Yucky Bedfellows Chronicles

0

Something is very wrong in the world when the international figure I most agree with on the Libyan crisis is…Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.

1 COMMENT

  1. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    Without foreign assistance, the rebellion against Murderer Ghaddafi will fail, but with it it could enflame arab opinion a la Iraq. Who would want to be a foreign minister in a western country these days!

  2. It’s a horrible situation. But horrible things happen all the time. There’s no case you can make for intervention in Libya that you can’t make five times stronger for Burma.

  3. I hope you don’t believe his assertion that the present situation is a consequence of American and European intervention. Selling arms at market rates to the government of a sovereign country may be stupid, or immoral, but it is not “intervention”.

    He might have mentioned, too, that the MAIN source of the present situation is not Western arms, but Libya’s 41 years of martial law and dictatorship.

    The most important development in the contest for public opinion has been the request by the Arab League for a no-fly zone. To all but the blind, this takes at least
    that intervention out of the category of “they are crazy for oil”, which was the Agencia de Noticias Venezolanas line on this.

    • How about the Saudis take some of those zillions of dollars they’ve been spending on gringo weapons for two generations and put them to use in Libya? Ah no, their military is busy using those gringo weapons to crush the democratic movement in Bahrain…

      The western powers have too big a credibility deficit to intervene usefully in Libya. This is an arab problem that calls for an arab solution.

      • Just wondering, does national soviergnty always trump gross human rights violations by an illigitimate government? Phrased differently, if you think it is wrong to intervene in any way in Libya do you think there are any situations where it IS correct to intervene? And if so, what is difference?

        My view is that Libyans themselves have been fighting heroically to liberate themselves and are losing only due to a very lopsided balance of money and military hardware.

        They were very, very close to bringing that government down from what I could see and having the Libyan airforce destroyed, Libyan TV knocked off the air, and mercenaries being blocked from coming into the country might well have ended this a few weeks ago with a lot less blood.

        Sadly, you can be sure of two things now: Mubarack is kicking himself for simply not gunning down the people in Tahir square and the tyrants in Syria, Jordan, Suadi Arabia, Cuba, etc are sleeping a lot easier this week.

        • you’re going to have to add an “in-defense-of” to the name of your website, chamo.

          The bar is clear: Genocide.

          The U.S. – and everyone else, too – had an international legal obligation to intervene in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur.

          One out of three…is kinda bad…

          • The problem with using that “bar” as your standard is no one follows it – least of all the U.S. There was no “genocide” in Panama, Kosovo, Grenada, or Lebanon just to name a few examples.

            So if the “bar” could be ignored then, why not now when the case for furthing freedom seems much more compelling? I know this isn’t an easy call but potentially a whole section of humanity could be liberated from pretty horrible regimes and letting that process be stopped in its tracks by Qadaffi seems a lot worse than “yucky”.

          • Bueno, the speed limit doesn’t magically raise on a highway just because everybody goes 10 mph over the limit. It’s precisely because International Humanitarian Law is so routinely flouted that you should take a hard line against pussyfooting around with it. Ultimately, if you concede that the U.S. should be willing to ignore I.H.L “just this once” because INSERT-HIGHER-PRINCIPLE-HERE, then you’ll be stuck when the HIGHER-PRINCIPLE the next guy INSERTS (e.g., cuz some guy named curveball told me they have mobile germ labs) is one you don’t really like.

            I find it *really* confusing that I’m having to explain this to you, OW…

          • “It’s precisely because International Humanitarian Law is so routinely flouted that you should take a hard line against pussyfooting around with it.”

            Huh, so because the US invades countries at will, international law be damned (think Panama), I am supposed to now feel bound to have them follow it to the “t” even in a case where millions of people have their freedom at stake and a whole region of the world has the chance to get out of the horrible repression it has been under for generations?? Sorry, but there is no logic in that.

            Further, your position on this makes your criticism of Chavez on Libya on seem strange. Seeing as you don’t think outside countries should actually DO anything to get Chavez out, rather they should simply feel bad about the violence as Ahmedinejad does, your real beef with Chavez seems to be that he is not sufficiently… empathetic with their plight?
            Personally, I don’t think the people in Benghazi are looking for empathy right now.

  4. As the head of the States Departments policy planning said: the risk is that if the “Colonel Qaddafi wins, regimes across the region will conclude that force is the way to answer protests”. The consequences in human casualties could be immense after this.

    On the other hand, if the US intervenes, then it will rob any credibility to the Lybian opposition and muddling the Western countries into another quagmire occupation that will have immense human casualties.

    As Bob said, damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

  5. “On the other hand, if the US intervenes, then it will rob any credibility to the Lybian opposition and muddling the Western countries into another quagmire occupation that will have immense human casualties.”

    Did intervention by the French rob the American colonial revolutionaries of their credibility?

      • Unbelievable OW. You’ve actually moved to THE RIGHT of Francisco Toro. That is, Toro is now less reactionary than you. That’s quite an accomplishment. What’s your goal? To align yourself with Roger Noriega?

        • You’re correct. I forgot that supporting repressive rulers who’ve been in power for four decades is progressive – especially ones who make sure their countries money is well spent on million dollar romps with Beyonce and then groom their kids (or brothers, for the ones that reside in the Carribean) to take the reigns when they die.

          My bad.

          • Where did I say that supporting repressive rulers is progressive? Way to beat that straw man OW!

            Where you have become more reactionary that Toro is in your calling for an outright US invasion of another country. Not even the starry-eyed nut-jobs of the Venezuelan opposition have gone that far. You should be proud.

          • Nice try flip flop but putting in a no fly zone and arming the rebels hardly amounts in an invasion. Nice try at a straw man yourself there.

            And not doing those things while Qadaffi brings in mercenaries from abroad sure does amount to supporting the continued existence of a 42 year old reactionary and repressive regime.

          • Putting in a no-fly zone means aerial bombing of the country to take out any air defenses. So let’s see if I understand your position: You are against a US invasion of another country, but you support the US bombing of another country. That’s great.

            Also, arming one side of the conflict is not a lot different than an invasion. Either way you are intensifying the conflict, and affecting how the conflict is resolved, and who comes to power. For examples of how that has worked in the past, see Nicaragua and El Salvador 1980’s, South Vietnam 1950’s, or Haiti in 2004. Not a pretty picture in any case.

            And no, not doing anything does not mean you support what Qaddafi is doing. It means you (gasp) respect the national sovereignty of all nations and their right to self-determination without outside interference.

          • BTW, its freaking amazing that a guy who’s nomiker for years has been “Oil Wars”, as a criticism of US intervention in oil producing countries, is now calling for US intervention in an oil producing country.

            When OW says he stands for something, he really means it, until maybe tomorrow when he might just flip 180 degrees and support the exact opposite thing!

          • “It means you (gasp) respect the national sovereignty of all nations and their right to self-determination without outside interference.”

            Hahaha, this is hysterical. Whose “right to self-determination” would be interfered with? Qaddafi’s right to stay in power indefinitely with no elections and no human rights???? Sorry, but there has been no “self-determination” for the Libyan population all along and it looks like that is in fact exactly what they are fighting for and would get – if they had weapons. As far as your sorry “without outside interference” crap goes that Rubicon has already been crossed by the Libyan government itself.

            As far as your pathetic examples go, you show you don’t even know basic history. For example, the US intervention in Vietnam was wrong as it (the US) REJECTED open and free elections as North Vietnam proposed be held for both North and South Vietnam to unify the country under one DEMOCRATIC government.

            I think Libyans would gladly take one person one vote in open elections to decide this dispute on what kind of government they should have and who their leaders should be. Unfortunately, Qadaffi doesn’t seem to want that. So they’ll probably settle for the next best thing, one person one gun.
            Anyways, I realize this is unsettling for you – if Qadaffi were to go, who would be next? Castro?

          • Finally, Torres, you are starting to grasp things – defending and assisting governments that govern with the consent of the governered is good. Supporting, assisting or even being indifferent to governments that don’t govern with the consent of their populations is bad.
            Good work. Already you are way ahead of “Flip Flop” on this.

          • “Whose “right to self-determination” would be interfered with? Qaddafi’s right to stay in power indefinitely with no elections and no human rights????”

            That’s for the Libyans to decide, not you or me or the US army. The exact same thing was said in justification of the Iraq war, as well as Afghanistan. One would expect that someone named “oil wars” would understand that when the US intervenes in a country it ends up placing in power (and later propping up) whatever faction that serves US interests and will do our bidding for us. Nothing could be more evident in the current wave of protests against US-backed leaders across the region. Now you’d like to put another US-backed regime in place?

            “As far as your pathetic examples go, you show you don’t even know basic history. For example, the US intervention in Vietnam was wrong as it (the US) REJECTED open and free elections as North Vietnam proposed be held for both North and South Vietnam to unify the country under one DEMOCRATIC government.”

            What?!?! You mean the US rejected elections because they knew the “wrong” side was going to win?? Wow, thanks for giving me a history lesson. But we all know that the US would act completely different in Libya right? They’d put the “right” side in power, wouldn’t they OW?

            Thanks for proving my point. US intervention ends in disaster because the US prevents self-determination, just as your example shows in Vietnam. Why would it be any different in Libya?

          • OW, you’re not getting it. Here’s my point about you:

            Kohlberg came up with debatable moral development stages. What’s of interest is how he established them. He would pose moral scenarios to people and ask what they would do. Their answer itself didn’t matter. What mattered in determining the moral stage of each person was how they got to their particular answer. For example, if they said they would shoot because “the good book says shooting is ok” or would not shoot because “the good book says it’s not ok”, both would be at the same level of moral development, even with opposite answers to their actions.

            In this case, I happen to think there should be intervention to help them, like you. What makes us different is how we each arrive at our end. Note how people are so surprised about how you reached that end. I’m not because you have demonstrated time and again in the past that your moral compass allows for adaptive means in reaching your ends. Just recently you said you would only apologize for having been wrong about an end; you refused to apologize for the means you used to get to the end. You never understood that being right or wrong about the end was irrelevant.

            So, again, for the benefit of those who haven’t dealt with you as much as I have, it is not amazing for you to be supporting intervention against Gadaffi, while not supporting it against chavez, while apologizing for having supported chavez, while refusing to apologize for all the lies and deceipt you used to support him, pointing to the likelihood that you would do it again in your new supports.

            Ends do not justify means, even when we agree on the ends or the means.

          • “That’s for the Libyans to decide, not you or me or the US army. The exact same thing was said in justification of the Iraq war, as well as Afghanistan.”

            In case you haven’t followed the news the Libyan rebels have been asking for a no fly zone, airstrikes, and weapons. And you want to ignore them why… you think the only people who can speak for Libyans is the dictator who has lorded over them for 42 years?

            “Nothing could be more evident in the current wave of protests against US-backed leaders across the region. Now you’d like to put another US-backed regime in place?”

            What is evident now is that the US is doing exactly what you want – nothing. By doing nothing in Libya it is helping that regime stay in power and giving a green light to all the other reactionary regimes of the regime to do whatever they have to to keep power – which we now see in Bahrain. Indeed you are correct on one thing – that the US has a reactionary foreign policy which serves its narrow interests and not the interests of freedom. That you actually support them in their reactionary stance of letting these regimes repress popular movements is what is interesting here for it would be having those regimes toppled that would help bring progress to the region.

          • “In case you haven’t followed the news the Libyan rebels have been asking for a no fly zone, airstrikes, and weapons.”

            And others have said they don’t want any foreign intervention:

            http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/27/libyan-rebels-say-they-dont-want-foreign-intervention/

            When it comes down to it the decision can’t be made depending on what different factions inside Libya say. There are also groups in Venezuela who would love to see a US invasion there. Does that mean it would be okay? There were factions inside Iraq calling for US invasion. Did that justify it? There were paramilitaries in Nicaragua asking the US to send them arms, etc. etc.

            “What is evident now is that the US is doing exactly what you want – nothing. ”

            Given that you apparently agree that the US has a reactionary foreign policy that only serves its own interests, I would say this is a good thing. Wouldn’t you?

            “Indeed you are correct on one thing – that the US has a reactionary foreign policy which serves its narrow interests and not the interests of freedom. That you actually support them in their reactionary stance of letting these regimes repress popular movements is what is interesting here ”

            Huh? This makes no sense at all. First you agree that the US has a reactionary foreign policy which serves its own interests, but then you go on to criticize me for opposing US intervention??? What sense does that make?

            And it takes some pretty fucked up mental gymnastics and downright dishonesty on your part to twist my clear opposition of US intervention in the region as “support” for the US.

        • Just to make sure I’ve got your position clear here OW: the case of US intervention preventing self-determination in Vietnam serves as an example for why the US should intervene in Libya. Brilliant.

          And clearly my examples of US intervention in the past are “pathetic”. The truth is that the US has a long history of intervening in countries to allow for the people’s self-determination.

          Thanks again for the history lesson. I clearly needed it.

          • Sorry if the world it too complex for your simplistic notions FF but indeed you actually have to analyze the situation at hand.

            Sooooo…

            When France went around invading African countries to get colonies that was bad.
            When the same France helped the US colonies win their independence that was good.
            But by your thinking because France was well known for the former then we must automatically condem them for the latter.

            Similarly, when the U.S. invaded Mexico in a war of territorial conquest that was bad.
            When the very same U.S. army (with many of the same generals no less!) just two decades later fought to crush the Confederacy that was good. Hell, none other than Karl Marx wrote a letter to Lincoln congratulating him on his re-election and thanking him for his prosecution of the war.

            Seriously FF I know you don’t like to think and analyze each situation on its own merits but there is no way around it. Your simplistic cookie cutter ideas simply don’t work.

            Anyway, I think we have more than outworn are welcome with this discussion here. If you wish to continue I would recommend this as a more appropriate forum:
            http://amleft.blogspot.com/

          • Yes OW, your examples of US and French interventions in the 18th and 19th centuries are really relevant to the current situation in Libya. They totally prove that a US intervention in Libya would be so “good” because, you know, it would be so similar to fighting the Confederate South over 150 years ago. Are you trying to sound stupid or just getting desperate?

          • But even if we did take your examples seriously (talk about “pathetic” examples, at least mine took place within the last century!) they all still confirm my argument that US interventions almost always are in the pursuit of narrow US interests. Even your examples prove that.

            So, again, for the last time, even using your own examples, it is clear that a US intervention in Libya would be used to further US interests, not those of the Libyan people. That is the opposite of self-determination.

            Simply amazing that “oil wars” still puts his faith in the Empire to “fix” the world.

          • I think it is time to change your name back to Clueless.
            According to you because the Union had many no altruistic motives for pursuing the war the fact that they destroyed a reactionary system doesn’t count?

            Ok, so I guess we should discount any social programs Chavez has implemented – after all, he clearlly only implements them so that he can win elections and stay in power, not because he cares about poor people.

            I can give you history lessons but I can’t teach you to think. So I think we are at the end of the line. And again, I know you probably don’t want to embarrassas yourself but the blog I listed above is the place to have this discussion.

          • Oh, okay OW, I think I understand. Now your argument is that the US should intervene in Libya, not for altruistic reasons because the US only pursues their own narrow interests, but because perhaps the US just might end up unintentionally creating some positive results like they did in ending slavery in the South 150 years ago.

            Wow, this just keeps getting dumber and dumber.

          • “Deal with future evils in the future.”

            Tell that to your poor rape victim who got carried off by another rapist…

        • Flipflop, simplify it. If you live in a neighborhood where there is a jailhouse and you hear the guards killing the inmates, do you

          A) gather your neighbors and all crash in with tractors
          B) throw any weapon you can find in through the windows for the inmates
          C) form a committee and talk to the jail administrator
          D) write in blogs criticizing those who answer A or B, even C, thus supporting the sovereignty of the jailhouse, thus supporting killing the rebels, unless they surrender, in which case imprison, maybe torture them.

          • Resident brainiac Torres would choose:

            E.) Support intervention by the local police force who is well-known in the area for propping up corrupt servile undemocratic jail administrators that repress the prisoners and force them into a division of labor that reaps profits for the prison guards and the police force that installed them but keeps the prisoners in a situation of endless squalor.

          • No, Flipflop, I promote B only for as long as it takes me to get A organized, then A, all the way.

            Anything else you want to ask?

          • E.) Support intervention by the local police force who is well-known in the area for propping up corrupt servile undemocratic jail administrators that repress the prisoners and force them into a division of labor that reaps profits for the prison guards and the police force that installed them but keeps the prisoners in a situation of endless squalor.

            Sounds more like Chavez’ choice, which is yours too, FF

          • Hahaha! Yeah, because Chavez has such a history of propping up dictators around the world!!

            Only among the nut-jobs of the Venezuelan opposition would one hear something so laughably stupid.

          • Flipflop,

            I support intervention, not only USA, but definitely including USA. And just because the guy on the video supports intervention, doesn’t mean I agree with his reasoning, or his means, and certainly not his attitude. Note how I came down on OW, dispite our agreement on intervention. I’d trash this guy on the video, too. The ends simply do not justify the means.

            When forced to choose between two evils, I always try to choose the lesser of the two. In this case, letting Kadaphi (just to add one to the unending number of spelling variations) use armed forces to kill unarmed people demanding freedom is a greater evil than stepping with armed forces to stop him.

          • Calling for US intervention means you are aligning yourself with people like the one in the video. He is a former head of CIA ops. You are calling for people like him to decide the fate of the Libyan people.

            And what you forget to mention is that allowing armed forces to step in to resolve the problem will also prevent Libyans from achieving freedom, since the US, as it always does, will set up a regime to its liking, regardless of what the Libyan people want.

            So your solution isn’t a solution at all. It actually perpetuates the problem of the Libyan people not having the right to self-determination.

            The lesser of the two evils is to allow the Libyan people to achieve freedom on their own, which is actually the ONLY way it will ever be achieved.

          • If you have any doubts, just look at some of the most recent US or international interventions and how they’ve turned out.

            How about Kosovo? The conflict intensified after US involvement with ethnic killings skyrocketing after the invasion, and NATO troops continue to occupy the territory more than a decade later. Kosovo is now a NATO colony.

            Or take Afghanistan. US troops continue to occupy after about a decade of warfare, and civilian deaths are as high now as they’ve ever been. Is this the 10-year plan you’d like to see in Libya?

            Or maybe Iraq would be a good model? After a thorough cleansing of the political system of several political parties, such as the Ba’ath party (known as de Ba’athification), the Iraqi Freedom Congress, and Muqtada al-Sadr’s followers to name only a few, the country remains occupied by tens of thousands of troops and US private mercenaries, and now holds the largest US embassy in the world. Does that sound like self-determination?

            I find it amazing that in the current historical context I even have to explain why democracy is not achieved via US military intervention.

          • Flipflop,

            No, no, no. Now that we agree that we’re looking for the lesser of two evils, and accept that the ends do not justify the means, you cannot very well start judging your means by looking at the possible end consequences. You’re trying to make a decision between going in or staying out about choosing between self liberating or CIA controlling. Those are ends, but the means to achieve the self-liberation you speak of is to let Gadafi use his armed forces to kill the unarmed civilians trying to liberate themselves. Your end of self-liberation does not justify the means of letting all those people be killed without anyone trying to help. Aside from that, your CIA controlled scenario, however possible, does not seem probable, let alone a sure-thing.

            So, again, a girl getting raped, do you

            A) intervene
            B) let her self-liberate

            Dude, it’s simple. They need help. Anyone who can help, should help.

            But let me jump into your perspective. You want Libyans to have self-determination. OK, let’s analize that. Let’s say there’s 100 Lybians. Let’s say 60 are anti-Gadafi, and 40 are his pro-Gadafi. But Gadafi is killing the 30 of the anti-Gadafis. So the self-determination you are talking about is self-determination for the surviving 70, not for the full 100. You are supporting not allowing the current Libyan population their right to self-determination; instead you are supporting the Libyan population that Gadafi picks and chooses to self-determine. That’s not very awesome of you dude. That’s a greater evil.

          • As to your other comment, dude, we’re not saying USA intervention, we’re saying *anyone* help them! If USA is the first to jump onboard, awesome. If France goes first, impressionnant. If Russia goes first, удивительными.

            Deal with future evils in the future.

          • Torres, your simplifications are laughably stupid, ahistorical, and decontextualized, which explains your extremely myopic view of world events. Just to quickly refute this idiotic rape example:

            “A) intervene
            B) let her self-liberate

            Dude, it’s simple. They need help. Anyone who can help, should help. ”

            Anyone should help? Even if the person who is going to “help” her is also a rapist? What if the person who is going to help her is going to subject her to something equally bad, or even worse?

            Apparently you would support that. And I’m guessing this means you have supported all of US interventions throughout history that have been wrapped in this rhetoric about “helping” people. That’s just flat shameful.

          • All of the examples I listed above also had international forces present. It didn’t change the equation.

            Everyone knows that an intervention by the “international community” will be led by the US. Try not to be so naive.

          • “Deal with future evils in the future.”

            Tell that to your poor rape victim who got carried off by another rapist…

          • Flipflop,

            Like I pointed out earlier, and you sidestep, sidestep, sidestep: something may be possible, but not probable. That the helper is also a rapist is possible, but not probable. That intervention will be worse than being massacred by your own countrymen, is possible, but not probable, though you think so. I can respect that. But then you don’t answer when I wrote about self-determination…

            Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.

            Dude, you know where I stand. You know my reasons. I’m not sidestepping anything; you are. They need help. I say help them. The more, the sooner, the better.

          • Forgot to remind you, you keep defending your position by referring to the ends, not the means. Ends do not justify the means. You sidestep that one, too.

          • Once again, a total load of bullshit from Torres.

            “That the helper is also a rapist is possible, but not probable.”

            Oh really? See this is where your stupid examples fall on their face, because they decontextualize and don’t account for history.

            Historically US interventions have done just that, subjugate the people to a new form of repression and tyranny, as I showed in the examples above. (which you sidestepped, by the way)

            Not probable? Yeah, except for that’s exactly what’s happened every other time in recent history. But this time it will different says Torres!

            “But then you don’t answer when I wrote about self-determination…”

            I’ll answer that with your own statement:

            “Dude, you know where I stand. You know my reasons. I’m not sidestepping anything; you are.”

            It can’t be considered a “liberation” of the Libyan people if you are subjecting them to another form of tyranny. You can’t seem to answer that though. Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.

            “Forgot to remind you, you keep defending your position by referring to the ends, not the means. Ends do not justify the means. You sidestep that one, too.”

            Hahahaha!! This one is just freaking hilarious. I’m advocating NOT intervening. That is, there are no means!!! You are the one justifying intervening, which will require bombing Libya, and will result in an escalation of the violence, possibly killing thousands, and most likely result in a very long military occupation of the country. You justify ALL that, because you think the ends are worth it.

            Talk about the ends justifying the means! You’ve got to be about the stupidest person I’ve ever talked to.

          • You sidestep again:

            1) the self-determination had to do with letting Gadafi pick and choose who’s left to self-determine, not the current population of Libya.

            2) the ends justifying the means argument had to do with you looking at how things end up to decide not to intervene, rather than just comparing the two means, which are stand and watch while people get massacred, or at least try to help people from getting massacred.

            In both arguments you are sidetracking. In the first, you are sidestepping, pretending that those that Gadafi kills don’t count, and, in the second, you are trying to get me to look at the ends, instead of the means.

            As to liberation, yes, I can consider liberating someone if a future tyranny hasn’t happened yet. If you are so worried about the future, fine, I would support taking actions to prevent future tyranny, or perhaps to counter it if it’s such a given, but your implication to forget about the present, based on the past in predicting the future, that’s denial. The massacre is happening, and you just stand and watch.

            Again, yours is a greater evil.

          • “1) the self-determination had to do with letting Gadafi pick and choose who’s left to self-determine, not the current population of Libya.”

            And your solution allows the US to impose as they have done in recent history. You call that self-determination. (again, you just can’t seem to address my examples can you? sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.)

            “2) the ends justifying the means argument had to do with you looking at how things end up to decide not to intervene”

            Haha! So exactly what “means” am I trying to justify again?

            And I see you can’t respond to my argument about you using the ends to justify the means. Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.

            “In the first, you are sidestepping, pretending that those that Gadafi kills don’t count, and, in the second, you are trying to get me to look at the ends, instead of the means.”

            And you’re saying that any killing the US will do doesn’t count, and that you would support an invasion by anyone (even Hitler I presume) as long as it liberates Libya in the short term.

            Brilliant.

            “The massacre is happening, and you just stand and watch.
            Again, yours is a greater evil.”

            Wrong again. I am against a US-led military intervention because of their long reputation (and even CURRENT reputation) of subjecting countries to massive death and destruction, let alone tyranny. (which you keep sidestepping)

            You haven’t even asked me what I would support doing. So how could you say I would do nothing? You can’t. You just made that up.

          • @FlipFlop, why don’t you just fuck off already? Go start your OWN blog, and stop hijacking what other folks have started. Enough already.

          • @FF (aka Fuck Face): I’m sorry, but did you just say “cry”? You really need to get yourself a life, as well as your own blog. You are a pathetic loser. Oh, and, “Stupid is as stupid does”. But, you probably don’t know what that means.

          • @ Chris,

            I’m just back from being ‘idiotic’ somewhere else on the internet but I’ll bite…What would you suggest be done about the situation in Libya and if anything, by whom?

            NicaCat56, Chris ain’t leaving any time soon so we might as well ask him what he’d prefer to see happen and why.

          • Mike,

            I think the only good solution would be third-party mediation, peace talks, etc. organized from within the region, not by outside powers who have shown time and again that they have selfish interests in the region and would use it as an opportunity to achieve their own ends. In fact, supposedly Gaddafi has already agreed to some sort of peace process. This would likely result in less bloodshed than any other option.

            It is really easy to say that we need to use military force to stop the bloodshed (which is the freaking definition of the means justifying the ends, regardless of how much Torres tries to deny it), but the most likely result would be an escalation of violence, (see Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) and unfortunately there isn’t a good way to intervene militarily in the real world, especially because the US nearly always ends up leading these kinds of interventions, and shaping them to their own interests.

            If you care about Libyans being able to have self-determination, then the last thing you want is an outside force like the US to impose a solution on them. Help Libyans put down the guns and agree on the way forward. Imposing “democracy” down the barrel of a gun doesn’t work.

          • Flipflop,

            USA takeover would be an end. How would we get there? Via the means of intervention.

            Self-determination without intervention would be an end. How would we get there? Via Gadafi killing whomever he wants for as long as he wants, or for as long as you run the Peace process show. Those being killed would rather die than accept the peace process, so we’re back to Gadafi killing whomever he wants for as long as it takes.

            So, the choice of means is A) Intervention, saving lives of the unarmed while killing the armed, versus B) Non intervention, sparing the lives of the armed while letting the unarmed die.

            I choose A, you choose B. To me, A) is a lesser evil, to you B is. But you are looking at to where the choices lead, I’m looking at the choices independent of to where they lead. I am justifying the end because the means seem right to me, you are justifying the means because the ends seems right to you.

            What you are doing is considered, Ends Justifying the Means.

          • Chris,

            Thanks. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me although your position could easily have been prefaced with “In a perfect world…”. (although in a “perfect world” situations like Libya shouldn’t happen, right?)

            The problem is that it’s not a perfect world, it’s the real world, and people are being killed. Even if there is some kind of in-region third party mediation/peace initiative at play it’s not doing the people at risk much good if the killing continues and especially not if the talks falter.

            I understand that the possibility of the establishment of a no-fly zone by some non-regional players is being discussed or may even be in effect toute-suite (I’m too lazy to google the latest news now). If it happens is it better than what you describe? Probably not for those who, some might say, are looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses far from harm’s way, but it might very well be a god-send for those poor sods in the cross-hairs.

            “Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing”, or whatever the saying is, may sound trite to some but I don’t think I’m going too far out on the limb by saying that people would much prefer being saved from harm by action, rather than be, for all intents and purposes, sacrificed while others sit around talking peace or simply making grand soliloquies of moral indignation.

            What would a Tutsi in Rwanda have preferred and what did they get?

            The world is a messy place and sometimes messy solutions are needed for messy problems. At least until the Martians land and take over.

          • Torres,

            Your ends are stopping the killing. Your means are a US-led intervention, which could escalate the killing, and could involve plenty of violence in itself. You justify that violence because you think its worth it to stop the killing. Your end is justifying your means. Stop lying and manipulating and just admit it.

            My ends are to stop the conflict and allow Libyans self-determination. My means are third-party negotiations. I justify my means because I think it would involve the least bloodshed (Gaddafi has already agreed to it, while he has said that he would fight to the death in the event of outside intervention) and because I think it is the only way to achieve the ends, e.g. self-determination for Libya. So while my ends do justify my means, they aren’t the only thing that justify them. My means are also justified because they will most likely involve less violence and bloodshed.

            What you are advocating has been shown time and again to increase the level of violence, not decrease it, as I have shown with examples. But you simply can’t respond to that argument. Sidestep, sidestep, sidestep.

            Your logic is that it doesn’t matter what happens to Libyans in the long term, just as long as the killing is stopped in the short term. With that logic one could justify pretty much anything. One could say it would be okay for Hitler to invade and occupy, because at least it would stop Gaddafi. One could say that it would be okay to install another dictator in Gaddafi’s place, just as long as it stops the killing in the short term.

            In other words, any means are justified, just as long as your ends (stopping the killing in the short term) are achieved.

            You, my friend, are the worst hypocrite I’ve ever come across…. ever.

          • I *would* let Hitler go in to stop the killing. You imply that I would leave it at that, which is incorrect. Given Hitler’s past, as USA’s, NATO’s and any of the others you’ve mentioned, I would also be preparing to get them back out, afterwards. But for now, charge!

            As to ends and means: If we take stopping the killing right away as an end, and intervention as its means, the alternative is to stop the killing not right away, and peace treaty as its means.

            Intervene or form peace groups.

            I choose intervene as a means of lesser evil. Again, if I’m witness to a rape, I don’t try to talk to other onlookers to then try to talk to the rapist. I intervene.

            From the perspective of the rape victim, seeing onlookers trying to talk the rapist peacefully is adding insult to injury.

          • “As to ends and means: If we take stopping the killing right away as an end, and intervention as its means, the alternative is to stop the killing not right away, and peace treaty as its means.”

            Thanks for demonstrating that you simply cannot address my main argument, which is that interventions do NOT, and have NOT stopped the violence, but rather escalate it. In fact, most recent US-led interventions have drug on for many many years, such as the examples I have given.

            You’ve clearly shown that you simply can’t respond to that. You continue to sidestep it, while accusing other of sidestepping. Another example of incredibly hypocrisy on your part.

            As for peace talks not stopping the killing right away, that’s simply an assumption on your part that isn’t based on any facts. Gaddafi has already accepted that as an alternative to the violence. At the same time, he has said he would respond violently to any outside interference.

            All signs point to the opposite of your baseless assumptions. That’s probably because they’re baseless.

          • The only “solution” that will come from no intervention will be mass reprisals by the Gaddaffi regime. As for a “US-led intervention”, it will actually most likely be carried out logistically by the Royal Air Force and the French Navy. But yes, let’s turn this into a three-minutes hate against the U.S. No blood for oil and all that. Feel free to respond with any ad hominems you wish.

          • Flipflop: “which is that interventions do NOT, and have NOT stopped the violence, but rather escalate it.”

            I have, indirectly, but I’ll try to spell it out.

            To me, it’s not about the amount of violence, as it seems to be to you; it’s about the unbalanced nature of the violence, one side overpowering the other.

            If you have two equally strong sides fighting each other, such as two rapists, I can see trying to settle them down before taking sides. But when one is clearly in a position of overpowering and abusing it, I take see no justification for wasting time before taking sides. The strength must be balances before any talks begin.

            By the way, it seems that Gadafi’s almost immediate response to the mere announcement of intervention was to cease fire, so maybe out of this situation we may end up with an example of intervention (at least the threat of it) stopping violence.

          • Hahahaha! Amazing, Torres, you simply can’t address the argument.

            What you said here does not address the recent examples of interventions which caused violence to escalate, and which resulted in long violent occupations of the country.

            As for the unbalanced nature of the violence, my examples already account for that too. It still causes violence to escalate, and it still results in a long occupation.

            Since you have made it abundantly clear that you simply cannot address my argument, and continue to sidestep it, my work here is done.

            You’re getting good at losing all of these arguments.

          • Flipflop,

            I have been addressing your argument about escalated and prolonged violence and occupation in the past examples you’ve put forth by not refuting them, and simply getting on with the discussion under the assumption that it is a valid argument. Here it is as clearly as I can think of:

            I choose escalated and prolonged violence and occupation as a lesser evil over any kind of dilatory action, such as peacekeeping efforts, when the imbalance of power between those in conflict is not only great, but in full use.

            I don’t see how your claim against violence escalation and prolonged occupation addresses the imbalance of force between those in conflict other than to allow one side to obliterate the other before peace is reached.

            By the way, I missed your comment regarding the immediate lull in violence as a response to the threat of intervention.

          • Regarding the lull, let’s analyze it. Gadafi said he called a ceasefire, then attacked more aggressively. So much for believing in the man’s word, demonstrating that your peace talks would have been a total wipeout of those who need saving.

            Yes, Flipflop, I’m gonna feel real bad about my support of the opposition. Not.

          • Wrong again. He’s actually doing exactly what he said he’d do: violence would be escalated with any outside intervention.

            Using the now-escalated violence as an argument against what COULD have happened had there not been outside intervention is a logical fallacy.

            You’re getting good at those too.

          • “I don’t see how your claim against violence escalation and prolonged occupation addresses the imbalance of force between those in conflict other than to allow one side to obliterate the other before peace is reached.”

            Where is the evidence for this argument? When in the past have peace talks worked this way, allowing for one side to obliterate the other? Can you give an example?

            On the other hand, I can give ample evidence of when outside intervention has caused great escalation in the violence, and resulted in decade-long, violent occupations, killing tens of thousands.

            Once again, you make baseless assumptions with absolutely nothing to back yourself up.

            As for your “imbalance of force” argument, that is just plain silly. So it doesn’t matter if intervention causes a greater amount of deaths, just as long as it isn’t “unbalanced?”

          • “Using the now-escalated violence as an argument against what COULD have happened had there not been outside intervention is a logical fallacy”

            Kind of like using the not-yet escalated violence as an argument in favor of what COULD have happened had there been peace efforts?

            “Can you give an example?”

            The example is that for weeks efforts have tried getting Gadafi to stop, yet the killing continued. Nothing pointed to it ending without massacres while peace talks were organized.

            “I can give ample evidence of when outside intervention has caused great escalation in the violence, and resulted in decade-long, violent occupations, killing tens of thousands.”

            I don’t dispute that. I’ve said it before.

            “So it doesn’t matter if intervention causes a greater amount of deaths, just as long as it isn’t “unbalanced?””

            Correct, though there are other factors that one’s the main point.

            Flipflop, It’s been a while since feeling that nothing else I can say will convince you of my perspective, nor vice-versa, though I’m still open to read your opinions. So, please, ask if there is something I haven’t answered, but I hope you realize, I’m not betting on our positions changing.

          • “Escalation of violence this, escalation of violence that”

            Any military intervention is by definition an escalation of violence and like with everything else some are justified some are not. In this particular case it’s justified to stop an going massacre that is taking place.

            Peace talks are usually effective after a long dragged out conflict that has no resolution in sight. Both parties have to agree on this assessment to even be possible. Never in a case like this where one side is about to squash the other. It’s very disingenuous to pretend to believe that Kadafi want’s peace talks for any other reason than to stall intervention long enough for him to annihilate all resistance from the rebels. It’s also very disingenuous to give any credit to Kadafi’s promises.

          • Well, Torres, I guess there’s no use discussing it anymore. You’ve just admitted that you support an escalation of violence, an increase in killing, and a long violent military occupation that could (as it has in the past) result in tens of thousands of deaths, just as long as the killing isn’t “unbalanced.” What a joke.

            Amieres,

            You say it is justified to stop a massacre. Apparently you don’t understand what the word “escalation” means. These kinds of interventions usually don’t stop the massacre, but rather INCREASE the massacre, as we are already seeing.

            Torres says that it is worth it to INCREASE the massacre, just as long as it is not “unbalanced”.

            I’m not sure I could come up with a more stupid argument if I tried.

          • Wow, FF is quite the pacifist now.

            To bad this concern about violence didn’t appear when Qaddaffi and his foreign mercenaries were killing the Libyan rebels and gunning down peaceful demonstrators in Tripoli.

          • ???

            My position from the beginning has been to oppose an escalation in violence, which is exactly what an intervention will create.

            How you could construe that to mean that I’m NOT concerned about violence is just laughably stupid.

            It is people like you, and Torres, who apparently don’t care that the violence could get much worse as a result of outside intervention.

          • Flipflop,

            And there I thought we had finally reached an understanding, then you go and translate what we had reached into my apparently not caring that the violence could get much worse as a result of outside intervention”.

            We haven’t discussed my caring. We’ve discussed what I support. Are you equating those two, perhaps?

            I support more though balanced violence over less though imbalanced violence, but I certainly care about any amount of violence; I wish there hadn’t been any at all, to begin with.

            “Why can’t we all just get along?” Oh, wait, it’s because some people believe in imposing their ways on others, and others like trolling…

          • “I support more though balanced violence over less though imbalanced violence,”

            Well, there you go. You can’t exactly have a discussion with someone about how to resolve the violence in Libya if that person supports an INCREASE in the violence, now can you?

            You should have just said in the beginning that you support an increase in the violence and I never would have wasted my time.

          • And now there you go leaving words out.

            I’ve written it as succinctly as possible, why do y need to cut words out further, or translate it to something I haven’t said.

            Dude, my position is clear, and has not changed since the beginning. You’re not saying anything new other than to disinform, and you’re not asking anything.

            Troll much?

            At least I don’t support, like you, standing back to organize meetings while relatively defenseless people get massacred. Is that about right?

          • Right Torres, now you’re going to claim that you didn’t say what everyone can see you did. You’ve said it clearly several times, yet now you’re going to try to deny it, and claim I am taking you out of context. You really suck at this whole debating thing you know?

            “At least I don’t support, like you, standing back to organize meetings while relatively defenseless people get massacred. Is that about right?”

            That’s right. You don’t support diplomacy. You support INCREASING the massacre by escalating the violence.

          • A few examples of Torres’ philosophy that he now tries to deny. Here’s what he has said so far:

            “To me, it’s not about the amount of violence, as it seems to be to you; it’s about the unbalanced nature of the violence, one side overpowering the other.”

            “Deal with future evils in the future.”

            “I would let Hitler go in to stop the killing. ”

            “I choose escalated and prolonged violence and occupation as a lesser evil over any kind of dilatory action, such as peacekeeping efforts, when the imbalance of power between those in conflict is not only great, but in full use.”

            And in response to this question:

            “So it doesn’t matter if intervention causes a greater amount of deaths, just as long as it isn’t “unbalanced?””

            Torres said:
            “Correct, though there are other factors that one’s the main point.”

            Please Torres, explain how I have misrepresented your views.

          • Flipflop,

            Thank you for going back to the things I said the way I said them without any of your paraphrasing. Those quotes I acknowledge and stand behind.

            What had bothered me is your trying to make it seem that saying “support more though balanced violence over less though imbalanced violence” is the same as “supports an INCREASE in the violence”, without specifying the main factor, balance.

            Then about dipolomacy, again, you’re twisting when there is no need. I do support diplomacy, just not without first balancing the power. What exactly is it you don’t get?

            I don’t support any massacre; I support having some of the overpowering ones being killed instead of just the underpowered ones, which may imply a greater death total but less imbalance.

            Really, if, in your head, you cannot grasp these statements that you need to paraphrase them to mean something different, you are giving me more and more reasons to support my stance. People like you are too often part of those supposed peace treaties you’re selling, causing half the trouble. The diplomatic term is troll, isn’t it?

            I guess you’re just trying to conclude with something that makes me sound fanatical, extreme, fundamentalist, death mongering, or whatever, so that then you may disqualify anything about anything else I may say in the future, or perhaps that I’ve said in the past. But, dude, is that what is important in your life? Pathetic.

            You have my stance. The quotes are there. If you’re not completely dishonest, stop paraphrasing. If you have questions, I’m happy to answer, but if you don’t, we’re done.

          • “What had bothered me is your trying to make it seem that saying “support more though balanced violence over less though imbalanced violence” is the same as “supports an INCREASE in the violence”, without specifying the main factor, balance.”

            The original quote does specify balance. It is equally as stupid with or without it.

            “Then about dipolomacy, again, you’re twisting when there is no need. I do support diplomacy, just not without first balancing the power. What exactly is it you don’t get?”

            Oh, so you support diplomacy AFTER dropping bombs on the country. Hahahaha!

            “I support having some of the overpowering ones being killed instead of just the underpowered ones, which may imply a greater death total but less imbalance.”

            Unfortunately that’s not the way these things work Torres. An escalation of the violence usually results in an increase of killing of ALL people, not just those “bad guys” that you’d like to see killed.

            But you’ve made it clear. The ends justify the means. You support an escalation of violence, without caring about the consequences of your actions. Well, you’re an idiot. What else can I say.

          • I don’t know what else you can say. I’ve been pointing that out for a while now. I thought we were done, and you keep rehashing. Do you have anything else to ask, or are we done now?

      • “Putting in a no-fly zone means aerial bombing of the country to take out any air defenses.”

        Chris, are you sure that’s what meant by putting in a no-fly zone? I think you’ve almost succeeded in getting it exactly bass-ackwards.

        • As usual Mike, you’re dead wrong:

          “Defense Secretary Robert Gates is sharpening his words of caution about providing air cover for Libyan rebels, telling a U.S. congressional committee that establishing a no-fly zone would have to begin with an attack on Libyan territory.

          Such an attack would be designed to destroy the North African country’s air defense weapons.”

          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/02/501364/main20038352.shtml

          Now go be idiotic somewhere else.

          • Touché.

            My thought that establishing a no-fly zone only meant shooting down hostile aircraft is obviously not correct. I must have been thinking it would be the same thing as 9-11 when the US became a no-fly zone.

            My bad. You are right and I am wrong (on this).

  6. Unfortunately the Libyan opposition made a fatal mistake when they turned from non violent demonstrations to armed insurgency. Their fate was sealed at that moment.

    Let’s hope venezuelans are able to learn from others’ mistakes and we may follow the Egyptian example not the Libyan.

        • I think you’re confused, amieres. There is no indication that Gaddafi would’ve done anything differently if the insurrection had failed to shoot back than if they did. The full-scale military tactics against it pre-dated the attempts to fight back. Gaddafi was going to use all the violence he could muster whether or not he drew a military response. And, as you yourself point out, by the time armed resistance started, all the military that might have defected due to unwillingness to use military weapons against civilians had defected due to their unwillingness to use military weapons against civilians. At that point, the Sharpian fundamentalism is only silly…

          • See, the process looks something like this:
            1.- Small pacific demonstrations
            2.- Demonstrations grow in number and energy
            3- Police/military repression and/or pro-dictators thugs attack demonstrators
            4.- Opponents Jailed, Tortured, Deaths
            5.- Outrage, divisions, defections in the military.
            6.- Military decides to stop repression, lest it looses control of itself.
            7.- Dictator losses control of the situation.

            This process happened fully in Benghazi but it only started to happen in Tripoli. The process was short-circuited in Tripoli when the Benghazi opponents turned from non-violent struggle into armed insurgents. Now the Military has no qualms in attacking them, they’ve become a military objective and that’s their job.
            The fighting puts an indefinite pause to the pacific protests in the rest of the country stopping it’s momentum for good (unless the rebels can defeat the Libyan armed forces, highly unlikely).

            So you see not all the military that would’ve defected did.
            Talking about silly there is nothing more “silly” than taking arms against an armed force that has airplanes, tanks, artillery and trained soldiers with a bunch of civilian volunteers. Suicidal.

            Question for you:
            Is it your belief that Sharpian fundamentalism implies going out to get slaughtered?
            I think it’s just the opposite, there are more than 100 different tactics of non violent struggle none of which include setting yourself on fire or letting yourself runover by a tank.

          • Gimme a break, Mieres. There was never a question of the Chadian mercenaries brought in specifically to shoot large-caliber anti-aircraft multi-barrel machine guns directly into crowds of civilians having any moral qualms about continuing to do that.

            Any theory that implies people should continue to go out on the street and march peacefully against paid foreigners who have, and will continue to shoot these

            http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/02/article-1362029-0D6CC777000005DC-378_964x601.jpg

            into the thick of unarmed crowds is inhuman. I mean, in the sense that you can’t actually expect a sane, sentient human being to follow it. It’s like the Zap Brannigan school of non-violence – lemming-like in its suicidal lunacy.

            If there’s a test-case for a place where Sharpian approaches fall apart, Libya is it.

          • “Any theory that implies people should continue to go out on the street and march peacefully against paid foreigners who … into the thick of unarmed crowds is inhuman”

            I agree. Where did you find that theory?
            I’ve read the Sharpian Fundamentalist Manifesto and nowhere does it say you should stupidly sacrifice yourself. Here is a list of non violent actions that can be used to maintain a non-violent struggle: http://www.starhawk.org/activism/trainer-resources/198ways.html

            Surely you can find many that can be used without putting people in front of those cannons.

            Do you think taking arms against Kadafis armed forces which not only have those cannons but aircrafts and tanks and mortars is a better idea than to maintain a non-violent struggle?

            All sarcasm aside where did you get the notion that the alternative to armed conflict is parading in front of a firing squad?

          • Also the Chadian mercenaries may have no qualms about using those guns, but how do you think the military that handed them those guns and ammo feel about them using them to masacre Libyan men and women?

            I wonder how the venezuelan military men feel about cubans giving them orders.

          • The difference between Mubarak and Gaddafi is that Mubarak was out of control of the situation as soon as the crowds began to assemble. The reason you saw huge crowds in Tahrir Square was because the army was ordered not to fire on the protestors by their superiors so that they could then ease Mubarak out of power to take control themselves. In Libya, Gaddafi would’ve opened fire on the crowds in three seconds. He’s a pariah leader of a pariah state, so the violence would’ve been immediate. In Egypt Mubarak would’ve loved to open fire on the crowds except the military put him under house arrest and refused to do so because violence would’ve been counterproductive to their plans. I think it was Orwell that once said that non-violence only works when your opponent is civilized as well.

          • Maybe, maybe not. But that’s ignoring that the decision is not Kadafi’s alone. In other words, it’s not about if Kadafi’s civilized or not, but if the military and the rest of the people that back him are civilized or not. Let’s not forget that after repression started in Benghazi the military put a stop to it. Many military, diplomats and ministers defected the government. Which to me it’s proof Non-violence works even against the most sanguinary tyrant. People like to ignore this little fact.
            The other fact people like to ignore is that, whatever the possibilities of non-violence are in Libya they’re much better than the possibilities of armed insurgency. There is no argument around that.

          • It’s like the Zap Brannigan school of non-violence – lemming-like in its suicidal lunacy.

            Like I said before, suicidal lunacy is taking arms against a trained army that has airplanes, tanks, artillery with untrained civilians. Who here beliefs the insurgents have a chance without foreign intervention?
            Assuming foreign intervention doesn’t materialize, after the dust settles, who here beliefs the insurgents and civilians will fare better than if they had not taken arms?


            If there’s a test-case for a place where Sharpian approaches fall apart, Libya is it.

            Just the opposite. When non-violence was used military, diplomats, ministers defected and Benghazi was quickly liberated. Kadafi’s son was on TV talking about democracy.
            When armed insurgency started death toll raised and the momentum shifted to favor Kadafi.

            It’s clear proof non-violence is more effective, specifically in Libya.

    • The problem with your comparison is that you seem to believe that the Libyan and Egyptian armies play similar roles in their respective societies. In Eygpt the military is a pillar of society more important than the bogus presidency it was there to serve. In Libya, Gaddafi has done all he could to kick down the ladder of his own ascent, so he relies on mercenaries to carry out his program. It’s an interesting Machiavellian question: Do you want a military so strong that it can easily put down any armed rebellion (as the Eygptian army could have) or do you try to keep the military weak and divided so that it can never effectively turn on the Prince(in this case Gaddafi).

      • It’s been reported that Kadafi hired Tuareg mercenaries to drive around Tripoli shooting demonstrators. He could’ve used the military for that but that could create a morale problem that could backfire like it happened in Benghazi.

        The Tuareg presumably would have no scruples in shooting Libyans and if they ever did they can just go home.

      • Edward
        I don’t know enough about Libya or Egypt and the role their army plays to even assume that.
        The fact that Kadafi decided to rely on foreign mercenaries to do his dirty work, shows he doesn’t trust his military to do it. In fact after repression started in Benghazi the military there didn’t take long to switch sides and oppose him. That may have what prompted him to hire mercenaries for the worst repression and use the military only to attack armed insurgents.

  7. How about, say, NATO sends a dozen containers with every anti-aircraft weapon available and let the rebels impose their own no-fly zone? There’s no need for an armed intervention, they just need to level the playing field.

    And always remember, there’s no right and wrong in politics, only degrees of wrongness…

    (Has anyone mentioned lately that this will officially be regarded as the beginning of World War III?)

    • That could be done, and it would definitely NOT be intervention… To send every kind of aid possible. Including weapons of defense.

  8. What an excellent thread. Amieres makes some excellent points as does Toro. However, if one supports the Libyan insurgents, one is supporting violence. The mistake they made was to take Benghazi and effectievly trigger a civil war which they are destined to lose. In addition, the west bet on the wrong horse here and any intervention will simply serve to bring bombers and hit men to London, paris and berlin. What esle can be expected? The problem is a Libyan one – let them sort it out. Interesting that Saudi did not send troops to Libya as they did to Bahrain. This is a line od dominoes. 200 dollar oil here we come!!

    • Right – and who’s the moron who said it was better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees? (Certain exceptions apply.)

    • “one is supporting violence” if one supports whom?! You’re showing your real colors, Arturo. In case you’re having trouble, who is apuntando las armas al pueblo?

    • Why would the Saudis send troops to Libya? For them to send troops to Bahrain makes sense to them, it’s their neighbor and “vassal” state ruled by their “cousins”.

      Saudi troops getting involved in Libya would really kick the hornets nest. Too bad the Arab League doesn’t have a NATO type option for this kind of situation.

      For the West, it’s as many have said: Guatemala or Guatepeor.

  9. Here goes my utopia:

    As we evolve, we have to forget about frontiers, nationalities and all that crap. We are all humans and the world is getting smaller everyday. So if you see a huge injustice happening somewhere else, you should do something because their humanity rules above their nationality.

    And that counts too when a company from X nationality goes to another country and start bribing their way in, or when a national country exploits another by bribing his power hungry president to attain deals that are obviously bad for the rest of the citizens of that country, and I could give you a thousand more examples.

    So, until we dont erase the frontiers, we wont stop fucking up the guys at the other side of the line, or of other races or religions. Until then, we wont stop fucking up world peace.

  10. The United Nations Security Council has approved a no-fly zone over Libya by a vote of 10 to nothing with five abstentions (Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India).
    I did not expect anything different from Russia and China (wouldn’t have been surprised if they had voted against), but it was very disappointing to see Germany, Brazil and India’s abstentions. This is a case with no ambiguities: Gaddafi is a mad dictator that is massacring his own people and is willing to continue sending terrorists to kill innocent people around the world. The people of Libya are crying for help and the international community is failing them. I consider the positions of Germany, Brazil and India opportunistic and mostly cowardly. They are leaving the dirty job mainly to the US, jeopardizing the success of the operation by not support the measure. Russia and China are consistent violators of human rights and would not support any measure that eventually could be use against their own government’s abuses, but in the case of Germany, Brazil and India, they think that by not committing themselves they will not be victims of a terrorist retaliation from Gaddafi if the rebellion does not get Gaddafi out of power. It is a disgraceful position disguised in an honourable one arguing no intervention and no violence. Shame on the governments of Germany, Brazil and India.

  11. The United Nations Security Council has approved a no-fly zone over Libya by a vote of 10 to nothing with five abstentions (Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India).
    I did not expect anything different from Russia and China (wouldn’t have been surprised if they had voted against), but it was very disappointing to see Germany, Brazil and India’s abstentions. This is a case with no ambiguities: Gaddafi is a mad dictator that is massacring his own people and is willing to continue sending terrorists to kill innocent people around the world. The people of Libya are crying for help and the international community is failing them. I consider the positions of Germany, Brazil and India opportunistic but mostly cowardly. They are leaving the dirty job mainly to the US, jeopardizing the success of the initiative by not supporting the UN resolution. Russia and China are consistent violators of human rights and would not support any measure that eventually could be used against their own government’s abuses, but in the case of Germany, Brazil and India, they think that by not committing themselves they would not be victims of a terrorist retaliation from Gaddafi if the rebellion does not get him out of power. It is a disgraceful position disguised as an honourable one arguing no intervention and no violence. Shame on the governments of Germany, Brazil and India.

  12. Today Qatar jets flying in Libyan air space. Saudi troops in Bahrain. What’s going on here? Looks like Arab countries getting involved in a curious alliance?

    Could this be that an Arab intent to send a message to Iran? This is getting interesting!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here