Different houses, different living standards. You could end up saying their poorer conditions lead to this catastrophe, but dams woukd have probably failed anyway, in one way or another one.
If any nation could become easily rich thanks to a government change, it would have happens yesterday.
Those nations are destroyed in a century and partially rebuilt the following century. You know who usually decides
Different living standards could have caused 3 factors of 10 increase in deaths? That sounds a bit extreme. If they had a functioning government (read: it hadn’t been destroyed by the west), surely that government could have kept up with the upkeep of the dams and fortified them, knowing that extreme weather events are coming?
The west is unable to deal with such extreme events, and you’re saying they could actually have been better than us?
I’ve no idea how lybia actually is, but I can judge those events. It happened to me this summer, nothing so dangerous or extreme but I’ve never seen anything like that before. And I’ve seen a lot of sunsets in my life.
Libya was doing very well before it was invaded. The leader was repressive, but they had tremendous oil wealth. They clearly cared about giving this wealth back to their people, evidenced by the free education, healthcare, and lump sums of money to married couples etc. I find it more likely that the government of Libya would have been willing to invest in the protection of it’s people by repairing the dam regularly, versus any western country that only wants to extract maximum profit from it’s inhabitants by charging for all services and privatisation of previously national services, all while the leaders pocket hundreds of millions (the UK, for example).
Different houses, different living standards. You could end up saying their poorer conditions lead to this catastrophe, but dams woukd have probably failed anyway, in one way or another one. If any nation could become easily rich thanks to a government change, it would have happens yesterday. Those nations are destroyed in a century and partially rebuilt the following century. You know who usually decides
West: steals all resources, then burns a bunch of shit, and then causes a massive flood
Libya: thousands of people die
West: lol why are your houses so shit lmao build better gg skill issue
I don’t: Who decides?
Different living standards could have caused 3 factors of 10 increase in deaths? That sounds a bit extreme. If they had a functioning government (read: it hadn’t been destroyed by the west), surely that government could have kept up with the upkeep of the dams and fortified them, knowing that extreme weather events are coming?
deleted by creator
The west is unable to deal with such extreme events, and you’re saying they could actually have been better than us? I’ve no idea how lybia actually is, but I can judge those events. It happened to me this summer, nothing so dangerous or extreme but I’ve never seen anything like that before. And I’ve seen a lot of sunsets in my life.
Libya was doing very well before it was invaded. The leader was repressive, but they had tremendous oil wealth. They clearly cared about giving this wealth back to their people, evidenced by the free education, healthcare, and lump sums of money to married couples etc. I find it more likely that the government of Libya would have been willing to invest in the protection of it’s people by repairing the dam regularly, versus any western country that only wants to extract maximum profit from it’s inhabitants by charging for all services and privatisation of previously national services, all while the leaders pocket hundreds of millions (the UK, for example).
It looks like you’re 100% right, according to a fact check.
https://g.co/bard/share/aed6d2881380
In my opinion lemmy should offer an automatic fact check about what people write in their posts