'The transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil set out a vision for the post-Qaddafi future with an Islamist tint, saying that Islamic Sharia law would be the “basic source” of legislation in the country and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.
In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing in the air, but rather to chant “Allahu Akbar,” or God is Great. He then stepped aside and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.
Abdul-Jalil said new banks would be set up to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest as a practice deemed usury.
He also announced the annulment of an existing family law that limits the number of wives Libyan can take, contradicting the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that allows men up to four wives.
President Obama congratulated Libya on their declaration of liberation.
“After four decades of brutal dictatorship and eight months of deadly conflict, the Libyan people can now celebrate their freedom and the beginning of a new era of promise,” Obama said in a statement.
“We look forward to working with the NTC and an empowered transitional government as they prepare for the country’s first free and fair elections,” Obama said.’
So libya will replace a moronic despot, with a moronic oligarchy. I say whatever they want to do is fine, but this is not some USA chest thumping victory of sorts. Especially if democracy prevailing is the barometer of success. We should stay the fuck out of their business, as well as the rest of the arab world. If they want to be fuckups, let them be fuckups amongst themselves.
The article clearly referenced internal aspects of government and the banking system, which is what I referred to. An exogenous attack does not directly deal with that.
But for you, let me be more clear. I referred to what Libya, or the other Arab spring countries do internally, governmentally, religiously, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. So if Libya wants Sharia Law, multiple wives, an Iranianesque theocracy, it is none of our direct business. Picking winners and losers in middle eastern affairs has not turned out so well for us, or perhaps you think Hamid Karzai, who would side with Pakistan against the US, and whom the US put in power, is a good example.
Middle eastern tribal, and religious power disputes in geographically defined boundaries, defined from the dissolution of the ottoman empire Will ALWAYS be disputed, contested, and violent. Not something you want to get in the middle of, or you will have more planes crashing down.
I believe we should keep a watchful eye, but nothing rash as much of our previous dealings have been.
…or perhaps you think Hamid Karzai, who would side with Pakistan against the US, and whom the US put in power, is a good example.
[/quote]
Ha ha ha! You didn’t fall for that nonsense did you? That’s just hot air. The Afghan government wouldn’t trust the Pakistanis as far as they could throw them.
so you fall for that nonsense do you. Kind of like we were at war with “communism” in the 50’s. Such a nebulous term to create a pretext for global hegemony.
Or communism in the pretext of the Gulf of Tonkin lies.
What wars are we winning? The “war on terror” dont give me that shit. This is no longer textbook WW2 campaigns with body count statistics and occupations determining success. Waging unsustainable wars for ungrateful populaces only gives us more problems HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THAT. Guess the national debt isnt that much of a security concern is it Mr. Vigilant.
If you are so concerned with these islamic fundamentalists, how bout you get the troops out of there, as they are marginally effective at best, and put more into intel/cia operations behind the scenese. Again, I am only entertaining this notion to your war mongering self.
That will probably go in one in ear and right out the other, in your case.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
So you fall for that nonsense do you. Kind of like we were at war with “communism” in the 50’s. Such a nebulous term to create a pretext for global hegemony.
Or communism in the pretext of the Gulf of Tonkin lies.
What wars are we winning? The “war on terror” dont give me that shit.[/quote]
THE WMD of the Vietnam conflict! I wonder how many people even know the truth about the Gulf Of Tonkin?
[quote]666Rich wrote:
Waging unsustainable wars for ungrateful populaces only gives us more problems HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THAT. Guess the national debt isnt that much of a security concern is it Mr. Vigilant.[/quote]
Because the little fucker doesn’t WANT to see it. He’s too busy shouting USA! USA! USA! Damn, talk about not being able to see 1 inch in front of you.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
So we spent a shitload of cash to off a dictator that most of the intelligence community had a hard-on to kill.
The hard line Islamic’s just fill the void created.
Sweet.[/quote]
…and we do it over and over again, in country after country. [/quote]
LOL! Yup. And yet they still want to keep doing it. ROTFLMAO!
Psst…to the neocon idiots…The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. GET IT?
And to another poster, Communism destroyed itself. “We” didn’t actually “win” it. Although in a way we lost too. Look at how it seeped into academia and what the idiot Left’s views on economics are. Not to mention the bat shit insanity of political correctness which is nothing more than some perverted religion.
