Hi Lego,

Please stop misrepresenting what I've said. I've never said Gaddafi was my hero. He was a political leader, and like many political leaders he did things I find abhorrent. And if there was real justice he and many other world leaders would spend a long time behind bars.

It doesn't shock me that he may have been involved in terrorism. Some of our closest allies (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) are known to be the biggest supporters of global Islamic terrorism, but we fund and sell arms to them? Why is that?

The CIA funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. At the time many women were studying and working it was secular, but occupied by the Soviets (communists). How did that work out? It produced Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban taking power. After the US's longest ever occupation, it is now a narco state at risk of civil war.

Then we invaded Iraq - Iraq was a secular Ba'athist state with nationalised oil, women could work and study. By the time we finished it was a failed state with a civil war , Al Qaeda was present and ISIS was formed there.

We invaded Libya, secular Islamic state, women could work and study, nationalised oil. Result failed state, civil war and ISIS present.

In Syria, we supported "moderates" eg Al Nusra front - listed terrorist organisation. Syria was a secular state where women could study and work, with many nationalised assets. Now suffering civil war. ISIS there.

I think there is a pattern here - we aren't going after states, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, even though they both have terrible human rights records and are known to support fundamentalist Islamists. The key is they have undergone "economic liberalization" so no need to invade - corporations can already access their wealth.

The West has spent billions even trillions bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Middle East, but we only seem to bring death and terror to millions of civilians.

It's not the people who are being "liberated", it's their wealth.

Dear CHERFUL,

You wrote: "Oh look, it's the big white elephant. Can't you see it."

A white elephant is a gift that is a burden. Perhaps you mean the elephant in the room.

Supply of contraceptives does not mean they will be used. Without changes in a society so that women can get an education and see worth in themselves besides being makers of babies supply of contraceptives will make no difference.

To BJelly.

You praised Ghaddafi and said that he was a person who had given his people free this, and free that, and it was terrible that the west was instrumental in ending his regime and killing him. Now that I have told you what you were too ignorant to know, you are trying to disown him. Oh, and by the way, the reason why the Euros supported the Libyan people against Ghaddafi, was because Ghaddafi was winning with his African mercenary troops and he promised to exterminate everybody who had fought against him. You might be smart enough to know what he meant by that.

I know that understanding the Byzantine nature of Middle Eastern politics is beyond you, but I will try and educate you out of your continued ignorance. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not allies of the west, they are our enemies. Saudi school textbooks tell their kids "all infidels are your enemies" which is why the 9/11 bombers in New York were all Saudis doing what the Saudi education system had brainwashed them to do.

The Taliban is a creation of Pakistan. That was why the yanks told the Pakkis to "choose sides" when they invaded (liberated?) Afghanistan. The Pakkis have been playing a double game all along, pretending to help the Allies in exchange for money and arms while helping the Pashtuns to fight the Europeans. Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan in full view of the Pakistan military who were obviously protecting him. But the whole thing blew up in the Pakkis faces. The Pashtun monster that they created is now so strong that Waziristan is now effectively a separate state. The Pakkis tried to re establish Pakistan government control in Waziristan using the Pakistan Army and the Taliban and Al Qaida threw them out. The Pashtuns even had a "victory parade" to celebrate their victory over "their" own government's army.

Continued

Hi Lego,
I deplore any abuses of human rights. I admire that he seemed to care for his people and made sure that they had homes, access to food, health and education. Not many leaders do that anymore. I can walk and chew gum so to speak. Because I admire one part of his legacy doesn't mean I have to admire everything about him. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. I admit I need to find out more about his past, so maybe I will spend time doing that.
Cheers!

To BJelly

It took over 200,000 years for the world's population to reach 1 billion. Another 123 to reach 2 billion. Today human population stands at 7.2 billion with another billion added every 12-14 years. Most of this population explosion comes from third world countries which are already very poor. First world countries would have negative population changes if not for immigration.

By what logic do you hold successful (rich) societies responsible for the increases in population in the very poor countries? Haven't we been telling them for decades to get their populations under control? If you want to blame somebody for world pioverty, you would be better off directing you ire at the Catholic Church, the cultural values of cultures which still insist on having very large numbers of offspring, and the intelligence levels of blacks who refuse to use condoms because they think that the whites are trying to stop blacks from breeding.

Your arguments about the CIA and bankers being responsible for world poverty is lunacy. German bankers lent Greece squillions of dollars which Greece who's leaders were totally corrupt and knew that they would already be retired to their retreats on Corfu when the time came to pay the Germans back. If you lend somebody a million and he can't pay it back, he has a real problem. But if the banks lend somebody hundreds of billions, then it is the bank which has the problem.

Throughout modern history, corrupt politicians in very poor countries have always claimed that they would end poverty by taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. Every post colonial dictator in Africa, the Middle East, and South America sang from the same song sheet. They all tried socialism and it always failed. It never worked. Sometimes the Americans were sucessful in helping the more intelligent people within these countries to get rid of the idiot dictators like Allende who had made a bad economy within an already hideously overpopulated country even worse. Sometimes the yanks failed, as in Iran, and the loonies kept control of the overpopulated asylum.

david f <Supply of contraceptives does not mean they will be used. Without changes in a society so that women can get an education and see worth in themselves besides being makers of babies supply of contraceptives will make no difference.>

I agree,
Perhaps that is why a lot of the male leaders in religious
countries are against women and girls getting an education.
They wish to keep control of women's fertility. Again the
ball is in the court of the male leaders to do something about it.
But as is well known, men don't bring about these kind of constructive societal changes preferring to assert male domination
over female fertility. It is all about sexual power with them.

In the worst poverty,often war torn areas in the world, they actively prevent girls getting an education to the point of killing them
or throwing acid over them.

These countries shouldn't expect the Western countries who long ago implemented these
changes in women's education and contraception to take in the
refugees fleeing from countries
where the male leaders refuse to be told. I resent those male
leaders in the United Nations standing up there and blaming
the West and Europe for their own refusal to see that the
problems of poverty and human misery, rest soley with them.

A world population of 7billion people testifies to a lack of
common sense and understanding that men have in keeping the world
at a sustainable population, women would therefore be better
suited to being given the power to govern their own lives and bodies and in
so doing put an end to the huge burden of overpopulation that
is causing so much poverty,war and grief in the world.