Gaddafi's useful idiots.

[Virus]

Libya is a dark and brutal place which has been run by a filthy little fascist for the last 40 years. That's longer than I've been alive.

When NATO intervened to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe it was obvious that morally cretinous ideologues would be lining up to run interference for Gaddafi.

Lee Smith writes in Tablet how intellectuals have been bought off by the Gaddafi regime for ages. Various prestigious universities in England have been found out to have received generous endowments by the Libyan regime. Similar to the slathers of oil money that made their way into American universities courtesy of the Saudi monarchy.

But some intellectuals could be bought by something else; appeals to vanity.

For instance, Rutgers professor Benjamin Barber wrote just last week that he has “no doubt” that his engagement with Qaddafi “ameliorated the consequences of his rule and created conditions conducive to gradualist reform.” How Barber squares this assessment of his contribution to Libya’s future with events unfolding in the country is unclear. What is clear is that Barber turned a blind eye to Qaddafi’s past record, the murders, tortures, and disappearances that were the basis of Hisham Matar’s novel In the Country of Men, which was shortlisted for the 2006 Man Booker Prize.

In the same category as Barber is Joseph Nye, the Harvard professor famous for his ideas about soft power, or “the art of projecting influence through attraction rather than coercion.” “Sometimes people say soft power is too soft to accomplish anything,” Nye told an interviewer. “It’s an important part of the arsenal of power. When you ignore it, as we tend to have done, it turns out to be quite costly.”

Nye knows that Qaddafi “has long been seen as a bad boy in the West”—a sponsor of terrorism with little respect for human rights—“but in recent years, Qaddafi has appeared to be changing. He still wants to project Libyan power, but he is going about it differently than in decades past.” Does that mean the Bedouin chieftain in the big tent is interested in Nye’s intellectual framework? “Sure enough,” writes Nye, “a half hour into our conversation, he asked how Libya might increase its soft power on the world stage.”

It was clearly lost on the Harvard academic that he is part of Qaddafi’s “soft power” campaign to whitewash his regime’s image. But the Libyan strongman had him at hello—“Qaddafi ushered [Nye] into his tent, where he had five of Nye’s books laid out on a table.” Thus are intellectuals bought off, by showing an “interest” in their work.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/62430/committed/

Cynthia McKinney is another such useful idiot, albeit without the intellectual sophistication of Albert and Nye. A former US congresswoman, radical Leftist and Truther, she recently travelled to Libya on a "fact finding mission" ie a sugar-coated disinformation campaign for the fascist dictatorship.

Here is a clip of her appearance of Libyan state TV:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2955.htm

I knew that support for Gaddafi would be a fixture for the idiotic, simple-minded and loony-toon ideologues of the radical Left. Support for bloody totalitarians has been their thing since the Bolsheviks seized power in Moscow. This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:

LoGXrrgkSZU

[Rolfe]

This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him? Examination of the role of the CIA back to the 1980s, and especially Vincent Cannistraro, gives a lot of reason to believe in the existence of a structured campaign to generate "black" stories about Gadaffi.

Some of the support he gets from Libyans seems to be quite genuine. I've heard westerners who have lived in Libya declare that life in the country wasn't nearly as bad as it was being portrayed, and that a lot of the "bad" was in fact a direct consequence of western sanctions in place throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

It's arguable that Gadaffi was actually trying to get on better terms with the west over the past ten years. Sure, he was still a nasty little despot, but that hasn't been a barrier to being allowed to get on with things in other cases. He was prepared to schmooze up to Blair and other foreign leaders, and vice versa. He really did pay out something like $26 billion to try to "normalise" his relations with the west.

The reason I'm posting this is that last night on TV I heard an interview with one of the Libyan rebel fighters, accusing Gadaffi of a bunch of stuff I didn't believe for half a second. It was absolutely risible. Forcing his troops to take hallucinatory drugs and so on.

I have no idea where the truth lies in any of this, and I doubt it will ever be established. But I think a lot of things aren't as clear cut as some people like to imagine. And I'm always wary when I see western governments demonise a foreign ruler as a prelude to getting in there with some "regime change". Especially when they've been cosying up to him very recently.

Rolfe.

[Caustic Logic]

I wonder if the NATO bloc has any useful idiots out there?

Virus? What do you think?

[Eddie Dane]

Cynthia McKinney is another such useful idiot, albeit without the intellectual sophistication of Albert and Nye. A former US congresswoman, radical Leftist and Truther, she recently travelled to Libya on a "fact finding mission" ie a sugar-coated disinformation campaign for the fascist dictatorship.



I take issue with you calling Cynthia McKinney a useful idiot, sir.

I demand that you retract that statement.

There is absolutely nothing useful about her.

[Virus]

I wonder if the NATO bloc has any useful idiots out there?

Virus? What do you think?

I think the concept of a "NATO useful idiot" doesn't make sense, since NATO don't allow totalitarians to join.

[geni]

Libya is a dark and brutal place which has been run by a filthy little fascist for the last 40 years. That's longer than I've been alive.

He's not a fascist (his ideology is rather different as well as being subject to change from time to time) and he has oil. As an when your country has that much cheap oil the world might consider carring if you think it is dark and brutal.


Lee Smith writes in Tablet how intellectuals have been bought off by the Gaddafi regime for ages. Various prestigious universities in England have been found out to have received generous endowments by the Libyan regime. Similar to the slathers of oil money that made their way into American universities courtesy of the Saudi monarchy.

Not really. The overwelming majority of intellectuals has spent the last few decades not caring about Libya. I mean lets face it does it look like a supersymmetric particle to you?



But some intellectuals could be bought by something else; appeals to vanity.



http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/62430/committed/


Given the extent to which that neither the words "France" nor "Sarkosy" appear in that article it's a pretty blatent attempt to rewrite history.



I knew that support for Gaddafi would be a fixture for the idiotic, simple-minded and loony-toon ideologues of the radical Left.

Then you are ignorant. No supprise there.


Support for bloody totalitarians has been their thing since the Bolsheviks seized power in Moscow. This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:

LoGXrrgkSZU


Oh wow a whole 6 people truely they speak for the radical left.

[Virus]

This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him? Examination of the role of the CIA back to the 1980s, and especially Vincent Cannistraro, gives a lot of reason to believe in the existence of a structured campaign to generate "black" stories about Gadaffi.

Some of the support he gets from Libyans seems to be quite genuine. I've heard westerners who have lived in Libya declare that life in the country wasn't nearly as bad as it was being portrayed, and that a lot of the "bad" was in fact a direct consequence of western sanctions in place throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

It's arguable that Gadaffi was actually trying to get on better terms with the west over the past ten years. Sure, he was still a nasty little despot, but that hasn't been a barrier to being allowed to get on with things in other cases. He was prepared to schmooze up to Blair and other foreign leaders, and vice versa. He really did pay out something like $26 billion to try to "normalise" his relations with the west.

The reason I'm posting this is that last night on TV I heard an interview with one of the Libyan rebel fighters, accusing Gadaffi of a bunch of stuff I didn't believe for half a second. It was absolutely risible. Forcing his troops to take hallucinatory drugs and so on.

I have no idea where the truth lies in any of this, and I doubt it will ever be established. But I think a lot of things aren't as clear cut as some people like to imagine. And I'm always wary when I see western governments demonise a foreign ruler as a prelude to getting in there with some "regime change". Especially when they've been cosying up to him very recently.

Rolfe.

He's a fascist Rolfe, regardless of how much oil money he throws around.

[geni]

He's a fascist

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Caustic Logic]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Lol. Thanks for that. You're okay.

[Virus]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Do too.

I call totalitarians "fascists" as a pejorative because the differences between them are superficial.

All complaints about that can be directed to the Department of Don't Care.

[Rolfe]

I'm sorry, I mistook this thread for a genuine attempt to discuss a controversial issue.

See you later.

Rolfe.

[geni]

All complaints about that can be directed to the Department of Don't Care.

So glad you are happy in your ignorance.

[Johny2x4]

I think the concept of a "NATO useful idiot" doesn't make sense, since NATO don't allow totalitarians to join.

Wrong. Fascist Portugal was one of the founding members of NATO.

[egslim]

Wrong. Fascist Portugal was one of the founding members of NATO.
Don't confuse him with facts.

[Virus]

They don't allow them in now.

[Johny2x4]

They don't allow them in now.

Irrelevant. You said they didn´t in your post. You would probably would not even changed your answer had I not said that.

[Virus]

Caustic called me a useful idiot for NATO. There are no totalitarians in NATO, so the concept doesn't make sense.

[McHrozni]

This isn't something I really want to get into in detail, because I have insufficient knowledge. However, I don't think the situation is entirely black-and-white. Gadaffi is a nasty tyrant, yes. But has he actually done all the things that are attributed to him?

Probably not. Has he done the majority? Yes.

Pointing out that not everything evil about him is true really shouldn't be used as a defence against all the evil he undoubtedly has done, both within Libya and outside of Libya. As you say, he is a nasty tyrant, and he deserves that tag for a multitude of reasons. Supporting him, as some people outside of Libya still do, is nothing more than being a case of an idiot, useful idiot if you're in a position that matters.

McHrozni

[Undesired Walrus]

Well, Virus, while you talk about the radical Left, I think you'll find that the isolationalist right have been some of the most forceful critics of the Libyan intervention.

[Gazpacho]

This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:
How much is the war against Gaddafi costing the US government each day? Are Native Americans who live on the rez, often in appaling conditions, not even slightly justified in questioning the political priorities involved?

[Virus]

How much is the war against Gaddafi costing the US government each day? Are Native Americans who live on the rez, often in appaling conditions, not even slightly justified in questioning the political priorities involved?

Brandishing "long live Gaddafi" signs? Get real Gaz.

[Gazpacho]

Brandishing "long live Gaddafi" signs?
If that's what it takes to get people's attention, sure.

[McHrozni]

If that's what it takes to get people's attention, sure.

Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else?

McHrozni

[angrysoba]

Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else?

McHrozni

Well, it sure has got us talking about it.

Do you think that the funds could go to Native Americans? Just asking...

[Gazpacho]

Your position is therefore that a person brandishing "Long Live Ghaddafi" sign doesn't really support Ghaddafi, he just wants the funds that are currently going to oust him (about $10 million a day, apparently) to be diverted to the Native American community instead, and that the purpose of the sign is to attract attention and nothing else?
Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out.

It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi.

[Virus]

Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out.

It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi.

Or that they support Gaddafi and hate white people.

[angrysoba]

I knew that support for Gaddafi would be a fixture for the idiotic, simple-minded and loony-toon ideologues of the radical Left. Support for bloody totalitarians has been their thing since the Bolsheviks seized power in Moscow. This video from an "anti-war" demo featured some Native Americans delivering a hate-filled anti-white screed which the masochistic leftists couldn't get enough of. Note the "Long live Gaddafi" placard:

LoGXrrgkSZU

I didn't hear either of those two say "white". I know that the guy did talk about the Indians being indigenous and he did use the word "wetbacks" but as far as I know the word "wetback" isn't typically used against white people.

[Gazpacho]

Or that they support Gaddafi and hate white people.
Clearly the solution is for white people to hate them back!

[JihadJane]

Re: "Long live Gaddafi" signs.

Is assassinating leaders they don't like now official US foreign policy?

[McHrozni]

Could be. Pretty smart of them if it is. You'll have to ask them to find out.

It might also indicate that, from where they stand, they're not really impressed with the idea that the US is a better defender of human rights than Gaddafi.

None of which make sense.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Do you think that the funds could go to Native Americans? Just asking.

You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do.

This is precisely why I think Gazpachos' idea makes no sense whatsoever. It is significantly more likely they're Quackdaffis' useful idiots and nothing more.

McHrozni

[Gazpacho]

You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do.
Are you dismissing as absurd the idea that there is a policy controlling the operation of the laws, and that the public might be able to affect the policy?

[McHrozni]

Are you dismissing as absurd the idea that there is a policy controlling the operation of the laws, and that the public might be able to affect the policy?

No. I'm dismissing as absurd the idea that the US militarily is clandestinely siphoning funds from Native Americans to it's campaign in Libya.

McHrozni

[angrysoba]

You and I both know this is an absurd idea. It would require, literarily, for the US military to draw funds from budget allocations for native americans, which is legally unable to do.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that money meant for Native Americans was going to the military.

I think they were saying that the government spends money bombing Libya which it could allocate to Native Americans instead. I don't agree personally, but it is pointless arguing against a position nobody holds.

[Virus]

Re: "Long live Gaddafi" signs.

Is assassinating leaders they don't like now official US foreign policy?

When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself. Instead of doing that, he shouldn't have done it.

[Caustic Logic]

When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself.

Heck, you don't even have to actually do it. Just having it reported by defecting pilots and rebels who were storming army bases and seizing heavy weaponry from day two or three - was sufficient. Just fighting back in a civil war the rebels started was enough.

[McHrozni]

I think they were saying that the government spends money bombing Libya which it could allocate to Native Americans instead.

Perhaps. Or maybe they just like Quackdaffi.

"Long Live X" usually means "I like X" after all.

McHrozni

[Virus]

People that support Quackdaff and complain about fiscal innneficiency.

[JihadJane]

Perhaps. Or maybe they just like Quackdaffi.

"Long Live X" usually means "I like X" after all.

McHrozni

Who's Quackdaffi?

[LukeB]

It takes a very special talent to make Ghaddafi supporters seem to be more resonable have a clearer grasp of reality than yourself. Good work Virus.

[McHrozni]

Who's Quackdaffi?

Ruler of Libya for the past 42 years or so. I mostly use this, the most appropriate spelling.

McHrozni

[JihadJane]

Ruler of Libya for the past 42 years or so. I mostly use this, the most appropriate spelling.

McHrozni

What's appropriate about it?

[Gazpacho]

Virus, if you need to puff yourself up on an actual pro-Gaddafi video that expresses insufficient respect for white people, I can gladly offer you such a video (http://www.youtube.com/v/3z7bj7Bi9hA?autoplay=1).

[JihadJane]

Virus, if you need to puff yourself up on an actual pro-Gaddafi video that expresses insufficient respect for white people, I can gladly offer you such a video (http://www.youtube.com/v/3z7bj7Bi9hA?autoplay=1).

Too right, Obama represents the White Man.

[Mycroft]

What's appropriate about it?

Because it makes fun of him. A lot of his practices are "daffy" like Daffy Duck from loony toones.

[Virus]

Because it makes fun of him. A lot of his practices are "daffy" like Daffy Duck from loony toones.

Please show the appropriate respect for crazed, bloody tyrants. His supporters are easily offended.

[Rolfe]

Personally, I think it's childish, and trivialises some extremely serious issues.

Rolfe.

[Darth Rotor]

I think the concept of a "NATO useful idiot" doesn't make sense, since NATO don't allow totalitarians to join.

Virus, having worked in NATO, I'll suggest to you that "NATO useful idiots" is a redundant expression. :p

They are called Belgians. :cool:













(That's a joke, Belgians, in case you weren't sure ... )

[Darth Rotor]

Re: "Long live Gaddafi" signs.

Is assassinating leaders they don't like now official US foreign policy?

Sadly, no. As a policy, it would avoid a hell of a lot of collateral damage, and the death that comes with it.

[Mycroft]

Personally, I think it's childish, and trivialises some extremely serious issues.

Rolfe.

Dude, this is the internet.

[Virus]

Found a pair of Grade A useful idiots:

kOk6kickhkA

It all looks so innocent doesn't it? Just want to bring a message of peace and stop all sides from fighting.

Dave Roberts however, is a commie from an obscure sect called the Socialist Labour Party of Britain. In 1999 he attended a commie
conference in Triploi where he said;

“Brothers and sisters, it is a great privilege to be here with you today on the occasion of your celebration of the great Al Fatah revolution. Here in the Great Socialist Jamahiriya, a free land amongst a free people, I bring you socialist and internationalist greetings from the Socialist Labour Party in Britain.

“Many young people who have been involved in the international camps during the last eight years have seen at first hand and marvelled at the great social and economic, political developments you have achieved throughout your 30 years of revolutionary struggle ...

“Those of us fighting for the liberation of our countries from imperialism, and our people from capitalism, pay tribute to the generosity of the Libyan people for the solidarity they have shown to anti-imperialist and progressive movements throughout the world. We hope one day to be able to return to a future celebration of the Al Fatah revolution, and announce that we too have defeated capitalism in our countries and are joining with you in the building of a socialist world. In the meantime we say: Long live the Great Socialist Libyan Peoples Jamahiriya. Long live Muammer Al Gadaffy. Al Fatah forever!”

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1001593

[Gazpacho]

What do they say in the video that you object to?

At worst I would accuse them of poor tactics.

[Virus]

What do they say in the video that you object to?

At worst I would accuse them of poor tactics.

He's a commie who thinks Quackdaffy's Al-Fatah coup was a great socialist revolution.

[Gazpacho]

He's a commie who thinks Quackdaffy's Al-Fatah coup was a great socialist revolution.
Good for him.

[Fishstick]

Ruler of Libya for the past 42 years or so. I mostly use this, the most appropriate spelling.

McHrozni

Is it still considered spelling when you're just adding sounds that aren't in the actual name?

Virus, having worked in NATO, I'll suggest to you that "NATO useful idiots" is a redundant expression. :p

They are called Belgians. :cool:




(That's a joke, Belgians, in case you weren't sure ... )

I wouldn't call us useful, really.

[McHrozni]

Is it still considered spelling when you're just adding sounds that aren't in the actual name?

Yes?

McHrozni

[Fishstick]

You don't seem sure?

[JihadJane]

Yes?

McHrozni

These dark-skinned foreigners have all got funny names anyway so what does it really matter, eh, Mr McQuackerzni?

[McHrozni]

You don't seem sure?

No, I'm quite sure. You don't pronounce the "o" you, do you?

McHrozni

[Fishstick]

No, I'm quite sure. You don't pronounce the "o" you, do you?

McHrozni

What "o" are you referring to ?

[Virus]

Jane, can you tell us why you support Gaddafi when Libya:


Has no Rule of Law.

Has no democracy.

Banned all political parties.

Punishes all political activity with jail terms and death.

Is one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

Has no independent press.

Censors the internet.

Has no academic freedom.

Has no freedom of assembly, outside of state-run theatrics.

Has no independent labour unions.


Summary from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2010&country=7862

[egslim]

He's a commie who thinks Quackdaffy's Al-Fatah coup was a great socialist revolution.
Regardless of what you think about Gadaffi, the guy he replaced was an old-fashioned monarch without regard for democracy.

His overthrow was no loss.

[McHrozni]

Regardless of what you think about Gadaffi, the guy he replaced was an old-fashioned monarch without regard for democracy.

His overthrow was no loss.

It wasn't a gain either. It was an utter waste.

McHrozni

[egslim]

It wasn't a gain either. It was an utter waste.
It made little difference.

Under Idris Libya received the lowest price per barrel of any oil-exporting country. He was an undemocratic autocrat, and a poor or at best mediocre ruler. Originally he represented only the Cyrenaican tribes. When Britain created Libya, they decided he should rule Tripolitania as well.

No wonder the Tripolitanians were unhappy with Idris.

Libya is barely a nation. That makes it very hard to govern, so the country ends up with poor governments. The basic problem is not Gadaffi, it's Libya.

[NWO Sentryman]

egslim,

I thought Libya was created by the Italians in the 1884 Berlin conference.

[egslim]

egslim,

I thought Libya was created by the Italians in the 1884 Berlin conference.
No, Italy only took control of the area from the Ottomans in 1911.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Italian_colonial_era_and_World_War_II_1911.E 2.80.931951
From 1912 to 1927, the territory of Libya was known as Italian North Africa. From 1927 to 1934, the territory was split into two colonies, Italian Cyrenaica and Italian Tripolitania, run by Italian governors.

In 1934, Italy adopted the name "Libya" (used by the Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan).

From 1943 to 1951, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica were under British administration, while the French controlled Fezzan.

On November 21, 1949, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Libya should become independent before January 1, 1952.

Continue from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Libya
First, after the first general elections, which were held on 19 February 1952, political parties were abolished. The National Congress Party, which had campaigned against a federal form of government, was defeated throughout the country. The party was outlawed, and Bashir es Sadawi was deported.

Second, provincial ties continued to be more important than national ones, and the federal and provincial governments were constantly in dispute over their respective spheres of authority.

Idris himself was first and foremost a Cyrenaican, never at ease in Tripolitania. His political interests were essentially Cyrenaican, and he understood that whatever real power he had—and it was more considerable than what he derived from the constitution—lay in the loyalty he commanded as amir of Cyrenaica and head of the Sanussi order.

many Libyans had also become conscious that its benefits reached very few of the population. An ominous undercurrent of dissatisfaction with corruption and malfeasance in the bureaucracy began to appear as well

While Italy first coined the name "Libya" in 1934, the regions were independently controlled by the French and British during WWII. The country was created by Britain, following the UN resolution.

[Gazpacho]

Jane, can you tell us why you support Gaddafi when Libya:


Has no Rule of Law.
Has no democracy.
Banned all political parties.
Punishes all political activity with jail terms and death.
Is one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Has no independent press.
Censors the internet.
Has no academic freedom.
Has no freedom of assembly, outside of state-run theatrics.
Has no independent labour unions.


Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb. But I don't expect you to understand the distinction.

[Pardalis]

These dark-skinned foreigners have all got funny names anyway so what does it really matter, eh, Mr McQuackerzni?

Those dark skinned foreigners that are being killed by their own government that you don't seem to care about you mean?

Funny, you seem to care more about the appropriate spelling of a dictator's name than the actual people who are being violently oppressed by him.

[Virus]

Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb. But I don't expect you to understand the distinction.

Why not? They asked for NATO support.

[Johny2x4]

I find something deeply ironic. Some of the people who voiced their concerns over the NATO intervention are military people, with years of career, and those who are more happy for the intervention are civilians with no clue on the matter other than "freedom ** yeah!".

I know it´s not the general rule, but I find this ironic.

[JihadJane]

Jane, can you tell us why you support Gaddafi when Libya:
Has no Rule of Law.
Has no democracy.
Banned all political parties.
Punishes all political activity with jail terms and death.
Is one of the most corrupt governments in the world.
Has no independent press.
Censors the internet.
Has no academic freedom.
Has no freedom of assembly, outside of state-run theatrics.
Has no independent labour unions.

Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb. But I don't expect you to understand the distinction.

Virus' camp premise (hilited) is faulty, as ever.

When are you going to stop beating your wife, Virus?

[egslim]

I find something deeply ironic. Some of the people who voiced their concerns over the NATO intervention are military people, with years of career, and those who are more happy for the intervention are civilians with no clue on the matter other than "freedom ** yeah!".
The intervention in Libya broke three military principles:
1) Go in big, or don't go in at all.
2) Go in only to pursue a well-defined goal.
3) Don't set goals that require either enemy or unproven allied cooperation.

I think most people in the West, including those who oppose intervention, are generally supportive of freedom-loving, democratic rebels who revolt against a nasty autocrat. (Some of us are sceptical about how "pure of heart" these rebels really are, but that's another matter.)

But anyone with some sense of military strategy could see from the start that the intervention was a poorly conceived military operation:
1) We went in small, on the cheap.
2) The goal shifted from protecting civilians to removing Gadaffi, next to establish a stable government?
3) To remove Gadaffi requires him to either step down voluntarily, or for the rebels to mount and support major offensives.

[BStrong]

Not to tell tales out of school, but some of the story has already been told in the book

Firepower by Dempster & Tompkins

http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Power-Chris-Dempster/dp/0312291159

So I'll throw it into the mix.

As the story goes, when Gaddafi pulled the coup with King Idris out of the country, King Idris quite understandably took issue with losing his gig.

The good King went to a gentleman by the name of David Stirling, founder of the British Special Air Service, and owner of a little retirement company called Watchguard International Ltd - aka the S.A.S retired service unit.
.
For an undisclosed amount of filthy lucre, Striling devised a simple plan, recruited a bunch of bored ex- S.A.S. , S.B.S., and Para's and bought themselves a boat to take a little trip.

Americans were deliberately excluded from the operation, other than some communication tech wizzos.

The comm guys must have slipped a little because the C.I.A. picked up on the op.

Now the American view at the time was that Gaddafi was just another tinpot dictator, easily distracted by shiny metal and blondes.

The C.I.A. had some undisclosed interest against Idris, and rather than allow nature to take it's course, blew the whistle to the Italians, who nabbed the boat while it transited Italian waters, held the troopers for a while, then PNG's the lot back to England.

The C.I.A. has a certain level of reponsibility in Gaddafi's survival and ability to become the PITA that he became.

[JihadJane]

The intervention in Libya broke three military principles:
1) Go in big, or don't go in at all.
2) Go in only to pursue a well-defined goal.
3) Don't set goals that require either enemy or unproven allied cooperation.

I think most people in the West, including those who oppose intervention, are generally supportive of freedom-loving, democratic rebels...

Evidence that "rebels" are freedom-loving and democratic?

...who revolt against a nasty autocrat. (Some of us are sceptical about how "pure of heart" these rebels really are, but that's another matter.)

Cop-out.

But anyone with some sense of military strategy could see from the start that the intervention was a poorly conceived military operation:
1) We went in small, on the cheap.
2) The goal shifted from protecting civilians to removing Gadaffi, next to establish a stable government?

What makes you think to stated goal of "protecting civilians" was ever genuine?

3) To remove Gadaffi requires him to either step down voluntarily, or for the rebels to mount and support major offensives.

Or special assassination forces to assassinate him.

[egslim]

Evidence that "rebels" are freedom-loving and democratic?
I didn't claim they are.

And since I focussed on why people with military experience (and thus with a sense of military strategy) are more likely to oppose the intervention than ordinary civilians, the rebels' freedom-lovingness and democraticness are irrelevant.

What makes you think to stated goal of "protecting civilians" was ever genuine?
It was used to obtain popular and international support for the operation. When the goal shifted, much of that support fell away. Which is why shifting goals is a bad thing.

Or special assassination forces to assassinate him.
Assuming they can find him. So far, NATO's attempts to kill Gadaffi have met little success.

[theprestige]

Taking all of that as true, it still is not yours to bomb.

Actually, the whole thing about bombing is that yes, it bloody well is.

Do they not explain what war is, in your schools?

[Gazpacho]

Actually, the whole thing about bombing is that yes, it bloody well is.
If you want to talk about military might, sure, NATO has it. I was responding to a question of moral justification. The Freedom House country reports for the US and Australia are not spotless, and these countries could be proposed as bombing candidates for several reasons:

- world-record incarceration rates (and post-release hardships)
- racial disparities in incarceration
- dispossession and grinding poverty among native people
- restrictions on labor organizing
- ongoing raids against left-wing activists

[Virus]

The moral justification is that the regime was using terror to suppress legitimate protest and demands for reform. The Libyans and the Arab league asked for intervention and the UN signed off on it.

Legitimate, multilateral operation. No matter how much you cry about it.

And don't even pretend that it's cute to compare Australia and the US with third-world totalitarian regimes.

[theprestige]

If you want to talk about military might, sure, NATO has it. I was responding to a question of moral justification. The Freedom House country reports for the US and Australia are not spotless, and these countries could be proposed as bombing candidates for several reasons:

- world-record incarceration rates (and post-release hardships)
- racial disparities in incarceration
- dispossession and grinding poverty among native people
- restrictions on labor organizing
- ongoing raids against left-wing activists

Now you're getting the hang of it!

Indeed yes, these countries are anybody's to bomb. So go ahead and bomb them already.

[Gazpacho]

Why not? They asked for NATO support.
There was a reported request for defense against massacres of unarmed civilians. NATO has broadened this, as everyone should have expected, into support for armed rebellion, and obstructing several attempts at political settlements (not just from Tripoli), and guiding the outcome of the conflict towards European/American interests.

And don't even pretend that it's cute to compare Australia and the US with third-world totalitarian regimes.
I'm not pretending anything.

[McHrozni]

There was a reported request for defense against massacres of unarmed civilians. NATO has broadened this, as everyone should have expected, into support for armed rebellion, and obstructing several attempts at political settlements (not just from Tripoli), and guiding the outcome of the conflict towards European/American interests.

Which is hardly surprising and was obvious from the start.
That said, Libya needs a resolution, not a protracted stalemate.

McHrozni

[egslim]

Which is hardly surprising and was obvious from the start.
That said, Libya needs a resolution, not a protracted stalemate.
A protracted stalemate could have been used to partition Libya into Tripolitania/Fezzan and Cyrenaica. Libya is an artificial construct, so a partition makes some sense.

On the other hand, it's generally a bad idea to start a war based on lies. Better be honest about it.

[Virus]

Hey Gaz, who do you want to win; the Gaddafi regime or the rebels?

[Praktik]

oh oh me me!

I want the bad guys to win because I am so morally corrupted!

[Tricky]

Hey Gaz, who do you want to win; the Gaddafi regime or the rebels?
As I recall, the US was cheering for Iraq and Saddam Hussein when they went to war with Iran. We even gave them weapons. Turns out, not everybody who fights your enemy is necessarily your friend. Go figure.

[McHrozni]

Turns out, not everybody who fights your enemy is necessarily your friend. Go figure.

That's true. But you're more likely to find friends among those that fight your enemies than among those who share the bed with them.

McHrozni

[bikerdruid]

It takes a very special talent to make Ghaddafi supporters seem to be more resonable have a clearer grasp of reality than yourself. Good work Virus.

:D

[Caustic Logic]

oh oh me me!

I want the bad guys to win because I am so morally corrupted!

Great, another NATO supporter. :D

[Virus]

As I recall, the US was cheering for Iraq and Saddam Hussein when they went to war with Iran. We even gave them weapons. Turns out, not everybody who fights your enemy is necessarily your friend. Go figure.

Yeah and the US allied with Stalin, the world's worst mass-murderer at the time, to oppose Hitler.

Newsflash: Sometimes states play other states off against each other. A tactic that goes back since forever.

[Johny2x4]

So what moral reason do we have?

[Virus]

Removing a fascist regime wanted for crimes against humanity.

[Johny2x4]

After supporting other evil regimes for our own good and using Libya while it was useful for us.

Again, what moral high ground do we have?

[Virus]

Who else is going to other than NATO?

Name someone better.

[theprestige]

So what moral reason do we have?

Again, what moral high ground do we have?

Moral reason, or moral high ground? Make up your mind.

[JihadJane]

That's true. But you're more likely to find friends among those that fight your enemies than among those who share the bed with them.

McHrozni

That must be why it's okay to kill Gadaffi's children and grandchildren, then.

Moral reason, or moral high ground? Make up your mind.

I wonder if your own mind could be the problem here rather than Johny2x4's!

[Virus]

That must be why it's okay to kill Gadaffi's children and grandchildren, then.


They were aiming for Gaddafi. Not our fault he's using his family as human shields. Instead of murdering protesters, he shouldn't have murdered protesters.

[Virus]

More from Cynthia McIdiot:

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2985.htm

[Mycroft]

More from Cynthia McIdiot:

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2985.htm

I hope she decides to become a citizen of Libya.

[Skeptic]

If you want to talk about military might, sure, NATO has it. I was responding to a question of moral justification. The Freedom House country reports for the US and Australia are not spotless, and these countries could be proposed as bombing candidates for several reasons:

- world-record incarceration rates (and post-release hardships)
- racial disparities in incarceration
- dispossession and grinding poverty among native people
- restrictions on labor organizing
- ongoing raids against left-wing activists

If moral spotlessness were a requirement for a just war, the South in the USA would still be selling slaves because the North, too, had "racial disparities"; and the Nazis would still be ruling Europe because the USA and the UK, too, had "restrictions on labor organizations".

But there is simply no comparing the imperfections of the free democracies to the Libyan open-air insane asylum-cum-jail-cum-torture chamber Quadaffi made it.

[NWO Sentryman]

RE: Gazpacho:

:wwt, are you SERIOUSLY comparing the faults (Issues with the Criminal Justice System frex) of the US to the Charnel house that is Libya?

And I don't recall prisoners being slaughtered en masse in the US for the lulz the way Gadaffi did in Libya.

[theprestige]

If moral spotlessness were a requirement for a just war, the South in the USA would still be selling slaves because the North, too, had "racial disparities"; and the Nazis would still be ruling Europe because the USA and the UK, too, had "restrictions on labor organizations".

But there is simply no comparing the imperfections of the free democracies to the Libyan open-air insane asylum-cum-jail-cum-torture chamber Quadaffi made it.

RE: Gazpacho:

:wwt, are you SERIOUSLY comparing the faults (Issues with the Criminal Justice System frex) of the US to the Charnel house that is Libya?

And I don't recall prisoners being slaughtered en masse in the US for the lulz the way Gadaffi did in Libya.
This is what I want to know, too.

Gazpacho, are you saying it's necessary to have a moral reason?

Or are you saying it's necessary to have the moral high ground?

Which is it? And why?

[JihadJane]

Moral reason and moral high ground are both off the menu when wars are launched on false pretenses (e.g the attack on Libya).

[Virus]

Do you deny that Gaddafi's forces were carrying out massacres of demonstrators?

[Caustic Logic]

RE: Gazpacho:

:wwt, are you SERIOUSLY comparing the faults (Issues with the Criminal Justice System frex) of the US to the Charnel house that is Libya?

Hyperbole much?



And I don't recall prisoners being slaughtered en masse in the US for the lulz the way Gadaffi did in Libya

You refer to the singular prison uprising in Tripoli (Abu Salim was it?) Wasn't the death toll there reported as 1,200 in a one-sided slaughter? I've heard that was based on the count of one guy, he said from counting the number of lunch trays he was responsible for - it dropped to like 25% after, he says. Other evidence suggests the number was more like 120. I hear there was a riot involved, where many prison guards were killed before a single prisoner was. It happened in 1996, the same time as an assassination attempt on Gaddafi by, more or less, al Qaeda and MI6. And an uprising in Benghazi, put down violently.

Plus, it was fifteen years ago and a lot has changed there since then. Better examples?

Do you deny that Gaddafi's forces were carrying out massacres of demonstrators?

Does it matter if I do? In fact, the evidence I'm seeing suggests most or all of the violence was two-sided and occurred as "demonstrators" tried to storm police stations, army bases, and the like. They were always armed, first with household stuff, quickly in spots graduating to fully pro gear gotten through defections or succesful weapons raids. People died on both sides.

ETA: And remember, it's all but proven that these 21 government soldiers (http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/04/behind-scenes-of-al-baida-massacre.html) were captured in the fighting and later executed by rebels, their corpses cursed in the morning. Yet "Libyan rights groups" swore Gaddafi killed these heroes because they refused the specific order to shoot protesters. The world believed it.

Consider a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFpM7E8at8&feature=player_embedded) from Tripoli, and PLEASE don't get hung up on the source, consider what's said and SHOWN, if you consider anything. It explains with some evidence how this happened country-wide in a co-ordinated effort. And consider the attack on the "Katiba" barracks in Benghazi (different name given there - Obama Barrack, but pronounced like the president's name?). Starting 8:34 - for days they renewed attacks on the compound, whatever you call it, Feb 17, 18, 19, and 20. By the 20th, they had used heavy tractors, small bombs, dynamite, and a tank or APC to breach the walls. And a suicide bomber with a very powerful car bomb (verified elsewhere) plus tanks and artillery firing on it, says that video anyway (9:25 - shows the weapons in situ).

And here are peaceful protesters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRozKE0qBAA&feature=player_embedded) at the gate of another barrack in Benghazi, firing in with a machine gun. Later, an ambulance drives out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMvoMeDr6lY&feature=player_embedded) and they celebrate. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a charnel house, but it was ugly days, and Libya's still getting bombed over how "we understood it to be."

What of that do you deny? Would you be the first to show me video or photographic proof that someone just protesting, not fighting, was shot by government forces, once? More than once? The months just before this had told them protest equals successful regime change, and it seems they just flipped the equation backwards. Regime change by any and all means is then protest, and even defensive fire will be on "protesters."

[Caustic Logic]

Also, newsflash: Amnesty International become Gaddafi's latest useful idiots.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

And the baby snipers slur we've already slayed here. ... it's getting thin, NATO disinfo supporters.

[McHrozni]

Also, newsflash: Amnesty International become Gaddafi's latest useful idiots.

Nah.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/libya-renewed-rocket-attacks-target-civilians-misratah-2011-06-24

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/libya-campaign-enforced-disappearances-nafusa-region-must-end-2011-05-27

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/libya-civilians-risk-amid-new-mine-threat-2011-05-25

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/al-gaddafi%E2%80%99s-forces-carry-out-indiscriminate-attacks-misratah-2011-05-08

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/libya-attacks-against-misratah-residents-point-war-crimes-2011-05-06

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE19/013/2011/en

McHrozni

[MarkCorrigan]

I'd like to preface this post by saying the following.

1. I do not like the attitude the US regularly shows whereby they sanction and attack nations that they do not like, whether this dislike is built on actual reasonable grounds or just electing someone they weren't fans of.

2. I am left wing. Very left wing. I oppose violence as much as it is realistic to do so, and I freely criticise anyone I think needs criticising. This includes nations such as Israel and the US, as well as scum-sucking groups like say, Hamas or pro-fascist groups.

3. Virus has, as usual, done himself and those who are mostly (or entirely) in agreement with him on this issue a great disservice.

4. I am generally in support of NATO but will criticise them when they overstep the mark or lie about something to make themselves look better. That being said:

Also, newsflash: Amnesty International become Gaddafi's latest useful idiots.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

And the baby snipers slur we've already slayed here. ... it's getting thin, NATO disinfo supporters.

I wouldn't trust an Amnesty International investigation to show that the Sun was hot.

They're not exactly an entirely credible organisation, preferring to put the world's thickest blinders on when dealing with some individuals. (http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?264244)

[angrysoba]

Now this is useful idiocy!

http://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/

Got to love the titles of the blogposts:

Gaddafi’s proud female soldiers

De-demonising Gaddafi – what you don’t know

[funk de fino]

What of that do you deny? Would you be the first to show me video or photographic proof that someone just protesting, not fighting, was shot by government forces, once? More than once? The months just before this had told them protest equals successful regime change, and it seems they just flipped the equation backwards. Regime change by any and all means is then protest, and even defensive fire will be on "protesters."

If you cannot find decent new cast to watch it is not our fault. Just keep on believing all your woo nonsense.

Tell me again how you judge someones nationality from a picture?

[JihadJane]

I'd like to preface this post by saying the following.

1. I do not like the attitude the US regularly shows whereby they sanction and attack nations that they do not like, whether this dislike is built on actual reasonable grounds or just electing someone they weren't fans of.

2. I am left wing. Very left wing. I oppose violence as much as it is realistic to do so, and I freely criticise anyone I think needs criticising. This includes nations such as Israel and the US, as well as scum-sucking groups like say, Hamas or pro-fascist groups.

3. Virus has, as usual, done himself and those who are mostly (or entirely) in agreement with him on this issue a great disservice.

4. I am generally in support of NATO but will criticise them when they overstep the mark or lie about something to make themselves look better. That being said:



I wouldn't trust an Amnesty International investigation to show that the Sun was hot.

They're not exactly an entirely credible organisation, preferring to put the world's thickest blinders on when dealing with some individuals. (http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?264244)


What do you mean by:

1) "Very left wing."

2) "scum-sucking"

?

[MarkCorrigan]

What do you mean by:

1) "Very left wing."

2) "scum-sucking"

?

I'm economically socialist, socially very liberal. I believe that government regulation is needed in industry (particularly with regard to high risk business) and I'm a big believer in the value of the public sector. I believe that front-line public sector workers (teachers, nurses, waste disposal workers etc.) are more deserving of support than private sector workers in terms of things like pensions, and I'm fuly behind single payer UHC in every nation where it would be the best system, and other forms of UHC in nations that might differ.

I'm a big supporter of high taxes for those who can afford it, and I consider the attempts to abolish taxes such as inheritance tax to be underhanded and shameful. I think that the current scope of nationalised industry in the UK is far too little, and I often find myself fully supporting more left wing governments or political people. I have more in common with the Democrats in the US than the republicans, but most of them would be too far to the right for me if they were UK politicians. During the last presidential election I took a quiz (about 150 questions I think it was) to tell me which of all the candidates running at the very beginning of the primaries I was closest to in policy, and I got Mike Gravel.

I'm a democratic socialist, tempered by some realism and a healthy distaste for most groups who claim to stand up for human rights but actually ignore gross offences because the people they want to attack are on the end of them (groups that supported say, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or those who support Hezbollah). My personal favourite politician of the last 25 years, if not last 50 would be Mikhail Gorbachev.

I am not, however, a Communist, either literal or Stalinist/Leninist/Trotskyite/Maoist or any other flavour you can think of. It's not a viable system.

When I say scumsucking, I mean vile degenerate groups who have no wish for peaceful diplomacy and instead seek genocide and violent retribution for any and all crimes both real and imagined. Frequently they also claim to champion the rights or welfare of a particular group of people, while actually abusing, maltreating and generally using them like a five dollar hooker. Any group that claims to want to protect civilians but fires mortars out of schools or hospitals say, or who routinely divert money meant for aid to buy munitions or line the pockets of Warlords and corrupt politicians. Hamas, for example. For non Islamic groups, I'd also take the aforementioned (and now thankfully defunct) Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or the IRA.

To intercept a possible question, no I do not consider Israel to be among the groups I loathe so much. Do they do bad things? Yep. Do Israeli soldiers kill civilians? Yep. Is it sometimes avoidable? Almost certainly. Do they have outlined in their articles of war, constitution or other binding documents, or have they ever shown an inclination or appetite for genocide?

No. They haven't. Israel could probably have butchered virtually all of the Palestinians living within Gaza given the high tech weapons, large army (for the size of the nation) and exceptional efficiency, but they haven't. The military actions of Israel have time and time again showed a very very low level of collateral damage when compared with recent wars, and while I don't agree with all the sanctions they impose upon Gaza and the West Bank, they are hardly callous tyrants.

One major, MAJOR problem I have with Israel is the constant illegal building of settlements in non-Israeli land. These should stop immediately, and the Settlements already built should be demolished once the settlers have been found locations to relocate to. However since the PA might actually be economically linked to settlement building (and many settlements are built by arab contractors) I don't think that will end any time soon.

That answer your questions?

[Caustic Logic]

If you cannot find decent new cast to watch it is not our fault. Just keep on believing all your woo nonsense.


A new cast to watch? What is this to you, a sitcom? Where's your hangup here, Mr. trust the news as it shown and call all other information they cut out "woo nonsense"?


Tell me again how you judge someones nationality from a picture?

Well, if you see a black man and he's not a friend or a known rebel supporter, he's clearly one of African mercenaries you heard about in the twiter rumors and deserving of lynching, fire, or dismemberment. That's how your heroes do it, Mr. harp on and on about one probably bad, imaginative, maybe guess, that I made a couple months ago.

[JihadJane]

I'm economically socialist, socially very liberal. I believe that government regulation is needed in industry (particularly with regard to high risk business) and I'm a big believer in the value of the public sector. I believe that front-line public sector workers (teachers, nurses, waste disposal workers etc.) are more deserving of support than private sector workers in terms of things like pensions, and I'm fuly behind single payer UHC in every nation where it would be the best system, and other forms of UHC in nations that might differ.

I'm a big supporter of high taxes for those who can afford it, and I consider the attempts to abolish taxes such as inheritance tax to be underhanded and shameful. I think that the current scope of nationalised industry in the UK is far too little, and I often find myself fully supporting more left wing governments or political people. I have more in common with the Democrats in the US than the republicans, but most of them would be too far to the right for me if they were UK politicians. During the last presidential election I took a quiz (about 150 questions I think it was) to tell me which of all the candidates running at the very beginning of the primaries I was closest to in policy, and I got Mike Gravel.

I'm a democratic socialist, tempered by some realism and a healthy distaste for most groups who claim to stand up for human rights but actually ignore gross offences because the people they want to attack are on the end of them (groups that supported say, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or those who support Hezbollah). My personal favourite politician of the last 25 years, if not last 50 would be Mikhail Gorbachev.

I wouldn't call that very left wing. Sounds pretty middle of the road.

I am not, however, a Communist, either literal or Stalinist/Leninist/Trotskyite/Maoist or any other flavour you can think of. It's not a viable system.

I wouldn't call that very left wing. Sounds pretty middle of the road.

When I say scumsucking, I mean vile degenerate groups who have no wish for peaceful diplomacy and instead seek genocide and violent retribution for any and all crimes both real and imagined. Frequently they also claim to champion the rights or welfare of a particular group of people, while actually abusing, maltreating and generally using them like a five dollar hooker. Any group that claims to want to protect civilians but fires mortars out of schools or hospitals say, or who routinely divert money meant for aid to buy munitions or line the pockets of Warlords and corrupt politicians. Hamas, for example. For non Islamic groups, I'd also take the aforementioned (and now thankfully defunct) Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or the IRA.

To intercept a possible question, no I do not consider Israel to be among the groups I loathe so much. Do they do bad things? Yep. Do Israeli soldiers kill civilians? Yep. Is it sometimes avoidable? Almost certainly. Do they have outlined in their articles of war, constitution or other binding documents, or have they ever shown an inclination or appetite for genocide?

No. They haven't. Israel could probably have butchered virtually all of the Palestinians living within Gaza given the high tech weapons, large army (for the size of the nation) and exceptional efficiency, but they haven't. The military actions of Israel have time and time again showed a very very low level of collateral damage when compared with recent wars, and while I don't agree with all the sanctions they impose upon Gaza and the West Bank, they are hardly callous tyrants.

One major, MAJOR problem I have with Israel is the constant illegal building of settlements in non-Israeli land. These should stop immediately, and the Settlements already built should be demolished once the settlers have been found locations to relocate to. However since the PA might actually be economically linked to settlement building (and many settlements are built by arab contractors) I don't think that will end any time soon.

That answer your questions?

I don't share your apparent preoccupation with Israel but virtually all governments pretend to protect the people while, in reality, they are protecting their own class interests and sponsors.

I still have no image of what "scumsucking" means. From where is this word derived? Who are the scum?

[MarkCorrigan]

I wouldn't call that very left wing. Sounds pretty middle of the road.

What would you call left wing then?

I'm considered to be pretty left wing in the UK (supporting actual Socialist parties rather than lunatics who say they are Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labour_Party_%28UK%29)) and thus for the US, I'm exceptionally left wing.

I'm old Labour. Old old Labour. Atlee-was-the-best-Prime-Minister-ever old Labour. If that's not pretty damn left wing I'd like to know what is. Pro-tip though, any political party or organisation with "workers" or "socialist" in the name is normally Communist. Communism is...ridiculously naive to say the least.


I don't share your apparent preoccupation with Israel
A leftover from university. I did my International Relations dissertation on the Middle East.

but virtually all governments pretend to protect the people while, in reality, they are protecting their own class interests and sponsors.On some level, certainly, but I don't see the US or UK governments doing what Hamas does on a regular basis. The fact that they have the gall to claim that Israel are attacking civilians when they themselves intentionally abuse them (while claiming to represent them) is disgusting. Similarly, most "people's" governments the world over are horrific dictatorships or other tyrannical regimes that abuse their own people without a qualm or care in the world while pumping hideously inaccurate and paranoid propaganda into their homes daily.

Incidentally, if you're about to accuse the governments of most liberal democracies of doing the exact same thing, I have no idea how to respond to such slack-jawed idiocy. For anyone to claim that the government of the US, no matter how far it pushes the envelope is even in the same league as say, Burma or Iran shows a distinct lack of any perspective or grasp on reality. It's the retreat of the paranoid, the insane and the truly stupid. Just saying.

I still have no image of what "scumsucking" means. From where is this word derived? Who are the scum?
You've never heard the term scum-sucking (http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-of/scum-sucking) (yes, forgot the hyphen) before? I'm curious as to where you're from, because I thought it was a fairly common slang term in a number of Western countries.

[funk de fino]

A new cast to watch? What is this to you, a sitcom? Where's your hangup here, Mr. trust the news as it shown and call all other information they cut out "woo nonsense"?

Seems you saw nothing on the news at all in the early days. Just went to a few woo sites after the fact.

Well, if you see a black man and he's not a friend or a known rebel supporter, he's clearly one of African mercenaries you heard about in the twiter rumors and deserving of lynching, fire, or dismemberment. That's how your heroes do it, Mr. harp on and on about one probably bad, imaginative, maybe guess, that I made a couple months ago.

I have no heroes in the news media and do not use twitter. You were not mentioning the black men were you? "Probably bad" is an understatement. It is why no-one takes your stuff seriously.

[Toontown]

When you use airstrikes and artillery to put down protests you bring it on yourself. Instead of doing that, he shouldn't have done it.

But...but...but tyrants are SOVEREIGN! They seized power fair and square! They're supposed to be allowed to do whatever they want. Don't you understand? It's the status quo. Evils of the past and present must forever be propagated, in the interest of Simian Consistency.

[Johny2x4]

But...but...but tyrants are SOVEREIGN! They seized power fair and square! They're supposed to be allowed to do whatever they want. Don't you understand? It's the status quo. Evils of the past and present must forever be propagated, in the interest of Simian Consistency.

There´s plenty of tyrannical regimes around. I don´t see the US attacking Burma or North Korea.

[Virus]

There´s plenty of tyrannical regimes around. I don´t see the US attacking Burma or North Korea.

There's plenty of bank robbers around. Why are you arresting me?

[Toontown]

There´s plenty of tyrannical regimes around. I don´t see the US attacking Burma or North Korea.

There are plenty of stupid arguments around. Your childlike belief in the infinite nature of U.S. power, combined with an equally bizarre belief in the equivalency of all superficially similar sets of circumstances, has apparently re-spawned that threadbare fallacy you present, for the zillionth time.

If you ever get a clue about reality, let me know. In the meantime, I would prefer that you spare me the incomprehensible details of your thought processes.

[bikerdruid]

There´s plenty of tyrannical regimes around. I don´t see the US attacking Burma or North Korea.

do burma and north korea have oil?
call me cynical, but i think that is the difference.

[Johny2x4]

There's plenty of bank robbers around. Why are you arresting me?

Because while one robber has an assault rifle you have a set of brass knuckles.

[Rolfe]

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/30/the-nyts-favor-and-fear/

[McHrozni]

do burma and north korea have oil?
call me cynical, but i think that is the difference.

You might be of that opinion, but I doubt there was any thought process involved. :rolleyes:

Please explain the procedure necessary to secure a UNSC resolution authorising an intervention in Myanmar (Burma). Keep in mind China will veto it, so solve that, first. Have them ejected from UNSC or something, I don't know, it's your problem. If you can't, admit you've been proven at least one critical differance exists that has nothing to do with oil.

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

Seems you saw nothing on the news at all in the early days. Just went to a few woo sites after the fact.

I'm a historian by training - sometimes we look after the fact. I'm just not grasping your obsessions with only getting your info only from same day cable news broadcasts and nothing else. I don't have TV even if I wanted to do it that way.

So what did you mean by "new cast to watch?" That made no sense to me. Are you okay?



I have no heroes in the news media and do not use twitter. You were not mentioning the black men were you? "Probably bad" is an understatement. It is why no-one takes your stuff seriously.

I meant the racist, Islamist, terrorist factions of the rebel fighters. They call foreigner based on skin color all the time (or did in the early days when ethnic cleansing was more useful), and I did once. With a question mark (that is I wondered), and I didn't kill anyone over it. There's something else at work in how they got cable news credence, with everyone saying African mercenary, and I get ridiculed by the likes of you.

Explain yourself better or bug off, 'cause you make no sense yet. And you aren't on the news anyway, so by your own formula, I should tune you out.

[Caustic Logic]

Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).

[Virus]

Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).

How much oil has NATO stolen so far?

[theprestige]

Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).

If oil were a factor, why not quietly stay out of it? How has prolonging the conflict and reducing the chances of a decisive conclusion improved the belligerents' access to Libyan oil, either now or in the future?

Or do you mean "easy target" literally? Because last time I checked, NATO had plenty of bombing ranges at home, conveniently free of civilian casualty PR disasters and day-long sortie flights.

[Caustic Logic]

@ Funk de Fino: I realized later by "new cast," you meant "news cast," which is pretty obvious, though an old term I forgot about. Fine, another thing to make fun of me - not noticing you were saying the same old thing - basically "watch the news, accept as-is, and STFU, CT nut."

You might also want to take this advice to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the French groups that wrote this report (http://www.cf2r.org/images/stories/news/201106/libya-report.pdf), Cherif Bassiouni's UN mission, and others who've gone on fact-finding missions to Libya. Made-up after the fact woo nonsense. If you can't find your facts on a BBC or al Jazeera broadcast, you're a nutter. It was all figgered out as it happened, and we don't need no history re-writers.

Is that about it?

QUOTE=Virus]How much oil has NATO stolen so far?[/QUOTE]

I never used the word steal, and it's only half-appropriate. "NATO" doesn't put it in a bag and walk away. But they serve the interests of theire home governments, who serve the interests of their oil companies.

Obviously the oil stays in the ground - of a country - with a leadership that decides the terms under which it's extracted. That's the part that's pretty well decided will change, and one of the few things the top rebel TNC leaders have in common is a known speciality in free-market economics, privatization, hostile takeovers, etc., earned in the US and UK mostly.

But why regime change? See below...

If oil were a factor, why not quietly stay out of it? How has prolonging the conflict and reducing the chances of a decisive conclusion improved the belligerents' access to Libyan oil, either now or in the future?

In the short term, it's driven prices up, which helps some but hurts economies in short and mid-term, etc. (as I gather). So they take a hit, tap into the reserves to ease the pain. Why? Is there some big gain to offset it?

Yes. The main point is questioning the bolded part. To keep access like the West has had, in experimental form since 2003, indeed no disruption would be easiest. But it's more than just access itself, it's the quantity, quality, nature, and context of that access that also factor in. These are big reserves we're talking about, close, potentially important, and every downside is multiplied by that scale.

What are the problems? Perception of working with or abetting a dictatorial and terrorist regime. Being forced (or attempted to be) by Tripoli to give a cut back to cover their expenses settling the Lockerbie case. That's context. The more important economic factors, per the Wall Street Journal ("no love lost")

"Libya has gone from the world's most exciting oil-exploration hot spot in 2005 to another geologically, politically and fiscally risky also-ran," says Charles Gurdon , a North Africa expert at Menas Associates, a consultancy.
[...]
Libya kept its crown jewels off limits to foreigners. The huge onshore oil fields that accounted for the bulk of its production remained the preserve of Libya's state companies. Yet without advanced foreign technology to improve oil-recovery rates, output at these big fields gradually declined, by as much as 6% a year in some cases.
[...]
Politics continually intruded, particularly in 2009, the year the Scottish authorities released Abdel Baset al-Megrahi , the Libyan imprisoned for his role in the bombing of a passenger jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, on compassionate grounds. The Canadian government expressed disapproval at the hero's welcome Mr. Megrahi received on his return to Tripoli. Shortly afterward, Libya told Petro-Canada, a Canadian company, to halve production from its Libyan fields. Libya said the reduction was needed to make sure Libya was in compliance with OPEC quotas. But other companies weren't targeted, analysts say.
[...]
Gradually, foreign oil companies' interest in Libya faded. When Libya offered them the right to bid on exploration tracts in December 2007, half of the blocks attracted no bids.

A clutch of companies left Libya as their five-year exploration licenses began to expire, among them Chevron Corp., BG Group PLC and Australia's Woodside Petroleum Ltd.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-wests-oil-firms-no-love-lost-in-libya-2011-04-14

The bolded are among the things you can expect look to change under the new government. Not that it's a motive for war, or a motive to be too trusting of flawed rebel reports that takes us there. It's just a predictable and very positive side-effect. ;)

And lest anyone say it must be about more than oil, of course it is. There's also water privatization (GMMR) (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC30Ak01.html), nipping pan-Africanism and keeping the continent safe for AFRICOM (same link covers this), privatizing the massive state services currently (or 'til recently) enjoyed by most Libyans, opening up the state-owned and debt-free central bank, and perhaps most important setting an example for other would-be challengers of Western hegemony.


Anyone have a direct response to the points raised in my post #104?

[McHrozni]

Also, on why Libya as opposed to North Korea or Myanmar is being attacked. Oil's got to be a factor. And size and power, of the nation and its friends, as McHrozni adds. Libya has oil, few friends, and a tiny population of about 6,000,000. They're an easy target. We're seeing the bully mentality at work. (again, in part - there's never one answer only).

If the west was after easy oil, aiding Quackdaffi would be the most prudent course of action. Why wasn't that pursued? Please come up with something plausible and specific.

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

If the west was after easy oil, aiding [the dude] would be the most prudent course of action. Why wasn't that pursued? Please come up with something plausible and specific.

McHrozni

I did. See above. He was keeping too much back for the people of Libya, refusing access to most of it, tossing out strange terms they weren't happy with, and companies were giving up and leaving. They'll get interested again as soon he's gone.

That "oil interests would have us do nothing" canard is getting real old and thin, but everyone seems to buy it anyway. Anything to convince oneself there logically cannot be any ulterior motives here, in the one alleged gov't massacre of 2011 we're hell-bent on punishing to oblivion...

[McHrozni]

I did. See above. He was keeping too much back for the people of Libya, refusing access to most of it, tossing out strange terms they weren't happy with, and companies were giving up and leaving. They'll get interested again as soon he's gone.

That "oil interests would have us do nothing" canard is getting real old and thin, but everyone seems to buy it anyway. Anything to convince oneself there logically cannot be any ulterior motives here, in the one alleged gov't massacre of 2011 we're hell-bent on punishing to oblivion...

If I add a condition that the explanation must not be based on fiction, will you see that as moving goal posts?

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

If I add a condition that the explanation must not be based on fiction, will you see that as moving goal posts?

McHrozni

On top of completely missing the explanation when asking for an explanation, I would consider that silly move akin to trying to hide the goal posts under a paper napkin. Do you have any proof Mr. Chazan's article, published in the Wall Street Journal April 15, is a work of fiction?

[funk de fino]

I'm a historian by training - sometimes we look after the fact. I'm just not grasping your obsessions with only getting your info only from same day cable news broadcasts and nothing else. I don't have TV even if I wanted to do it that way.

Yet you continue to deny tings that have been shown in the early days on news casts. If you get to the party late and the drink is gone.........

So what did you mean by "new cast to watch?" That made no sense to me. Are you okay?

News cast.

I meant the racist, Islamist, terrorist factions of the rebel fighters. They call foreigner based on skin color all the time (or did in the early days when ethnic cleansing was more useful), and I did once. With a question mark (that is I wondered), and I didn't kill anyone over it. There's something else at work in how they got cable news credence, with everyone saying African mercenary, and I get ridiculed by the likes of you.

Never been to Libya have you?

Explain yourself better or bug off, 'cause you make no sense yet. And you aren't on the news anyway, so by your own formula, I should tune you out.

Ho ho. Fly in the ear eh?

I see you are back on the oil nonsense as well. Too funny.

[funk de fino]

I did. See above. He was keeping too much back for the people of Libya, refusing access to most of it, tossing out strange terms they weren't happy with, and companies were giving up and leaving. They'll get interested again as soon he's gone.

That "oil interests would have us do nothing" canard is getting real old and thin, but everyone seems to buy it anyway. Anything to convince oneself there logically cannot be any ulterior motives here, in the one alleged gov't massacre of 2011 we're hell-bent on punishing to oblivion...

This is complete nonsense. I work in the oil industry and have done so in Libya. You are utterly clueless on this.

[Caustic Logic]

This is complete nonsense. I work in the oil industry and have done so in Libya. You are utterly clueless on this.

Oh, well gosh. If you say so, with bland unexplained expertise, and with your other advice being so sterling (CNN writes our history, watch it and STFU, go to Libya or STFU about it, etc.), I take back everything I said...

Do I really need to add the "not!"?

So this thread was supposed to be about useful idiots. I get the useful part, those who criticize the war against Gaddafi, or even express direct support for his government's resistance to it. But how do you smart folks decide which of those people are "idiots?"

Please focus on easy, truistic answers - "they say stupid things," etc. Don't admit that it really comes down to their disagreeing with your own shallow, news cast-informed opinions... idiocy that's useful to NATO.

[Virus]

I'm a historian by training

Where did you get your degree in history?

[Caustic Logic]

Where did you get your degree in history?

I said training, not degree.

Why do you avoid the subject of your own thread? I'm asking what makes one "Gaddafi's useful idiot."

[Virus]

I said training, not degree.

You trained wrong.


Why do you avoid the subject of your own thread? I'm asking what makes one "Gaddafi's useful idiot."

I gave examples and posted an article from Tablet.

[McHrozni]

I said training, not degree.

How do you "get training" in history, without studying for a degree, exactly?

McHrozni

[Virus]

Apparently when he said he was a historian, what he really meant was that he's not a historian.

[McHrozni]

On top of completely missing the explanation when asking for an explanation, I would consider that silly move akin to trying to hide the goal posts under a paper napkin. Do you have any proof Mr. Chazan's article, published in the Wall Street Journal April 15, is a work of fiction?

"Libya has gone from the world's most exciting oil-exploration hot spot in 2005 to another geologically, politically and fiscally risky also-ran," says Charles Gurdon, a North Africa expert at Menas Associates, a consultancy.

It seems to me that the Arab spring damaged oil interests to a considerable degree.

McHrozni

[bikerdruid]

I said training, not degree.

Why do you avoid the subject of your own thread? I'm asking what makes one "Gaddafi's useful idiot."

so like your took training in a tech school or something?
wow..i've never met an 'apprentice historian' before.
what is first year apprentice historian training?...learning to read?

how do you become a 'journeyman historian'?

[Darth Rotor]

bikerdruid, please do your homework. Burma has non trivial petroleum resources. They have the good, or bad, fortune to be within the Chinese sphere of influence. The Chinese are interested in that resource development, for their own reasons.

On that score, your sarcasm (last page, in re why nobody was going after Burma or North Korea) was wasted.


I am still a bit amazed, and not really amused, that the Mad Colonel was, on a moment's notice, deemed persona and regime non grata, in particular by his neighbors in the Arab world. Without the "legitimacy" of their appeal to the UN for assistance, I don't think the operation could have gotten the political fig leaf of UN sanction.

Why the French have such a hard on for him still puzzles me.

[Caustic Logic]

Oh my God. Look, guys ... I managed to lose my financial aid before getting a degree. I couldn't pay for the rest myself. It's not the most useful degree anyway, but in the training you learn things like looking for primary sources, recognizing bias, etc. It's nothing fancy and I wasn't trying to claim any expertise, just explaining to Funky why I don't find relying solely on news casts to be adequate. ESPECIALLY in a situation like this.

McH: No, the problems cited were unfolding in 2008 and so, not after the Arab Spring.

If anyone can get past this stupid little phase and deal with the issues, would be appreciated. Virus is slightly on it.

I gave examples and posted an article from Tablet.

Fair enough. When I have some time, maybe I'll go back and discern the patterns. I suspect your reason for calling them idiots is mostly disagreeing with your impression of things, but maybe there's some specific, quantifiable idiocy involved.

Bikerdruid, where are you trying to go here? Do you think this is a humanitarian war, or one driven by material motives?

I won't be back for at least 24 hours - small road trip. So no rush. Thanks all for an enlightening conversation so far.

[Rolfe]

I wish I knew what Gadaffi had actually done, as opposed to what was blamed on him because it was politically expedient.

Rolfe.

[bikerdruid]

I wish I knew what Gadaffi had actually done, as opposed to what was blamed on him because it was politically expedient.

Rolfe.

gadaffi is a loon, but a generous loon, or was.
i don't believe that he ever was, in any form a saviour or a hero, however, he has given billions to african relief.
i know several people who have worked in libya over the years, in the oil patch.
all have said that libya was a welcoming, fairly modern and progressive nation.
their standard of living was quite high.

although he is showing his very ugly side to the world, he did not do so just on a whim.
i don't understand what is going on now, or the motivations that brought it all about.
i believe now, that he has to be taken out. we stirred up the hornet's next, and have left very little choice.

[Virus]

Why the French have such a hard on for him still puzzles me.

Aren't the French trying to kill him?

[Virus]

i believe now, that he has to be taken out. we stirred up the hornet's next, and have left very little choice.

"We" didn't stir it up. The Libyans did when they were bombed and killed for protesting a Stalinist regime.

Pics of the "Modern, progressive" Libya:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000641.html

Dispatch from Tripoli;

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/08/in-the-land-of.php

[Virus]

Fair enough. When I have some time, maybe I'll go back and discern the patterns. I suspect your reason for calling them idiots is mostly disagreeing with your impression of things, but maybe there's some specific, quantifiable idiocy involved.



Primer on Useful Idiots;

OiWdIrY_5FE

SN7T6qJ_7pQ

[Darth Rotor]

Aren't the French trying to kill him?

That's implied in the turn of phrase I was using.

[McHrozni]

Oh my God. Look, guys ... I managed to lose my financial aid before getting a degree. I couldn't pay for the rest myself. It's not the most useful degree anyway, but in the training you learn things like looking for primary sources, recognizing bias, etc.

Sue them to get the money back. They did an extremely poor job.

McH: No, the problems cited were unfolding in 2008 and so, not after the Arab Spring.

I'm not buying the subscription to get the article. Why don't you cite something I can get for free? If it was obvious it should be everywhere, no?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

i don't believe that he ever was, in any form a saviour or a hero, however, he has given billions to african relief.

Relief to ensure political survival of several strongmen, who are now trying hard to save him through the AU. Hardly something worthy of any humanitarian awards ... or praise ... or anything other than condemnation if we're at it.

McHrozni

[Praktik]

I suspect your reason for calling them idiots is mostly disagreeing with your impression of things, but maybe there's some specific, quantifiable idiocy involved.

Haha you've hit the nail on the head. This is actually a widespread form of argumentation and you can see it very easily within a few demographics. Now this is not to slander anyone in this thread or compare them to truthers as an argumentative tactic, but it is interesting to see this commonly on their side of the fence too.

In my innumerable debates with truthers after a long back and forth and explaining that, no, I really am NOT working for the NWO, they'll fall back - very commonly - to suggesting that even if I am not a conscious agent of the NWO, the arguments I employed are signs that I am in effect, supporting the NWO and aiding the cause of evil unwittingly. I am so duped by their mischievous arguments, by ideology, by my "Rothschild approved" education, that I am really just as bad as a conscious agent of the NWO because my arguments are so, ummm... useful to them..;)

Now see this is the basic definition of useful idiot: someone who is unknowingly aiding and abetting the enemy. This goes back to the red scare days and has the most currency on the anti-communist right and their descendants though it has entered the vernacular such that it can be employed by most anybody.

I have never found cause to think the term or use it in actual discussion. Even if I did think that was true about someone, saying it to an actual "useful idiot" would achieve nothing: the basic definition of a useful idiot is that they are so hopelessly duped by propaganda and ideology that they cannot truly appreciate reality (the reality that they are helping Evil People). So, how could one actually argue with a real "useful idiot"?

Therefore, you'll see it more regularly in a back-slapping fashion directed to people in the audience on the same team, who will understand the code words and see it as a bit of an inside joke for their side. Its nice cause its a good barbed weapon: it castigates the target as an idiot who doesn't even know he's helping Evil, and it helps bring the team together at the same time.

Furthermore, I think if we were to comb the board here we'd find it employed most frequently by the most strident and obviously emotional posters. Those that are most vehemently against something - and those who are eager to demonstrate just how much they are against something will use it most often. It is for this reason that I believe the term is nearly the exclusive property of the Manicheans - those whose outlook is a binary view of Good and Evil. It is these individuals who get most upset arguing about politics and who live with closed-circle worldviews that operate as giant sorting machines, putting everything into two buckets: those who are on my side, and those who are against me.

Confronted with difficult arguments, or simply ones identified as belonging to the other team, the lazy people falling into some of the dispositions I've mentioned above will drop the "useful idiot" meme.

It's a great way to stop discussion. Now identified as a useful idiot, why would they listen to anything I have to say? My view is so hopelessly confused. For me its a signifier that someone is pretty emotionally committed to their view, and to tread carefully, probably better just to seek discussion with others who might have the patience to hear me out without satisfying a compulsive need to identify me as "enemy" or "friend".

What I find kind of interesting about Virus though, is he is very eager to accuse someone of active support of his enemies (whether that be Gaddafi here, or Hizbullah, Saddam elsewhere). Don't forget Virus there's more tools in your toolbox! You can always accuse somebody of unknowingly supporting the cause of Evil! They don't HAVE to be active supporters!

After all you started the OP with "useful idiots" to begin with I'd like to see more diversity!

[Caustic Logic]

I am still a bit amazed, and not really amused, that the Mad Colonel was, on a moment's notice, deemed persona and regime non grata, in particular by his neighbors in the Arab world. Without the "legitimacy" of their appeal to the UN for assistance, I don't think the operation could have gotten the political fig leaf of UN sanction.

Why the French have such a hard on for him still puzzles me.

Both very interesting questions I have thoughts about, but not for here.

I wish I knew what Gadaffi had actually done, as opposed to what was blamed on him because it was politically expedient.

Rolfe.

Thanks for that. It's just wise to remember we now know that what he's said to have ordered and what's actually happened are completely at odds in at least one, very high-profile case. That being Pan Am 103, of course.

It's simply not an idiotic thing to, for example, wonder if that's happened more than once, or is happening now.

although he is showing his very ugly side to the world, he did not do so just on a whim.
i don't understand what is going on now, or the motivations that brought it all about.
i believe now, that he has to be taken out. we stirred up the hornet's next, and have left very little choice.

Two ways to deal with having whacked a hornet's nest - stop, run away in the literal version, negotiate and such in this one, and hope that reason wins out- any sting would finalize he coffin-nailing.

And of course the type of sting feared, aside from Gaddafi's odd threats, is another Pan Am 103, basically. I'm sure it wold be.

Anyway, the soft approach has been ruled out by those who do these things, in favor of the second option - whack the nest harder, no let-up, until all the hornets capable of stinging are dead. I'm a bit saddened to see you taking that view as well.

"We" didn't stir it up. [Certain, rather colorful] Libyans did [as] they [claimed with still no credible evidence that they] were bombed and killed for protesting a Stalinist regime [but really shot in the process of stealing weapons to broaden their struggle into a full civil war.]
FTFY. Agreed, with edits. "We" are just doing the whacking for them. They're very grateful to Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Obama. The prez just doesn't want to be caught without escort in a Benghazi alleyway at night...


I'm not buying the subscription to get the article. Why don't you cite something I can get for free? If it was obvious it should be everywhere, no?
The link I gave to a re-posting that's available for free. That's why I used that instead of a verifiably primary source. It's a small gamble that's usually worth it. Either way, do you have any evidence that the article is fiction-based? Is the growing rift between Tripoli and big oil that preceded the civil war made-up nonsense, or does Chazan maybe have a point? Just how big the point is is another issue - first, is it even a valid observation?

If not, why not?

I'll come back to the posts about useful Idiocy. Up front, thanks, Praktik, for a very helpful post. Virus, I'll watch the vids next.

[Caustic Logic]

Video 1 suggests useful idiots usually are personally flattered by the despots, and they will be duped or even lie "to gain advantage." Virus also has the add-on that they must be serving a "fascist" leader. I don't think any of these seem absolutely necessary, but the general idea seems clear enough.

Not to contend the basic points made, which are valid, but I think I spot some bias in these presentations. It's largely based on the moral basis that the governments praised by the UIs commit mass murder. Part 2 @ 3:00 sites Mao's "murderous mismanagement" for the famine of 59-61. If it were mismanagement that killed them, would that be murder, really?

Haha you've hit the nail on the head.

Thanks. It's rare I'll get an acknowledgment of that.

In my innumerable debates with truthers after a long back and forth and explaining that, no, I really am NOT working for the NWO, they'll fall back - very commonly - to suggesting that even if I am not a conscious agent of the NWO, the arguments I employed are signs that I am in effect, supporting the NWO and aiding the cause of evil unwittingly.
And if they were right, you would be, of course. But I take your point - it seems like a truther and nutter tactic, but it's a wider problem really.

... you'll see it more regularly in a back-slapping fashion directed to people in the audience on the same team, who will understand the code words and see it as a bit of an inside joke for their side. Its nice cause its a good barbed weapon: it castigates the target as an idiot who doesn't even know he's helping Evil, and it helps bring the team together at the same time.

You've given this more thought than I have, or just run into it way more.

It's a great way to stop discussion. Now identified as a useful idiot, why would they listen to anything I have to say? My view is so hopelessly confused. For me its a signifier that someone is pretty emotionally committed to their view, and to tread carefully, probably better just to seek discussion with others who might have the patience to hear me out without satisfying a compulsive need to identify me as "enemy" or "friend".

What I find kind of interesting about Virus though, is he is very eager to accuse someone of active support of his enemies (whether that be Gaddafi here, or Hizbullah, Saddam elsewhere). Don't forget Virus there's more tools in your toolbox! You can always accuse somebody of unknowingly supporting the cause of Evil! They don't HAVE to be active supporters!

After all you started the OP with "useful idiots" to begin with I'd like to see more diversity!


That's why it seems appropriate you have rational euro-pop, hippie-movie robots for your avatar, and he's got a crusader knight, previously a storm-trooper-like thing. He's noted that I'm suspiciously supportive of Gaddafi - I should be honored he hasn't yet called me a useful idiot and went straight to knowing agent.

For my part, I didn't mean to call Virus a useful idiot for NATO, just wanted to suggest maybe he should consider the material his own house is made from when hurling such terminology around.

(also, does a useful idiot have to be in a minority within the society the live in, like the West's Stalin supporters? Could Soviet citizens be useful idiots for the same support in far more relevant concentrations?)

[JihadJane]

What would you call left wing then?

I'm considered to be pretty left wing in the UK (supporting actual Socialist parties rather than lunatics who say they are Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labour_Party_%28UK%29)) and thus for the US, I'm exceptionally left wing.

I'm old Labour. Old old Labour. Atlee-was-the-best-Prime-Minister-ever old Labour. If that's not pretty damn left wing I'd like to know what is. Pro-tip though, any political party or organisation with "workers" or "socialist" in the name is normally Communist. Communism is...ridiculously naive to say the least.

You said "very left wing" (not just left wing), which I associate with revolutionary politics - i.e. replacing the system rather than tinkering with it. I also notice you say nothing about class struggle.

[Virus]

Yeah Mark why didn't you say anything about class struggle?

[McHrozni]

The link I gave to a re-posting that's available for free.

I didn't see it then, can you re-post it please?

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

It was post 128.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-wests-oil-firms-no-love-lost-in-libya-2011-04-14

[McHrozni]

It was post 128.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-wests-oil-firms-no-love-lost-in-libya-2011-04-14

Thanks. Indeed, telling.

At the same time, companies that had made such expensive commitments in Libya'sEPSA-IV licensing rounds were facing a big problem: there was little oil. Firms drilled nearly 600 wells in Libya from 2006 to 2009 and made just 27 oil discoveries, mostly small, according todata from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

While probably not based on fiction, it's also a fact that the article clearly states that Quackdaffi and his quacky state was only part of the problem.

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks. Indeed, telling.

At the same time, companies that had made such expensive commitments in Libya'sEPSA-IV licensing rounds were facing a big problem: there was little oil. Firms drilled nearly 600 wells in Libya from 2006 to 2009 and made just 27 oil discoveries, mostly small, according todata from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

While probably not based on fiction, it's also a fact that the article clearly states that [the dude] and his quacky state was only part of the problem.

McHrozni

I predicted you would do that - that article is full of facts that point one way and characterizations that point another. Now go back and look at where they were allowed to drill and not allowed. Is this an example of Gaddafi's system limiting foreign oil companies, in such a way as might be fixed with regime change, or is Libya almost out of oil, to the point where no one cares?

Or was I misreading the counter-point? If Gaddafi's only part of the problem, what in your mind is the remainder, or the large part you think you've identified? Low oil reserves, poor drilling techniques, what?

[McHrozni]

I predicted you would do that - that article is full of facts that point one way and characterizations that point another. Now go back and look at where they were allowed to drill and not allowed. Is this an example of Gaddafi's system limiting foreign oil companies, in such a way as might be fixed with regime change, or is Libya almost out of oil, to the point where no one cares?

A bit of both. Libya certainly isn't as full of oil as some suggest, and Quackdaffi is, well, Quackdaffi and abuses what power he has for his own good. Certainly bad, but also quite certainly not worthy of a military intervention - especially not worthy of one where you'll have little say about what happens in the country after your side wins.

You were implyingthat the intervention happened because of oil interests, right?

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

A bit of both. Libya certainly isn't as full of oil as some suggest,

Not to argue further down this side-track, but you haven't shown that and I still suspect oil bulk IS there as always and IS therefore a factor one can't help considering if one considers the factors at stake.


You were implyingthat the intervention happened because of oil interests, right?

McHrozni

In part only, I should think. I agree a gripe like that is no cause for war, or at least not strong enough a one to have pushed near as hard as they have. I'd guess that it would go into a mix of considerations I should think.

There are a host of other issues, economic, political, geo-strategic, by which the overall mood towards Libya would be measured. Would we mind if it fell under a bus? Should we give a little shove, a big shove?

And this is all a side-point, but still related. That "it's about oil", that "we've been misled into a cartoon narrative of good vs. evil", and so on, are the kinds of things those Virus considers useful idiots tend to say. Plus "the people of Libya support Gaddafi," and "Gaddafi has ensured a high standard of living for them," and "he didn't order a massacre of protesters," "he's been a staunch ally against al Qaeda in the region," and so on.

Never mind for a moment the details of motive, flattery, advantage. Idiot suggests wrong. Duped and lying suggest saying things that are untrue. None of those things is clearly untrue. We've only had a few months to sort out the facts, and only a few people who get ignored have even started. (I refer to experts here, not myself).

That's the gist of what I'd like to add. Thanks.

[McHrozni]

Not to argue further down this side-track, but you haven't shown that and I still suspect oil bulk IS there as always and IS therefore a factor one can't help considering if one considers the factors at stake.

Believe what you want, it's a free medium.

There are a host of other issues, economic, political, geo-strategic, by which the overall mood towards Libya would be measured. Would we mind if it fell under a bus? Should we give a little shove, a big shove?

If oil interests were crucial, a big shove would be called for, to ensure the control of the interests. This isn't what happened.

McHrozni