presume we should sit idly by?
-
(http://www.matchplaychampionship.co.uk/images/sponsors_telegraph.png)
Muslim Brotherhood establishes militia inside Syria
The Muslim Brotherhood has established its own militia inside Syria as the country's rebels fracture
between radical Islamists and their rivals, commanders and gun-runners have told The Daily Telegraph.
By Ruth Sherlock, Richard Spencer in Beirut - 03 Aug 2012
Calling itself the "Armed Men of the Muslim Brotherhood", the militia has a presence in Damascus as well as opposition hot spots like Homs and Idlib. One of their organisers, who called himself Abu Hamza, said that he started the movement along with a member of the Syrian National Council (SNC), the opposition alliance.
"We saw there were civilians with weapons inside, so we decided to co-operate with them and put them under one umbrella," he said.
Hossam Abu Habel, whose late father was in Syria's Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s, said that he raised $40-50,000 (?25,000-?32,000) a month to supply Islamist militias in Homs province with weapons and other aid.
The militias he funded were not affiliated to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the main rebel movement, added Mr Abu Habel.
"Our mission is to build a civil country but with an Islamic base," he said. "We are trying to raise awareness for Islam and for jihad."
The Syrian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood has been revitalised by the organisation's success in Egypt, where it won both parliamentary and presidential elections.
In the early days of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, secular and Islamist rebels were both prepared to fight under the FSA's banner and recognise the SNC as their political masters.
But the FSA, dominated by defectors from the regime's army, has fallen out with the SNC, whose leaders are in exile. It now has its own political front, the Syrian Support Group (SSG). This split has divided the revolution's main international backers, with Saudi Arabia supporting the FSA and Qatar moving closer to the SNC and the Islamist militias.
The divisions are affecting operations on the ground: competing militias co-operate when necessary but otherwise disavow each other. "I would take it as an insult if you described me as FSA," said Abu Bakri, a front line commander of an Islamist militia in Aleppo calling itself the Abu Emara Battalion.
One activist described how he was working with Sunni politicians in Lebanon to buy arms for the FSA with Saudi money.
A member of the FSA command centre, located in neighbouring Turkey, told the Daily Telegraph that they have this week received large consignments of ammunition, machine guns and anti-tank missiles. At one point Saudi Arabia and Qatar were both funding the FSA, with the command centre receiving up to $3 million in cash every month. But the operative said the situation had changed.
"Now we are not working with the Qataris because they made so many mistakes supporting other groups."
But the fracturing of the armed opposition raises the prospect of post-Assad Syria becoming a battleground. "This adds to the fragmentation and tones down the credibility of the opposition," said Louay Sakka, the SSG's Executive Director. "Supporters should go through the proper channel of the Free Syrian Army military council rather than build their own militias."
Amr al-Azm, a Syrian-American academic who was briefly on the SNC, said that Syria risked the same kind of disintegration that was set in motion by Saddam Hussein's downfall in neighbouring Iraq. The West's decision to limit its involvement in the Syrian conflict ? and refrain from supplying lethal weapons ? had left a gap for the Islamists to fill.
"By playing to your own fears, you are making them come true," said Mr Azm. "By not intervening, you are forcing people to go those who have resources. No one wants to go to al-Qaeda, but if you are down to your last five bullets and someone asks you to say 'Allahu Akbar' (God is greatest) five times, you do it."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9450587/Muslim-Brotherhood-establishes-militia-inside-Syria.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9450587/Muslim-Brotherhood-establishes-militia-inside-Syria.html)
-
Syria is a sovereign nation, Texas is not. I am all for Texans running as much of Texas as the US Constitution allows.
Canadians can elect whomever they choose, there is no chance that they will choose Al Qaeda.
Your stupid arguments are really getting tedious and more stupid by the moment.
The US cannot dictate who runs Syria, nor should it try.
-
Syria is a sovereign nation, Texas is not.
What is known as the United States was once part of the sovereign nation of Great Britain
until they decided to not be. Almost all nations were once part of "sovereign nations" until
they broke off. "Sovereign nations" are not set in stone, read a little history and you'll see.
Your stupid arguments are really getting tedious and more stupid by the moment.
Your stupid responses are getting more stupid by the moment.
The US cannot dictate who runs Syria, nor should it try.
Thats like saying China has no influence over who runs North Korea.
Get with the real world.
The US/Obama has huge influence as to who emerges victorious in Syria.
Khadffi would most likely still be in power had Obama/The West/The Oligarchy not pitched in to help get rid of him.
-
Assad will be gone because he is a pawn in the chess game between Iran vs. the West & Saudis
"world powers must overcome their rivalries to put an end to the "proxy war" in Syria"
UN chief Ban Ki-moon - August 4, 2012
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=53725 (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=53725)
-
Thats like saying China has no influence over who runs North Korea.
=======================
No, it is not.
Do you really think we should emulate China in our foreign policy? I think we should be more respectful of democratic principles than the Chinese
I do not think that China has EVER dictated who should run North Korea. Certainly not since the 1950's. China may have some influence as to how North Korea patrols its borders and territorial waters, but I am pretty sure that Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un were chosen by their predecessors and certainly NOT by the Chinese.
China shares a border with North Korea. The US shares no border or much of anything else with Syria.
The Chinese are adamant about their territorial borders. They do not normally dictate leaders of other countries, as the US has often done. The Chinese have not intervened much in elections in Singapore or Malaysia, and have only rattled a saber at the Taiwan Green (Independence) Party. They have allowed rather a lot of freedom in both Macau and Hong Kong. The PRC does not impose the "one child" po9licy on the Korean minority.
Again, if the Syrians democratically elect a Muslim Brother to their leadership, that is their right and it should be respected. I do not think that the Muslim Brotherhood is a major political force in Syria. We need to be aware that the Israelis do not give a sh!t about democracy or human rights in any Arab nations and that they are experts in bamboozling American opinion.
-
....................., if the Syrians democratically elect a Muslim Brother to their leadership, that is their right and it should be respected. I do not think that the Muslim Brotherhood is a major political force in Syria. ....
I agree, but if we are not involved how will there ever be an election at all?
I think it is conceiveable that the Muslim Brotherhood could win an election and form a good government that was right for its people and good for its neighbors, but you don't get garuntees with elections.
The Natzi party won an election in Germany not by being good or by representing the majority, but by being energetic while all the better were exausted.
I think we should do every reasonable thing to encourage Syrians to have a real election and we should feel bound to respect the result. This does not garuntee good results , but staying out of the process almost garuntees bad results.
-
The US can encourage impartial observers to supervise Syrian elections. The US government is pro-Israeli and would not be considered as impartial by most Syrians. Israel is quite good at infiltrating US operations in the Middle East.
The US has no business advocating one Syrian or group of Syrians over another. It would almost certainly have negative results. US weapons helped Israel conquer and grab a piece of Syrian national territory, and Syrians are not very trusting of Americans.
-
No, it is not.
Yes it is.
Do you really think we should emulate China in our foreign policy?
Just as many others do....as do the Chinese in North Korea that you naively deny...
the US should be involved in making sure our enemies are not the only ones involved in playing a part on who runs other countries.
I do not think that China has EVER dictated who should run North Korea.
Yeah I am sure China would really have allowed a democratic capitalist to take-over in North Korea? Ha Ha!
Are you really that naive? Lying? Or just that stupid?
China shares a border with North Korea. The US shares no border or much of anything else with Syria.
Oh so does Russia "share a border with Syria"?
You advocate the US not being involved, but keep your piehole silent about our enemies being involved in othe countries!
That's spelled INSANITY!
The Chinese are adamant about their territorial borders.
They do not normally dictate leaders of other countries, as the US has often done.
China has been unable to influence much because they have been poor country just tryin to feed itself.
About all China could influence was North Korea because China until recently has been a disaster.
The Chinese have not intervened much in elections in Singapore or Malaysia, and have only rattled a saber at the Taiwan Green (Independence) Party. They have allowed rather a lot of freedom in both Macau and Hong Kong. The PRC does not impose the "one child" po9licy on the Korean minority.
Again it's kind of hard to influence very many other others while you are a shit-hole.
They had no choice in Hong Kong because it wasn't their's.
Once they realized their old Commi ways were a disaster about the time they were given back Hong Kong
of course they didnt want to mess it up.
The US must not allow enemies to influence who is in power in vital areas of the world,
and we sit back and do nothing.....it's funny how you supported your boy influencing who
was in power in Libya who was ZERO threat to the US, but sing a different tune about
US influence eleswhere....but I am sure if Obozo started getting more involved in Syria
you'd be back on board changing your positions to support your control freak party rep.
-
Replacing Assad is a worthy goal. Syrians are being killed and there is chaos. I support the US helping the Syrians hold elections.
The Russians are not enemies of the US. The Chinese are not enemies of the US, either.
The Chinese could have done anything with Hong Kong and Macau that the wishwed when the lease expired, but they chose pragmatically to create different special zones for both cities.
The Chinese want peace and stability in North Korea. I see no evidence that they would not tolerate democratic elections. They have elections in Hong Kong, Manchuria, Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea, and the Chinese do not normally seek to disrupt them.
North Korea does not have a true Communist government. It is basically a Confuscist pseudo-Marxist hereditary dictatorship. The Chinese did not veto any of the Kim family, even though they surely have always had the ability to do so.
-
The Russians are not enemies of the US. The Chinese are not enemies of the US, either.
Enemies have nukes pointed at you
Both the Chinese and the Russians have nukes pointed at us.
The Brits and the French do not have nukes pointed at us.
Hopefully one day they (Russia and China) be will become free and democratic.
Free enterprise, capitalist, democracies dont point nukes at each other or go to war against each other.
-
I don't know who Syrians would ever consider impartial, I accept that the US isn't , but who is?
When Assad leaves , I wouldn't expect the Syrians to want Chineese or Russian election monitors , all their near neighbors have territory or water demand interest, distant nations might not want to get this on them.
Who is trustworthy is a better question than who is disinterested.
I expect Turkey to take a leading role , and the US to defer.
-
When Assad leaves , I wouldn't expect the Syrians to want Chineese or Russian election monitors ,
it would probably be UN monitors,
but the UN can't prevent widespread outside influences.
and there will be massive outside influence
too much is at stake in the "chess game" for there not to be
-
(http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/files/2011/01/washington-post-large-logo-2.jpg)
Meshing realism and idealism in Middle East
By Henry A. Kissinger,
August 3, 2012
The Arab Spring is often celebrated by reciting the roll call of overthrown autocrats. But revolutions, in the end, will be judged primarily by what they build, not what they destroy. And in this respect, a year of revolution has refashioned exhilaration into paradox.
The United States applauded the demonstrations in Egypt's Tahrir Square. Blaming itself for too protracted an association with an undemocratic leader, it urged Hosni Mubarak to step down. But once he did so, the original exultant demonstrators have not turned out to be the heirs. Instead, Islamists with no record of democracy and a history of hostility to the West have been elected to a presidencythey had pledged not to seek. They are opposed by the military, which had buttressed the previous regime. The secular democratic element has been marginalized. Where do we go from here?
Contrary to recent conventional wisdom, at no point was the internal structure of Egypt the United States's to determine. For millennia, monarchs and military autocrats have held sway. In the 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat abandoned the Soviet alliance forged by Gamal Abdel Nasser's military regime 20 years earlier. Sadat made peace with Israel, with the United States acting as mediator. These events helped to transform the Cold War. They reflected a hard-headed assessment by all parties of the relation of forces that emerged from the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist extremists, whose continued terrorism was used by his successor, Mubarak, as justification for prolonged emergency powers.
Throughout, Egypt and its government were facts of international life; American administrations of both parties, faced with the Cold War and looming turmoil in the region, judged it crucial to work with a major Arab country willing to take risks for regional peace. As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton affirmed in her recent Cairo press conference, "We worked with the government of the country at the time."
At what point, faced first with Soviet adventurism and then the consequences of the Soviet Union's disintegration, did the United States have an option to intervene directly in the region's domestic politics? From Nixon through Clinton, American presidents judged the risks of such a course to outweigh its benefits. The George W. Bush administration did urge Mubarak to permit multiparty elections and criticized his suppression of dissent, and President Obama affirmed a similar direction early in his administration. U.S. foreign policy is neither the cause of, nor the solution to, all shortcomings in other countries "domestic governance" especially in the Middle East.
With a constitution yet to be drafted, the function of key institutions in contention between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military, and an electorate closely divided between dramatically different visions of their country's future, Egypt's revolution is far from its end. U.S. policy is torn between competing imperatives. The Muslim Brotherhood has emerged by electoral processes called for by democratic values, while the military stands for outcomes that are closer to the the U.S. concept of international security (and possibly of domestic pluralism). If the United States erred in the Cold War period by excessive emphasis on the security element, it now runs the risk of confusing sectarian populism with democracy.
Amid these tremors, the debate regarding the determinants of U.S. foreign policy is reigniting. Realists judge the events from the perspective of security strategy; idealists see them as an opportunity to promote democracy. But the choice is not between the strategic and the idealistic. If we cannot combine both elements, we will achieve neither.
In that context we must face, and not fudge, the following questions: Do we stand aloof from these internal processes, or do we try to shape them? Do we back one of the contestants or concentrate on advocating electoral procedures (knowing that this may guarantee a strategically repugnant result)? Can our commitment to democracy avoid leading to a sectarian absolutism based on managed plebiscites and one-party rule?
In Egypt, backing a military council composed mostly of Mubarak associates offends democratic sensibilities. Postulating shared values with an explicitly Islamist party, which for generations has advocated an anti-Western course for the entire region, substitutes hope for experience. Military regimes have proved fragile; ideologically driven organizations have used democratic institutions for undemocratic ends and to challenge regional order. We should be open to genuine moderation shown by ideological opponents. But we should not be reluctant to affirm our security interests. In this narrow passage, U.S. policy must navigate without deluding itself that the key players are waiting for our instructions.
In Syria, even more complex comparable dilemmas loom. (On one level, Syria contradicts the argument that the United States could have promoted a more democratic outcome in Egypt by withholding cooperative relations. U.S. aloofness surely did not moderate the Assad family's authoritarianism.)
In our public debate, the crisis in Syria is generally described as a struggle for democracy, and its culmination is presumed to be the removal of Bashar al-Assad. Neither attribute fits the essence of the problem. The real issue is a struggle for dominance between Assad?s Alawites, backed by many of the other Syrian minorities, and the Sunni majority.
Assad himself is an unlikely leader with a reputation for indecisiveness. Having settled in London as an ophthalmologist, a profession that usually does not attract the power-hungry, he was drafted into Syrian politics only after the death of his elder brother, the designated heir to their dominant father. The conflict in Syria is therefore likely to continue, probably even intensify, upon Assad's welcome and all but inevitable removal. With their front man gone, Assad's clan and the Alawite minority, dominant in Syria?s military, may consider themselves reduced to a struggle for physical survival.
Constructing a political alternative to the Assad regime will prove even more complex than the course in Egypt or the other Arab Spring countries, since the contending factions are more numerous and less clearly delineated, and their differences more intense. Without creative leadership to build an inclusive political order, a prospect not yet clearly in evidence among the combatants, Syria may break into component ethnic and sectarian entities, whose strife would then risk spreading by means of affiliated populations into neighboring countries.
On all sides of the Syrian conflict, the commitment of the belligerents to democratic values and alignment with Western interests is, at best, untested. Al-Qaeda has now entered the conflict, effectively on the side that the United States is being asked to join. In such circumstances, U.S. policymakers encounter a choice not between a "realistic" and an "idealistic" outcome but between competing imperfections, between considerations of strategy and of governance. We are stymied on Syria because we have a strategic interest in breaking the Assad clan's alliance with Iran, which we are reluctant to avow, and the moral objective of saving human lives, which we are unable to implement through the U.N. Security Council.
Since the Arab uprisings began, four governments have fallen, and several others have been seriously tested. The United States has felt obliged to respond to and occasionally to participate in this drama, but it has still not answered fundamental questions about its direction: Do we have a vision of what strategic equation in the region serves our and global interests? Or of the means to achieve them? How do we handle the economic assistance which may be the best, if not the only, means to influence the evolution?
The United States can and should assist on the long journey toward societies based on civil tolerance and individual rights. But it cannot do so effectively by casting every conflict entirely in ideological terms. Our efforts must also be placed within a framework of U.S. strategic interests, which should help define the extent and nature of our role. Progress toward a world order embracing participatory governance and international cooperation requires the fortitude to work through intermediate stages. It also requires that the various aspirants to a new order in the Middle East recognize that our contribution to their efforts will be measured by their compatibility with our interests and values. For this, the realism and idealism we now treat as incompatible need to be reconciled.
2012 Tribune Media Services
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-meshing-realism-and-idealism-in-syria-middle-east/2012/08/02/gJQAFkyHTX_print.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-meshing-realism-and-idealism-in-syria-middle-east/2012/08/02/gJQAFkyHTX_print.html)
-
Syria is a sovereign nation, Texas is not.
What is known as the United States was once part of the sovereign nation of Great Britain
until they decided to not be. Almost all nations were once part of "sovereign nations" until
they broke off. "Sovereign nations" are not set in stone, read a little history and you'll see.
==========================================================================\
Unlike you, I do not see Texas declaring its independence anytime soon. Texas was forced to join the US because it was totally bankrupt in 1845, according to the history I have read.
Syria is not likely to split into several countries or join with any of its neighbors, either. I would LIKE to annex Lebanon, but the French used the Christian minority to split it off, and it seems unlikely that this will happen, either.
In the case of Syria, Assad has made too many enemies now to pull it all together.
Syrians will decide one way or another, who is in charge of Syria, NOT some hotshot Dallas businessman.
-
Texas was forced to join the US because it was totally bankrupt in 1845, according to the history I have read.
And now the opposite is true!
You liberals have bankrupted the United States with your nutty nannyism.
So the time is getting closer when i hope we tell your sorry asses GOODBYE!
-
Syria is not likely to split into several countries or join with any of its neighbors, either.
I'll lean towards Henry Kissinger thoughts....but thanks anyway.
Syrians will decide one way or another, who is in charge of Syria, NOT some hotshot Dallas businessman.
The Oligarchy that controls Obama will decide the fate of Syria!
Just like they did in Libya.
-
Has anyone determined the fate of Libya?
Libya will continue pumping oil and selling it. Probably more oil money will benefit the people of Libya, rather than one tyrannical leader.
The Oligarchy does not control President Obama, that is why they are constantly attacking him.
Without Texas, the US will elect Democrat after Democrat, and Texans will learn to fear Mexico. Fine with me.
-
Has anyone determined the fate of Libya?
Oh I'm quite sure it's been determined.
The West didn't do what they did for the fun of it.
Libya was no threat....Obama was ordered by the Oligarchy to replace Khadaffi.
Probably more oil money will benefit the people of Libya, rather than one tyrannical leader.
Non-sense naivety!
Libya wasn't as bad as most think under Khadaffi.
And you have no data showing it will improve.
Libya under Khadaffi was ranked higher by the United Nations Human Development Index than the following countries:
China
India
Brazil
Turkey
Lebanon
Thailand
Philippines
South Africa
Jordan
Jamaica
Peru
Honduras
Nicaragua
Morocco
Guatemala
AND SO MANY OTHER COUNTRIES!
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/)
The Oligarchy does not control President Obama
yeah sure....see chart below:
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/ff41bc3d.jpg)
Without Texas, the US will elect Democrat after Democrat, and Texans will learn to fear Mexico. Fine with me.
frankly i'd hope after Tx left more democrats would get elected
to hasten the train-wreck that has happened in calif only encourging more states to leave
once most of the producers leave & only the tit suckers remain...your nanny state will collapse.
and yeah sure...we'd be shaking in our boots over Mexico!
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/9874edad.jpg)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Politics/7227e7df.jpg)
-
I agree that Turkey is likely to be seen as a valid neutral party to supervise Syrian elections.
Libya was a fairly wealthy country on a per capita basis, but the money mostly went to Qadaffi and his henchmen. I hardly think that the UN index you quote was anywhere near accurate.
Jet aircraft stupidly painted with the Texas flag are just a joke. Like you, you are also just a joke, along with your crap about how Jesus wants smaller government.
-
I hardly think that the UN index you quote was anywhere near accurate.
Love it....love it....love it
making liberals take ridiculous stances to make their "ridiculous dots" connect
so now we see that the United Nations Human Development Index is invalid.
No data to back up the claim...
Just "I dont like what I see so it must be bogus"
"Hey dat dont fit my world view"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index)
-
Turkey has industry, Turkey produces most of its own food, Libya fits neither of these criteria, which seems to be based on GDP, dividing national income by the population.
China and India have large middle classes. So does South Africa. How can anyone claim that South Africa is less developed than Libya? That is just dumb.
I do not disagree with this because it comes from the UN, but because it seems to be simply simplistic, wrong, or both.
-
French Philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy:
"What Was Done in Libya Can Be Done in Syria"
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3513.htm (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3513.htm)
-
Turkey has industry, Turkey produces most of its own food, Libya fits neither of these criteria.
This is 2012....no 1812.
What does food production have to do with anything?
Japan does not produce much food nor does Saudi Arabia.
Iceland is #14 in the world, how much food production goes on there?
From 1977 onward, per capita income in Libya rose to more than US $11,000,
the fifth-highest in Africa.This was achieved without borrowing any foreign loans, keeping Libya debt-free. In addition, the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#cite_note-60 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#cite_note-60)
The World Bank defines Libya as an 'Upper Middle Income Economy', along with only seven other African countries.[171] In the early 1980s, Libya was one of the wealthiest countries in the world; its GDP per capita was higher than that of developed countries such as Italy, Singapore, South Korea, Spain and New Zealand.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#cite_note-60
Libya consistently ranks as North Africa's top performing economies, with little debt, a healthy capital surplus, a relatively small, adaptable, and highly educated population, and carefully planned budget expenditures. Libya's economy grew above 7% in 2006, one of only 8 countries in Africa to buck the trend, meeting the desired aims of the UN Millennium Development goals as outlined in Africa Development Report 2007.
http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=10520&t=1&c=34&cg=4 (http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=10520&t=1&c=34&cg=4)
China and India have large middle classes. So does South Africa.
How can anyone claim that South Africa is less developed than Libya?
That is just dumb.
China is still an extremely poor country.
I had a friend go there & he was shocked at the level of poverty outside the cities.
China is booming, but it is still an over-all very poor country.
I do not disagree with this because it comes from the UN,
but because it seems to be simply simplistic, wrong, or both.
So you think the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI), a respected comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life for countries worldwide is "simply wrong". You think this is something the United Nations just throws together on a whim?
Take a look at the following link and see how very "unsimplistic" the HDI really is:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/ (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/)
-
You respect anything that agrees with your twisted notions of reality. I have no obligation to agree with you, and I do not.