Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[opebo]

One of the worst things Bush did is to discredit military intervention for humanitarian reasons. It will unfortunately take a while for the American left to support it again, even when done by a Democratic president.

Military intervention for 'humanitarian' reasons is 1) pure propaganda, just a story to cover real reasons, and 2) in any case cultural imperialism.

[opebo]

True, but the only thing that matters is that they are doing the right thing now.

Agree 100%. Opposition to military intervention here seems to be from people that oppose military operations on principle. Which also means they don't seem to care how many people are murdered in Libya.

You are forgetting those of us who opposed the rebels and preferred Gaddafi.

[opebo]

Some rebels are already heading toward Ajdabiya.

Yes - see this is exactly what will happen, now the mob will advance again, and we'll have a long-term back and forth with far more dead than would have been the case if imperialists had not meddled.

[opebo]

Military intervention for 'humanitarian' reasons is 1) pure propaganda, just a story to cover real reasons, and 2) in any case cultural imperialism.

For whatever reason I thought you would find something more creative to say rather than such a stupid, lame, overused talking point.

What is stupid, lame, and overused is the absurd propaganda used to justify humanitarian intervention.  We've seen the US and other imperialist powers use this same justification over and over again for over 120 years.  I'm sick of it, and yet you all continue to lap it up.

[opebo]

I don't think the 'We should stop the natives from being slaughtered' line of thinking held much sway with the American public in 1891, actually.

What the devil?  Don't you know your history, TS?  The US took over Hawaii and then engaged in the Spanish American war based partly on this idea that somehow these victims were engaging in human rights abuses.  This has been one of the cover stories for imperialism from the beginning - 'oh the savages are just slaughtering one another and living in sin, so we must go set them to rights, make them civilized and christian'.  What rot.  Let Gaddafi run free, like a lion in the jungle with a bone in his nose.

And Opebo, please realize that you of all people should refrain from commentin on what you perceive to be a 'colonial' mindset. If anyone's living the good old colonial life, it's you.

That is one (in point of fact quite inaccurate) interpretation of what I'm doing, but even if that were what I was doing it is entirely irrelevant.   Attacking the messenger doesn't make what he's saying any less true.

[opebo]

Actually, that line of reasoning was a contributing factor to us becoming involved in Cuba in 1898.  The reason the USS Maine was in place to be remembered was precisely because of our press sensationalizing the atrocities the Spanish were committing against the Cubans who were fighting for independence (and had been since 1895).

Thanks for confirming my point about the Spanish American War. 

This type of rational has been used by the British, Americans, French, Russians, etc. - all the imperialists.  They always claim they're doing for the victim's own good.

[opebo]

Opebo, any post from now on that I catch where you go into hyperbole and basically satire your own views will be deleted on sight.

k.

I ask that you please clarify for me, afleitch.  I have never engaged in any hyperbole, but merely an honest, direct, and succinct explanation of my views on the civil war and the intervention by outside powers.  Am I not then allowed to express the opinion that the intervention is imperialist,  or any support for the Gaddafi government? 

There are numerous posts engaging in hyperbole in support of the other side of the civil war, and you have not objected to them.  Your stance seems to be to disallow any criticism of the intervention or any approbation of Gaddafi's government.

[opebo]

Gaddafi is not a legitimate leader in any sense of the word and it's a matter of time before the deadenders and mercs are defeated.

How is Gaddafi not a 'legitimate' leader?  He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

[opebo]

What's 'TNC'?  'The New Colonials'?

[opebo]

Your assessment of the conflict has never been anything but hyperbolic; words like 'imperialism', 'empire building', 'cultural imperalism'  bear absolutely no relation to a genuine assessment of why there was UN approval for such action. Your arguments, for the most part, have been lazy word for word repetitions of talking points put out by pampered armchair Trots and Marxists. Each time they are repeated they are more and more irrelevant.

Really?  One simply may not use the  concepts of imperialism, empire, and cultural imperialism in an analysis of international relations?  You leave us no permissible opinion other than  jingoism or silence.  You have eliminated the possibility of debate - is this your intention?   (is this attack motivated by you personal antipathy to 'pampered armchair Trots and Marxists?  Because even if you find them distasteful, that is nothing more than adhominem and offers no actual refutation of their analysis)

As for this:

And of course, you forget yourself;

I wonder if one would be allowed to venture the opinion that it would more more advisable to intervene on the side of Gaddafi or if that would be considered a 'trolling' opinion - or perhaps hateful or something of that nature.

If I were to venture such an observation, it would be based on the many years of reliable oil-delivery the gentleman has to his credit, and the fact that however wonderful the bearded 'democracy activists' or rebel-freedom-fighters may be, they are a complete unknown regarding the oils.

And again

Are you serious? Once Gaddafi defeats the rebellion he'll knock things into shape and the oil will flow out.  If we intervene we'll have endless war, dead americans, destabiliation, bearded men, and blocked oil.  I just find it astounding that people are suddenly pro-intervention.

Those two posts say the same thing - that Gaddafi is a perfectly adequate order-keeper for this oil-field.  This is the only real Western concern in terms of interests, and saying so should be allowed, afleitch.  If it isn't, how can one disagree with and criticize the war?

Your opposition to intervention is, it appears, motivated by whatever you can think of (I need my oil!) Or you're just being contrary. And it's probably the former. So it very difficult to determine when you stop being your self and start being a parody.

What do you mean - that if I have more than one reason for opposing the war I cannot be allowed to oppose it? That one is only allowed one reason for a position or one is 'just being contrary'?  That doesn't make sense - there are often several reasons for and against a policy position in complicated issues like this.

You should consider yourself lucky that they are only being deleted or edited. If they were reported, they would rack up infraction points.

Why would they be reported afleitch?  You're just censoring opinion.  There is nothing offensive here - its just the opposite way of looking at the affair from what we hear in the news and the speeches of leaders of the attacking nations.  If we may only accept this official line, and may not criticise it or question it, what is the point of having any forum at all?

I really take deep offense that you have gone over the line with me on this issue - I care quite strongly about my opposition to this intervention, and the observations and arguments that I share here I also share with my real life colleagues, students, and friends.  I think it is important to question this policy, and I think my reasons are valid, or at least worthy of consideration.  I find your off-hand dismissal of them unfair, and I find your motivation in deleting them questionable.

Is there any mechanism for bringing the other moderators or the man himself in to judge this issue?

[opebo]

...He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

bgwah, the link you provided shows Libya to have a very high 'Human Development Index', so it would seem to refute your characterization of my post as 'nonsense'.

[opebo]

Perhaps I missed it, but why are the French, of all the nations participating, so jumpin ugly about blowing Gaddafi to smithereens?

It's very indelicate, very un-French-like.

Because Sarkozy's in political trouble.

[opebo]

...He's been in power over 40 years, husbanded his country to great prosperity, and is supported by a large number of Libyans.  He is certainly more legitimate than the clients of France, UK, and America.

Non-sense!

bgwah, the link you provided shows Libya to have a very high 'Human Development Index', so it would seem to refute your characterization of my post as 'nonsense'.

I was being sarcastic.

I see that now, but it is unusual to use sarcasm in support of your interlocutor.

[opebo]

Ajdabiya fully freed this morning, and now Brega too!

Oh please.  'Freed'?  Lets get real here - I have seen numerous reports where the rebels were engaging in group muslim prayer.  This revolution isn't going to 'free' anyone.

[opebo]

And, did you watch the clip of the woman who was gangraped? I'm curious as to whether you think she deserved it because she was a Libyan and it's part of their culture to gangrape women or simply because she's a woman and they all have it coming?

No, I don't do those kind of searches, unlike you.  But I think gangrape happens all over the place, and I cannot say that I have any ambition to do anything about it, even if I could.  Remember the gangrape of the blonde Western journalist by the 'freedom fighters' in the mob in Cairo?  I suspect that these gonadal crimes arise from all sides - another proof that they're all 'bad', and to claim we are fighting for 'truth, justice, and human dignity' is a load of crap.

(and before anyone gives me deathpoints for the above, it was your own Gustaf who brought up this incendiary topic of gangrap - I was only responding)

[opebo]

Actually, if your cognitive abilities weren't so limited you would realize that I was referencing the post just above mine relating that story and showing a clip of the woman who was gangraped - not one of the actual rape (that wouldn't be something I would want to watch).

The fact that I do not read affleitch's posts is hardly evidence of lack of cognitive ability, Gustaf.

[opebo]

It's amazing how we've played ball with dictators for countless years in the name of oil.....and still do.

How is that amazing?  The US installed most of the world's dictators during the cold war, and not only in the name of oil.

[opebo]

...rebels really aren't organized, so far they apparently mainly benefited of air strikes in their advance, and air strikes destroy heavy military equipment, so they can't benefit of it to advance, or not in big proportions, I've never seen more than one more or 2 big military vehicles on their front line.

If the rebels have a big military vehicle, such as a tank, we should destroy that too just to be fair.

[opebo]

...rebels really aren't organized, so far they apparently mainly benefited of air strikes in their advance, and air strikes destroy heavy military equipment, so they can't benefit of it to advance, or not in big proportions, I've never seen more than one more or 2 big military vehicles on their front line.

If the rebels have a big military vehicle, such as a tank, we should destroy that too just to be fair.

Who cares about fairness? This isn't a game show.

Ah, so you admit it is a naked power grab and the 'freedom and democracy' stuff is just shoddy propaganda?

[opebo]

"Pacifist" demonstration a couple of days ago in Italy. Really depressing.

Really encouraging!  Perhaps if Gaddafi can hold out long enough the imperialists will get a comeuppance. 

[opebo]

In neither case, however - the people Saddam wanted to slaughter and the people Gaddafi wanted to slaughter - was it clear that preventing the slaughtering was beneficial to the national interest of the US.  In fact just the opposite is likely the case.

[opebo]

... if we continue to fall more and more in debt, we won't be able to help any foreign nations soon.

Great, so at least we agree on increasing taxes upon the rich.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really wish people would give evidence when they make statements like this.

Propaganda works better without this 'evidence' impediment.

[opebo]

Splendid, we have three dead kids, it seems.

Very bad PR.

No, no, they were evil Gaddafis, right?  They were 'killing civilians', right?

This intervention is another in a long list of travesties on the part of the imperialists.  I'm sure the Libyans well understand the sacrifice the Gadaffi family is making for their freedom.  Even if the effort is quixotic, it is a fight for freedom.

[opebo]

Splendid, we have three dead kids, it seems.

Very bad PR.

No, no, they were evil Gaddafis, right?  They were 'killing civilians', right?

This intervention is another in a long list of travesties on the part of the imperialists.  I'm sure the Libyans well understand the sacrifice the Gadaffi family is making for their freedom.  Even if the effort is quixotic, it is a fight for freedom.

...

Obviously I didn't mean the Al-Quada/Western clients in the East, but the loyalists in the western part of the country.