Comments

  1. pHred says

    I take it that has finally been confirmed ? CNN was saying dead – NPR was saying captured/wounded or perhaps dead. I have been deep in sample prep and have been wondering for hours.

  2. Ichthyic says

    from the original link in the article linked to from here:

    Grainy video broadcast on Arabic satellite networks showed a blood-smeared but still-living Gadhafi, dressed in what appear to be military fatigues, being hauled onto a truck after his capture. Another video showed an apparently dead Gadhafi with what appears to be a head wound, but it was not clear what happened after his capture.

    not clear what happened after his capture…

    uh huh.

    :p

  3. says

    Not terribly lamentable, but I’ll at least give him credit for going down fighting–not so much because that’s commendable in itself, rather because he said that he would, and then did.

    I’d be far more impressed, though, had he not killed a bunch of captives prior to that. Swine.

    Glen Davidson

  4. joed says

    Neocolonialisation of Africa. U S Africom can now move from Germany to, well, where else, Africa.
    Ghadafi put Libya at the top of African nations in health, education, housing etc. He had a huge concern for the betterment and welfare of his people. There have been and are worse tyrants. Saudi’s for example and then there is Bahrain etc etc.
    The rich West has won again and dark skin people beware.

  5. Ichthyic says

    Ghadafi put Libya at the top of African nations in health, education, housing etc.

    …and then became a rabid dog that had to be put down.

    seriously, HOW CAN YOU FUCKING IGNORE ALL THE PEOPLE HE TERRORIZED AND KILLED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, ALONE!

    fuck right the hell off, moron.

  6. Pierce R. Butler says

    1 Gaddafi dead, check.

    When, if ever, do we get a count on the total number of Libyans killed?

  7. Zerple says

    I’m more or less apathetic. I was/am against the US being in Libya, and I hope that him being dead will be sufficient reason for us to declare “victory” and leave Libya.

    I really wish we would stop invading random countries, which we have no interest to be invading. Isolationism ftw.

  8. falstaff says

    Joed, are you saying you wouldn’t mind living under a dictatorship as long as things like health, education, housing, etc, were good?

  9. noastronomer says

    “Ghadafi put Libya at the top of African nations in health, education, housing etc” [citation needed]

    I’ll echo what I said about OBL : good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Though in this case a trial would actually have been really nice. For OBL a trial would have been a nightmare.

    Mike.

  10. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    Completely off topic but @10 makes my head ironically explode.

  11. Japheree says

    The rich West has won again and dark skin people beware.

    Would this include the same ‘dark skin’ people who decided they had had enough of Gadafi off their own bat? I cant help thinking that your attitude of glassing over a real and genuine desire for change with ‘neo-colonialism’ is pretty offensive to Libyans.

    There are plenty of genuine things for you to berate ‘the West’ for. This isn’t one of them.

  12. Randomfactor says

    How were the train schedules?

    My first thought about the news was: didn’t the guy have body doubles, or was that Saddam? Hand your golden pistol to one of your doubles, say “tag, you’re it” and escape during the celebration…

  13. Ichthyic says

    I hope that him being dead will be sufficient reason for us to declare “victory” and leave Libya.

    NATO said it will convene for a meeting to discuss ending its operation in Libya, a senior NATO official told CNN. Earlier, NATO aircraft struck two pro-Gadhafi military vehicles in the vicinity of Sirte.

    “It will be very soon, perhaps next day or two,” the official said.

  14. Ichthyic says

    Isolationism ftw.

    there were a lot of people who thought like you in the 1930s in the US, too. Those people thought we should leave Europe and England to fall at the hands of a brutal and insane dictatorship.

    thankfully, they did not hold sway then.

  15. says

    @Zerple (#8)-

    “I was/am against the US being in Libya, and I hope that him being dead will be sufficient reason for us to declare ‘victory’ and leave Libya.”

    Considering that we never had ground troops in Libya, I’d say that’s a done deal.

  16. Zerple says

    @zyxek –

    Even so, we contributed resources and money to something which had no real benefits for us.

  17. says

    From Barack Obama:

    “One year ago, the notion of a free Libya seemed impossible, but then the Libyan people rose up and demanded their rights. And when Gadhafi and his forces started going city to city, town by town to brutalize men, women and children, the world refused to stand idly by. Faced with the potential of mass atrocities and a call for help from the Libyan people, the United States and our friends and allies, stopped Gadhafi’s forces in their tracks. A coalition that included the United States, NATO and Arab nations persevered through the summer to protect Libyan civilians. Meanwhile, the courageous Libyan people fought for their own future and broke the back of the regime.

    I wish the U.S. and the U.K. had supported the people a lot sooner instead of convenient dictatorships.

  18. Teh kiloGraeme says

    I’ll just transpose my Facebook status:

    May Gadaffi be relegated to the dungheap of history, only to be raised as a spectre to frighten those who seek power as tyrants.

    @Zerple:

    You believe that is isn’t our duty to aid those who ask for it? ‘cos that’s how this started…

  19. Zerple says

    @Ichthyic 17

    “there were a lot of people who thought like you in the 1930s in the US, too. Those people thought we should leave Europe and England to fall at the hands of a brutal and insane dictatorship.

    thankfully, they did not hold sway then.”

    There is a pretty big difference between a country with a first world military and expansionist goals, invading and conquering nearby countries while perpetrating one of the largest genocides in history, and a tin-pot dictator, powerless everywhere other than the country he’s ruling, who has been pretty well contained for four decades.

    One of these things, we had pretty good reason to fear, and throw money and bombs at. The other, not so much.

  20. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    I wish the U.S. and the U.K. had supported the people a lot sooner instead of convenient dictatorships.

    Better a convenient dictatorship than government that might not be beholden to you.

    (Said with very bitter sarcasm.)

  21. Ash says

    ” …and then became a rabid dog that had to be put down.

    seriously, HOW CAN YOU FUCKING IGNORE ALL THE PEOPLE HE TERRORIZED AND KILLED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, ALONE!”

    Who misled you into thinking he was a rabid dog? Your lying MSM, right?. The heads of governments who are hatede by the Western governments are always described in your biased MSM as a “dictator”, killer of his own people, and what not Why not describe Obama similarly when he ordered the assassination of his own people? Or did you and the MSM conveniently forget that he ordered assassinations of his own people??

  22. SAWells says

    So few of the world’s bad guys remember to get killed at the end of the final battle after the fall of their last stronghold. Very Macbeth.

  23. Crudely Wrott says

    Well of course he’s dead.

    Sheesh, don’cha know he thought he was Benito Mussolini? Why, he even dressed like Benito, struck the same poses. You know, hero worship. And Benito ended up how? Sheesh!

    sic semper tyranus*

    and please pardon my Latin, it’s been a long time since Mr. Miliken’s class.

    *can someone please correct me? thanks in advance*

  24. joed says

    why do you guys express anger and near-hatered when educated about the actual facts of Libya. Ghadafi created a relatively wealthy healthy educated nation. He may not have been a nice guy to every citizen but I do not believe he was the rabid dog that Reagan and obama and nato and cia etc have said he is. i just don’t believe the rich West media and its liars. but the facts are there about the country.
    I don’t understand why you guys must express anger unless you are not sure of your own positions.
    Privileged white people want all the wealth of Africa. And it looks like they will get it back. especially with the credulous skeptics here believing the rich West media.

  25. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    Fine, Ash, most of us get it. Barack Obama is not exactly beloved in this corner of the internet. But it still does not take away from the brutality of Ghadafi. A reign that began with Obama was but a child.

  26. says

    @27: I’ll have an order of False Equivalence with Tu Quoque on the side.

    Yes, there’s plenty of hypocrisy to criticize in the US government, and the Western democracies in general, especially during the past decade. Nonetheless, it remains the case that any random American can stand up in the street, or on the internet, or in a letter to the paper, and say that Obama is doing a lousy job of running the country; they can even spout obviously idiotic slanders about Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Communist tyrant-in-the-making who’s going to impose Sharia Law the day after he steals the 2012 elections.

    And exactly nothing bad is likely to happen to them for it — no visit from the police, no arrest, no interrogation, no beatings, no disappearance. We know this because people have done exactly that, and continue to do it, and that’s what (doesn’t) happen.

    Can you say the same about any random Libyan saying equivalent things about Gaddafi, before last spring? (Hint: we know the answer to that one, too).

  27. Crudely Wrott says

    @ Zerple, #25

    There is a pretty big difference between a country with a first world military and expansionist goals, invading and conquering nearby countries while perpetrating one of the largest genocides in history, and a tin-pot dictator, powerless everywhere other than the country he’s ruling, who has been pretty well contained for four decades.

    Tell it to the dead.

    Then come back and tell us what they said.

  28. DaveH says

    We have a duty to respond to pleas for help if we are able. Not assisting is the same as walking by someone getting beat up on the street and not intervening.

    Is Obama perfect? Hell no. I SERIOUSLY oppose the wholesale target killings thing, especially of a country’s own citizens (if you can kill your own citizens, then what does being a citizen in a democratic society mean anymore?). I wish he (and most other Western leaders) could be swapped out for other people, but the fact is that their citizens put them there, and could theoretically remove them (media prodding of the mob, etc. aside). Ghadafi, on the other hand, wasn’t going to leave until he was kicked out by force.

    Walk softly, speak politely, give respect to others you meet until they deserve otherwise, but demand the same and carry a big stick. Ghadafi wasn’t going to listen to any sort of diplomacy. As much as I hated Bush (the idiot, criminal little twit that he is), he is not comparable to Ghadafi in scale. It may only be a quantitative difference (he only had SOME prisoners held without trial), but it is a very BIG quantity.

  29. Zerple says

    @Crudely Wrott 36

    I’m not sure how to respond to your post. It just sounds like herp derp to me.

  30. F says

    zerple

    Even so, we contributed resources and money to something which had no real benefits for us.

    180° much?

  31. Lotharloo says

    According to BBC, he was found in a hole. What’s up with dictators and holes?

    And:

    @ Zerple, #25

    There is a pretty big difference between a country with a first world military and expansionist goals, invading and conquering nearby countries while perpetrating one of the largest genocides in history, and a tin-pot dictator, powerless everywhere other than the country he’s ruling, who has been pretty well contained for four decades.

    So, basically you are saying:
    1) Killing humans in your own country: kosher and we should not bother
    2) Killing humans in nearby countries: not kosher and OMGZ let’s get all our troops there.

  32. Special One says

    Very nice Crudely!

    (seriously, you’re bang on with the apocryphal Brutus quote)

    I personally prefer Frango Tyrannos, not least because it hasn’t been appropriated by murderous numpties like Booth and McVeigh.

    Be champions!

  33. DaveH says

    zerple

    Even so, we contributed resources and money to something which had no real benefits for us.

    Since when did that matter you selfish idiot?

  34. Zerple says

    @Lotharloo 42

    What I’m saying is:

    1) Doesn’t pose a threat to us: Not our problem.
    2) Poses a threat to us: Our problem.

    I think a hole is fitting. I’ve got no love for that psychotic monster, I just don’t think he was our problem.

  35. Ash says

    @ 35
    “And exactly nothing bad is likely to happen to them for it — no visit from the police, no arrest, no interrogation, no beatings, no disappearance. We know this because people have done exactly that, and continue to do it, and that’s what (doesn’t) happen.”

    And how did you come to know that Libyans never had this “freedom” to say anything bad about Gaddhafi and still live and be free?. Surely it is your biased media that prints such stories for the masses to vilify a leader before the West goes for the kill. right?

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-Imperial-Arrogance-by-Stephen-Lendman-111019-46.html

  36. says

    So… will they be framing the legendary golden pistol? I think it would make a cool insignia to have on a few flags or emblazoned on a few rebel Jeeps.

  37. truthspeaker says

    I’m not going to celebrate.

    I’m also not going to condemn the Libyans for summarily executing him. Not my country, not my war.

    I will note that, unlike Saddam Hussein, Ghadafi was responsible for a terrorist attack on US citizens. So we had better reasons to go after him than we did Saddam.

  38. Zerple says

    @DaveH – 44

    “Since when did that matter you selfish idiot?”

    Why should we run around doing things not in our interest?

  39. DaveH says

    So Zerple, if a thug on the street walked up to you and a stranger on the street, and told the stranger he was going to kill him/her, but was going to leave you alone, you could walk away with a clean conscience?

  40. truthspeaker says

    Zerple says:
    20 October 2011 at 7:39 pm

    I really wish we would stop invading random countries, which we have no interest to be invading. Isolationism ftw.

    I’m with you on that. I’d really like to see isolationism stop being a dirty word in American political discourse. Not likely to happen – there’s far too much profit in world domination.

  41. truthspeaker says

    zyxek says:
    20 October 2011 at 7:51 pm

    @Zerple (#8)-

    “I was/am against the US being in Libya, and I hope that him being dead will be sufficient reason for us to declare ‘victory’ and leave Libya.”

    Considering that we never had ground troops in Libya, I’d say that’s a done deal.

    Special Forces are ground troops. We also had CIA agents in there.

  42. says

    Something so sexy about a golden pistol.

    Mind you, I have no inclination towards firearms other than aesthetics.

    So phallic.

    So wrong.

  43. DaveH says

    Special Forces are ground troops.

    Who specialize in training local forces, and directing things like airstrikes. Seems a good compromise, less rebels get killed not knowing what they are doing, less airstrike screw-ups, but with no NATO tank divisions blasting across the desert.

  44. truthspeaker says

    DaveH says:
    20 October 2011 at 8:43 pm

    So Zerple, if a thug on the street walked up to you and a stranger on the street, and told the stranger he was going to kill him/her, but was going to leave you alone, you could walk away with a clean conscience?

    What if they’re both thugs?

    What if it’s not on my street, but a street on the other side of the world?

    Comparing actions of nation states with the actions of individuals living within the same state doesn’t usually make for an effective analogy.

  45. truthspeaker says

    DaveH, all I’m saying is that we do have troops on the ground there – actually human beings who could get wounded or killed.

  46. Lotharloo says

    @Zerple:

    You might want to think through your opinions first before posting them.
    Let’s review, you said:

    There is a pretty big difference between a country with a first world military and expansionist goals, invading and conquering nearby countries [countries such as Poland, France, African colonies, etc., not a threat to US] while perpetrating one of the largest genocides in history[in the conquered countries; not a threat to US], and a tin-pot dictator, powerless everywhere other than the country[except when he is supporting terrorism outside his own country] he’s ruling, who has been pretty well contained for four decades.

    And then based on the above facts, you conclude:
    1) Doesn’t pose a threat to us: Not our problem.
    2) Poses a threat to us: Our problem.

    It does not make sense. Go back to the drawing board buddy.

  47. says

    The logic of the Qaddafi supporters (?) escapes me. The air support we put in Libya did for the Libyan rebels what the no-fly zone in northern Iraq did for the Kurds under Clinton. Whether or not you agree with Obama going into Libya in the first place (I’m on the fence myself — I don’t think we could afford the overextension), the fact is that the rebels won with our help and I don’t know that they could have otherwise, given the strength of the regime forces. Qaddafi was not wanted by his own people. This is an indisputable fact, and Qaddafi was taken out by his own people. If there winds up being imperialistic behavior from here on in, that I will disapprove of unequivocally, as I suspect will most Pharyngulites. But words have meanings, and the use of imperialism as a term here by the supporters (?) is not consistent with that meaning.

  48. Teh kiloGraeme says

    @Zerple 45

    What I’m saying is:

    1) Doesn’t pose a threat to us: Not our problem.
    2) Poses a threat to us: Our problem.

    I think a hole is fitting. I’ve got no love for that psychotic monster, I just don’t think he was our problem.

    You’re seriously arguing that as long as it doesn’t affect you (America), you should ignore it? It doesn’t matter what horrors are going on, as long as the lights are shining in the USA?

    How horrifically callous.

  49. truthspeaker says

    World War II was the exception that proved the rule. Generally, if a country is not a threat to us, then we shouldn’t get involved in a war against it. Every single war we’ve been involved in since World War II has shown us why.

  50. DaveH says

    mikeg

    Something so sexy about a golden pistol.

    Mind you, I have no inclination towards firearms other than aesthetics.

    So phallic.

    So wrong.

    Wrong? Pistols, machine guns, RPGs, yes. A bolt-action rifle used to put food on the table, no. (without getting into vegetarian vs. omnivore).

    Of course, I am reminded of two quotes. “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the infantry and ask the dead.” ~ Hemingway, but a continuation of that is “But sometimes one must commit a crime to prevent a greater tragedy.” ~ (My Google-fu fails me here)

    PS De-lurking for the first time in a while, to give a whole series of posts. Apologies.

  51. truthspeaker says

    #
    Teh kiloGraeme says:
    20 October 2011 at 8:52 pm

    @Zerple 45

    What I’m saying is:

    1) Doesn’t pose a threat to us: Not our problem.
    2) Poses a threat to us: Our problem.

    I think a hole is fitting. I’ve got no love for that psychotic monster, I just don’t think he was our problem.

    You’re seriously arguing that as long as it doesn’t affect you (America), you should ignore it?

    No, he’s arguing that as long as it doesn’t effect the United States, the United States should not involve its own military. And I agree with him completely. The purpose of our military is to protect the United States and American citizens. It is not a global police force, it is not the global help people out force, and it is not for world domination.

    How anyone can look at the last 200+ years of history and not conclude otherwise is beyond me.

  52. says

    Ash, Zerple,

    So long as we have interests overseas what happens in any nation has an impact upon us, and any threat to the world becomes a threat to us.

  53. nooneinparticular says

    In the mid 80s I lived in Tunisia. There was not often television available, but sometimes I’d catch a few shows. One station was broadcast out of Libya. The evening news anchors sat in front of a huge world Mercator map. Where the US should have been was nothing. The northern edge of the Western hemisphere apparently ended at the Rio Grande. The US was just… missing.

    Oh, Canada too.

    World class crazy.

  54. DaveH says

    DaveH, all I’m saying is that we do have troops on the ground there – actually human beings who could get wounded or killed.

    Very true, but pilots can get shot down, or have mechanical trouble, and in fact at least one plane (IIRC) did crash. Just saying that sending in SF is more similar to the air support than it is to putting a tank division on the front lines.

  55. truthspeaker says

    Alan Kellogg says:
    20 October 2011 at 8:56 pm

    Ash, Zerple,

    So long as we have interests overseas what happens in any nation has an impact upon us, and any threat to the world becomes a threat to us.

    All the more reason not to have interests overseas.

  56. Dr. R says

    Good to hear, though I am concerned that his captors appear to have executed him without trial. Just now seeing this, as I’ve been in my lab on and off for most of the day.

  57. says

    @48: Well, sure: the media could be making the whole thing up. Including the interviews with Libyans who had that sort of thing happen to them, or their family. Including that woman who rushed into the hotel where Western journalists were staying, claiming she’d been gang-raped by the cops. It could just be another Kuwaiti incubator story. And I guess the Libyan rebels were just a bunch of spoiled malcontents who didn’t appreciate the health, wealth and education bestowed on them by their First Citizen.

    But it doesn’t seem very likely, does it?

  58. Ray says

    @20
    “I’ve been buried in classes…

    Doh ho ho. I see what you did there!”

    How many of these can one cram into one post….lemmee seee..

    Its been a brutal struggle keeping up with Libyia during midterms, my profs are real dictators, I think I really bombed the hell out of that last test…

  59. Teh kiloGraeme says

    @truthspeaker #66

    No, he’s arguing that as long as it doesn’t effect the United States, the United States should not involve its own military. And I agree with him completely. The purpose of our military is to protect the United States and American citizens.

    So you advocate abandoning NATO and the UN then?

    It is not a global police force,

    I agree

    it is not the global help people out force,

    So you don’t believe in alliances? Or in responding to help those people who ask specifically for your aid?

    and it is not for world domination.

    Damn right!

    If you require a selfish reason to care about the horror that Libya has been through, then consider the potential oil deals that will be done.

    How anyone can look at the last 200+ years of history and not conclude otherwise is beyond me.

    The world has gone on longer than that. In some cases international intervention has helped. It’s rare, but possible.

  60. truthspeaker says

    DaveH says:
    20 October 2011 at 8:44 pm

    “Why should we run around doing things not in our interest?”

    How very Ayn Rand.

    It’s called realpolitik and I don’t know of any better way to approach international relations.

  61. DaveH says

    All the more reason not to have interests overseas.

    I am aware of one country in the world that tries to have zero reliance on countries outside its own borders, and it doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job. Or we could take the middle ground, and say the US should only have an interest in its immediate backyard (Canada, Mexico, the Carribean), but A) Trade is now (for better or worse) a global endeavour, and B) With any point being only 24 hrs away from any other point (given enough resources), everywhere is everyone’s backyard now.

    The fact that we live in plenty while some in our backyard live in abject poverty is a deep collective shame.

  62. Lotharloo says

    BTW, US has ratified Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. So as species, we have at least partially understood that it is the responsibilities of all of us to prevent such horrible crimes such as genocide. Unfortunately, the list of horrible crimes stops at genocide.

    A while ago (maybe two years ago?) Christiane Amanpour did an excellent documentary called Scream Bloody Murder that explores the background of the above convention and many other issues related to intervening when a heinous crime is going on. I strongly recommend watching it.

  63. says

    @Zerple

    Even so, we contributed resources and money to something which had no real benefits for us.

    I believe the expenditure of resources to the benefit of another person or persons with no explicit guarantee of return is called altruism. Most moral schemes do not condemn actions because they are altruistic, but I guess you have managed to stumble upon one that has.

    A better criticism might be that in killing the long standing dictator of a country may cause instability and certainly creates a power vacuum, a vacuum which will be filled with an unknown who may be equally bad or worse than former dictator. Though this is countered by pointing out that the country was in a state of civil war before the dictator died so instability is already present.

    Further we have shown that we sometimes help overthrow dictators if the people show they are willing to rise up. With Iraq we’ve provided what some consider a bad model for overthrowing dictators, but Libya looks like a more successful model: Let the people do most of the fighting, provide military support against big military targets to weaken the dictator and let the people capture their leader and let them decide what to do next. The Libyans feel they are in control over their destiny, rather than fearing a system be imposed upon them as with Iraq.

    @Ash

    . The heads of governments who are hatede by the Western governments are always described in your biased MSM as a “dictator”, killer of his own people, and what not Why not describe Obama similarly when he ordered the assassination of his own people?

    Dictatorships are a system of government that is actually quite successful. Instead of the hand wringing of large democracies, decisions can be made as quickly as it takes for one man to make up his mind, and action can be quickly unified towards that end. The catch is that the dictator knows that the only way his opposition will ever gain power is over his dead body. With the stakes thus raised, the dictator is forced to become paranoid and ruthless in order to survive. Even if we assume the dictator goes into things with the very best intentions.

    You’ll find that just because dictatorships often order assassinations, that does not mean that a government that orders assassinations is necessarily a dictatorship. A dictatorship has a single leader often with a close cabal of cronies and relatives (often) in perpetuity. While presidents of the United States are often trying to expand their power, it cannot be a dictatorship until it meets those kinds of standards. If one is of the opinion that the President is using powers he did not obtain legally, then one might call the President a tyrant.

    one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others

    So if you’re going to rant and rave, I recommend you use the right words. I think there are plenty of people that have criticisised Obama for being a ‘killer of his own people’, but the likes of Ghadafi and Hussein were kind of ‘blood stepped in so far that should {they} wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.’ levels of killing.

    If Obama ordered the murder of say 2,000 American Muslims, there would be even more considerable outcry than there is with the killing of one – and if he carried it out I think even more people would go so far as to say he was tyrant, a killer of his own people, and, assuming he didn’t relinquish power, and assumed ever more autocratic control, we might go so far as to call him a dictator. But not until then.

  64. truthspeaker says

    Teh kiloGraeme says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:06 pm

    @truthspeaker #66

    No, he’s arguing that as long as it doesn’t effect the United States, the United States should not involve its own military. And I agree with him completely. The purpose of our military is to protect the United States and American citizens.

    So you advocate abandoning NATO and the UN then?

    The UN is not a military organization. I certainly think the US contribution to NATO should be scaled way, way, way, back, and our bases in Europe either reduced in size or eliminated.

    it is not the global help people out force,

    So you don’t believe in alliances?

    My opinion on alliances is similar to George Washington’s.

    Or in responding to help those people who ask specifically for your aid?

    Not with military force, no.

    If you require a selfish reason to care about the horror that Libya has been through, then consider the potential oil deals that will be done.

    Who said I don’t care? Caring about people does not equal involving our military. And I absolutely do not approve of using our military to help procure oil supplies – that’s why I oppose the war in Iraq.

    How anyone can look at the last 200+ years of history and not conclude otherwise is beyond me.

    The world has gone on longer than that. In some cases international intervention has helped. It’s rare, but possible.

    Extremely rare. Like, in the entire history of the United States, never. Remember, we didn’t intervene in World War II, we joined it after we were attacked.

    International intervention is almost always for imperialist reasons.

  65. Zerple says

    @Teh kiloGraeme 63 –

    It’s callous to think that we should only risk our citizens and expend our resources in war, on our own behalf?

  66. Jens Randrup says

    So happy to see him dead. So happy for the Libyan people.

    So worried that the West won’t invest enough to make sure that Libya now becomes a democracy.

  67. Kagehi says

    Oh sure Ash, and the MSM made up all the rest of the shit, being reported by everything from bloggers in his country, to other non-US news agencies. Its all a vast conspiracy, right? And, please, explain to me how the hell Obama has invaded “more” countries that Bush has? Since, apparently, in your warped world, “invade” means, “stay at home, and safely send a few guns, airplanes, and drones over, while pulling troops out of other countries (if too slowly for some people).” You know, as apposed to the “Rethuglican” method of conducting wars, which is, “Send in a few people to break the Taliban, then, because its not ‘obvious’ enough, and won’t win them re-election, claim we *need* to send thousands of people in it hunt a few rats that are left, who promptly ran and hid.” They still think in terms of WWII, and WWI, and Korea, etc. If you don’t like someone, don’t wait for an opportunity to help someone that *might* produce a better country than the current ass in power, but instead, send in thousands of troops. Don’t help the locals change government, wipe the existing one out, then “force” one into being.

    Its surprising how many GWB supporters, for example, find what he did perfectly reasonable, sending in thousands of US soldiers to die in a situation that could have been handled with far less **specialists**, but Obama uses drone strikes, pulls out troops, and helps NATO support the *request* of rebels in some country some place, and he is “invading” and “imperialist”! Tell it to all the Iraqis that dies when *Bush* thought invading some place, instead of acting with support of the UN, and only indirectly supporting *real* resistance, was a damn fine idea.

    Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if the idiot you keep linking to wasn’t payed by a Rethuglican think tank, its almost par for the course, with some of the, “Its fine if we do it, and our people die, but not fine if someone else refuses to make our people die to do it, and they are the wrong political party!” Some of the idiot politicians all but said this, “Why are we not sending in troop, instead of just supporting the UN?” Because, you idiots, we don’t frakking need to, we didn’t need to in Afghanistan, or if we did, we shouldn’t have gotten side tracked in Iraq, and we ***absolutely*** didn’t need to in Iraq. This isn’t WWII, and Lybia isn’t frakking Germany. Stop thinking like its 50-100 years ago!

    Hell, I am bloody surprised, sometimes, some of these idiots don’t demand that we have midday tea, and line up like targets in a shooting gallery, vis a vie the British during the American Revolution, for all their idea about modern tactics, and their **need** to have something *visible* to point to and say, “See, people are dying, we do good yes!”, makes any damned sense at all.

    And, that makes them idiots, not frakking imperialists. To be the later, you have to a) stay their and rule, and b) not be trying to elect some idiot like Herman Cain, as a possible Presidential candidate, whose “financial” policy, to replace Obamas, includes, “Lets render the production of new products cost ineffective, violate international treaties on fair trade (not the same as ‘free trade’, which is pure weapons grade idiocy), so its both cost ineffective to buy from any place else, **and** no one will buy from us either, even if there was, at that point, anything *to* buy.”

    But, maybe that is part of the conspiracy? They plan to turn the US into an economically third world country, so it won’t seem so silly for us to invade third world countries? There is a conspiracy for you…

  68. DaveH says

    It’s called realpolitik and I don’t know of any better way to approach international relations.

    There is a big difference between taking a realistic approach (note: not political realism) to international politics, and being an amoral SOB. You can say that the invasion and (attempted, ongoing) rebuilding of Afghanistan was a clusterfuck without having to say that the fact that the Taliban weren’t a bunch of colossal dicks who needed to go somehow.

  69. joed says

    what is wrong with you folks.
    It is never moral to go somewhere to kill a human being.
    It is always immoral to go and kill people.
    immediate self-defence of self or others is not necessarily immoral. but the “immediate” part is what separates the moral for the immoral. the violent death of any human is cause for sadness not cause for happiness.
    Many comments here seem to express gladness that a human has been violently killed. this is not healthy folks. take a look at your reaction to this death. how happy are you about it.

  70. truthspeaker says

    DaveH says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:14 pm

    It’s called realpolitik and I don’t know of any better way to approach international relations.

    There is a big difference between taking a realistic approach (note: not political realism) to international politics, and being an amoral SOB. You can say that the invasion and (attempted, ongoing) rebuilding of Afghanistan was a clusterfuck without having to say that the fact that the Taliban weren’t a bunch of colossal dicks who needed to go somehow.

    Good thing I haven’t said anything of the kind.

    An American can think Ghadafi was a brutal, evil dictator and still oppose US intervention in Libya. Same goes for Afghanistan.

    Morality is OK in international relations if you’re talking about monetary aid, or trade agreements, or territorial treaties. But not when you’re deploying the military. When they renamed the Department of War to the Department of Defense – well obviously it was for public relations reasons. But some of us actually agree with the sentiment. War involves killing people, and I’m only OK with that in self defense, not to help people in other countries.

  71. DemetriusOfPharos says

    Lotharloo:

    So, basically you are saying:
    1) Killing humans in your own country: kosher and we should not bother
    2) Killing humans in nearby countries: not kosher and OMGZ let’s get all our troops there.

    There’s an Eddie Izzard bit along those lines about the difference between Polpot and Hitler.

    Polpot killed his own people. “Kill your own people? Go ahead, we’ve been trying to kill you for years!”
    Hitler killed people next door. “Oh, stupid man. After a couple years we wont stand for that, will we?”

  72. truthspeaker says

    Jens Randrup says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:14 pm

    So happy to see him dead. So happy for the Libyan people.

    So worried that the West won’t invest enough to make sure that Libya now becomes a democracy.

    Oh good lord.

    I’m worried that the west won’t stay the hell out of it and allow Libya to become a democracy.

  73. Zerple says

    @DaveH 54 –

    “How very Ayn Rand.”

    Nah, she took the “Not our problem” stance on things which are our problem.

    I’m taking the “Not our problem” stance on things which are not our problem.

    Subtle difference.

  74. nooneinparticular says

    joed @85

    Personally, I am not in the least saddened by his death. He was a vicious man who used his power to harm thousands. Good riddance.

  75. says

    Such a shame that there is no hell for this stupid man to go to. Just the relief that there is one less idiot in the world to order illegal outrages on foreign soil. Now, like the Lord High Exicutioner in the Mikado, I have a little list, none of the will be missed, the dodgy politician and the moronic president……. I have a little list.

  76. says

    @joed
    We would have all preferred a trial because I think that would have taught all other dictators a lesson. But let’s face it, he was such a terrible person that no one in here feels sad for him. I am not going to celebrate, but really, why would we feel something for that man? By the way, you never said that about Gaddaffi when HE sent forces to Tripoli, Benghazi, Tobruk, Az Zawiyah, etc to massacre them, did you? That just makes you an amoral asshole.

  77. Vicki says

    All the more reason not to have interests overseas.

    You first. Get off the internet: your computer is probably using chips made in East Asia, but American hardware, and powered at least in part by Middle Eastern Oil. Are you also prepared to give up out-of-season produce, imported clothing, and anything else not made in the United States, from materials harvested or mined within the United States?

  78. DaveH says

    War involves killing people, and I’m only OK with that in self defense, not to help people in other countries.

    I guess we finally have the difference between us then. I am willing to use deadly force (as a last resort) to prevent crimes against humanity, you are not.

    One of the cold hard facts of international politics (though I dearly wish it wasn’t a fact) is that some will respond to nothing but force.

  79. Zerple says

    @Psychotic Atheist 78

    I do not condemn actions just because they are altruistic. If you want to sell all of your possessions and feed poor people with the money. I’ll applaud you and slip you some money to help.

    I do not support the neocon “Spread peace with bullets and bombs” argument, it’s sheer nonsense.

  80. truthspeaker says

    Vicki says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:24 pm

    All the more reason not to have interests overseas.

    You first. Get off the internet: your computer is probably using chips made in East Asia, but American hardware, and powered at least in part by Middle Eastern Oil. Are you also prepared to give up out-of-season produce, imported clothing, and anything else not made in the United States, from materials harvested or mined within the United States?

    Those are luxuries, not interests. We could live without every single one of them. And yes, I would prefer that my clothing and computers were manufactured in the United States and I’d prefer to eat food grown or raised in the United States. International trade is OK, but not if we have to use force to protect it. That’s mercantilism, and it’s not what our military is for.

  81. truthspeaker says

    DaveH says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:26 pm

    War involves killing people, and I’m only OK with that in self defense, not to help people in other countries.

    I guess we finally have the difference between us then. I am willing to use deadly force (as a last resort) to prevent crimes against humanity, you are not.

    Damn right I’m not.

  82. DaveH says

    @DaveH 54 –

    “How very Ayn Rand.”

    Nah, she took the “Not our problem” stance on things which are our problem.

    I’m taking the “Not our problem” stance on things which are not our problem.

    Subtle difference.

    The oppression and murder of other human beings is not. our. PROBLEM?

  83. KG says

    It’s called realpolitik and I don’t know of any better way to approach international relations. – truthspeaker

    Realpolitik gave us World War One, and hence the disastrous history of the first half of the 20th century. The United Nations is a departure from realpolitik, the latest attempt to construct a framework that will avoid the disasters realpolitik causes. If pursued in the 21st, realpolitik will give us catastrophic climate change – because for any one state, cutting GHG emissions means accepting a disadvantage in international competition – probably followed by nuclear war. It is madness wearing the mask of rationality.

  84. Matt Penfold says

    Self-Defence is not only about defending yourself, it is also about defending others.

  85. Zerple says

    @vicki 94

    “You first. Get off the internet: your computer is probably using chips made in East Asia, but American hardware, and powered at least in part by Middle Eastern Oil. Are you also prepared to give up out-of-season produce, imported clothing, and anything else not made in the United States, from materials harvested or mined within the United States?”

    There is a huge difference between having a trade agreement with a country, and engaging in random military action.

    If you do not understand the difference, think about a hotdog from a street vendor. Then, think about shooting a stranger in the face.

    If you can figure out how those things are different, you can see the holes in your argument.

  86. truthspeaker says

    So, when are we invading China to protect the Tibetans?

    When are we invading Africa to protect them all from each other?

    Obviously, we can’t do it all. So we end up only involving ourselves in the conflicts where the powerful people in our country have an economic interest.

    And I’m just not going to support that.

  87. truthspeaker says

    Matt Penfold says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Self-Defence is not only about defending yourself, it is also about defending others.

    No it isn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have the word “self” in there.

  88. Zerple says

    @Matt Penfold 94 –

    “Self-Defence is not only about defending yourself, it is also about defending others.”

    Self-Defense

    it is also about defending others.

    Self

    others

    Huh?

  89. Zerple says

    @DaveH 102 –

    “The oppression and murder of other human beings is not. our. PROBLEM?”

    Not unless those human beings happen to be citizens of the United States.

  90. truthspeaker says

    DaveH says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:29 pm

    @DaveH 54 –

    “How very Ayn Rand.”

    Nah, she took the “Not our problem” stance on things which are our problem.

    I’m taking the “Not our problem” stance on things which are not our problem.

    Subtle difference.

    The oppression and murder of other human beings is not. our. PROBLEM?

    Nope.

  91. Ash says

    @72
    “But it doesn’t seem very likely, does it?”

    But why not if the Media had done this before to help manufacture consent of the masses preparatory to the assassination of a foreign country’s leader that stood in the way of Imperial America?

    Again NATO claimed they came in to protect civilians and instead they terror bombed the whole of Libya killing/murdering thousands of civilians. Their aim therefore was not to protect civilians but to protect their own mercenaries and special forces on the ground that were trying to capture and kill Gaddhafi as a trophy for the West. Can you deny that??

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=35965

  92. Zerple says

    Correction on 105:

    @vicki 94

    “You first. Get off the internet: your computer is probably using chips made in East Asia, but American hardware, and powered at least in part by Middle Eastern Oil. Are you also prepared to give up out-of-season produce, imported clothing, and anything else not made in the United States, from materials harvested or mined within the United States?”

    There is a huge difference between having a trade agreement with a country, and engaging in random military action.

    If you do not understand the difference, think about buying a hotdog from a street vendor. Then, think about shooting a stranger in the face.

    If you can figure out how those things are different, you can see the holes in your argument.

  93. truthspeaker says

    KG says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:29 pm

    It’s called realpolitik and I don’t know of any better way to approach international relations. – truthspeaker

    Realpolitik gave us World War One, and hence the disastrous history of the first half of the 20th century. The United Nations is a departure from realpolitik, the latest attempt to construct a framework that will avoid the disasters realpolitik causes. If pursued in the 21st, realpolitik will give us catastrophic climate change – because for any one state, cutting GHG emissions means accepting a disadvantage in international competition – probably followed by nuclear war. It is madness wearing the mask of rationality.

    Catastrophic climate change is not in any country’s self interest.

  94. Matt Penfold says

    No it isn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have the word “self” in there.

    Well you might think that, but you would be wrong. Sorry about that, but that is the way it is.

    Try looking up laws on self-defence. You will find they do not cover a person defending themselves, but also defending others.

  95. truthspeaker says

    Matt, we’re not talking about a legal definition here. US law does allow people to use deadly force to protect others, but that’s not self defense.

    Defending others can be self defense when you have reasonable reason to think the entity attacking someone else will attack you next. And in international relations there are times when that’s appropriate. Very, very rare times.

  96. Zerple says

    @Matt Penfold 116

    Care to explain how opposing military action by the country I live in, in escapades that have no benefit to the country I live in, is willful ignorance?

  97. truthspeaker says

    What am I being willfully ignorant of?

    Listen, I used to fall for this liberal interventionism bullshit too. When we intervened in Kosovo I thought it was the right thing to do. Then I realized what was really going on. I’m not going to get fooled again.

  98. says

    Moammar Ghadafi would still be alive today and he would still be murdering innocent people if not for the United States and other NATO countries who joined the war against his dictatorship.

    He was a nut job and he was an asshole. Good riddance and congratulations to the person who had the honor of finishing off this cockroach.

    Also, congratulations to President Obama who did the right thing despite the complaints of some people who voted for him.

  99. says

    Gadafi’s death
    I’m still trying to find out whether he was badly wounded in battle and then died of his wounds, or if he was executed by fighters. There are conflicting reports.

    joed,

    so Gadafi bribed his people by using the oil money. You can still not talk yourself out of the fact that dissidents to his regime were harshly persecuted. The Gulf monarchies do the same thing.

    That said, after the Arab Spring began, I was skeptical about Libya at first, and saw it as a civil war rather than an uprising. But then, when the tide turned against Gadafi’s forces, it was quite understandable that all the various Western powers wanted to back the right side. All countries have interests. Look at what good it did the German foreign minister to unequivocally declare that Germany would stay out of this. This step has severely hurt Germany’s standing in the international arena, and also the career of the minister, who is now a dead man walking (also for domestic reasons, but foreign ministers tend to be hugely popular with the voters at home, but not this one).

    Zerple,

    don’t worry, as the power of US declines, it will soon no longer be able to afford expensive military deployments. Then the Chinese will take over (superpowers have always seen fit to intervene in other countries’ affairs without asking for permission internationally, one may lament it, but that is part of international relations too). A lot of countries in SE Asia are extremely concerned about this. The US should too, because on the long run this will affect US trade interests.

  100. truthspeaker says

    don’t worry, as the power of US declines, it will soon no longer be able to afford expensive military deployments

    Can’t happen soon enough.

  101. Matt Penfold says

    Truthspeaker,

    Yes we are. The same principle applies in international law. It is what allows mutual defence agreements. If one country is attacked then other countries are allowed to aid the first country in defeating the attacker. The concept is part of the charter of the UN.

    You are not normally this stupid, so I can only assume it is wilful.

    It is not amusing, so you can stop.

  102. Kagehi says

    It is never moral to go somewhere to kill a human being.
    It is always immoral to go and kill people.
    immediate self-defence of self or others is not necessarily immoral. but the “immediate” part is what separates the moral for the immoral.

    So.. If an armed gun man is holding hostages, and has already **previously** shot someone, you should wait until he is actually firing his weapon at the hostages, before using a sniper? Right, got that.

    You know, some of us value “other” human lives, not just those living in the same country, and have a bit of a different definition as to a) whose obligation it is to defend their life, and what “immediate” actually bloody means, it seems. Letting someone else shoot someone isn’t moral. Letting someone tell someone else to shoot someone, and doing nothing about it isn’t moral. Shooting people not involved isn’t moral either, but when you have one or both of the other two going on, you don’t just sit on your ass and hope no one noticed that you didn’t give a shit, you take the risk, in hopes that fewer innocent people die, in the long run, **because** you acted. That is frakking moral, in such situations.

  103. DaveH says

    truthspeaker, accepting certain political realities means that we can’t invade China (nuclear war kinda sucks), it means that we acknowledge that there is no collective will to go into Africa for the 50-100 years it would take to sort things out, but it doesn’t make those things right.

    I advocate cutting the stupid trade habit the West has with China, since it only feeds a rotten, corrupt oligarchy. I advocate using controlled military force in Africa when the realities allow for it, it is likely that it will have a net benefit, and not destabilize and make things worse.

    But I think the key difference between you and me is that I give moral standing to those I can’t put a (metaphorical) face on, not just those in my backyard that I can.

  104. Matt Penfold says

    What am I being willfully ignorant of?

    International Law.

    Just stop the silly game OK ? You have had your little joke, but it is wearing a bit thin now.

  105. says

    truthspeaker,

    after WWII, the idea was that military interventions in other countries would only be sanctioned by the UNSC. War would be outlawed, except in self-defence.

    Then the Cold War came, brought the UNSC to a standstill (the Korea War resolution only passed because the Soviets were boycotting the UNSC for a time, and the China seat was still in the hands of CKS). The two superpowers resorted to intervening on their own, by various justifications.

    But the basic idea still stands. What’s your problem with Kosovo? It was sanctioned by the UN. Mistakes can occur under the UN framework, but at least it was in accordance with international law. The only problem with the UN framework is that the veto powers won’t allow anything against their interests. For the Western powers, public pressure at home has led to a more consistent pro-human rights stance (at least more than say during Kissinger’s days), but the same thing can’t be said about Russia and China…

  106. Matt Penfold says

    Article 51 of the UN Charter:

    Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

    Bolding is mine.

  107. truthspeaker says

    Matt Penfold says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Truthspeaker,

    Yes we are. The same principle applies in international law. It is what allows mutual defence agreements. If one country is attacked then other countries are allowed to aid the first country in defeating the attacker. The concept is part of the charter of the UN.

    That’s not self defense, that’s an alliance.

  108. truthspeaker says

    DaveH says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:43 pm

    But I think the key difference between you and me is that I give moral standing to those I can’t put a (metaphorical) face on, not just those in my backyard that I can.

    What makes you think I don’t give them moral standing? I’m just not willing to use our country’s military to help them.

    Trade sanctions and diplomatic pressure, sure. They helped end apartheid in South Africa. They got Saddam to give up his WMD programs. Just not military force.

  109. says

    truthspeaker,

    don’t be obtuse.

    There can be self-defence by way of an alliance. An alliance sees any attack on any one of its member nations as an attack on all of them.

    How hard can it be?

  110. Lotharloo says

    “The oppression and murder of other human beings is not. our. PROBLEM?”
    Not unless those human beings happen to be citizens of the United States.

    This discussion is getting a bit boring but that right there shows the ridiculousness and moral bankruptcy of your position. Being a citizenship of US is an arbitrary attribute, given by the lottery of birth. Human rights on the other hand are universal. What you are saying is that an arbitrary attribution is what determines whether we defend a violation of a universal human right; that argument is total bullocks.

    To establish moral bankruptcy, I should scratch a bit below the surface though. The implicit reason behind such a policy is because as an American citizen, you consider all Americans your in-group. So, you imagine if you were an American citizen in trouble, then the rest of Americans must do something to save you, or to avenge you. Or if something bad happens to an American, America should retaliate because you, another American, could be next. A Libyan on the other hand, does no invoke those feeling so fuck them.

  111. Ash says

    @115

    I am now convinced that you lap up the stories dished out by your MSM as the gospel truth. You are not alone, most Americans and Europeans are taught from childhood to believe in authority and MSM is their mouthpiece. Read alternate media (if you are not a troll or mole) and find the difference, the truth.

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=35965

  112. truthspeaker says

    pelamun says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:46 pm

    truthspeaker,

    after WWII, the idea was that military interventions in other countries would only be sanctioned by the UNSC. War would be outlawed, except in self-defence.

    That does not conflict with realpolitik

    But the basic idea still stands. What’s your problem with Kosovo?

    Well, for one I’m not a big fan of heroin trafficking or black market human organ trafficking. Looking at the bigger picture, the secession of Kosovo emboldened the South Ossetians and other separatists. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it put the US in a sticky situation since we were friendly with Georgia. It’s also pretty fucked up that we supported the right of Kosovo to secede from Serbia, but oppose the right of the Serbian-speaking portion of Kosovo to secede from Kosovo.

  113. anuran says

    Cult of personality? Not unusual for African dictators.

    Killed a lot of his own people? Yeah. Not in the same league as Bokassa, Mobutu or *spit* Amin but bad enough

    Invading or destabilizing almost all his neighbors? It really pisses me off that the rest of Africa gave him a pass on that after he passed around some oil money.

  114. Teh kiloGraeme says

    @Truthspeaker 79

    The UN is not a military organization.

    Erm, it has a military role and the US provides 1/3 of the troops and funding.

    I certainly think the US contribution to NATO should be scaled way, way, way, back, and our bases in Europe either reduced in size or eliminated.

    Fair enough. I agree that the European bases should be scaled down at the least. It’s the same for Britain.

    My opinion on alliances is similar to George Washington’s.

    I’d argue that attempting to be an isolated force in the modern world, is not only impossible, it’s also stupid.

    Not with military force, no.

    So to paraphrase someone I can’t remember, you’ll give them every assistance short of actual help?

    Who said I don’t care? Caring about people does not equal involving our military.

    So what help would you give them?

    And I absolutely do not approve of using our military to help procure oil supplies – that’s why I oppose the war in Iraq.

    Fair enough. I personally support the altruistic reasons for going into Lybia. I think it was a good time to help the people who were asking for our help.

    Extremely rare. Like, in the entire history of the United States, never. Remember, we didn’t intervene in World War II, we joined it after we were attacked.

    So you’d have been happy to let Europe and Africa fall to Hitler rather than risk an American life?

    International intervention is almost always for imperialist reasons.

    I agree, though this is one of those rare occasions methinks.

    @Zerple 80

    It’s callous to think that we should only risk our citizens and expend our resources in war, on our own behalf?

    If you’re prepared to let the rest of the world go to hell, as long as you’ve got yours, yes, that’s callous.

    And to follow on from the Africa discussion, if Zimbabwe was in active revolt against Mugabe AND if the local African nations were prepared to support us, I’d support intervention to depose Mugabe.

  115. truthspeaker says

    #
    pelamun says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:49 pm

    truthspeaker,

    don’t be obtuse.

    There can be self-defence by way of an alliance. An alliance sees any attack on any one of its member nations as an attack on all of them.

    I’m not disputing any of that.

    Matt Penfold says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:49 pm

    That’s not self defense, that’s an alliance.

    Odd, it says self-defence.

    Collective self-defense, as you yourself bolded.

    If, say, Russia attacked Germany, Germany could fight back in self-defense. The US could fight back in defense of its ally. The US would not be acting in self-defense, but the NATO alliance its a member of would be.

  116. Teh kiloGraeme says

    UKer just checking:

    MSM = MainStream Media?

    Not a contraction I’m familiar with.

  117. Matt Penfold says

    Collective self-defense, as you yourself bolded.

    If, say, Russia attacked Germany, Germany could fight back in self-defense. The US could fight back in defense of its ally. The US would not be acting in self-defense, but the NATO alliance its a member of would be.

    No, it is still self-defence.

    Look said something silly, and you have been shown you are wrong and clearly you are now embarrassed. I can understand that, but please, cut out the crap of carrying on pretend you were right. You are fooling no one.

  118. truthspeaker says

    Teh kiloGraeme says:
    20 October 2011 at 9:53 pm

    @Truthspeaker 79

    The UN is not a military organization.

    Erm, it has a military role and the US provides 1/3 of the troops and funding.

    A peacekeeping role that they’ve abandoned because it rarely worked.

    My opinion on alliances is similar to George Washington’s.

    I’d argue that attempting to be an isolated force in the modern world, is not only impossible, it’s also stupid.

    I would disagree vehemently.

    Not with military force, no.

    So to paraphrase someone I can’t remember, you’ll give them every assistance short of actual help?

    There are lots of other ways to help.

    Who said I don’t care? Caring about people does not equal involving our military.

    So what help would you give them?

    Economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

    And I absolutely do not approve of using our military to help procure oil supplies – that’s why I oppose the war in Iraq.

    Fair enough. I personally support the altruistic reasons for going into Lybia. I think it was a good time to help the people who were asking for our help.

    I am not so gullible as to think our government’s reasons were altruistic.

    Extremely rare. Like, in the entire history of the United States, never. Remember, we didn’t intervene in World War II, we joined it after we were attacked.

    So you’d have been happy to let Europe and Africa fall to Hitler rather than risk an American life?

    If Hitler hadn’t declared war on yes and attacked our shipping, then yes.

    International intervention is almost always for imperialist reasons.

    I agree, though this is one of those rare occasions methinks.

    I doubt that very much.

    All this said, I maybe – maybe – could have been convinced to help the Libyan rebels – who, unlike anyone in Iraq, actually asked for help – if Obama had asked for permission from Congress as required by the War Powers Act and the constitution. But he didn’t so he’s a fuckhead.

  119. Lotharloo says

    Seriously Zeple and truthspeaker, watch the goddamned “Scream Bloody Murder” thing.

  120. DaveH says

    What makes you think I don’t give them moral standing? I’m just not willing to use our country’s military to help them.

    Trade sanctions and diplomatic pressure, sure. They helped end apartheid in South Africa. They got Saddam to give up his WMD programs. Just not military force.

    Those cases are ones to be applauded and studied for how we can make more turn out like that, but the bottom line is that sometimes they don’t work (Syria for example, though we are still working on that one). Then, it is either force, or only inadequate measures when you could have done more.

  121. truthspeaker says

    Lotharloo, I’ve watched it. It does point out the hypocrisy of military interventions, but it doesn’t change my mind on how my country should use its military.

  122. truthspeaker says

    DaveH says:
    20 October 2011 at 10:00 pm

    What makes you think I don’t give them moral standing? I’m just not willing to use our country’s military to help them.

    Trade sanctions and diplomatic pressure, sure. They helped end apartheid in South Africa. They got Saddam to give up his WMD programs. Just not military force.

    Those cases are ones to be applauded and studied for how we can make more turn out like that, but the bottom line is that sometimes they don’t work (Syria for example, though we are still working on that one). Then, it is either force, or only inadequate measures when you could have done more.

    Or do nothing and accept the fact that you can’t solve every problem and not every problem is ours to solve.

  123. says

    after WWII, the idea was that military interventions in other countries would only be sanctioned by the UNSC. War would be outlawed, except in self-defence.

    That does not conflict with realpolitik

    No, it doesn’t. But it’s better than what we had before, with the failed League of Nations. See it this way, humanity has actually made progress in the realm of international law. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, but it’s going in the right direction. Just compare it with the Concert of Europe in the 19th century.

    But the basic idea still stands. What’s your problem with Kosovo?

    Well, for one I’m not a big fan of heroin trafficking or black market human organ trafficking. Looking at the bigger picture, the secession of Kosovo emboldened the South Ossetians and other separatists. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it put the US in a sticky situation since we were friendly with Georgia. It’s also pretty fucked up that we supported the right of Kosovo to secede from Serbia, but oppose the right of the Serbian-speaking portion of Kosovo to secede from Kosovo.

    It was not about the right of self-determination, which is a sticky issue in international law, AFAIK. Many times this principle has not been respected, just look at any map of Africa. (But that’s also a problem of several overlapping layers of identity)

    The problem with Kosovo was ethnic cleansing in action, which could lead to a genocide, which was an acceptable reason to intervene as per the UN charter. The Kosovo government is not engaged in acts of ethnic cleansing against the Serbian minority.

    Georgia is a problematic case because many Western powers are interested in good relations with Russia, which is influencing their behaviour on the UNSC.

    Your argument that Kosovo emboldened separatism elsewhere is a faulty one. The breakups of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia prior to that already did that to a much higher degree.

  124. Zerple says

    @Matt Penfold 127

    Citation? What international law says that the US has to intervene in random countries in which it has no interest?

  125. Matt Penfold says

    Matt – I was right, defending others is not self defense.

    Fine. I obviously cannot convince you otherwise. Carry on fooling yourself. It is you who people are laughing at.

  126. Matt Penfold says

    Citation? What international law says that the US has to intervene in random countries in which it has no interest?

    None I am aware of, but why should I provide a citation since it is not something I have claimed ?

    If anything you are more stupid that Truthspeaker. At least he does not make crap up. He just pretends evidence does not exist.

  127. GravityIsJustATheory says

    Zerple says:
    20 October 2011 at 7:57 pm

    @zyxek –

    Even so, we contributed resources and money to something which had no real benefits for us.

    Intervention has great potential to go wrong, cause more problems than it solves, or be carried out for sinister motives. The Iraq debacle (for example) demonstrates some or all of those problems.

    But I do not see that that means intervention is always and for ever wrong.

    Nor does it automatcally mean intervention is only ever justified in direct self defence.

    Frankly, I’m struggling to see why “it’s ok for to kill his own people – they’re only foreigners after all” is any more moral that “it’s okay to invade to kill the people and take their stuff – they’re only foreigners after all”.

  128. DaveH says

    @Zerple #149:

    The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide for one.

  129. says

    Zerple,

    Citation? What international law says that the US has to intervene in random countries in which it has no interest?

    The various treaties the US is a part of? The various allies need to be sure that the US will be true to its word when they are in need of US assistance as promised in the various treaties. This might not play a big role in Europe anymore, but it still does a big deal in Asia.

    And as closely tied as the US is to Asia economically, it makes sense for the US to maintain a high profile presence there. Whereas it has been a major foreign policy goal of China to push out the US out of Asia.

  130. says

    Matt,

    truthspeaker is doing some kind of intricate semantics game. As it is not relevant to the discussion, I suggest we just drop it. It will just derail the thread.

  131. Teh kiloGraeme says

    A peacekeeping role that they’ve abandoned because it rarely worked.

    I think the UN might disagree on that front. There are 16 peacekeeping operations currently underway. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/current.shtml

    I would disagree vehemently.

    That’s your right, but you’d end up living 400 years in the past. The days of isolated nation states are gone.

    There are lots of other ways to help.

    Give me some that will topple a dictatorship without first destroying the country as an operating entity.

    Economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

    Against someone who’s made a living ignoring both of those? That’ll work…

    I am not so gullible as to think our government’s reasons were altruistic.

    Let us wait and see.

    If Hitler hadn’t declared war on yes and attacked our shipping, then yes.

    Well you’re consistent, but I think this makes you either politically naive or a monster.

    I doubt that very much.

    All this said, I maybe – maybe – could have been convinced to help the Libyan rebels – who, unlike anyone in Iraq, actually asked for help – if Obama had asked for permission from Congress as required by the War Powers Act and the constitution. But he didn’t so he’s a fuckhead.

    I’m not asking if you support Obama (frankly as a Brit, I don’t care). I’m interested in your stance on supporting helping those who ask for help.

  132. Matt Penfold says

    truthspeaker is doing some kind of intricate semantics game. As it is not relevant to the discussion, I suggest we just drop it. It will just derail the thread.

    I have done. He is too stupid and too dishonest to be worth anymore attention.

  133. cag says

    Ash #27 – I take it that you are in favor of disarming the police. After all, they might kill a citizen who is doing nothing except threatening and killing innocents. Just because a terrorist is a US citizen does not give them carte blanch to carry on their plans.
    sarcasm>
    Perry would never authorise the killing of any American.
    /sarcasm>

  134. Lotharloo says

    Lotharloo, I’ve watched it. It does point out the hypocrisy of military interventions, but it doesn’t change my mind on how my country should use its military.

    Find then. I’m sorry that you are caught in an idealogical mind trap and there is nothing we can do for you. You seem to think that “it’s not our problem” is some profound bullet proof argument which in reality it is just an idealogical shield to block contradicting facts. Well, have a nice day.

  135. says

    Ash,

    have you ever heard the outlandish idea that in foreign policy, a government may actually pursue several goals at once? Like protecting human rights and your own interests at the same time! Wow, that would be totally unheard of!!

  136. joed says

    of course the u s will not attack a country that can fight back. n korea is a tiny country but u s is very frightened of it. u s is coward country and taliban are indeed freedom fighters. america is doomed and most americans dont realise this. by by american pie.

  137. DaveH says

    I suggest we just drop it

    Seconded.

    Any thoughts on the future of Libya? Will the Arab Brotherhood or its equivalent be the dominant power? Will the elections be free and fair? Timeframe to said elections? What system of government will they go for?

    Personally, I would hope for a parliamentary system, they have probably had their fill of cults of personality.

  138. says

    joed,

    would you care to answer my post at 122?

    You don’t seem to know much about the N.Korea problem. The only reason the US hasn’t intervened there yet is because of China. China would not look kindly upon a military intervention in a neighbouring country it has friendly relations with.

  139. Kagehi says

    Ash.. You won’t find anyone here that trusts the MSM one frakking bit, especially the “Washington” parts of it, or the truly reprehensible bits, like Fox News. During Iraq, I got more news on Iraq from Iraqi bloggers than I bothered with the MSM. For most of the shit going in now, Al Jezeera, and some non-US news agencies, are compared and contrasted, to see what the hell is going on. No one on this site is buying a damn thing the MSM, which you imagine has us brain washed, is selling about international policy, or even, most of the time, our own frakking politics. Yet, we think you are a complete nut, and a fool, and that the stuff you keep linking to is insane gibberish.

    That should tell you something? But, since you are the one not thinking clearly, and falling for any rubbish that some idiot publishes, which reflects the paranoid fear you bathe in, it won’t. So, do us all a bloody favor and stop trying to “convince us” that some of what is on the news isn’t accurate, we bloody know that, and don’t rely on the MSM as our only source. But, you definitely can stop frakking pointing us at websites that don’t have one scrap of real evidence of what *is* going on, rather than long diatribes that amount to, “It doesn’t matter what anyone says, all information is lies, even when the information isn’t from the MSM, because they somehow control *everything*.”, including, apparently people’s blogs, cells phones, hand held video cameras, refugee statements, the words of the political wackos under discussion, who couldn’t possibly actually have *ordered* people shot, etc. Its all part of the “conspiracy”, right?

    Go away! You have nothing to tell us that isn’t either informationless paranoia about how no one is telling the truth, yet you don’t have anything either, or accusations about us believing shit we already distrust, without **other sources**. Which makes your BS doubly useless.

  140. says

    DaveH,

    we don’t even know what’s gonna happen in Egypt. Tunisia is a little bit clearer, but not by much.

    Libya only has six million people, and tribal issues do matter a great deal more than in its neighbouring countries. You’d need to ask a Libya expert what tribes were behind the victorious forces, and how that would shape the country.

  141. Zerple says

    @Lotharloo 144

    I can’t for about an hour. I’m posting comments while code compiles and coding like a madman in between. I’ll watch it when I get home.

  142. DaveH says

    @pelamun:

    Just trying to get this thread on a different tack. I realize we are not the experts on this…

  143. Matt Penfold says

    Any thoughts on the future of Libya? Will the Arab Brotherhood or its equivalent be the dominant power? Will the elections be free and fair? Timeframe to said elections? What system of government will they go for?

    I would think any elections are going to be nine months, if not a year, away. There is no infrastructure of political parties in Libya at the moment, which is behind where even Egpyt was.

    They also need a new constitution, and you can get into a catch-22 situation in that you want democratic involvement in drawing up the new constitution but you need the new constitution to elect people to draw up the constitution. It is a problem that can be overcome, but it needs thought and planning.

    Europe has a role to play, in helping the Libyans plan and organise the transition to democracy. It can also provide observers to ensure elections are free and fair.

  144. says

    DaveH,

    but that’s the fascinating thing about transformational events like the Arab Spring. It’s a bit like when the Wall fell. Now 20 years on, it all looks so clear, but back then, there were a lot of possibilities.

    This will take at least 10 years also, and that’s quite exciting for a news junkie like myself!

  145. Zerple says

    @Matt Penfold 151

    “None I am aware of, but why should I provide a citation since it is not something I have claimed ?

    If anything you are more stupid that Truthspeaker. At least he does not make crap up. He just pretends evidence does not exist.”

    “International Law.

    Just stop the silly game OK ? You have had your little joke, but it is wearing a bit thin now.”

    You sir, are a moron.

  146. says

    Zerple,

    the Western powers did not intervene officially. If there was a genocide ongoing, there would have been a UN resolution.

    There might have been the “violence against his own people” trick, but you can be sure Russia and China would veto that, so no.

    They sent military experts, and IIRC, some special forces teams, at the request of what is now the officially recognised government of Libya.

    They backed the right horse, so there will be no legal repercussions. The German foreign minister who vowed not to send anything or anyone is now isolated in the international arena, and German diplomats and foreign policy experts are fretting that Germany has come to be seen as unreliable by its Western allies.

    Obama must be glad how it all turned out.

  147. Teh kiloGraeme says

    @Matt Penfold, pelamun & DaveH

    Apparently the NATO mission will end as soon as the NTC declares Lybia liberated. Then the transitional government will be announced with the aim of promoting elections within a year.

    I’m hoping they will save tribal politics for a while (using the victory as a rally point), and will get the basics set down. Hopefully there won’t be too many backlashes against the tribes that supported Gadaffi.

    Lybia will have one advantage that Germany didn’t in the 80’s. They’ll be rich…

  148. Zerple says

    @Therrin

    Pop go the irony meters.

    Sure, just ignore the part where I quoted his contradictory statements. Life sure is simple when you can ignore whatever you want, isn’t it? Are you sure you wouldn’t feel better hanging out with creationists and climate change deniers?

  149. says

    Lybia will have one advantage that Germany didn’t in the 80′s. They’ll be rich…

    Huh? If you’re referring to the reunification, you do know that Germany had one of its biggest economic booms DUE to reunification?

  150. Matt Penfold says

    There are ways of mitigating against politics becoming too tribal by guaranteeing each tribe a level of representation.

  151. Therrin says

    Zerple 149,

    What international law says that the US has to intervene in random countries in which it has no interest?

    Emphasis added.

  152. says

    and the air strikes of course, I forgot to mention the obvious at 173. Argh… But they were also requested by the Council, though I’m not sure how it would be justified under UK law. It wouldn’t under German law, whereas it was under American law, score another one against the War Powers Act.

  153. Teh kiloGraeme says

    @pelamun 179

    Huh? If you’re referring to the reunification, you do know that Germany had one of its biggest economic booms DUE to reunification?

    But it’s also had massive problems re-integrating two totally different economies. It had (and still has) problems with the sudden shift from the manual/factory work in the East, to the technological and service based West. Although Germany is now doing very well, throughout the 90’s there were serious economic hard times if you happened to live in the GDR areas.

    My point is that Lybia won’t have this issue, as the population is small, the economy already integrated, and there’s lots of money to pump around.

  154. joed says

    Pelamun @164
    i disagree. i think the reason u s doesn’t attack n korea is same reason it doesnt attack any country that can fight back. because u s is cowardly country. you are right, i dont know much about korea problem but i know coward behavior when i see it. and u s is cowardly.
    libya did not start as civil war earlier this year. the rich west wants libya to not be a problem. and now they will have that. the goal is neocolonialism. resources are being used up daily and rich west must try to control all wealth. so far rich west is right on track for this control. rich west doesnt want peace. it wants death, chaos, destruction and confusion. rich west is really good at creating this.
    as is very evident.
    Privileged, white and rich the West carries on.
    If Ghadafi’s wife were raped would people feel as good about it as they seem to feel about the violent death of Ghadafi himself.
    isn’t the rape of any women the rape of all humanity. likewise, isn’t the violent death of one person violence against all people! today is not a day to rejoice.

  155. says

    @Zerple

    I do not condemn actions just because they are altruistic.

    You are the one that seemed to be against the action on the grounds that the US “contributed resources and money to something which had no real benefits {to the US}”.

    I do not support the neocon “Spread peace with bullets and bombs” argument, it’s sheer nonsense.

    Nor do I, as you may have noted in my commentary regarding Iraq. I do support assisting oppressed people overthrow their oppressors. With military intervention.

  156. says

    Teh kiloGraeme,

    fair enough. Certain parts of the East are still economically depressed.

    The idea of 1:1 conversion (though it was staggered for certain types of currency) was what killed the Eastern economy. The Bundesbank president strongly advised against it, but Helmut Kohl felt he couldn’t follow that advice due to political reasons.

  157. KG says

    Catastrophic climate change is not in any country’s self interest. – truthspeaker

    Of course not: what is most in each country’s interest is to decide how to run its economy on purely self-interested grounds, without considering the GHG emissions, while all the other countries cut their emissions more than they would otherwise need to. Such “social dilemmas” are often solved in the real world, but this always requires setting up appropriate institutional systems, incorporating binding agreements and measures for monitoring compliance and punishing infractions. Realpolitik, if you are using the word in anything like its original sense, regards the state as not bound to abide by any commitment.

  158. says

    i disagree. i think the reason u s doesn’t attack n korea is same reason it doesnt attack any country that can fight back. because u s is cowardly country. you are right, i dont know much about korea problem but i know coward behavior when i see it. and u s is cowardly.

    If you don’t know much about it, then why don’t you STFU about it??

    libya did not start as civil war earlier this year. the rich west wants libya to not be a problem. and now they will have that. the goal is neocolonialism. resources are being used up daily and rich west must try to control all wealth. so far rich west is right on track for this control. rich west doesnt want peace. it wants death, chaos, destruction and confusion. rich west is really good at creating this.
    as is very evident.
    Privileged, white and rich the West carries on.
    If Ghadafi’s wife were raped would people feel as good about it as they seem to feel about the violent death of Ghadafi himself.
    isn’t the rape of any women the rape of all humanity. likewise, isn’t the violent death of one person violence against all people! today is not a day to rejoice.

    I disagree. For many in the West, the Gadafi regime was a stable guarantor of business. Same thing for Egypt.

  159. Dianne says

    I’m conflicted about this whole Libya situation. On the one hand, it’s Ghadafi. Who can defend Ghadafi? On the other, I find it hard to believe that the US and other western countries helped Libyans oust Ghadafi out of pure disinterested humanitarianism. One can’t help but have the tiniest suspicion that there may be some ulterior motive to Obama et al wanting Ghadafi gond just now. Perhaps it’ll work out well for Libyans, regardless of motives.

  160. Ash says

    “Nor do I, as you may have noted in my commentary regarding Iraq. I do support assisting oppressed people overthrow their oppressors. With military intervention.”

    So why don’t you think the same solution for oppressed Americans as well? The Americans are being oppressed by their government through the influence of the Israeli lobby.

    Listen to the video below and it will be clear to you how the lobby oppresses both the Americans as wells as the British (maybe other European countries as well for all I know where a large portion of the media is being effectively controlled as in Canada or is on the anvil for control by a minority to influence the governments).

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-on-jeff-renses-radio-show.html

  161. says

    Dianne,

    I’m conflicted about this whole Libya situation. On the one hand, it’s Ghadafi. Who can defend Ghadafi? On the other, I find it hard to believe that the US and other western countries helped Libyans oust Ghadafi out of pure disinterested humanitarianism. One can’t help but have the tiniest suspicion that there may be some ulterior motive to Obama et al wanting Ghadafi gond just now. Perhaps it’ll work out well for Libyans, regardless of motives.

    Well, both? A government usually pursues several foreign policy goals at the same time, they’re not mutually exclusive. In the best of cases, human rights concerns and your own economic interests coincide.

    About the “just now”: I don’t think there was any kind of timing. The Arab Spring showed Libyans that dictators that had been in power for decades could be ousted, and that got it started. Of course it would have been a political disaster for Obama if Ghadafi had managed to hang on to power.

  162. Matt Penfold says

    I’m conflicted about this whole Libya situation. On the one hand, it’s Ghadafi. Who can defend Ghadafi? On the other, I find it hard to believe that the US and other western countries helped Libyans oust Ghadafi out of pure disinterested humanitarianism. One can’t help but have the tiniest suspicion that there may be some ulterior motive to Obama et al wanting Ghadafi gond just now. Perhaps it’ll work out well for Libyans, regardless of motives.

    In the case of Italy there was a growing problem of refugees feeling Libya that were stretching the facilities on Pantelleria to the limit. But I suspect that those countries who provided help to the rebels will be hoping that their bushiness are look on favourably.

  163. KG says

    likewise, isn’t the violent death of one person violence against all people! – joed

    /

    No, it isn’t. Any more stupid questions?

  164. KG says

    Dianne,

    Who can defend Ghadafi?

    Blockheads like joed.

    On the other, I find it hard to believe that the US and other western countries helped Libyans oust Ghadafi out of pure disinterested humanitarianism. – Dianne

    Of course they didn’t: in addition to the fear of a wave of refugees in Europe, they are expecting lucrative contracts, and while they were quite prepared to do profitable business with Ghadafi, there remained deep grudges against him. But as you say, none of that means it won’t turn out well for the majority of Libyans.

    Incidentally, I’m sure senior western politicians also quite sincerely wanted to intervene to help the Libyans: it’s very easy and pleasant to feel compassion and righteous indignation when it’s to your material and political advantage to act on those feelings.

  165. Ash says

    “The Arab Spring showed Libyans that dictators that had been in power for decades could be ousted, and that got it started. ”

    Nonsense! The Arab Spring showed the West (not Libyans) that it is the most opportune time to act through their willing traitorous mercenaries and their special forces on the ground to overthrow and kill Gaddhafi who stood in their way to colonize Libya and then the whole of Africa. Just a week back we heard about 100 special forces were sent to Uganda….

  166. changeable moniker says

    @Ash

    Listen to the video below and it will be clear to you how the [Israeli?] lobby oppresses both the Americans as wells as the British (maybe other European countries as well for all I know where a large portion of the media is being effectively controlled as in Canada or is on the anvil for control by a minority to influence the governments).

    For those of us without 42 minutes to listen to a rambling interview, could you please summarise the salient details? A point-by-point list of accusations would be really helpful.

  167. says

    @joed
    If you don’t know much about North Korea, then why don’t you shut up about it?

    Let me tell you the consequences of attacking North Korea. Attacking North Korea would cause a large war between North and South Korea, which I REALLY don’t want it to happen because my relatives live there (and because people are going to die in general). It would also cause a major problem with China, since North Korea is backed by it. I hope you do realize how powerful China is. Additionally, I doubt a large portion of the people of North Korea would support US attack on them, and I am pretty sure that the US would get bogged down the same way it got bogged down in Iraq. So yeah, it is a matter of being smart, but you are too dumb to see that.

  168. Dianne says

    Of course they didn’t: in addition to the fear of a wave of refugees in Europe, they are expecting lucrative contracts, and while they were quite prepared to do profitable business with Ghadafi, there remained deep grudges against him. But as you say, none of that means it won’t turn out well for the majority of Libyans.

    It might work out well for Libyans, but because there are clearly conflicting motives, I’m less certain about supporting the whole thing wholeheartedly. See Iraq, Saddam Hussein, the Roberts et al paper on mortality pre- and post-Hussein, etc.

    In particular, I’m concerned about reports (of what reliability, I’m not sure) that the west selectively supported the more radical, particularly more religious, elements of the rebellion. Because that worked out so well in the past (i.e. Afghanistan in the 1980s…never came back to haunt us at all, right?)

    I suppose at this point my opinion is spectacularly irrelevant anyway, unless anyone has any thoughts on things that we can do to try to nudge the situation in the direction of ending up with a reasonable democracy rather than yet another religious dictatorship to vary the monotony from the previous 40 years of secular dictatorship.

  169. pj says

    @Ash

    Your link in #193 is to a site that contains antisemitic and holocaust denialist writings.

    Have a porcupine.

  170. Ash says

    @191

    “I disagree. For many in the West, the Gadafi regime was a stable guarantor of business. Same thing for Egypt.”

    What else should we expect from a supporter of NATO terror bombing killing thousands of civilians? (NATO bombing to save civilian lives- My foot!)

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=35965

  171. DaveH says

    @Dianne:

    Let’s not forget a certain element of revenge: Lockerbie, Berlin disco, etc. They didn’t really like him in general.

  172. Ash says

    “How about we stop responding to Ash? He is obviously too dumb too live.”

    Truth hurts people like you, right?

  173. Matt Penfold says

    Let’s not forget a certain element of revenge: Lockerbie, Berlin disco, etc. They didn’t really like him in general.

    Tony Blair did.

  174. says

    @DaveH
    Also, didn’t he call himself The King of Kings of Africa? I bet other African dictators and leaders didn’t like him either. Man, that dude had an ego larger than the size of his country.

  175. says

    No Ash,

    nonsense like

    Nonsense! The Arab Spring showed the West (not Libyans) that it is the most opportune time to act through their willing traitorous mercenaries and their special forces on the ground to overthrow and kill Gaddhafi who stood in their way to colonize Libya and then the whole of Africa. Just a week back we heard about 100 special forces were sent to Uganda….

    shows that there is nothing to be gained from discussing with conspiracy nut jobs like you.

  176. Matt Penfold says

    Also, didn’t he call himself The King of Kings of Africa? I bet other African dictators and leaders didn’t like him either. Man, that dude had an ego larger than the size of his country.

    With a few exceptions they didn’t. Nor did the dictators of other Arabic countries.

  177. says

    Yes, he was involved in getting the African Union off the ground. Though it didn’t turn out like he had envisioned it. The sub-Saharan African countries were glad to get his money, but ignored his rather outlandish political ideas.

    Africa is a politically complex case. Nut jobs like Ash should take note of that before they start posting utter crap like Gadafi was the only one standing behind the Imperialist West and poor defenceless Africans.

  178. Ash says

    “For those of us without 42 minutes to listen to a rambling interview, could you please summarise the salient details? A point-by-point list of accusations would be really helpful.”

    I would prefer that you listen to the entire interview. It may seem rambling to you but there is no shortcut for the truth. Listen to it when you have the time or just ignore it.

  179. Ash says

    “Africa is a politically complex case. Nut jobs like Ash should take note of that before they start posting utter crap like Gadafi was the only one standing behind the Imperialist West and poor defenceless Africans.”

    Calling names? That gives you away for who you are. You are the one who support imperialist wars here and maintains that the West always has the moral grounds to dictate. Look for what good Gaddhafi did for his own country and don’t find faults because he did not support Western designs for Africa, to be slaves to the West.

    And shut up with your name calling!!!

  180. Crudely Wrott says

    There exists no “us” and no “them” any more. There is only the whole of humanity. This has been so since transport and communication obliterated distance; for several generations now. Pay attention!

    To deny assistance to or support for any people in distress is no different from denying same to a friend or family member or fellow parishioner or union brother.

    Those who do so see no further than their own noses.

    It is clear that their worlds extend only no further.

    One hopes their influences as well end at their own noses.

  181. says

    Ash,

    your tone-trolling is noted.

    As far as your what-Gadafi-did-for-his-people nonsense, I repeat my earlier post

    so Gadafi bribed his people by using the oil money. You can still not talk yourself out of the fact that dissidents to his regime were harshly persecuted. The Gulf monarchies do the same thing.

  182. Tom McCann says

    There’s a lot of debate about whether the US should be the world’s policeman or not. OK, here’s a mathematical approach. 1. Make a list of the countries without democracy, with questionable regimes. 2. Make a list of countries with oil supplies. 3. Make a list of countries that the US has intervened in. 4. Draw a venn diagram of above data and tell me what you notice?

    I’m amazed by how many people in here still manage to swallow, hook line & sinker, what the MSM tell them to believe. I thought this was a blog with an intelligent audience.

  183. Matt Penfold says

    And shut up with your name calling!!!

    Oh dear. I suggest you give up now, otherwise there is only one way this is going to end up, and it will not be favourable to you.

    Here is a hint for you. Complaining about being called names is not the done thing there.

  184. Hazuki says

    My only hope for this is that Libya doesn’t become another horrible hellhole overrun by the Muslim brotherhood like so many other places after “liberation.” Historically, where the US goes in the Middle East, the fundies follow :/

  185. says

    My only hope for this is that Libya doesn’t become another horrible hellhole overrun by the Muslim brotherhood like so many other places after “liberation.” Historically, where the US goes in the Middle East, the fundies follow :/

    Like what places? Words have meanings, and so does “Muslim brotherhood”.

  186. Therrin says

    Tom McCann

    I thought this was a blog with an intelligent audience.

    Yeah, I know what you mean. Hopefully you and Ash leave soon, and it goes back to being one.

  187. dollypop says

    The guy was a cunt and his people killed him because he killed so many of them.

    Game over, goodnight. Next?

  188. Cassius Corodes says

    pelamun: Egypt is in serious danger of being run by the muslim brotherhood – Syria almost certainly will if it manages to overthrow Assad. In Lybia several new government cabinet members are confirmed islamist and the head of the forces in tripoli is a fellow that used to fight alongside al-Qaeda in Iraq. Even in Tunisia the party set to get the largest share of votes (largely due to heavy splintering of other groups) is an islamist party.

    So overall the arab spring is looking very precarious and could easily end up in an even worse state then they started.

  189. KG says

    I thought this was a blog with an intelligent audience. – Thom McCann

    Well, it’s at least mostly capable of actually reading the thread, which is clearly more than you’ve managed.

  190. says

    dollypop

    on this blog, we like to refrain from gendered insults. Thank you for your cooperation.

    Cassius

    And tell me which of these countries you’ve listed the US has invaded? Granted, their wording is ambiguous, so let’s discuss

    – Tunisia: Rashid Al-Ghannushi looks ok to me. And you said yourself, there is a lot of splintering.

    – Egypt: I’d doubt it. It is true that the Brotherhood was better organised than other groups, but it’s far from certain that it’ll get to run the entire country. At this point even a new military dictatorship with a softer look could be a possibility.

    – Libya: let’s just wait until the dust settles. I do think that tribal politics will be more important than religious issues, but I could be wrong.

    – Syria: you seem to imply that the Brotherhood is the main power behind the protests there. The composition of the Syrian National Council, an organisation of anti-government forces bringing together a large number of different groups, suggests otherwise.

    I mean in majority Muslim countries you will get Islamist parties if you introduce a democratic system. There is no way around it. Look at Turkey and Indonesia. In both countries, democratisation has given Islamist parties a prominent role, in Turkey even the government, but these two countries are far from becoming theocracies.

    The Muslim Brotherhood is a complex organisation, I don’t think there is reason to panic. And in either case, trying to intervene against the Arab Spring might just lead to a repeat of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, so I think the West should make the best of it.

  191. KG says

    There’s some pretty putrid stuff on the website where Ash gets his ideas. A subtle aroma of antisemitism with just a passing whiff of holocaust denial.

    “Antisemitism is the socialism of fools” – Bebel

  192. Cassius Corodes says

    pelamun: Apologies – I misinterpreted the context of that discussion – I wasn’t making the claim that the US has invaded any of them.

    Tunisia is by far the best of the lot so I am still hopeful about it.

    Egypt is already being run by an alliance between the ruling military government and the muslim brotherhood. Note that they are in lockstep in all important decisions (i.e. the referendum, against further protests etc) so its a “widely known secret” that the two are in cahoots. The two groups don’t exactly like each other so it remains to be seen what happens next and the MB has been losing support because of its alliance. Despite that it is the favourite for the foreseeable future – perhaps not for outright rule, but as the power behind the scenes.

    Lybia is difficult to gauge but note that the last two failed uprisings were of an islamist nature and many of the core experienced rebel fights were veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq and as a result a number of rebel commanders are – including the aforementioned fellow in Tripoli. Its difficult to say how much support islamists have in lybia but they have enough boots on the ground so to speak to stage a Iran style counter-revolution. This is my biggest fear there and the slow increase in influence of islamists in the cabinet is a very bad sign.

    I strongly suspect that in Syria the MB is behind the on the ground efforts – note that the “capital” of the uprising is Homs a MB stronghold. The syrian national council is not even in syria, and so its likely to be of little relevance on the ground. The MB was behind the last failed uprising as well. Note that the syrian christans and alawites are very scared of the outcome of the revolution and so are unwilling to come down against assad. This is liekly becouse they know the MB run syria will not be a welcome place for them.

    Turkey is a bad example if you are making the case that islamists and democracy are compatible since that country is fast heading towards autocracy if not outright theocracy. Independent media is almost dead in that country, and their foreign policy has alighted itself with the islamist resistance movement against Israel headed by Iran, and away from the west.

    I think a lot of people in the west underestimate the MB – they are very much the sunni equivalent of Iran’s theocratic rulers. From a cynical political stance this might be good as a MB ruled syria/egypt will give Iran something else to do other then pester the west. But its likely they will try to “out islamist” one another by attacking the west.

  193. niki says

    @dollypop #236

    Delurking to help you out.

    So, which of you is entitled to speak for the whole commenteriet of this blog? Or neither?

    They’re both right.

    You can insult all you want to here without using gendered terms. Complaining about being insulted is the fastest way to get insulted more.

  194. Mal Adapted says

    Joed and Ash apparently think that, because the MSM are lying, their preferred sources are telling the truth. That’s a logical fallacy.

    Why are your sources more trustworthy than the MSM, Joed and Ash?

  195. curiouser says

    dollypop,

    Quoting the rule referred to for you:

    You don’t get to criticize people for what they are, so don’t bother with your gendered, racist, classist, or ableist insults

    Perhaps you’d like to rephrase your original post sans the gendered insult?

  196. joed says

    see how violent death has affected you folks.
    take a few deep breaths and think of something peaceful for a moment. this violence stuff is really contagious.
    and violence is a bad habit. bad habits can be broken–but it ain’t easy sometimes. the american culture and society is very sick. sickened by violence.

  197. dornierpfeil says

    joed @32:
    Privileged white people want all the wealth of Africa. And it looks like they will get it back. especially with the credulous skeptics here believing the rich West media.

    Considering just how much money China is investing in infrastructure in Africa, it won’t be the privileged white west that controls it.

  198. Ash says

    “As far as your what-Gadafi-did-for-his-people nonsense, I repeat my earlier post

    so Gadafi bribed his people by using the oil money. You can still not talk yourself out of the fact that dissidents to his regime were harshly persecuted. The Gulf monarchies do the same thing.”

    And what are you regurgitating? Pure MSM lies that you believe are true just because it is your favorite MSM, the mouthpiece of your Western Governments that says so.

    The Americans and the Europeans are so conceited as to believe that they hold the moral high ground to judge that their Western democracy has no defects. In fact it is the worst of all types of governments for it allows the control of the government by the 1% moneyed class to serve its selfish interests over that of the rest 99%. THE WEST ALSO FINDS NO FAULTS IN THE MURDER OF PALESTINIANS BY OCCUPYING ISRAELIS who they deem are above reproach because they are the CHOSEN PEOPLE. So don’t come and advocate to the rest of the world of what is right and wrong for them. Keep that Western democracy to yourselves and don’t enforce it through the barrel of a gun on the rest of the world.

  199. Cassius Corodes says

    Ash: Where do you live exactly? From your comments it sounds like you live in the middle east somewhere?

  200. dornierpfeil says

    Concerning German foreign interventions. From Wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

    Although this is not explicitly spelled out in the Basic Law, a number of Constitutional Court cases in the 1990s established that the military may not be deployed by the government outside of NATO territory without a specific resolution of parliament, which describes the details of the mission and limits its term. There are also strict restrictions on the intervention of the military within Germany (i.e. a ban of the military being used for police-type duties), which generally only allow the military to act in unarmed roles within Germany (such as disaster relief).

    The Foreign Minister is not precisely relevant.

  201. Rev. BigDumbChimp says

    The Americans and the Europeans are so conceited as to believe that they hold the moral high ground to judge that their Western democracy has no defects. In fact it is the worst of all types of governments for it allows the control of the government by the 1% moneyed class to serve its selfish interests over that of the rest 99%. THE WEST ALSO FINDS NO FAULTS IN THE MURDER OF PALESTINIANS BY OCCUPYING ISRAELIS who they deem are above reproach because they are the CHOSEN PEOPLE. So don’t come and advocate to the rest of the world of what is right and wrong for them. Keep that Western democracy to yourselves and don’t enforce it through the barrel of a gun on the rest of the world.

    This has exactly what to do with The ugliest man in Dictatorships death?

  202. says

    @joed
    Yeah, because Gaddaffi was not violent at all. Oh, no siree. He never sent troops to kill the people in Misrata and Benghazi. His lackeys never performed torture on political dissenters. Nope. Not at all. \sarcasm

  203. cmv says

    @ Mal Adapted – Actually, Joed and Ash seem to think that because they’re favoured media outlets say something different from the MSM, the MSM must be lying. Still a logical fallacy, but flipped around from how you put it. There is no outside indication that the MSM are lying on this point, save their favoured sources.
    The uprising in Libya started with Libyans, who took their inspiration from what had been happening in other parts of the Middle East. Qaddafi had been “rehabilitated” by the West, until he started having his people shot for protesting.
    He was killed by Libyans who took part in the uprising. Not by US special forces, by the Libyans who those special forces went to help.

  204. joed says

    I hope I don’t break the rules here by posting this article but some facts are helpful–aren’t they!

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/libya-fact-sheet/#more-32522
    Libya Fact Sheet

    by Ron Ridenour / May 5th, 2011

    1. Libya is Africa’s largest exporter of oil, 1.7 million tons a day, which quickly was reduced to 300-400,000 tons/day due to US-NATO bombing.

    Libya exports 80% of its oil: 80% of that to several EU lands (32% Italy, 14% Germany, 10% France); 10% China; 5% USA.

    2. Gaddafi has been preparing to launch a gold dinar for oil trade with all of Africa’s 200 million people and other countries interested. He has been working with this since 2002 together with Malaysia. As of recently, only South Africa and the head of the League of African States were opposed. Before the invasion of Iraq, Hussein was in agreement as was Sudan, Burney, then Indonesia and United Arab Emirates, also Iran.

    French President Nickolas Sarkozy called this, “a threat for financial security of mankind”. Much of France’s wealth—more than any other colonial-imperialist power—comes from exploiting Africa.1

    3. Central Bank of Libya is 100% owned by state (since 1956) and is thus outside of multinational corporation control (BIS-Banking International Settlement rules for private interests). The state can finance its own projects and do so without interest rates, which reduce the costs by half of private banks. Libya’s central bank (with three branches in the east including Benghazi) has 144 tons of gold in its vaults, which it could use to start the gold dinar. (China, Russia, India, Iran are stocking great sums of gold rather than relying only on dollars.)

    4. Gaddafi-Central Bank used $33 billion, without interest rates, to build the Great Man-Made River of 4,000 kilometers with three parallel pipelines running oil, gas and water supplying 70% of the people (4.5 of its 6 million) with clean drinking and irrigation water. This provides adequate crops for the people making it a competitive exporter of vegetables with Israel and Egypt.

    The Central Bank also financed Africa’s first communication satellite with $300 million of the $377 cost. It started up for all Africa, December 26, 2007, thus saving the 45-African nations an annual fee of $500 million pocketed by Europe for use of its satellites and this means much less cost for telephones and other communication systems.

    5. The opposition led by former Gaddafi ministers and some Eastern clan leaders set up a central bank in Benghazi to replace Libya’s central bank even before they have set up a government or an organized army. It was immediately recognized by Paris stock exchange and soon other Westerners. This is the first time in history rebels have set up a bank before victory or before having a government.

    6. There is evidence from Gaddafi defectors (especially Nouri Mesmari), under France protection that France started preparing a Benghazi based rebellion against Gaddafi from November 2010, in order to stop his plans to switch from the dollar to a new gold currency. US politician, Rep. Dennis Kucinich confirms this.2

    On December 23, 2010, Libyans Ali Ounes Mansour, Farj Charrant and Fathi Boukhris met with Mesrami and French officials in Paris. Those three are now part of the Benghazi-based leadership.

    US General Wesley Clrak (ret.) told Democracy Now (2007) that ten days after September 11, 2011 another general had told him that the Bush government was planning to invade: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. What they have in common is that they were not members of banks within the BIS, and most of them have lots of oil. Hussein had agreed with France President De Gaulle to switch from dollars to Euros in oil trading six months before Bush invaded.

    7. While Gaddafi had turned much of his oil sales toward the West, inviting in many of the major oil companies for great profits (BP, EXXON Mobil, Shell, Total, etc), he did not join the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq as did most of the oil rich Middle Eastern governments. Nor did he sign on with AFRICOM, a US-inspired pact oriented towards US economic and military benefit in Africa also oriented to isolate China from Africa’s natural resources. In fact, China has 50 major economic projects going in Libya with $18 billion investment. Before the US-NATO invasion, there were 30,000 Chinese workers on these and other projects. Much of China’s investment is destroyed.

    8. Human Rights Watch (which some call an imperialist-oriented NGO) reported that there has been no civilian bloodbath by Gaddafi. In Misurata, for example, with 400,000 population (second largest city), after two months of war only 257 people were killed, including combatants. Of 949 wounded, only 22 (3%) were women.3

    9. As France took the lead, along with UK, to threaten Gaddafi militarily, Gaddafi threatened (March 2) to throw western oil companies out of Libya. With more blustering from the west, Gaddafi invited (March 14) Chinese, Russian and Indian oil companies to take their place. On March 17, the US-France-UK got want they wanted for starters from the UN. Resolution 1973, calling only for a no-fly strategy and not a regime shift or troop landings, was not backed by key big powers: China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany. Of the 28 NATO countries, only 14 are involved in the Libyan campaign and only six of those are in the air war.

    Denmark is one of those six. It spent 70 million kroner ($12 million) in the first two weeks of bombing. By April 30, it had dropped 297 bombs on Libya. Denmark’s 2011 defense-war budget is $4 billion annually (22.4 billion kroner) out of $130 billion (671 billion kroner) budget. It uses more money than ever for wars: $250 million annually in Afghanistan, three times 2008 expenditures–$14 billion total in nine years. It used $½ billion in five active years at war in Iraq and continues there with less.

    What the US-NATO-EU hopes to achieve is to eliminate the half-reliable partner Gaddafi and replace him with a neo-liberal oriented government that will do their bidding: sign on AFRICOM, kick China out, reverse the government central bank to a BIS private enterprise, continue using dollars of course, and have the lackey leaders join in their permanent war age throughout the Middle East and Africa.

    New neo-liberal socio-economic policies would eliminate what the Gaddafi government has provided the entire population through state subsidies funded with oil export sales: the highest standard of living in Africa with free, universal health and education care, and the possibility of studying abroad at state expense; $50,000 for each new married couple to get started with; non-interest state loans; subsidized prices of cars much lower than in Europe; the cheapest gasoline and bread prices in the world (similar to Venezuela); no taxes for those working in agriculture.

    This is not to say that Gaddafi is all that one would want in a leader, but he is definitely not as bad as most of US-NATO allies, such as dictators in the Middle East and some in Africa, Asia, and certainly Israel. Their friendly governments in Saudia Arabia—which sent troops to good neighbor Bahrain to murder hundreds of unarmed protesters condoned by the US—Yemen, Oman, Jordon where the governments murder hundreds of unarmed protestors. In fact, the only armed insurrection occurring in the Arabic countries is in Libya. It seems the US doesn’t like supporting non-violent demonstrators and would rather see them dead. And that is yet another, and one of the most important, reasons for US-NATO taking over Libya: to stop the progressive, dynamic uproar throughout the Arabic world. If these mostly youth-led revolts could actually win, which would mean replacing the imperialist-backed system and not just a dictator here or there, it might lead to an anti-capitalist revolution.

    See: “The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System” by Peter Dale Scott; “Bombing of Libya – punishment for Gaddafi for his attempt to refuse US dollar” as cited by Ellen Brown in “Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking.” For this and other points see also: “Euro-US War on Libya: Official Lies and Misconceptions of Critics” by James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya; plus other articles on the subject. [↩]
    See: “French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November” by Franco Bechis. [↩]
    Boston Globe, April 14. [↩]

    Ron Ridenour is an activist who has written many books on Cuba, including Cuba: Beyond the Crossroads (2006) and Cuba at Sea (2008). Read other articles by Ron, or visit Ron’s website.

    This article was posted on Thursday, May 5th, 2011 at 8:00am and is filed under Banks/Banking, Democracy, Denmark, Economy/Economics, France, Imperialism, Libya.

  205. mythusmage says

    #70 doth say,

    All the more reason not to have interests overseas.

    So no cellphones or computers, eh? Or do you know where we can get the rare earths domestically

    And are you willing to pay more for gasoline and other oil products?

  206. Cassius Corodes says

    mythusmage: The us can mine rare earths domestically (and it once did) but its currently not viable economically (due to labour costs presumable). I think since the rare earth export emargo that china launched on japan, there has been an effort to restart some of those mines for national security reasons.

  207. itinerant says

    Joed, Ash, and other Ghadaffi fans:
    You might be interested in the Libyan novelist Hisham Matar, for example, his novel “Anatomy of a Disappearance”, about a young man whose father vanishes into Ghaddafi’s prisons. Oddly, that happened to his father. How many were killed in the 2005 Abu Salim massacre? An odious man – I would have preferred he had gone to trial, but his government diminished us all, by fact or by association.

  208. says

    I wonder what kind of ranting we would have seen from Ash and joed back when the West was cuddling up to Khaddafi a few years back. Probably called him a sellout or something.

    I wonder what kind of government Ash wants. Dictatorship by a strongman he likes?

  209. mythusmage says

    The impression I’m left with after reading certain people is that those people would much rather live in a United States that is poorer, and with a much wider gap between rich and poor. Less developed, less capable, and a target for foreign intervention.

    They also refuse to acknowledge that America can not provide for everything she needs, for she lacks the resources. No, rather than take actions that provide for a peaceful world, they would much rather we sat on our duffs and let the world go to Hell.

    A peaceful world is in our interest, because a peaceful world means we can obtain resources we need for our prosperity that much easier. We ignore the world we end up with one we cannot depend upon for resources. Indeed, one that presents an immediate danger to us and our way of life. Ash, et al, are you willing to live in a USA impoverished, repressed, having a military expanded from its current state to defend us from foreign intervention. Do you really think the world would leave us alone should we leave the world alone?

    No such luck, for we have resources the world is interested in, and just by existing we would present a danger to other nations due to the power we could potentially project were we to ever feel threatened. At present we are a known quantities, unknown quantities make people nervous and prone to lash out.

    Engaging the world benefits us, and it benefits the world. At the very least engaging the world gives the nations of the world some idea of our intentions and some examples of our behavior. The Pax Americana, as flawed as it is, has in the long run been a good thing for the world and prevented tragedies previous eras considered matter of course.

    I will be blunt here and tell you what I think of you. You are shorted sighted, bigoted, and greedy fools. You think the world, especially America, would be just like it is today, if only America would concern herself solely with herself. No such luck, for the United States, by her mere existence, has had a profound impact on the world and how the world works. We can no more isolate ourselves from the world than a cat can ignore the effects of catnip. We are involved and we either act as though our involvement matters, or we let ourselves and the world go to hell in a hand basket.

    Disagree all you want, you’re telling us nothing insightful, nothing pertinent, nothing constructive. All you’re doing is bitching and moaning about the heat in the kitchen, and all that shows me is how immature and spiteful you are

    We need the world, and that means we must be involved in the world. I like the standard of living our involvement in the world gives us, so I’m willing the pay the cost of that involvement. Disagree all you want, but I doubt you’ll find any sensible person agreeing with you.

    (This comment posted at Mythusmage Opines because I get readers who don’t visit Pharyngula and I thought they should read this.)

  210. mythusmage says

    #261,

    I thought so, but wasn’t sure. I suspect it’s not just a matter of getting the rare earths cheaper from China, but also a matter of the environment, since mining the rare earths domestically could result in a lot of disruption.

  211. Ichthyic says

    Libya is Africa’s largest exporter of oil, 1.7 million tons a day, which quickly was reduced to 300-400,000 tons/day due to US-NATO bombing.

    Libya exports 80% of its oil: 80% of that to several EU lands (32% Italy, 14% Germany, 10% France); 10% China; 5% USA.

    why, one might almost conclude that helping out the rebels wasn’t in NATOs best interests, given the reduction in oil exports.

    fuck me, but you’re an idiot.

  212. ckitching says

    I love these conspiracy theories about the mainstream media. What’s next? An influx of 9/11 Truthers? Moon hoaxers? Chemtrails?

    The MSM is lazy, un-inquisitive, and sometimes biased. You give them far too much credit when you claim they’re manufacturing popular support by creating and disseminating propaganda.

  213. Ash says

    @259
    “And yet his own people still did not like him. Is that irrelevant to you or something?”

    Regurgitation of MSM propaganda.

    And are you aware of reports in the alternative media that Gaddafi is loved for the good that he did for his country? No, you will never see those reports bec you don’t want to hear anything good about a patriot that defies the West. He said he would die fighting rather thn kneel before the West. A true patriot and martyr. That’s how he will be remembered in Libya and by history.

  214. mythusmage says

    Ash @ 271,

    So loved by the Libyan people they rose up against him and wound up killing him out of hand. God spare me from that sort of popularity.

  215. says

    @Ash
    Don’t you dare pretend to know what the Libyans have experienced under Gaddaffi’s rule, because you don’t. Almost every Libyans that talk about Gaddaffi don’t like him. In fact, most of the support I have seen for Gaddaffi comes from foreigners like you who have never lived under his regime. You don’t know what it was like, so why don’t you shut up and listen to the Libyans when they talk about their experiences? Or are Libyans in your mind incapable of thinking for themselves and they all fell into propaganda, and the Western powers are so much more cleverer, is that it? With you people, you always end up insulting the people you are supposedly defending. What does that say about you?

  216. says

    @Icthyic
    And remember, this dictator’s attempt to cling to his childish ego caused a war that killed 20-30 thousand people, and one of the most brutal and bitter fighting of the war in Sirte.

  217. Ichthyic says

    Regurgitation of MSM propaganda.

    Yeah! They shot him in the head because they LOVED him!

    People should stay away from you, I think…

  218. Kagehi says

    Why are your sources more trustworthy than the MSM, Joed and Ash?

    How dare you suggest that sources of information from the reptilian space sharks of Neptune, under the control of the Illuminati, with help from Hitler’s clones, and the the giant blob people, from another dimension, which run the MSM, is *more* reliable that what these people are showing us. I mean, its almost as though you are suggesting we might be sane, or something!

    Seriously though, any idiot that lumps every damn news agency on the planet, including the ones that are not even controlled by the West, into one three letter stock ticker, and tries to claim that all of them lie, but that the effectively equivalent of The Weekly World News, source they use is more truthful, is bloody off their meds, or hasn’t yet done something serious enough for the people in white jackets to determine *what* meds they should be taking. It certainly, even without the antisemitism, and other bullshit mixed in, a sign of any sort of ability to comprehend nuance, or grasp that it is literally *impossible* to lie 100% of the time. This is the same level of weapons grade nuts that leaves UFO fanatics convinced that the whole UFO thing is real, because a janitor, who once worked “close to” a military base, has gone around selling books that claim that he is, despite a complete lack of ability to do shit all with his “expertise”, really a physicist, who once worked on secret UFO reverse engineering programs, and whom the government so completely erased his identity that even his frakking birth certificate says he was born some place else, never mind every other damn thing about his schooling, work history, etc., which implies (again, he can’t seem to manage to show anyone how a light bulb works, and get it right, never mind a star drive), that he might not have been qualified to be a janitor, never mind a physicist.

    They must have hired the same person that went back in time and changed the news announcements and long form certificate, for Obama, so they wouldn’t know he was a Kenyan space lizard, specifically cloned to one day, somehow, brain control the US into electing him to the presidency, or what ever the fuck it is this week…

    If there is any thread of reality running through any of the sort of crap these people insist on showing up here to peddle, it has to be in the “parallel”, “virtual,” or “alternative” version of it. Sadly, its also one that no one would pay to make into a movie either, otherwise, it might be marginally useful, for something…

  219. Gregory Greenwood says

    Ash @ 271;

    Regurgitation of MSM propaganda.

    Ah, it’s the dreaded ‘mainstream media'; loathed by nutty conspiracy theorists of both far rightwing and far leftwing flavours.

    Are they are also suppressing the ‘fact’ that Elvis is still alive and rocking out in stadia filled to the rafters with the Fabblegooks of Beta Anphelion IV?

    And are you aware of reports in the alternative media that Gaddafi is loved for the good that he did for his country?

    Oh yes, you can really feel the love inherent in the war they fought to throw off his oppression. And the whole shooting in the head thing? Just an expression of affection and respect, naturally…

    No, you will never see those reports bec you don’t want to hear anything good about a patriot that defies the West.

    Does the West do stupid, violent and oppressive things with its nonsensical foreign wars? Certainly. Does that somehow mean that a man who funded and organised terrorist atrocities and brutally abused his own people should be lauded as some kind of patriotic ‘hero’? Certainly not.

    Don’t you see that, just because the West is some times the malefactor of the piece, this does not automatically mean that anyone who opposes Western policy is noble by default. A black-and-white binary worldview is a dangerous thing, whichever group you identify as the ultimate in ‘good’ or ‘evil’.

    He said he would die fighting rather thn kneel before the West. A true patriot and martyr. That’s how he will be remembered in Libya and by history.

    I think that you may be prejudging this with the whole ‘going down in a blaze of glory’ epitaph. It seems he may have been hauled out of his hidey hole in a drainage pipe before being rather brutally killed. The amateur footage is certainly a diturbing sight, although I cannot speak as to its authenticity at this time.

    Also, you speak with such surety as to how Ghadafi will supposedly be remembered by history. Unless you possess some means of seeing the future, I fail to see how you can claim such foreknowledge. I somehow doubt that the families of his many, many victims both within and outside Libya would agree with your assessment of his legacy.

  220. Mus says

    The destiny of all tyrants is death.

    The only problem is that, quite often, the one that kills the tyrant, turns itself in a new tyrant.

    I really hope that the Lybians would be more afortunate, and can achieve a really democratic government.

  221. Zerple says

    @Psychotic Atheist 187 –

    I do not support the neocon “Spread peace with bullets and bombs” argument, it’s sheer nonsense.

    Nor do I, as you may have noted in my commentary regarding Iraq. I do support assisting oppressed people overthrow their oppressors. With military intervention.

    So your argument is, I don’t support spreading peace with bullets and bombs, I just support spreading peace with bullets and bombs? Or are these oppressors being overthrown with flowers, candy and love?

  222. pacal says

    Strangely there are people who thought and still think that Gaddaffi was a poor innocent victim of the evil west and that he farted sunshine and puppies. I found some of these Stalinist type dimbulbs on Randi.org. In fact an Italian journalist Flavio Grimaldi has apparantly made a documentary film about the wonderous Gaddaffi and his fight against evil Nato and the wicked rebels.

  223. StevoR says

    Good riddance Gadafi you sure won’t be missed.
    Crikey dictator you made your folks pissed!
    Just hope what follows you won’t be Islamists!

    / doggrel mode off.

  224. Teh kiloGraeme says

    @ Zerple #280

    The difference is that in one place (Iraq) the West invaded without popular support to impose a structure that was not needed or wanted.

    In the other (Lybia) the West responded to a direct appeal for assistance from an organisation trying to topple an illegitimate government, where there was both local support, and international will to act.

    Can you seriously not tell the difference?

  225. julian says

    So your argument is, I don’t support spreading peace with bullets and bombs, I just support spreading peace with bullets and bombs?

    I don’t think the purpose of helping an enslaved or heavily oppressed people overthrow a dictatorship is meant to encourage peace or in anything like that. I thi nk the point is to overthrow a tyrant and give the people a chance at a freer soceity (an oppurtunity they may or may not take.)

  226. says

    @pacal
    Also, president of Venezuela Chavez. He is a sick and twisted person who supports Ghaddaffi and Bashar al Assad. It must be some sort of principle of tyrant magnetism or something, I guess. Urgh, makes me ashamed of being Venezuelan.

  227. StevoR says

    Two words that aren’t getting enough notice paid to them here :

    Lockerbie bombing

    Moanmar Quaddafhi (one of the 1001 variants of his names spelling) was a sponsor of Global Terrorism, a tyrant who lived in luxury while oppressing murdering and raping his own people. A shitstain in human form who mildly amused some people with some comically insane rantings but beneath the eccentricities was just a egotistical brutal thug.

    Col. Quaddhafi was just another nasty, anti-Semitic, anti-American, Islamic extremist, tinpot, crackpot dictator to go with Sad-‘n-dammed Hussein*, Yasser Arafat, the Syrian Sad-ass Assads.

    I cheered and sank a few beers on hearing the news of his death & have no shame whatsoever in saying so.

    (Apart from anything else it brings to a clear & straightforward end a rather nasty civil war which will save lives that would have cost more lives had Gadhafi escaped Sirte or been taken prisoner alive for possible freeing later.)

    As for those apparently trying to blame everything on “Western Imperialism”** (For Fucks Sake!) and Israel (which of course is so relevant here because *everything* that happens even remotely within a continents throw or so of that tiny Jewish oasis of modernity and rationality is always Israel’s fault even Libyan internal civil wars and dictators. Not that there’s anything Judaeophobic about that ever! /sarc) : What the Fuck have you been smoking?!?

    No this wasn’t “imperialism”, this time – as quite often actually – the US and Western powers were the good guys.

    Gadafi was murdering his own people – almost all of whoem hated his guts and wanted him, well what he is now, a battered corpse being dragged through the streets as his death is celebrated wildly nation-wide.

    The West – France, the UK, the US and a few others(?) stopped Qghadafli from committing genocide and helped his people overthrow him.

    The big concern now is what happens next and who takes the reins. If its Jihadists we may have start bombing them again in self protection. If not and Libya becomes a reasonable nation that plays a positive regional & global role then that’d be awesome. We’ll have to see. (Although what’s happened in Eygpt post-Mubarak does not exactly inspire much confidence.)

    —-

    * Can we occassionally remember that Saddam was at least equally responsible for the Iraq war as G. W. Bush? Hussein played a dumb bluff, missed many chances to back down and leave and could’ve surrrendered earlier and broyught things to a better halt. He also y’know invaded Kuwait in 1991 and destroyed the country on his way out plus used WMDs against innocent Kurdish civilians. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing even though much else *did* go badly wrong and not as hoped or planned -to put it mildly I know.

    ** “Western Imperialism” – For Fucks Sake! (Eyeroll.) New law of the intertoobs, anyone who rants on about so-called “Western Imperialism” has automatically forfeited their right priviledge to be taken seriously. There’s no Western Emperor or empire, we haven’t occupied Iraq but have given it back to the Iraqi people just like we gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitis. The idea that Western imperialists are out to control *everything* on the planet (unlike say the Chinese totalitarians or the Jihadists out to create an Islamic Caliphate where women are second class citizens, gays as “non-existent” as they supposedy are in Iran and apostates and blasphemers, ie. non-fundamentalist Muslims, get stoned to death globe-wide) is just plain silly. Cheap oil, sure that’s an incentive but trying to guarantee our vital supplies of that commodity that is hardly the same thing as ruling the whole Earth as tyrants.

  228. StevoR says

    Dammit! I did preview. Repeatedly. But still stuffed up. Make that :

    (Apart from anything else it brings to a clear & straightforward end a rather nasty civil war which will save lives that would have cost more lives had Gadhafi escaped Sirte or been taken prisoner alive for possible freeing later.)

    For clarity.

    [Drinks to Gadafi’s death again and hopes Ahmadinejad is the next whackjob Islamist Dictator to go.]

  229. says

    @Zerple

    So your argument is, I don’t support spreading peace with bullets and bombs, I just support spreading peace with bullets and bombs?

    No, which is why I denied that very thing. My argument is that sometimes violence is necessary for the overthrowing of tyrants, dictators and so forth. I criticised the neocon method of doing this which is why I said I don’t support the neocon philosophy of spreading peace with violence. There are alternative philosophies of using violence to promote peace as I explicitly set out in my original post to you and which you apparently have chosen to ignore. I guess not only are you using self-contradictory arguments, but are incapable of understanding nuance too.

    Your self contradictory arguement, which you glossed over this last time, was that intervention in Libya was bad on the grounds that it was altruisitic but on the other hand altruism is not intrinsically bad.

  230. Anri says

    If Hitler hadn’t declared war on yes and attacked our shipping, then yes.

    Ok, dead horse, but wow.

    Also:

    My opinion on alliances is similar to George Washington’s.

    And we all know that George Washington was able to achieve his goals without foreign intervention at all…
    Right?
    – – –

    As far as isolationism goes, even during the U.S. Civil War, diplomats from both sides were testing the waters in Europe for recognition, concessions, all sorts of things. Altruism and doing the moral thing probably substantially took a back seat to cynical interests on the part of everyone involved – but so what? Smart people knew that even back then, oceans or not, the U.S. was not an isolated entity.
    Protip: We have not gotten more isolated since the 1860’s.

  231. KG says

    that tiny Jewish oasis of modernity and rationality -SteveoR

    *chuckle”
    You had me going right up to that phrase. Priceless!

  232. says

    pacal,
    I think I have run into the same type of Stalinist personalities. Though never at randi.org as I do not go there very often. I imagine they are very similar to the people over at the Korean Friendship Association that heap praise on everything that goes on in the DPRK and make it sound like it is a wonderful place that is terribly misrepresented by the imperialists. A bunch of delusional useful idiots.

  233. Patrik Roslund says

    Well the second world war was by the largest part won by the sovjet union who battled the germans by the millions while the amercan-british westfront was a war fought by the hundreds of thousands. Lets get the facts right. Also it was a war fought by “equals” in teknological sens. Not a drone army vs cavemen whit ak47ns.
    If you belive in american isolationism you truly are ignorant of the world around you. Not even the British empire whitch covered a fourth of the world could ignore the world around them. The invasion of Irak demanded the help of the UK and other nations. And the “war” in Libya reliad heavely on a coalation of european nations. Even my own country sweden who are not a member of nato sent fighter planes. And yes we even have a presens in Afganistan as peacekeepers, so not even a small “neutral” country like ours gets spared the economic and human losses of wars being fought for unclear motives.

    But thats beside the point. The “war” in Libya was justified by the fact that the people of that nation wanted Gaddafi gone. The victory belongs to the Libyan rebels. You dont win a war whit airstrikes only and although the u.s France and the rest of the coalition helpt in the liberation the victory belongs to the Libyan rebells.

    I understand that the averege american citisen are tiered of wars fought along way from home and i agree that the Iraki and Afgani wars are pointless and not very well founded. but the “war” in libya was a civilwar not instigated by the western powers. The help we provided was essential to ending the war early. My countries contribution might have been humble but this is one “War” i’m glad we helpt in. The rest is up to the Libyans.

  234. Mal Adapted says

    cmv:

    @ Mal Adapted – Actually, Joed and Ash seem to think that because they’re favoured media outlets say something different from the MSM, the MSM must be lying. Still a logical fallacy, but flipped around from how you put it. There is no outside indication that the MSM are lying on this point, save their favoured sources.

    You may be right about Joed and Ash. And while we know that much of what the MSM publishes shows a disregard for truth, I don’t have credible evidence of outright lying about the Libyan revolution. OTOH,

    ckitching:

    The MSM is lazy, un-inquisitive, and sometimes biased. You give them far too much credit when you claim they’re manufacturing popular support by creating and disseminating propaganda.

    In at least a few celebrated cases, it appears MSM propaganda has indeed helped led the U.S. to war. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

  235. Ash says

    “But thats beside the point. The “war” in Libya was justified by the fact that the people of that nation wanted Gaddafi gone. ”

    What percentage of people you never mentionted to imply it was a majority, right?

    But polls indicate a vast majority supported their leader Gaddhafi in defending their country against naked Western aggression
    If 51% and above did support the ouster of Gaddhafi then by the logic of Western democracy he should be ousted only, not killed like a rabid dog. Even the worst of serial murderers in the US are caught and brought in court and tried before he is sentenced. But here we have a a Judge Obama (America) and a jury that is comprised of Western nations summarily sentencing the leader of a nation to be executed nay murdered without a trial. This is the Western democracy that we see today and you bloody well cannot dismiss that as an aberration only. If you do you and everybody else who have your viewpoint are hypocrites znd accomplices in this brutal murder of the leader of a nation.

  236. Inane Janine, OM, Conflater Of Arguments says

    [Drinks to Gadafi’s death again and hopes Ahmadinejad is the next whackjob Islamist Dictator to go.]

    He is more puppet then dictator.

  237. says

    I don’t know why I waste time replying to Ash since he’s demonstrated that he’s a conspiracy-minded loon, but:

    But here we have a a Judge Obama (America) and a jury that is comprised of Western nations summarily sentencing the leader of a nation to be executed nay murdered without a trial.

    The picture is still murky, but as far as anyone can tell at the moment, Ghadafi was either executed by the rebels, or otherwise died during an exchange of fire. I would have preferred to see him stand trial at the Hague, and if the former is true that is disturbing (as it doesn’t bode well for human rights and the rule of law under the new regime).

    But none of that adds up to Obama (whom you appear to hate just as much as the loons on the Right do) signing his death warrant (care to produce the document in question? I expect Obama has it filed next to his Kenyan birth certificate).

  238. says

    Eamon,

    you do know that Nato did try to kill him in air strikes. So you have to give him at least that. The death of Gadafi was always regarded an acceptable goal of the campaign..

  239. says

    But polls indicate a vast majority supported their leader Gaddhafi in defending their country against naked Western aggression

    And dictators usually get 100% (or near-100%) of the votes in the elections. You can see the problem with polls done in totalitarian countries, right?

  240. Don1 says

    For what it is worth, my opinion on this.

    Ghadafi dead = good. One fewer muderous dictators in the world is always a good thing.

    I would have prefered a trial but I’m glad he’s dead anyway. His death certainly does not diminish us.

    How did he die? The NTC have always claimed they wanted him alive and while many members of the NTC (and many foreign political and business figures) would have been made acutely uncomfortable if there had been a trial, it is hard to see how they could have put out a shoot-to-kill order to an entire army without it being common knowledge. So I think it unlikely that that was an explicit policy.

    The claim that he was caught in a crossfire is not impossible; he seems to have part of a large armed convoy hit by a NATO air-strike and so it is entirely plausible that his bodyguards and hard-core supporters were fighting back. Not impossible, but very convenient. I think it unlikely.

    As far as we can tell he was captured by excited irregulars who argued among themselves on what was to be done with him. Did one individual decide to put an abrupt end to that discussion? To me that seems the likeliest explanation.

    Should NATO have intervened? Yes.

    Did they intervene altruistically? No. France, and then the UK only intervened when Ghadafi made clear and explicit his intention to lay waste without mercy to the areas which had opposed him. Libya is a distant country in US eyes, but it is a neighbour to Europe and the sight of a massacre on the scale intended being carried out unopposed when NATO had the evident power to prevent it would not have sat well with the electorate. Nor would it have sat well with the new regimes being established in the region. What if the UK and France had decided that they had in Ghadafi a devil they knew and chosen let him continue? They wanted to be on the winning side but were in the fortunate position of deciding who the winning side would be. A bloody, deranged dictator generally despised by their electorate or a rebel force for whom their electorate felt enormous sympathy. Blair got cosy with Ghadafi and was rightly sneered at for it; if Cameron had stood on the sidelines of a bloodbath what would have been the judgement on him.

    We have a lot to answer for when it comes to supporting dictatorships while talking about democracy but the time of the post-colonial ‘strong man’ with whom we can do business is passing. Support for the uprising was entirely pragmatic.

  241. Dianne says

    1. Make a list of the countries without democracy, with questionable regimes. 2. Make a list of countries with oil supplies. 3. Make a list of countries that the US has intervened in. 4. Draw a venn diagram of above data and tell me what you notice?

    Hmm…I know of a place with lots of oil and with a questionable government. It’s “democratic” in the loosest sense, i.e. there are elections, but the elections are pretty low quality. Intimidation’s not unknown, but indifference to voting is more of a problem. The elected “leaders” have little real power, with most of the actual governing power (such as it is) going to appointed departments, most notably that regulating oil production. The elected “leaders” openly admit that they can be bought by any interest with enough money and only get insulted if you claim they’ve been bought for what they consider an insultingly low amount. The head of state has shown depraved indifference to life, allowing innocent people to be executed for political gain or possibly just his own amusement and blocking efforts to get life threatening environmental disasters under control. He’s also shown disrespect and indeed violent hatred against ethnic minorities, though oddly some consider him to be too “soft” on minorities. The government is chronically bankrupt, despite the presence of oil and a strong infrastructure for extracting that oil. Local cancer rates are high. Oddly, the appointed board regulating oil production is considered one of the most effective and least corrupt parts of the government.

    So there it is. When is the US going to invade Texas*? Yes, I know, been there, done that, but it seems to need redoing.

    *Anyone who didn’t know I was talking about Texas by the third sentence, go to the back of the class.

  242. Dianne says

    But back to the subject at hand…Ghadafi is now water under the burning bridge. The question is, what now? Who will take power in Libya and what will they do? How can this country go from a dictatorship to a democracy or reasonable approximation of one? What can outsiders do to encourage this process? In short, are Libyans going to get anything out of this except a different dictator?

  243. Zerple says

    Your self contradictory arguement, which you glossed over this last time, was that intervention in Libya was bad on the grounds that it was altruisitic but on the other hand altruism is not intrinsically bad.

    Except that I never argued that it was bad on the grounds that it is altruistic. I don’t think the Libya intervention was in any way altruism.

    It was just more mindless, neocon “Let’s blow things up, kill people and destabilize governments to stop people from being killed and to help stabilize a region” nonsense.

  244. says

    It was just more mindless, neocon “Let’s blow things up, kill people and destabilize governments to stop people from being killed and to help stabilize a region” nonsense

    It might be so in the US (though I doubt it – Obama and the neo-cons are not exactly friends), but outside the US, neo-cons don’t hold much sway.

    In my native country, Denmark, there is a long tradition of participating in UN and NATO missions, and here the public opinion was that Denmark should help, not because of gains, but because it was the right thing to do.

    This is similar to Denmark’s participation in other wars and interventions (with the notable exception of Iraq, where the participation went against the wishes of a majority of Danes).

    Denmark pays a heavy price for the participation in these missions (usually Denmark are among the countries with most casualties per capita), but there is popular support for the participation, since people feel that they are for the greater good.

  245. says

    @Zerple

    Except that I never argued that it was bad on the grounds that it is altruistic. I don’t think the Libya intervention was in any way altruism.

    You argued that the US spent resources on something that doesn’t benefit them, and instead benefits others with the implication that this made it a bad thing. Putting yourself out for the benefit of someone else is altruism.

    It was just more mindless, neocon “Let’s blow things up, kill people and destabilize governments to stop people from being killed and to help stabilize a region” nonsense.

    And you’ll remember that I said this was a much better argument to make than the one you actually made. Flawed as it is, since the region was suffering from stability issue without the intervention of the US.

  246. Zerple says

    You argued that the US spent resources on something that doesn’t benefit them, and instead benefits others with the implication that this made it a bad thing. Putting yourself out for the benefit of someone else is altruism.

    I didn’t argue that this benefited the Libyans. I do not know if it did or not, and that is no concern of mine. This intervention was not altruistic, in the same way, that if I walked down the street and shot a stranger in the face, it would not be altruistic, even if it just so happened that the stranger I shot in the face was a violent criminal.

  247. joed says

    @247 dornierpfeil
    I hear that nato concentrated bombs on chinese infrastructure in Libya. China has lost most of its investment there. Exxon and BP are the new business partners in libya.
    Privileged white folks have won again.

  248. Zerple says

    I hear that nato concentrated bombs on chinese infrastructure in Libya. China has lost most of its investment there. Exxon and BP are the new business partners in libya.
    Privileged white folks have won again.

    Citation? It it’s to some kook website like InfoWars, I shall mock you relentlessly.

  249. Ichthyic says

    I shall mock you relentlessly.

    strangely, given your performance so far, that’s like having a flea threaten to bite an elephant.

  250. joed says

    Diane @302

    here is an article that may be spot on concerning the new libya. privileged white people(the rich West) have won in libya and they dont care about the 99% of libyans.
    The privileged white countries are on a roll.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ22Ak03.html

    A peek at the new Libya
    Welcome to the new Libya. Islamist militias will turn the lives of Libyan women into a living hell. Hundreds of thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans – those who could not escape – will be ruthlessly persecuted. Libya’s natural wealth will be plundered. That collection of anti-aircraft missiles appropriated by Islamists will be a supremely convincing reason for the “war on terror” in northern Africa to become eternal. There will be blood.

  251. Ichthyic says

    here is an article that may be spot on concerning the new libya.

    right, so you trust THAT media article, but the others are all from the mind-controlled MSM!!

    I feel sorry for your mental illness, but rather than have us just laugh at your delusions, perhaps you should seek treatment?

  252. joed says

    Clinton on Qaddafi: “We Came, We Saw, He Died”

    Video

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29472.htm
    —————————

    Gaddafi Death: Envoy Slams ‘Sadistic’ Triumphalism

    By RT

    “The faces of the leaders of ‘world democracies’ are so happy, as if they remembered how they hanged stray cats in basements in their childhoods,”
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29476.htm

  253. Ichthyic says

    Victory no cause for rejoicing.
    If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing

    so, you think Gaddafi rejoiced when he won control of Libya?

    do you think he followed Lao Tzu’s advice?

    LOL

    you’re deranged.

  254. dornierpfeil says

    pelamun@252,
    I suggest you re-take pol.sci 101

    Oh please. Do explain how any one person in the government can unilaterally decide on a foreign intervention like Libya.

    I am not unhappy with how Obama massaged the War Powers Act so he could act in Libya, action I supported, but I still consider that Act deeply flawed. The only reason Bush went to the Congress in 2002 for the Iraq resolution was because there simply wasn’t any conceivable stretch of the imagination that could give him justification for the occupation lasting less than 90 days.

    The German system is much superior and in this age of instant everything, parliamentary deliberation is not the impediment many might claim it is, with the sole exception of a completely dysfunctional American Congress.

  255. dornierpfeil says

    joed,

    I also want to see a specific citation about NATO bombing Chinese installations. The only instances of any violence I can find against Chinese interests came very early on, well before the NATO intervention, from Libyan mobs angry over Chinese links with the Ghaddafi government.

  256. julian says

    Victory no cause for rejoicing.
    If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing;

    So we’re not allowed to rejoice that a victory has brought more feedom, ended inumerable suffering and has removed a very evil man from a position where he could continue to be evil?

  257. DaveH says

    “Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.” ~ Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

    We don’t rejoice at the deaths in this war, we rejoice that it is over and the people of Libya have a new chance to bring themselves forward.

  258. faithless says

    Of course, the crucial question is…when Hillary Clinton got the news about Gaddafi’s death, and said “Wow”…

    …was it because she was startled to find her Blackberry working again?

  259. says

    joed, @310

    Haha, now that you found an article that supports your point of view, suddenly the reviled MSM become trustworthy again.

    head -> desk

    dornierpfeil, @316

    This place here is not pol.sci 101. If you don’t know the political role of a foreign minister in a parliamentary system, then probably you shouldn’t discuss things like that here.

    The German system is much superior and in this age of instant everything, parliamentary deliberation is not the impediment many might claim it is, with the sole exception of a completely dysfunctional American Congress.

    This sentence here is a nice example of the European superiority complex, and it also completely misses the point, as my criticism of the German foreign minister was in no way related to the degree in which military deployments should be authorised by the legislative.

  260. Ash says

    “So, the conclusion is that you believe in Jewish conspiracy theories. Thanks for playing, Ash.”

    Calling it a conspiracy will not not make it fiction, try as you might. Sorry to disappoint you.

    There is another way too smear anyone who offends the alien sky god’s chosen people. Call me anti-semite but i don’t care a fig for I am no American Goyim to be shit scared of the alien sky god’s chosen people.

  261. Ichthyic says

    Chaos, death and confusion is what the West does.

    really?

    If that’s what “The West” does, it rather sounds like everything “not West” is doomed, doesn’t it?

    you better get out while you can!

    RUNNNNNNN!!!!!

  262. Vox Populi says

    “really?

    If that’s what “The West” does, it rather sounds like everything “not West” is doomed, doesn’t it?

    you better get out while you can!

    RUNNNNNNN!!!!!”

    Do I see a gneius or a dullard here?