Libya Superthread

Tax dollars at work.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430

Respect at a funeral in my definition would be the patrons saying nothing even if they disagreed with or hated the dead person. So in that case, by my definition, by not saying anything, you are providing exactly what is necessary.

Feel slight sympathy for Hitler?
[spoiler:i3vusvk1][yt:i3vusvk1]4bmkUlXp5sk[/yt:i3vusvk1][/spoiler:i3vusvk1]

Ok that is the case where I would say respect is always due, at the funeral and around the family. But still in other cases for those who earned it in life by doing horrible things, respect is not necessary.

May I remind everyone of what he said...

"We are not Egypt"

Mumbarak used violence in limited spurts but it faild, he is willing to mobalize the entire army to fight.

Also, Tripoly is out of fuel, does this mean his armour will become useless within a short time, to move on to other issues? I mean, if there are riots and fights in Tripoly for fuel, then the regime must be close to falling, especially once they completely run out. The Rebells might be untrained, but at least they have gas. If his front line cannot be supplied with food and fuel, it will collapse. Plus if there is large scale rioting as opposed to mini riots in the capital, a withdrawl in Misrata, and a stalemate at the front, plus continuing airstrikes, it aint looking good for the regime.

Only funerals, seems rather arbitrary, perhaps we should not be so petty as to spout drivel at all. Perhaps we could even be civilized and realize the consequences of a different life, with different upbringings, is one of the things separating us from the worst of criminals. To not see the humanity in death is sad for the beholder, as you have to will yourself to be blind to the tragedy of loss.

I like this statement.

An empty school with an antennae on top targeted on a Saturday? Come on Che, I'm sure you could find a better example than that

very nice, bravo

Assassination is illegal by American law. But hey, they might as well just break a few more laws while they are at it. It is not like they follow that law anyways.

I think the military is exempt form that law.

I disagree with observer, but they said they were targeting a command and control bunker...too bad someone placed a house with the leader and his sons on top of it.

Since when have Americans followed law? Not even their own . For once your cynicism is justified

It's actually not. Assassination is perfectly fine and even given a specific legal outlet in the Letter of Marque that the President can issue/Congress can approve (not that a Letter of Marque is necessary for it to be legal). Assassinating American citizens is of questionable legality, however.

That's fucked up!

Its how we got rid of south vietnamese dictator: Diem

[yt:ysu0wwfy]GuqZfaj34nc[/yt:ysu0wwfy]
Makes sense.

One disadvantage of a gold standard that the size and health of a country's economy is dependent upon its supply of gold, not the resourcefulness of its people and businesses. Countries without any gold are at a competitive disadvantage.

However, this is an advantage to the U.S., which is the world's second largest gold mining country behind South Africa. Most U.S. gold mining occurs on federally owned lands in twelve western states, with Nevada being the primary source. Australia, Canada and many developing countries also are major gold producers. (Source: National Mining Association) I don't think Libya would do very well.

The gold standard causes countries to become obsessed with keeping their gold, rather than improving the business climate. For example, during the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to make dollars more valuable and prevent people from demanding gold. However, the Fed should have been lowering rates to stimulate the economy. (Source: Econlib, The Great Depression)

Government actions to protect their gold reserves caused large fluctuations in the economy. In fact, between 1890 and 1905, when the U.S. was on the gold standard, the economy suffered five major recessions for this reason. (Source: Federal Reserve, Remarks by Governor Edward M. Gramlich,, 24th Annual Conference of the Eastern Economic Association, February 27, 1998)

I think the reason it was supposedly so valuable was the idea of a collective bargaining chip, not so much the fact that it was backed on gold. Can you imagine a collective african currency, wouldn't it promote more investment in Africa? ...I would think. In the long run, wouldn't it enable massive expansion; a sort of African union bloc, that could dub trade agreements profitable or collectively 'bad' for them?