Is that you get to do the same stupid shit with the same predictable outcome over and over again, and each time you can shrug your shoulders and say “Hoocoodanode!”:
The Obama administration is engaged in a fierce debate over whether to supply weapons to the rebels in Libya, senior officials said on Tuesday, with some fearful that providing arms would deepen American involvement in a civil war and that some fighters may have links to Al Qaeda.
The debate has drawn in the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, these officials said, and has prompted an urgent call for intelligence about a ragtag band of rebels who are waging a town-by-town battle against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, from a base in eastern Libya long suspected of supplying terrorist recruits.
Yeah. Arming people from that region several decades ago to fight for “freedom” didn’t produce any future problems. Wait, what?
TheMightyTrowel
People generally think I’m slightly mad for studying archaeology… I never realised it was because 10 years is the limit of modern human memory.
sigh.
Ron
Oy. I have been generally supportive of what we’ve done so far. But doing this? Still, I’d wait to see what actually happens before gnashing my teeth.
aimai
Yeah. Heard this on NPR this morning. What could go wrong?
aimai
cleek
this. is. not. our. fucking. war.
though i can’t wait to be told the myriad reasons it should be!
should be a fun morning in this thread.
grass
While I agree arming rebels you have limited knowledge of during a fluid situation is a dumb idea, only mildly more acceptable than a ground invasion, you sound a little dumb saying ‘region’ when referring to Afghanistan and Libya, since neither is in the middle east and they’re about 2000 miles from each other (3000 miles from each capital city). The only thing the two places have in common is Islam and brown people.
dmsilev
I’ve heard of the cyclic theory of history, but I’m beginning to wonder whether someone should propose the Groundhog Day theory of history.
dms
joe from Lowell
We armed people in North Africa? Remind me, when did that happen?
No, no, I’m just kidding. I know what you mean. “Them people.”
Comrade Javamanphil
Yes, but what does John McCain think of this plan?
John Cole
@grass: We armed and trained many folks from eastern Libya (the Benghazi region) to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. I’m not an idiot.
joe from Lowell
@grass:
Personally, I’m getting pretty fucking disgusted by all of the “skeery al Qaeda Mooslims” talk from people I used to consider to be on my side in opposing such stereotyping.
We roundly mocked Pat Buchanan for that bullshit when he said it about the Egyptian protesters. But, then, they didn’t have the appalling bad manners to be slaughtered en masse, and take up arms in opposition, and – worst of all – ask for our help.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Could you name on who ever carried out a terrorist attack against the United States?
You are an idiot, and now you’re dodging. Sure, you were talking about the Benghazi region. Sure you were.
You know, all of those problems we’ve been facing from Libyans from the Benghazi region. Like…um…
Failure, Inc.
Here’s some examples where arming the indigenous population proved not to be such a good idea for the ones doing the arming:
Vietnam
Philippines
United States
India
Afghanistan
New Zealand
Venezuela
Pretty much all of Central America
I could go on, but you all get the idea. Now, you could make the argument that it worked out pretty well for the indigenous people in some of these cases. That’s fine and good. But we aren’t indigenous to the Middle East. Most of us, anyway.
jwb
Classic confrontation between short term and long term strategy. Given that we as a culture can’t seem to think beyond the next quarterly report, I think it’s pretty predictable how this plays out. Actually, it was pretty predictable how this was going to play out before we got in, which I presume is why Obama was so reluctant to go in in the first place. I still see nothing good that will come of this little adventure, even though I also think we were fucked if we stayed out of it too. All the options were so bad, that it is not at all clear which was the least bad option.
John Cole
@joe from Lowell:
Fuck you, and take your accusations of racism (“them people”) with you:
Benghazi is precisely what I was talking about, I’ve linked it multiple times.
joe from Lowell
The Value of Not Learning Anything Ever: We should just avert our gaze and keep buying oil from the dictator when he starts slaughters protesters, because that sort of thing doesn’t ever cause any problems for us ever.
Cacti
I’ve stood by the Obama administration on pretty much every petulant criticism hurled his way by the professional left.
I can’t defend this one though. He fucked up but good on this “humanitarian intervention”.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Bullshit. Your own words betray you:
I eagerly await your explanation of the “problems” caused for us by Libyans from the Benghazi region.
kdaug
Too goddamned early in the morning to play this game.
Unexploded ordinance doesn’t need to be replaced.
Lots of companies are in the business of making ordinance.
They own the media and sponsor your Sunday morning shows.
QED. Y’all are a smart bunch. Figure it out.
Cacti
@John Cole:
Bullshit Cole!
You’re a bad Democrat and a racist if you don’t support this double-plus good
warhumanitarian mission.salacious crumb
@John Cole: Not only that but I was reading somewhere that there is now a push to remove the group Mujahedin E Khalq from the terror group list and arm them to the teeth…why? because they hate Iran and are opposed to the clerical regime…we never learn.
John Cole
@joe from Lowell: I’m not even bothering with your trolling any more. Since I clearly state and link things, yet you manage to find an alternate meaning in my words that proves I’m racist, what the fuck is the point. Welcome to the pie filter.
Ash Can
Actually, it’s not at all clear to me from the linked article just who within the Obama Administration is pressing for arming the rebels. The only individual, named or otherwise, who’s actually cited as urging the arming of the rebels is Nicolas Sarkozy, who obviously should know better, being French, but who equally obviously isn’t the sharpest knife in the Continental drawer. According to the article, everything that’s actually coming out of the Obama Administration sounds like nothing more than off-putting rhetoric.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole: Fucking coward.
Still waiting for all of those “problems” caused for us by Libyans from the Benghazi region.
Probably better for you to run away.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Yeah, that’s me: a troll.
Lord knows, I don’t ever honestly argue points, or bring useful information to debates.
You’re using the pie filter against me for no other reason that I disagree with you.
Fucking coward.
grass
Damn, didn’t want to unleash a shit storm. I accept the explanation that you’re referring to the Libyan’s who joined the Mujahideen – just that’s not very clear from the post.
jwb
@Cacti: “He fucked up but good on this “humanitarian intervention”.”
Well, perhaps. But you know very well what we’d be talking about if we hadn’t made this intervention and instead we were getting reports of Gaddafi slaughtering large swathes of his population. And someone would certain be writing right now: “He fucked up but good on his failure to make a humanitarian intervention.” Yes, this is the kind of shitty decisions that Presidents get to make, and one good reason I wouldn’t ever want to sit in that chair.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: its really jarring to me that if there is one thing we have come to understand from taking sides in another country’s civil war, especially a country and culture most Americans dont understand, is that it 100% ends up badly for us in the long run. Just that info itself should cause us to drop the idea of arming Libyan rebels like hot potato….
Amy Davidson of New Yorker has an excellent piece about Obama’s speech
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/03/obamas-speech-choices-for-libya.html
joes527
@joe from Lowell:
Because besides sucking dictators’ dicks and bombing them there are no other possible options. Yeah, I see your point.
joe from Lowell
Too bad John won’t see this, because he’s a coward:
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Splits from al Qaeda.
Still waiting for those problems caused to us by Libyans from the Benghazi region. Maybe someone else can explain what John was surely talking about, since these “problems” caused by Libyans from the Benghazi region are so well-known as to require only a reference in the post.
MattF
This time it’s different. Concept: send hedge fund managers to Libya, sell the Libyans mortgage-backed securities. It’s what we’re really good at, after all.
OzoneR
well, didn’t produce any problems in North Africa. Actually, it helped defeat the Germans there in World War II.
I’m not saying arming the rebels is a good idea, but if you’re saying it’s not, it’s because you don’t think the rebels are any better than Qaddafi. If the rebels are sincere in their desire for freedom and democracy, we have nothing to worry about.
The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan didn’t want democracy, they wanted theocracy. If the Libyan rebels want theocracy, we have a problem, if they don’t, we don’t.
OzoneR
@joes527:
there are other options?
Really, I’m being serious here…either we back Qaddafi or we back the rebels. There really are just two options.
FlipYrWhig
I see what you mean. It IS very upsetting to know that they’re trying to figure out the nature of the rebellion and haven’t made a decision to arm them yet.
Wait, no, what’s the opposite of upsetting?
salacious crumb
@John Cole: btw John, to me its fairly clear cut, the rebels are disorganized and as we read yesterday, they are getting their arse kicked by Gaddhafi forces in Sirte. If Gaddhafi hangs on, we can say good bye to oil deals for ourselves and Europe(considering how shiteously high it has been lately) and who do you think Gaddhafi is gonna team up with, with his country being right at the footstep of Europe…if he was secularist before this confrontation, u can bet he is gonna let all the crazy ass fundamentalist from Al Qaeda and Iran into his country to go do some havoc in Europe…this will come down to taking him out..if not the rebels, then one of our boys aka CIA will do something to remove him…
General Stuck
Teehee, flame war before the chickens start crowing. Just heard Obama speak of this that he has no plans to arm the rebels, but that nothing is off the table. Which means it likely is off the table. There are plenty of countries and local countries like Egypt that can arm these rebels, and probly already are to a degree. No president is going to give a predator like Quadaffy any sense of security, by taking options off the table.
This situation is headed for a stalemate and some sort of likely temp partition, and wait for someone from within to take care of the Muamarr problem.
joe from Lowell
@joes527:
There aren’t once the dictator unleashed his tanks and air force on crowds of peaceful protesters.
No options that amount to anything but soothing our feelings, anyway.
I know: maybe we should have sent the commander of the column rolling towards Benghazi a strongly worded letter.
Joe Beese
Hillary Clinton, of course.
Firebagger! Naderite!
Cacti
Speaking of humanitarianism, I’ve always wondered how the Red Cross pulls it off without cruise missiles or A-10s.
Growing up American, I always thought that if it’s a humanitarian endeavor, somebody has to get blown up.
aimai
Wow. Plus ca change and all that. But whats with the zero to sixty attacks on Cole for having a totally standard scepticism about the outcomes of military intervention in foreign entanglements? Reasonable people can disagree about whether this intervention is a good idea from a moral, philosophical, economic, historical or utilitarian point of view. They really can. And they ought to be able to do so without lobbing accusations of racism, immorality, murderous intent, and cowardice at people who they “know” from the internet as having no such character flaws. I don’t want us intervening in Libya and its not because I’m anti muslim, anti brown people, ahistorical, forgot Rwanda, don’t value human life, or any other nefarious reason. I think, on balance, we will end up doing our country and Libya more harm than good by this intervention. Others may disagree. I won’t accuse them of disagreeing because of an unhealthy love of Libya and I’d like it if they’d refrain from attacking me, or John Cole for that matter, for an imaginary hatred of Libyans.
aimai
OzoneR
@Cacti:
Because they’re an intergovernmental organization and in warzones, they’re often protected by someone else’s (our) military. This is a really stupid comment.
jcgrim
@FailurInc
We could make a stronger case that arming insurgents worked out for the war profiteers. Many innocent indigenous people were either slaughtered indiscriminately or their livelihoods destroyed by the conflict.
joe from Lowell
@Cacti:
Simple: they wait until the killing starts, and then provide food and shelter for those who manage to escape it.
Wonderful, noble work. I’m not being sarcastic: I mean that. But it sort of misses the point. I wonder how many tents they would have been able to set up along the Egyptian/Libyan border? I’m sure they would have done great work there.
jwb
@Ash Can: In many respects it doesn’t matter who is doing it. The thing is that it was clear to me before we intervened that the rebels did not have sufficient arms to hold off Gaddafi’s forces without considerable help from us, especially if we weren’t going to put boots on the ground, so I presumed making sure the rebels were sufficiently armed came with the territory, whether we were arming them, France was arming them, or other Arab states were arming them. I presume arms are already flowing very freely and what we are actually talking about is what “sufficiently armed” means in the context of Libya.
salacious crumb
@Joe Beese: you know as much as I hated Hillary the politician, its hard for me to pin the blame on her and Sam Power or Susan Rice. The buck stops with Obama, and it was clear he was gonna go with liberal hawks views on foreign policy when he hired them. Sure it was all good when he was running to say he is opposed to dumb wars, but now the excuses are running thin..the guy chose to start this, and his pottery…if he breaks it, its ours to own…
John Cole
It isn’t your fault. I’ve linked these pieces multiple times. Apparently that isn’t good enough for Joe, who knows what is in my heart.
Here are some more for you:
It’s not like this is the first time we’ve done shit like this:
Those weapons and arms aren’t going to disappear when Qadaffi is defeated. And what happens when they start to massacre pro-Qadaffi loyalists, should the rebels gain the upper hand? Who do we bomb? Whose planes do we shoot down? Who do we arm?
And then, again, from the original article:
This time it will be different, though. Joe from Lowell says so, plus, I’m racist!
Cacti
@OzoneR:
Many thanks for this sagacious insight.
It’s all so clear now.
joe from Lowell
@aimai:
Nobody has attacked Cole for “having a totally standard scepticism about the outcome of military intervention.”
I attacked him for lumping together the Libyan protesters with al Qaeda for no other reason than being from a Muslim country.
Still waiting for those problems caused by Libyans from the Benghazi region.
Joe Beese
@salacious crumb:
Oh, absolutely. Blaming Hillary for warmongering would be like blaming a puppy for pissing on the living room carpet. That’s what they do.
Welcome to the party, pal. Obama’s supporters have been playing the racism card against his critics since the primaries.
cmorenc
@John Cole:
Your generalized statement overlooks that the substantial “problems” that often follow such interventions don’t necessarily always stem from the fact of the intervention itself. Some of course do from unwise choice of which matters to intervene in (e.g. George W’s war against Iraq), but others stem from fecklessly unwise decisions about the execution of given interventions (e.g. starving the Post-9/11 intervention in Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, neither getting out nor moving forward for eight years).
Where would the US have ever been without some timely helpful intervention from France back in 1783? (think: Yorktown). Did the US intervention in the Balkans during the Clinton Administration (which many people forecast would devolve into a clusterfuck) turn out to be more disastrous or more helpful (don’t hear so much about the Balkans being the ethnic powderkeg of Europe anymore, do you?) Did the failure of the Bush I administration to threaten much earlier intervention in the Balkans help facilitate the ethnic cleansing of Slobodon Misolovich and his sociopathic, murderous militias in Croatia and Serbia?
And yes, we royally misjudged and screwed up ever getting involved in Vietnam, due to our myopia about unitary Communist domination threats. IMHO it’s a much more complicated thing than you make it out to be…though I do agree with the general principle that we should be wary of foreign entanglements and of the judgment of the sorts of people who are too often too eager to get our forces and money involved (of course, other people’s sons and daughters, never themselves or their own in harm’s way, Dickhead Cheney being the prime example).
Dave
I support the UN resolution and NATO’s intervention. I think it was the right thing to do. I think we should coordinate our attacks with the rebels so they can advance, which can still be done under the “protecting civilians” clause of the UN mandate since Gadaffi has proven he will indiscriminately slaughter civilians.
But arming the rebels…that’s a step too far for us to take. If maybe the Egyptians wanted to do it, we could turn a blind eye. But having the US unilaterally arm the rebels, which would take us outside of the UN mandate…not a great idea.
OzoneR
@Cacti:
Sorry, but it is a stupid comment. The Red Cross is often defended by military forces in warzones. We’ve defended the Red Crescent operations in Iraq, for example.
And the Red Cross/Red Crescent doesn’t defend cities from slaughter, they just take care of them during it.
Virginia Highlander
Are we being trolled by John Cole?
Serious question, I’m afraid. This is the third Libya post John has made that left me with a serious WTF? The first couple of times, I thought it was just because he pays attention to American media and maybe believes what he hears. Then I wondered whether he was attempting some sort of parody.
Now I just has a confuse. I stopped reading Balloon-Juice, a few months back, because the pain of keeping up with current political events became overwhelming. Now I just want to find somewhere that bases their analysis of foreign events on something they read in the New York fucking Times.
jwb
@aimai: “And they ought to be able to do so without lobbing accusations of racism, immorality, murderous intent, and cowardice at people who they “know” from the internet as having no such character flaws.”
What, and take all our best weapons off the table? When we can use them to arm the rebel commentariat!
FlipYrWhig
@aimai:
Sometimes it’s “totally standard scepticism.” Often it has involved sneering, mocking, and obnoxious statements, punctuated with facile comparisons to Iraq, followed by egging on the people who have voiced their reluctant and conflicted support with how ignorant, credulous, and warmongering they are. It’s getting tiring. _Experts_ have widely varying opinions on the subject. We shouldn’t presume that there’s an obvious right side to be on. When we do that, this place turns into Aravosis or Shakesville, where the point to commenting is to hammer away at how stupid anyone would have to be to have a different opinion on anything. Fuck that.
Failure, Inc.
@joe from Lowell: I’d say that the fact that Cole lets you stay here, and has not awarded you the banhammer yet in spite of your grossly abusive behavior towards him proves the opposite.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
That’s your problem? That they fought against the occupation of Iraq?
You know what? That makes me like them more.
LOL, the “region” now doesn’t include Afghanistan, but it includes Argentina and Honduras.
Still waiting for the “problems” caused by Libyans from Benghazi. As opposed to “problems” caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I suppose the taking up of arms against us by Iraqis was caused by our arming of the mujahadeed, too.
Maybe no one will notice how profoundly weak your assertion is if you keep playing the racism card.
Morbo
You write this as if the U.S. wasn’t already the leading arms exporter to the world for 8 of the last 10 years.
Cacti
@OzoneR:
Thank you again for your pearls of wisdom, wise master.
ColeFan
@John Cole: Now, now, if we can’t make baseless accusations of racism, then all that’s left for BJ are open threads about puppies.
Nice to see you’re skeptical about the war this morning. I assume by mid-afternoon your blood sugar will have changed a bit and you’ll be yowling at Dennis Kucinich for hurting BO’s feelings.
Stillwater
@FlipYrWhig: Flip, suppose the US and EU did decide to arm the rebels. Would that be a ‘bad thing’ from your pov? Or would we have to wait till later to see if ‘something bad’ resulted from arming them?
Comrade Dread
@joe from Lowell: Sure there are.
If you feel that strongly about meddling in a conflict that has nothing to do with the vital interests of the United States, you could defy the law and go join up with the rebel cause yourself.
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai: Cole and jfL have been having a “spirited discussion” on this topic over a number of threads. What you are seeing is more akin to releasing the pause button on DVD than anything else.
FlipYrWhig
@Stillwater: Sounds like a bad idea to me. Does not sound like evidence that the Bad Thing has already happened and the cycle already perpetuated.
joe from Lowell
@Dave:
This is a good point, and it doesn’t require even the slightest reference to skeery al Qaeda Mooslims.
FlipYrWhig
@ColeFan: You’re such a dumbass. The reason why the comments have been testy lately, at least on this subject, is that JOHN HAS ALWAYS BEEN SKEPTICAL about it, and that’s putting it mildly.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
Hell, I’m just glad that somebody is actually analyzing something for once prior to dropping pallets of small arms, stingers and cash out of a C-130.
joe from Lowell
@Failure, Inc.:
Actually, aptly-named commenter, I spent 7-1/2 years as the in-house opposition on the threads of Reason’s blog, where I teed off on the front-pagers a hell of lot more frequently and more fiercely than I ever have on Cole, and not a single time was I ever banned, had my comments blocked, or told that they were going into a “pie filter” so they wouldn’t have to be troubled by my mean dissent.
“Grossly abusive behavior.” Need a hug, princess?
mr. whipple
Well said.
NonyNony
@FlipYrWhig:
So, basically, when Cole’s snarky writing style pokes someone you don’t like you’re okay with it, but when he gores your ox you get upset.
Because basically that’s what you’re crying about. John has a particular writing style – when he uses it to skewer Republicans or PUMAs or whoever you don’t like it’s okay, but when his mocking statements hit too close to home that makes you upset?
I’d say toughen up your skin. The Interwebs are a tough place and not everyone is always going to agree with you. And some of them are going to be somewhat obnoxious when they disagree. It’s not like this is the Washington Post editorial page or something.
The Raven
Meantime, we have this subhead on an article by Seattle-area columnist Joel Connelly:
The column is a bit better. But in the entire following discussion, I am the only bird who has mentioned that so far, even with UN help, the Libyan rebels are still losing.
At least we corvids can figure out when something’s dead.
Croak!
joe from Lowell
@ColeFan:
I guess there’s only a basis for objecting to lumping Muslims together with terrorists when it’s done by Peter KIng.
ColeFan
@joe from Lowell: If you’re not concerned about “skeery al Qaeda Mooslims,” then I suppose you disapprove of the administration’s frequent invocation of that “threat” to justify controversial policies, e.g., http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/white-house-people-who-criticize-us-are-helping-al-qaeda
Bob In Pacifica
But on the upside arming future enemies ensures future wars which ensures arming and bombing and invading future enemies.
Cacti
And since we’re all chucking grenades in this thread, might as well let this one fly.
What is the constitutional justification for the President to insert the US military into a foreign civil war, absent authorization from Congress?
Sounds very “Unitary Executive” to me.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: your statement makes no sense at all. why would the rebel leaders attack us now that we are helping them get power? dont you think we should wait a couple of years to see blowback of some form? or in your world, does someone bite the hand that feeds them and still gets away with it?
eemom
Good morning, Condescending Asshole and Preacher of Blog Civility reporting for duty. How may I help you?
joe from Lowell
@Comrade Dread:
Of course. You just can’t name any.
And if you feel so strongly about providing universal health care, you can quit your job and volunteer in a community health center. And if you feel so strongly about abortion rights, you can quit your job and work full-time defending Planned Parenthood clinics.
Or maybe, as a citizen in a democracy, you can voice your opinion about what policies you think our elected government should endorse and direct its employees to pursue. Ya think?
Joe Beese
@FlipYrWhig:
Yes, I’m sure you find it annoying how easy it is for people to notice – indeed, it requires an active effort to ignore it – how once again we’re using the American Death Machine to effect regime change against an uncooperative Arab leader so that we may have assured access to his country’s oil, to the enrichment of the arms manufacturers who donate so generously to political campaigns, despite our ignorance of the local realities and our complete lack of a viable exit strategy. Quite vexing.
But I figure that’s your problem.
ColeFan
@FlipYrWhig: Yeah, he’s really skeptical about the war. So much so that he threatened to shut down comments entirely if people continued to criticize Obama over it:
https://balloon-juice.com/2011/03/24/open-thread-962/
Cacti
@joe from Lowell:
How precious.
A sexist/homophobic slur from the crier of “racism!”
Dave
@joe from Lowell: Well, I don’t think you have to talk about the region and its inhabitants to make a case that arming rebels is a dangerous thing. There are so many unknowns and variables.
Someone earlier talked about how the French helped arm the US during the Revolution. What that also did was help bankrupt the French treasury and lead to the Revolution. It also didn’t help them much during the Quasi-War. Unforseen consequences…
Likewise, if you arm rebels, you take responsibility for them. Even if these were reliable proxies (and they may or may not be, who knows yet?)…will we bail on them like we have so many others if things go pear-shaped? And what does that tell other people about the US?
Better to stick to the mandate and do what you can within that framework.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@grass: Wow, what a “biting” criticism. Why, you’ve destroyed the whole piece!
Or, at least we know the piece is nit free.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cacti: Oh, good God. This has been done to death.
FlipYrWhig
@NonyNony: I was explaining to aimai why the testiness has been quicker on the trigger lately, not lamenting the testiness itself. Personally, I would like to see that John’s analysis is based on thinking things through and weighing actual evidence. When he has done that, I have not said a word. When he has not done that, I have said a few words.
This whole episode has been way more like Bradley Manning, where a lot of the point of talking about it is to skim other people’s coverage and then repeat its most sensational aspects, then take a victory lap, as opposed to health care reform or the tax cut deal, where the discussion on the front page and in comments was certainly pointed and even nasty but at least based on sifting through a range of material, evaluating it, and then drawing conclusions.
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
Actually, skepticism is the refusal to draw a conclusion without first seeing solid evidence that supports it.
John has been the opposite of skeptical. He’s been certain. He’s just been certain about a negative position.
Mnemosyne
@John Cole:
John, did you happen to notice something in that article you quoted?
There’s kind of a common theme to the groups that we armed: they all were “fighting communism.” The writer didn’t say it, but we backed Pinochet’s overthrow of Allende because Allende was — you guessed it — a member of the Socialist Party who worked closely with Chilean communists.
Now that communism is deader than a doornail, is there any chance whatsoever that maybe the political dynamics have changed?
ETA: FYWP. How the hell are we supposed to talk about politics if we can’t even mention a whole political movement?
FlipYrWhig
@Joe Beese: Keep doodling those anarchy A’s on your Trapper Keeper.
Tim, Interrupted
@John Cole:
ummm…ABL does this regularly–RACIST/SEXIST are her two favorite words–and she has front page posting privileges. Maybe Joe From Lowell is auditioning?
Stillwater
@The Raven: I am the only bird who has mentioned that so far, even with UN help, the Libyan rebels are still losing.
Wise bird. This was, of course, very – entirely? – predictable. And given the specific purpose of the UN res. permitting the use of force, further efforts to save the rebels will follow. Mission creep was built into the plan right from the beginning.
joe from Lowell
@NonyNony:
So FlipYrWhig shouldn’t put John in his pie filter?
I agree: people need thicker skins, especially if they’re going to lead off with the fight-starting “tone” you note in John.
Chris
@salacious crumb:
Neither Iran nor al-Qaeda had any interest in sticking their neck out for Saddam back in 2003: I doubt if they’d do it for Qaddafi either, not now that he’s become so unpopular and not now that the West is backing the insurgency, and thus making it unlikely that he’ll have control of the country again anytime soon.
It’d be much smarter of them to try to get a foothold in the insurgency… like they did in Iraq.
Dave
@The Raven: I don’t think they are losing. I think what you are seeing are the limits either side has to their ability to project power.
The longer this goes on, the more likely I think you’ll end up seeing Libya divided in half with the demarcation line around Sirte.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@joe from Lowell: It’s probably the manner in which you disagreed with him. You started out vicious and then upped it.
But then, I remember you willfully ignoring half of a point I made so you could twist the partial meaning into pointing out how bigoted I was against religion. I’ma go with John on this one.
FlipYrWhig
@joe from Lowell: In his defense — not that he needs it from me — there have been plenty of times when he has expressed genuine skepticism rather than certainty. And, like I said once before, even the people leaning pro-intervention are skeptical too, which is why I’m getting tired of being lectured about the need to be skeptical. Yeah, I know, I get it, and I need to floss my teeth and look both ways before crossing the street, this is already factored into my opinion, and everyone’s. No one is saying, “America, Fuck Yeah! Light ’em up!”
General Stuck
It was likely a bad idea in hindsight, arming the Afghan Mujahadeen with Stinger Missiles, probly fortunate they had a limited shelf life. But small arms and such is no threat to us in the future. Sill likely best we don’t do any arming of any rebels in the ME and NA, because others can do it, and our sorry history on Iraq the past decade.
I don’t have a problem with isolationists, or pacifists by nature, so long as they don’t conjure up bullshit memes to support their positions and expect me to keep quiet on that, or don’t recognize the consequences for intervening and not intervening. I support this one for now, but really not much beyond what we are doing and have done militarily.
I think Cole is just burned out from running a large blog for so long, and running the demons out of his personal closet, and getting negative feedback for it being not exactly well thought out critiques.
joe from Lowell
@The Raven:
Huh? They had one bad day, which didn’t even roll up half of the advances they’ve made since the bombing began.
History teaches us that territorial gains and losses along the Libyan littoral are not, repeat not, the gold standard when it comes to indicators of ultimate military success.
I wasn’t crowing about the rebels ‘Winning!’ two days ago, for exactly that reason, and it’s misguided to talk about them losing because, for once, they failed to take the next city and went back to the last one they took to regroup.
Yevgraf (fka Michael)
@FlipYrWhig:
A thing of beauty, that. Just wanted you to know that somebody noticed it.
Comrade Dread
@joe from Lowell: Despite your snark, I trust that you see that there is a teensy weensy bit difference between domestic policy that provides concrete benefits to the citizens of this nation vs. an aggressive foreign policy that has generally cost the citizens of this nation and made us less safe in the long run.
You’re being disingenous.
Ash Can
@jwb: Oh, I’m not arguing that arming the rebels, as a policy, wouldn’t lead to more problems. And I also agree that there’s basically a certainty that arms are finding their way to the rebels somehow or another. What I’m saying is that, based solely on the linked article, it appears to be premature to assume the Obama Administration is going to arm the rebels, since — once again, based solely on this article — the only person apparently outright in favor of doing so is Nicolas Sarkozy, in a “let’s you and him fight; I’ll hold your coat” sort of way. Take the posturing and histrionics out of this article, and there’s precious little actually happening.
ETA: In short, I think John’s right to be concerned about this kind of policy, because it has an obviously lousy track record. If he thinks this article indicates imminent policy action, however (and I’m not really sure he does), I’d disagree on that point.
salacious crumb
@cmorenc: First of all, the Kosovo issue is not as clear cut as the West would have us believe. Yes we prevented ethnic cleansing, but we were more worried about the impact that war would have had in Europe. I dont think our primary concern was prevention of genocide.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/kosovo-template-for-disaster-libya
secondly, we know NOTHING of these, shit..id feel a little better if I at least knew who their leaders were, even if it was Bin Laden..at least we know the devil we are dealing with..maybe Obama does, but dont you think he would be making a much stronger case for intervention if he knew that? Yugoslavia was an artificial country, just like Libya, but they knew the ethnic lines by which to divide the country and so intervention and creation of new country made sense, plus the Europeans were far more involved in seeing that war through….
joe from Lowell
@ColeFan:
When did I say I wasn’t concerned about Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is a real threat.
A group that split from al Qaeda over a year ago, and is now joined in a popular front movement to oust Gadaffi, with our support? No, not so skeery.
Not all Muslims are our enemy. Not even all conservative Muslim political movements are our enemy. The Egyptian Brotherhood isn’t our enemy. The current ruling party in Turkey, which has contributed ships to the NATO mission, isn’t our enemy.
Al Qaeda itself – they’re our enemy. I want to make nice with as many of their potential supporters among politically-active Muslims as possible.
Mnemosyne
@Cacti:
Article 6:
We took this action as part of our treaty with the UN. The UN treaty says we need to respond when called upon. Treaties ratified by Congress have the force of law in the US. If you want to change that, you’re welcome to get an amendment to the Constitution written to remove that language from Article 6.
Tim, Interrupted
@John Cole:
I keep saying, and no one listens: RACIST! SEXIST! Just like Joe From Lowell, ABL and her acolyte Allan employ these words to try to silence the opposition. So clearly, Joe From Lowell should also be a front page poster.
joe from Lowell
@Cacti:
Congress chose to delegate some of its war powers, conditionally, to the executive under the War Powers Resolution and the UN Participation Act, just as it chose to delegate some of its interstate-commerce-regulating powers to the executive under the Clean Air Act, when it authorized the EPA to have broad power in writing regulations and even deciding what to regulate.
In both cases, Congress would also be well within its rights to take that delegated authority back, but they haven’t chosen to.
salacious crumb
@Chris: oh sure im not saying they will stick their neck out for Gaddhafi….he was like a rhinocerus’s tusk up their assess…he hated them with a passion and had his interior service on their tails..but somehow i think he wont be as opposed to them anymore operating on his soil…i mean he knows his time is limited in Libya..even if he isnt removed from power, sanctions will box him in…thats good enough incentive to let Islamists run amok…and if we are expecting this ragtag group of rebels to have control over Libya when all of this is over, then pigs really do fly…
salacious crumb
@Tim, Interrupted: Amen!
aimai
I just had to put this up:
because its just such a perfect piece of internet wankery. You know, I was just reading an account of Cato the Younger’s amazing march across the Libyan littoral and I… oh, fuck it, whatever. We are mixing in a *war for national self determination* and no one–no one–knows what the outcome of that will be in five, ten, or a hundred years. Especially since whatever good we do now, under Obama, can be undone in four to eight years by a ham handed Republican president. That’s not an argument for being in or out of Libya, just a reminder that short term gains with a fragile, unknown, emergent, novel Libyan revolutionary group can fall apart in a milisecond and result in long term problems.
aimai
gene108
Arming Afghans against the Soviets didn’t produce any inherent problems.
The problem was the international community ignoring Afghanistan, after the Soviet withdrawal and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This led to another decade of war, where different factions were left to fight it out amongst themselves about who would be in charge.
Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic society, with Pashtun’s making up the largest portion – but not the majority – of the Afghan society. You had different big shots from the mujahadeen, representing different groups in Afghanistan, trying to grab power in a vacuum.
It didn’t help that the Soviets literally burned Afghan villages to the ground and rather than sow the fields with salt, they sowed with landmines, which has its own set of problems. Whatever infrastructure Afghanistan had for running a government was pretty much wiped out when the communist government collapsed, because the Soviets did so much damage to the rest of the country.
The lack of an aggressive aid package to Afghanistan and the international community brokering a power sharing agreement between the warring Afghan factions, led to the mess.
The sale of weapons to the mujahadeen didn’t have to lead to the problems that ensued.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
The point is that they haven’t attacked us at all, even before we started helping the broad popular movement to which they belong.
Why aren’t you asking John this question? I’m not the one who made a broad-brush statement about what an action like this must absolutely lead to, so I’m probably not the best target for your exhortation to “wait and see.”
cleek
@Mnemosyne:
and which part of the UN resolution authorizes us to arm the rebels ?
seriously. i’ve read the resolution and i don’t see it.
John Cole
No one fucking said they are, you asshole. We’re clearly talking about the Benghazi region, we’re clearly talking about Libyan rebels from that region, yet you’ve decided that in a discussion of arming Libyan rebels, the word “region” means all of MENA so you can call everyone a racist. Asshole.
And for the record, when did “Libyan” become a fucking race in the first place? It’s a diverse population with representation from the ME, from North Africa, from Europe.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: and my point is, given that we have had a not so good history with most of these so called “freedom fighters” and rebels, dont you think perhaps it would have been better for us to learn something from this history and not get involved?..
ok so the rebels never attacked us…and maybe they never will, but can you guarantee they wont get all medieval on their own populations asses? and then what? do we try to find the next group of rebel leaders to overthrow the current band of rebel leaders?
Mnemosyne
@cleek:
No part of it does. If Sarkozy wants to arm them, he’s going to have to go back to the UN and get another resolution.
AFAIK, we have not armed the rebels. This story is about some NATO members (like Sarkozy) pushing for it and the US resisting. If you have evidence to the contrary that shows that the US is currently arming the rebels against the directive of the UN resolution, please present it.
Maude
The first I heard of sending weapons to the rebels was from Hillary Clinton. I was a bit suspicious of it becasue I wondered if she was pushing an agenda that was her own.
The thought of sending weapons to Libya gives me the whim whams.
Paul in KY
@eemom: Yes, we have a troll war going on in aisle 3, need a condescending cant-we-all-just-get-along type statement ;-)
Chris
@joe from Lowell:
Gasp! Great idea – especially since al-Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has taken a nosedive in recent years (not least because of their psychotic, homicidal actions in Iraq).
That’s why the sudden outburst of Islam-hating in America (last couple years) is so fucking unhinged – it’s the perfect time to build on their unpopularity by reaching out, not pushing away. Too bad that once again, the right’s more interested in winning elections and finding wedge issues to secure their power, than in actually fixing problems.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: oh man for all the time u spend on this blog and news you clearly dont seem to know much..Muslim Brotherhood isnt our enemy? why were we soiling our pants over the recent upheaval in Egypt? Its because we (and our best friend Israel) were fucking terrified that Muslim Brotherhood (Dr. Zawahiri’s alma mater) would take over the political system and give the terrorist a playground to practise their shootings at. Why do you think we supported Hosni for so long, at the expense of making us hypocrites. WE DIDNT WANT THE FUCKING BROTHERHOOD IN PLACE!!!
joe from Lowell
@Dave: Your arguments are legitimate cautions.
None of them, however, strike me as solid arguments that this action is certainly wrong.
There are unknowns and variables to letting Gadaffi wipe out 100,000 people in Benghazi, too. Refugee issues, devastation, the possibility that anti-Gadaffi groups could really, in an enduring and significant manner, turn to al Qaeda. Unknowns and variables all around.
If our involvement costs $1 billion – a high estimate for what a mission as described by Obama last night would cost- that is 1/2 of one day of the Pentagon budget, and could be paid for entirely just by shifting existing funds around. It is also 0.0067% of last year’s deficit. The fiscal argument here is just a pretext for political/ideological opposition, just as much so as the Republicans cutting NPR and Planned Parenthood funding to reduce the deficit.
Don’t you think we’ve already crossed that bridge?
I think this is the strongest argument. We need to keep the coalition together, and going beyond the UN mandate could split it. Not to mention, the UN mandate allows us a great deal of latitude in providing air support, logistical support, and other methods of aiding the rebels. The big story from yesterday, as I understand it, is that the air support missions dropped off dramatically as the rebels approached Sirte. Ramping those back up would seem to be a better place to start.
Brachiator
@John Cole:
So, arming folks from eastern Libya to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan is the same thing as arming folks in Libya to fight Gadaffi?
I think this is a bit of a stretch. Context makes a difference.
@Dave:
And this was bad, how?
How so? Did France take responsibility for the US after the Revolution.
Who says that the rebels will be proxies if they succeed? If we do absolutely nothing, here or anywhere else, what would that tell other people about the US?
BTD
@John Cole:
Damn, flash back to me circa 2005.
BTD
Here’s my question, how is this a humanitarian act?
Stillwater
@cleek: and which part of the UN resolution authorizes us to arm the rebels ?
Wouldn’t that be the part permitting ‘all necessary means’ to achieve the resolution’s goal?
joe from Lowell
@Chris:
This is something I’ve been saying for a while – we can’t afford to be on the wrong side of these uprisings in the Middle East, like we were on the wrong side of the uprisings against the plantation oligarchs in Central American during the Cold War, or we’ll end up giving them to al Qaeda in a nice gift basket, just like we gave those earlier movements to the Soviets.
eemom
@John Cole:
tsk tsk. Such a poor example for the children.
Have you no civility, sir? At long last, have you no sense of civility?
joe from Lowell
@Barb (formerly Gex):
Seeing Muslims lumped in with terrorists just to advance a political cause really pisses me off.
What an impressively intellectually honest manner for you to make up your mind about a question.
The Raven
A bit (very uninformed) on the strategic situation.
1. Yes, losing one battle is not the same as losing a war, but going from “about to be massacred,” to “retreating good order with outside air cover” isn’t exactly winning, either.
2. I don’t think anyone knows how long either side can hold out in a protracted conflict. It will depend on who can get supplies and from where, and who can sell oil and where. Without action outside the border of Libya it’s not really possible to predict who will be able to make alliances and make use of them. Qaddafi, however, has been playing that game successfully for a very long time and the rebels are still finding their leaders. The short-term favors Qaddafi in this, which implies a prolonged war.
Wild card: how will the rise in oil prices this war brings affect the USA and Europe?
This is all not-too-well informed thoughts, of course. Problem is, I’m not sure any of the leaders of the nations involved in the UN coalition have better-informed thoughts.
Croak!
joe from Lowell
@Comrade Dread:
There are many differences, and many similarities.
The claim that one needs to personally dedicate one’s professional career to a cause in order to support government action in that area is similarly idiotic whether one is talking about a policy you like or one you dislike.
Fuzz
It doesn’t matter if we arm them because they have no training, no leadership and no organization. They just drive around in civilian cars shooting wildly, then they retreat when they hit with rockets/artillery from the army positions. Unless we’re giving these guys an idea of how to use their weapons I don’t even think it will matter anymore.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
As a legal matter, Congress can not so delegate its powers.
As a practical matter, Presidents decide when and who we go to war against.
nancydarling
@joe from Lowell: Besides Cuba, is there anyone else?
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
Serious question, not snark, not an attack: have you made any effort to find out?
I was watching Richard Engels talk about this just last night. There is a Revolutionary Government that has been formed, and it consists of the leaders of the peaceful protests, the most prominent businessmen in Benghazi, and some former Gadaffi officials who defected.
It’s been recognized by France and the Arab League.
Now, I know, if you’re just using this argument as an excuse, you can totally nail me by asking for their middle names and the mosques where they worship, but there are stories about who they are all over Google.
cbear
John, John, John, you’re just looking at it all wrong. We’re not “arming” those rebels, we’re creating new consumers and, while there may be a few
casualtiesglitches as the supply and distribution lines are fine-tuned, in the end the free market will sort out any minor problems that arise. That’s the beauty of our American system.Joey Maloney
There’s a sound coming from Barbara Tuchman‘s grave, but I can’t tell if it’s laughter or sobbing.
joe from Lowell
@aimai:
I was talking about World War Two, Einstein.
Christ, read a book!
cleek
@Stillwater:
it’s not entirely obvious to me that increasing the level of violence between two armed groups reduces the level of danger to civilians.
Chyron HR
@cbear:
We’re also not, you know, arming-without-sarcastic-quotation-marks them, either.
nancydarling
@joe from Lowell: The only Latin American country I know of that went into the Soviet sphere of influence is Cuba. I think a lot of our interventions cause countries to end up with some nasty right-wing pieces of work—Pinochet and Somoza to name two.
cbear
joe from lowell:
Fixed.
srv
http://hamsayeh.net/articles/503-the-cias-libya-rebels-2007-west-point-study-shows-benghazi-darnah-tobruk-area-was-a-world-leader-in-al-qaeda-suicide-bomber-recruitment.html
You and your warmongering friends here keep repeating this lie. Regurgitating it doesn’t make it true.
Joe Beese
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/03/30/arm-the-rebels-cry-reflects-western-desperation-on-libya/
Anyone care to bet on when the first US military “advisers” will land in country?
Sharl
@joe from Lowell: You’re THAT Joe? The city planning dude? Once (and still?) Keeper of the Amulet of Surr-Vey?
You were kinda laid back over in the REASON threads back in the day, IIRC.
Scott P.
Well, I think that’s why they’re having the debate, to discuss the potential costs and benefits. But relying on facile historical analogies is not superior to being ignorant of history. Afghanistan and Libya are in “the same region”? Really?
Brachiator
@BTD:
It’s not. How is doing nothing a humanitarian act?
celticdragonchick
@OzoneR:
The Mujahadeen were a pretty heterogeneous bunch under various leaders/warlords etc. The Taliban, which swept out of Pakistan, wanted theocracy. Many of the original Mujahadeen under the charismatic Ahmed Shah Massoud (one of the truly great military leaders of the 20th Century and a veritable genius) kept fighting the Taliban until the Taliban folded under the bombing campaign of Fall 2001.
cyntax
@Fuzz:
Well, actually it will matter a lot exactly because they are so disorganized; anti-tank weapons could be the one of the primary factors that extends this war. And then we get to the point where we’re talking about how what they really need is a little advice and some guidance from people on the ground, and then we’ve got advisors in theatre.
Civil wars: in for a penny, in for a pound.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Settle down, John. If you were “clearly” talking about the Benghazi region, then you’d have been able to come up with an example of a “problem” that arming them has caused. Either you’re backtracking now because you really did lump in Libyans with Afghans and regret it, or you were being incredibly unclear.
Wow, you really are Horowitz. Neither are Mexicans. Go defend poor, persecuted Michelle Malkin against charges of racism for her writings about Mexican immigrants. Oh, wait, actually, you’re quite happy to join in on those charges.
Finally, when you’re going to make an uber-semantic argument against a word someone used, you should try to pick a word that your opponent used.
Oopsie, I never called you a racist. The terms I used were “stereotyping,” “bullshit,” and “them people.” You actually can stereotype people for their religion, ethnicity, country (or region) of origin, you know. Actually, you do know, and you call out others for doing it all the time.
But this time, it’s different!
BTD
@Brachiator:
It’s not. Never claimed it was.
Certainly the claim is that our intervention in Libya is humanitarian. This is, as you say, not humanitarian.
Joe Beese
@cyntax:
Followed by the Obots bleating, “He said he wouldn’t send in troops! Military advisers don’t count!”
Bob Loblaw
I think we should outsource the training mission to Xe.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: ok first of all, please no quoting any of these mainstream media cocksuckers….they were all blowing Chalabi when Bush was promoting him, about what a great guy he was, how he was the one who gave us Curveball, the guy who was just gonna show where the nukes were hidden..how it was so obvious Iraq had those nukes and all that BS….
France recognized these so called “Libyan Massouds” because their dumbass neocon French philosopher, who supported the Iraq war with a passion, thought they were nice guys..Sarkozy has elections coming up, and while he not throwing red meat to his ever growing right wingers in his country about how burkas are just so a huge threat to France, he is looking for Arab/Muslim ghosts to vanquish, again to please his right wing constituents…
we never give a shit when the Arab League denounces Israel’s treatment of Palestinians or settlements but now they are paragons of virtue because they make our war look legit.
joe from Lowell
Lol @ John, losing his shit:
Of course not all Muslims are our enemy, you asshole! We’re talking about Libyans from Benghazi!
I don’t think you meant that, John. I think you aren’t at your best.
El Cid
Numerically the rebels are few. They are not well trained in the use of many of the weapons they would need, and the number of former military personnel who could handle heavier weaponry and strategic planning are even fewer. They don’t have much of an ability to field defenses by stay back fighters and defensive structures while they lead quick advances.
I’m neither alone in having seen and heard this analysis and watching for myself, nor in understanding that I’m not magic and can’t exactly know.
Extra weapons could certainly help, but no matter what I hope I don’t think they would be enough to have the rebels turn the tide.
Apart from the problems of international law (the UN resolution seems pretty clear as a general arms embargo) and more difficult-to-abtain recognition of the anti-Qaddafi forces as the legitimate government of Libya, it would appear that a program of arming rebels would require a significant number of advisers on the ground.
Unfortunately both of the two most likely outcomes will be destabilizing for the whole of Northern Africa.
A Qaddafi victory will lead to slaughter and repression, unless somehow before that happens he can be negotiated / bribed out of power. Or if there’s some sort of fake coalition government which starts as a weak involvement of the anti-Qaddafi forces and then becomes a joke almost instantly.
The absence of a clear victory will in my (and others’) view lead to a continuing civil war of some sort, perhaps similar to that in Chad and its cross-border aspects in Sudan and with Libyan support and fighting for its favored Chadian allies. (Maybe what the rebels need are a bunch of Toyota pickups to turn the tide, as Chad did against Libya.)
Maybe there might be some rebel-held strong-holds, though, and there could be negotiations toward independence as has so far been gained by Southern Sudan.
Qaddafi’s power is ridiculously concentrated, large swaths of the country are fairly unattended with few government institutions, and everyone has already been noting in press coverage how there’s pretty much only a ‘regime’ in Libya rather than a complex state with all sorts of institutions to carry out policies at all levels.
Say what you will about Saddam’s slaughtering & torturing ways, he actually did build up a thoroughly institutionalized nation-state. One which was utterly destroyed in the US invasion and occupation.
They probably would be having to cross over various borders as did Chadian groups in Sudan and Niger, helping to bolster the Sudanese government’s attacks on Darfur. Qaddafi got involved in funding his favorites in Niger’s civil war, i.e., the Touareg.
A lot of the forces fighting in these neighboring disputes (i.e., Sudan against Darfur / Southern Sudan) came from Chad as “Arabs”, serving pretty much as mercenaries. They all play the game of supporting each other’s preferred forces, backing rebels or central governments as circumstances warrant.
I’m not sure how to guess which of these possible scenarios would lead to more millions flooding out of Libya, many heading over to Europe.
I tend to think the issue is not so clear as to save or not save the rebels with arms. Or maybe the moral pressures will make it reduce to such; again, sometimes such efforts can make it worse, as military intervention into Sudan and Darfur are pretty thoroughly recognized as likely to have done just that.
srv
Church Lady
The constant fight between Joe and anyone that disagrees with his take on Libya has become extremely boring and I’m tired of him taking over entire threads on the subject. Let’s just all recognize that Joe thinks any and all action the U.S. takes in support of the rebels is A-OK and that would probably include “boots on the ground”. Cole is skeptical about our involvement in this escapade and, in my opinion, rightly so. After all, it’s not like we have a stunning record of accomplishment when attempting to butt our noses into conflicts in other parts of the world.
John Cole
Are you illiterate? From the initial post:
There is simply no way you can assert I was talking about ANYTHING other than the region of Eastern Libya, which contains Benghazi. To do so is to be willfully dishonest. I mean, it’s right there for you to see. I wasn’t talking about anything BUT the eastern region of Libya. Which is why we’ve been talking about this David Wood piece for weeks:
For fuck’s sake. It can’t be any clearer. And your response was to merely scream “RACIST! SCARY MUSLIM!”
Dishonest hack.
Judas Escargot (aka "your liberal-interventionist pal, who's fun to be with")
@gene108:
The problem was the international community ignoring Afghanistan, after the Soviet withdrawal and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This led to another decade of war, where different factions were left to fight it out amongst themselves about who would be in charge.
This. A thousand times, this.
Taliban rule was preventable. The rise of AQ was preventable. And therefore, 9/11… preventable.
celticdragonchick
@Joe Beese:
It will be after Khaddafi leaves for his permanent vacation home. I have no doubt that we will send a plethora of advisers in military matters, civil affairs etc to set up shop and get lots of nice fat contracts for General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing and Lockheed.
Now, if you want to send in people while the fighting is going on, you just contrat with triple Canopy or XE to send their people in.
It worked for Clinton during the Balkans War when mercs helped train and equip the Bosnian Army near the end of the war. Arguably, one of the worst mistakes Clinton made in this regard was to insist that the South African outfit Executive Outcomes leave Sierra Leone after they had successfully contained a murderous (genocidal, really) insurgency and put in UN Peace keepers instead. The insurgents promptly took 500 Peace Keepers hostage.
Comrade Dread
WHen the policy involves actively inflicting death and misery on the citizens of another nation, putting your fellow citizens in harm’s way, and there is no compelling national reason for it and quite a few unknowns (including whether or not, long term, you are going to be responsible for far more death than the lives you claim to have saved, I think it’s quite reasonable to suggest that you take the lead and go volunteer or raise funds or otherwise put your own life and money on the line.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
I think it’s best to look at individual cases individually, rather than treating vastly different cases as an undifferentiated lump.
BTW, were you urging us to be neutral and not get involved when Obama was using mil-to-mil contacts, public rhetoric, and diplomacy to urge the ouster of Mubarak? How about five weeks ago, when Obama was urging the ouster of Gadaffi and applauding the then-protesters? Just a head’s up – noting that we didn’t use military means in that case is irrelevant, because we were still “interfering” in a manner intended to hand power to an uprising that we didn’t control. If you’ve got an argument against force qua force, then make that, but it’s utterly irrelevant to the case you’re making about backing groups seeking to overthrow North African dictators.
The only think I can guarantee is that Gadaffi would have, and was in the process of, going medieval on his own population’s asses. I don’t understand why people are more concerned about avoiding a theoretical slaughter than a real one.
celticdragonchick
@gene108:
Quoted for truth.
srv
@John Cole: He’s obviously talking about the southies. Not sure if he means Libya or Boston though.
And these rebels aren’t fighting this war. We are. Every advance they’ve made is filling the vacuum our bombs create. As soon as the Libyan army stands up, they run away.
As much as I loathe Lang’s site, there are several regional experts commenting and at the other journals like SWJ who think the rebels are below even amateur standards. It seems they’ve already culled the smartest there for suicide bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’m sure when we’ve bombed a path for these crazies into Tripoli, it will all end well for the western tribes. No chance of genocide there.
joe from Lowell
@Chris:
I’d like to see Obama – no, wait, Joe Biden – go on TV and say, “Hey, Osama! How many dictatorships has your strategy managed to overthrow? Because these protesters demanding democracy – they’re up to two. So far. Neener neener nee-ner!”
I think Joe Biden is the right guy to deliver that message. I don’t Obama’s got enough neener in him.
cyntax
@celticdragonchick:
XE–Isn’t that how you spell civilian casualties?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@John Cole: Well…we fought a proxy war with the sovs all over MENA for half a century.
We armed a whole lot of baddies.
The Taliban used a leftover sidewinder or manpad to take down a chopper in Helmund last year.
That was in the Wikileaks docs.
But I think you are disingenous in convolving Libya with Iraq.
The Obama Doctrine is the anti-Bush Doctrine.
If the coalition arms the rebels, then they are giving the Muslim Brotherhood arms. Then we can be on the SAME SIDE as the “insurgents”.
Like it or not, the MB is going to be a dominant regional power. Obama is very cognizant of this after the Egyptian referendum.
Better to make a treaty, cultivate alliances, and be on the right side of history for once.
;)
celticdragonchick
@cyntax:
Probably so. I am no fan of Eric Prince or his company. I merely (and cynically) point out that you can get around the problem of official American Boots on the ground by sending in hired guns.
srv
@celticdragonchick:
And another bullshit meme. What is it, exactly, that you intended the west to do when the Soviets withdrew? We should move in and take over? Take their guns away? Attack Pakistan and defang the ISI’s hold on Afganistan? Just how were we supposed to bring gummy bears and turn Afghanistan into a Xanadu after arming it to the teeth? Who were we going to prop up and get this all done? And when they started fighting amongst themselves, something they obviously had no history for, what exactly were we going to do?
Somehow, not ignoring Afghanistan was going to lead to something peachy and somehow stop OBL from setting up shop there or somewhere else.
El Cid
@celticdragonchick: It’s possible, but I don’t think there’s cause enough to accept as unquestionable the notion that had the US / international community remained ‘engaged’ with Afghanistan’s warlords after the Soviet retreat that it would indeed have been remarkably different. It seems that this is tossed out as an absolute.
Joe Beese
Sully still has a sad.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/the-former-american-republic.html
Obama had better drop a few more crumbs from the table or he may lose Sully for good!
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
Quick Quiz:
1) Name the leader of the Libyan rebellion.
2) In one hundred words or less, articulate that leader’s vision for the future of Libya.
3) Extra credit: explain why you are different from matoko chan.
Sharl
Well, I had hoped that Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt.Col., USAF, Ret.) might have some insight into all this, since she was working the North Africa desk at DOD back in 2002, when the neocons completed their takeover of the joint. But alas, she’s gone cuckoo for
Cocoa PuffsLew Rockwell.Given what she has witnessed personally, it is perhaps understandable.
FlipYrWhig
@Church Lady: EVERYONE is skeptical. From that skepticism we proceed in various directions to arrive at temporary opinions that may shift. Browbeating people who grudgingly and tentatively have arrived at leaning pro-intervention for the moment is IMHO showing off for the crowd, which has been overwhelmingly against US military involvement. We don’t need to be nice to each other. That’s the last thing we should worry about. But it would be cool if we could accept that there are reasons to feel either pro or con, and then fight about those, as opposed to making peacock-like displays of how right we obviously are.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@joe from Lowell: unfortunately for your argument, the Muslim Brotherhood is part of every single revolutionary movement in MENA.
And al-Qaeda and the MB are ideologically aligned on rejecting western culture and judeochristian democracy.
The MB has rejected violence as a means of achieving goals, al-Q has not.
That is the only real difference between them.
Do you know the MB’s slogan?
Islam is the answer
Tsulagi
No worries, “Big Picture” Bill Kristol writing in the Weekly Standard gives a hearty endorsement for the Libya intervention. While maybe no Boehner tears for President Obama’s action, he has nothing but warm fuzzies for him in his You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby piece.
When has Kristol ever been wrong?
Dave
@Brachiator: But I am not saying we do nothing. Just that going beyond the UN mandate is not in our best interests. As I also said, if some other country like, say, Egypt, wants to do so…we have no say in that.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
Nope, and it’s rank paranoia to assume they are.
What’s this “we” business, white man? Were you soiling your pants over the Muslim Brotherhood? Good job, Mr. Buchanan. The Muslim Brotherhood abandoned terrorist years ago, and it on the outs with al Qaeda, who keep telling them, “Jihad: Yr not doin it rite.”
I’m sorry you’re such a bed-wetter. Zawahiri QUIT the Muslim Brotherhood specifically because, after being tortured, he started supporting international terrorism and attacks on the United States, and ceased supporting the Brotherhood’s democratic goals.
celticdragonchick
@srv:
Maybe do some of the things suggested by Rep Charlie Wilson when he asked for funding for schools and civil works projects to start building a stable government when the Soviets left.
We walked away from the war we helped sustain and left thousands of fighters and their US (and Russian, to be sure) supplied weapons to their own devices.
Do you actually suggest that this was the only thing we could do??
Jim Pharo
Count me with the skeptics who hope to be proven wrong. BHO clearly thinks he can limit this pretty sharply. Many Presidents have been so deluded in the past. What undoes their commitment to limiting involvement is the manipulation of the intelligence and military, who control the flow of information to the President. Whether by manufacturing a provocation (Gulf of Tonkin), or pushing propaganda about killing babies (Kuwait/Iraq I), the military/intelligence forces are expert at managing Presidents to get them to do what they want.
Three years ago I’d have some hope that BHO would be different. Today, I’m pretty sure he’s no different than his predecessors.
If we all come back to this thread in five years, 95% of it will seem unbelievably ridiculous. And that’s not counting the childish sniping, which already seems pretty ridiculous.
Scott P.
Then let’s do it preemptively. Military advisors don’t count. Meaning actual advisors, not the Vietnam-style “lets send in 1000 troops and call them advisors!”
joe from Lowell
@The Raven:
You’re leaving out a bit in the middle there, aren’t you? They went from “about to be massacred in Benghazi” to “capturing numerous cities from Benghazi to Sirte” to “retreating in good order to the city just before Sirte, while keeping everything in between.”
Cris
Yeah, well, do you know Todd Rundgren’s? Love is the answer.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: In war and bombings people get killed. When we interfere in a civil mar, more people get killed, and we take the blame, never mind the guy who was starting the genocide in the first. I had no problem with Obama interfering in Egypt or any other country as long as its verbal and not military or CIA supported. But my first concern in America, and I do have problem when we take sides and use our weapons to support one group against another, because given our history things tend to get worse…
as I have said before in other posts, there were other ways to stop genocide, like preventing Gaddhafi from travelling and putting him before the tribunal. Genocide could have still happened, perhaps, but why is it our job to stop it? why should we have to carry this mantle? We dont have an obligation to protect anyone, because u know what when the shit really starts going south, we will come out looking bad despite our best intentions. If the Arab league so much cared about LIbyans, why could they just organize all the Arab countries to stop this genocide.
Maybe the fundamental difference is our philosphies. because if you think that American is the beacon of hope and saviour of nations then I cant argue with you and our intervention is justifies (of course we still wouldnt bother saving black people if there was a genocide, we have nothing to gain from them). I believe Americas role to to first take care of its own business
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
As a legal matter, both the delegation of war powers under the War Powers Resolution and the delegation of regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@John Cole: I dont know how much clearer I can make this.
The Bush Doctrine led directly to the horrorshows of Iraq and A-stan.
The Obama Doctrine is the ANTI-Bush Doctrine.
In Libya we are on the same side as the “insurgents” instead of trying to wipe them out with drones and Kill Squads.
I just don’t get why you think NOT-BD is going to somehow become BD.
Can you please explain that, without waving your hands over the fog of war mission-creep generic arguments?
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
Hey, joe, why won’t you answer my quiz at post 168? It would, in accordance with all internet traditions, to speculate that you don’t know the answers to the first two questions and that you don’t have the stones to answer the extra credit question.
Tsulagi
@srv:
Damn, if your brightest freedom fighters are suicide bombers, you got real brain drain problems.
Omnes Omnibus
John, if you start a post with the premise that what is being done is the “same stupid shit,” can you be surprised that people who think it is not, in fact, the “same stupid shit” will react vociferously? If you start out combative, you will get combative responses. Of course, if you are trolling your blog again, more power to you. If, however, that is the case, isn’t a little harsh to get pissy at people for reacting?
srv
@celticdragonchick:
Destabilizing countries for your benefit comes at a cost. See Cambodia. See Iraq. Silly imaginations that we could throw a little aid here and there and build some schools is beyond naive.
I don’t remember anyone coming up with a detailed plan, a few hundred billion dollars and 100K NGO’s on the ground in 1989. Short of that, it’s just fapping some imaginary unicorn that there was something remotely even doable after ratfucking a country.
Which is what we’re helping to do to in Libya, right now. Short of a magic bullet before it gets too out of control, they are fucked.
celticdragonchick
@Sharl:
She may write at Lew Rockwell’s site, but she certainly sounds like a DFH.
She must be a shrill and non-serious person.
//
John Cole
I’ve only been pissy with Joe, who completely ignored what I wrote in order to call me a racist and derail the entire thread.
celticdragonchick
@srv:
There was a thing called the Marshall Plan that actually worked…and it worked in societies just as traumatized and with just as much destruction to the physical infrastructure.
We just didn’t want to make the investment of time and resources.
Fuzz
@cyntax:
There have been articles in Time with embedded reporters, a lot of these rebels are disorganized to the point that they’re just a mob with guns, unless we arm them with the absolute latest weapons and give them advisers I don’t think it will matter, again that’s just my opinion to me there isn’t anything to suggest otherwise. They already have some weapons that can be used against the old Soviet tanks that the army has, and they’ve shown no ability to use them anyway. Plus from some articles it seems as if they’ve run into the pro-Qaddafi towns, they may have reached the limit of their revolution because of the makeup of the towns they’re now attacking.
Paul in KY
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM: I’d like to hear what the ole m_c would have thought about this (more than I would like to read Joe in Lowell’s serial thoughts on the matter).
joe from Lowell
@nancydarling:
Well, there was Nicaragua, but I wasn’t talking about “countries,” but “movements.” The rebels throughout the region – Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador – all became Soviet-backed movements, and they didn’t have to be. They turned to the Soviets because we backed the dictators, and we shouldn’t have done that. We were on the wrong side of history.
@nancydarling:
The lesson I take from that is that we shouldn’t back tyrannical bastards against popular movements, not that we shouldn’t back popular movements against tyrannical bastards.
Paul in KY
@Tsulagi: Great! His take on the matter is pure gold, always has been…
Tlachtga
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
There are few things I find more obnoxious than asserting that democracy is Judeo-Christian. Sorry, but it was those pagan Greeks who invented the idea, not the monarchy-driven Israelites or emperor-ruled Christians. Whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood rejects democracy as un-Islamic is a different matter than whether or not democracy is Judeo-Christian (hint–it isn’t, and there’s no democracy in the Bible; however, those apostles seemed very happy little small-c communists).
Svensker
@Sharl:
She’s been writing for Rockwell for years.
celticdragonchick
@Sharl:
Reading a bit more from Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt.Col., USAF, Ret.)
Definitely shrill.
cbear
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM: Are you really suprised that
joe from lowellthe guy in the rear with the gear wouldn’t step up? You, better than anybody, know how that works.Btw, nice to see you, bro.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@joe from Lowell: What are you talking about? The MB’s democratic goals are exactly the same as al-Qaedas.
Wanna see?
I liked 179 too, one of the new ones. ;)
Sharl
@celticdragonchick: Yeah, I know. I just wish she’d keep better company. Any port in a storm, I guess…
She actually thinks and writes in the tradition of Smedley Butler. Not such a bad tradition, that.
cyntax
@Fuzz:
Yep, those are some of the tricky aspects of taking sides in a civil war.
srv
@celticdragonchick:
This is another way of patting ourselves on the back and crediting ourselves for the hard work of the Europeans. The Marshall plan had more to do with economics than building anything.
Sharl
@celticdragonchick: Hah, I was tracking down my Smedley Butler link, and ya slipped in there. [Jinx?]
Hermione Granger-Weasley
aww moderation.
@Tlachtga: oh, pardon. I call it judeochristian democracy because that is what America and and european democracies are. judeochristian democracy is consent of the governed with freedom of speech and freedom of religion tacked on.
Judeochristian democracy and westernstyle democracy are the same thing.
Not classical hellenic democracy.
Omnes Omnibus
@John Cole: FWIW I would say that jfL went too far there, but, as someone who tentatively supports intervention and is keeping his fingers crossed that we don’t mess up in the wide variety of ways in which messing up is possible, your Libya posts definitely carry an undertone that you believe the pro-intervention side has no idea about the potential downsides and is simply expecting unicorns to shit roses. Your blog, of course, and I don’t have to read the posts I don’t like, but throughout the Libya situation you have been combative. As I said, it provokes combative responses.
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@cbear:
Good to see you as well. I think that one of the sources of my antipathy to joe is that he has the stench of a REMF about him.
joe from Lowell
@srv:
No, the facts on the ground make it true. The indiscriminate shelling of Benghazi by government forces makes it true. Gaddaffi’s promise to go door to door and show no mercy makes it true.
Tsulagi
@John Cole:
When you got nothing, it’s one of the go-to’s for some. Bullshit roulette.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Brachiator: Not that I am taking a side in this, but your response seems a bit facetious. There is a difference between knowing that people are getting killed somewhere and being the ones dropping the bombs. If our involvement could entirely prevent killings, you’d have a point.
celticdragonchick
@Sharl:
Jesus Christ. I have never read that speech before.
Fuck. I don’t even know how to respond just yet.
Chris
@Joe Beese:
Hasn’t war always been permanent? I mean, you had continuous border problems between us and the Indians during the nineteenth century: then towards the end of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth, you had tons of military interventions in Latin America and Asia: then of course you had the World Wars, and the Cold War, and the Clinton interventions, and now the war on terror.
Hasn’t almost every president used U.S. troops in some form or other? I’m not saying it’s good, just that this isn’t especially new.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb: o
Richard Engel?!? You are so off-base.
And nothing remotely similar is happening now. I was reading about Ahmed Chalabi, The George Washington of Iraq, in National Review for years before the Iraq War, before 9/11. That this isn’t happening makes me support this action more.
Anyway, nice excuses why you don’t have to consider the recognition of the rebel government.
Tsulagi
Cole, your spam/moderation filter sucks ass. Maybe it’s racist too.
PIGL
@joe from Lowell: he’s filtering you because you disagrees, he’s filtering you because you are an agressive asshole peeing on his carpet. It’s not cowardly to evict you from his living room. It’s his absolute right.
celticdragonchick
@srv:
Obtuseness isn’t limited to triangles,it appears. Yes, the Europeans worked hard. They are pretty damned good at it, I would say.
Who the hell provided the capital and equipment (free machining equipment, dies, etc etc etc) to get things rebuilt after we finally (!) got Air Marshall “Bomber” Harris to stop incinerating German cities?
There was nothing left to even build from in Germany after the Allies got done with. The country was in a shambles and had no real experience with actual democracy (The Weimar Republic was a poor substitute at best).
We helped rebuild several countries in this way, and helped build sustainable liberal democracies.
Why in the hell do you insist that the same thing was not possible (and morally obligated!) in Afghanistan??
I really wonder.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@salacious crumb: What you are seeing is the white man’s burden expressed as foreign policy.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM: I answered it for him.
The leader of the NTC is Mustafa Abdul Jalal.
@Paul in KY: the ole m_c and the new m_c are pretty isomorphic on this.
Like I said to Cole.
Maybe we are indulging in another proxy war if we arm the rebels. But it CANNOT turn into Iraq III or Afghanistan II. Because we are on the side of the insurgents this time.
joe from Lowell
@srv:
Read about any suicide bombings by the Libyan rebels?
John is a man; therefore, all men are John. When you apply this fallacy to an ethnic, racial, or national group, it takes on an even darker implication.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
moderation? i only had two links!
no fair.
:(
cbear
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM: Yep.
I’m just happy that he survived his
“7-1/2 years as the in-house opposition on the threads of Reason’s blog”frontline duty and didn’t get fragged—thus allowing us all to enjoy his innumerable disquisitions on all things geographic, historic, military, strategic, legal, international, etc. etc….ad nauseum.You do got give him credit for one thing though—that boy can type faster than a monkey on speedballs.
joe from Lowell
@Church Lady:
Actually, I have been opposed to ground forces from the beginning. It would be nice if you could think about the actual arguments I make, instead of merely lumping me into a category of your own invention and proclaiming that I support whatever beliefs you’ve decided to attribute to the members of that category.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@Tlachtga: That’s just a trick HGW pulls to mask the racism. Called it western-style democracy until the dressed up language made it easier to demonstrate exactly why Muslims can’t do that democracy thing. Best to just ignore the weaselly wording.
srv
@joe from Lowell:
Western media reports of indiscriminate shellings. The same media that is presenting the war as though the rebels are fighting it. You know, Kaddafi’s forces are all on the run, except when they suddenly aren’t.
Kaddafi also promised to go door to door and “cleanse” Brega of armed gangs, using the exact same language, and warned the civilians to flee. And they did retake Brega on the 12th. Where, exactly, is the genocide in Brega, joe?
Clearly, Kaddafi didn’t intend a genocide in Brega, but he did in Bhengazi because Joe and his MSM cheerleaders say so.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Yes, John, I’m illiterate. There’s no way you were unclear or anything. There’s no way anyone can read about “arming people from this region causing us problems” and think it was a reference to Afghanistan. That’s why 2 of the first 5 commenters read it that way, and why as late as comment #142, people were still reading it that way.
Because I’m just too illiterate to understand the oh-so-clear reference form King John the Perfect that multiple commenters read exactly the same way I did.
It’s a lot clearer when you put them together into the same blockquote and use the same highlighting to emphasize the connection than it was in your original post.
Of course not. That’s why several different readers read it my way, and why not a single one of your fanbois thought to correct me before you did. Because of how clear it was that I’d misread you.
Nope, no way you weren’t clear. The problem must be everyone else.
I’m glad you cleared up your intention.
joe from Lowell
@Comrade Dread:
LIke I said, it’s only policies you disagree with that require people to devote their careers to in order to legitimately support them. That’s really all your litany of “but you see, that’s bad” amounts to.
Part of reaching political maturity is realizing that politics work the same way for your side, and for the other side.
John Cole
What. Are. You. Talking. About? I didn’t change anything in the part in the comments from the original post except BOLDING IT because you were too god damned lazy to read it the first time, apparently. It hasn’t changed. The original post contained a quote talking about eastern Libya. I then referenced that quote. And you ignored it and said “LALALALALA WHY ARE YOU SO RACIST?”
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
You bring emotionalism, factoids, and a really holier than thou attitude. “Lord knows,” the last refuge of someone who working on emotion and unwilling to admit the validity of any counter argument.
Bob Loblaw
@joe from Lowell:
Would you please stop lying constantly?
Rebels lost Ras Lanuf and Brega in the last 24 hours as well. They’re back to Ajdabiya again, and have shown no ability to clear and hold territory without help from their angels in the skies. The rebels are almost bit players in their own civil war at this point…
John Cole
BTW, are you even going to apologize? Or is the new line of attack “It’s your fault I can’t read what you clearly wrote, so therefore I don’t retract my misunderstanding and calling you a racist and then spending the next hour calling you a liar and dodging the question?”
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Barb (formerly Gex): Barb, I have tried diligently to explain this to you. Westernstyle democracy is the same thing as judeochristian democracy. It consists of classic hellenic consent of the governed with the addition of two modern enlightenment principles, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Islamic democracy, while embracing the hellenic consent of the governed (its in the Quran), rejects freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
This is OBVIOUS in the recent Egyptian elections, where 77.2 of the egyptian population voted for shariah law.
I am not trying to trick you, I am not a racist, I am trying to explain.
Tell me what you dont understand about this.
joe from Lowell
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM: Why don’t you try looking at their web site? That is, if you’re actually interested in finding out what you’re asking.
If you’re truly committed to willful ignorance so you can use that ignorance as an argument, then don’t bother to click the link.
Comrade Dread
That is absolutely ridiculous.
You assume that the tribes aligned with Qaddafi will not resort to prolonged assymetrical warfare if their government is overthrown and they find themselves under a rebel controlled state.
Joe Beese
@srv:
Did you know Qaddafi has tossed babies out of incubators? It’s true!
Gus
@Dave: But the one leads to the other. We’ll either bomb and bomb until Qadaffi’s people overthrow him (and as John points out, will our Libyan allies then resort to slaughter of Qadaffi loyalists, and do we then bomb them to prevent a humanitarian crisis?). If Qadaffi is able to hold out, then what?
srv
@celticdragonchick:
Because you really didn’t care then, anymore than much of the crowd here cares about the mess that Libya could well become. A year from now, they might, after it’s too late.
When you and Joe’s kids are studying arabic or dari in their elementary school so they can participate in the generational occupations to make people live like we want them to, then I’ll stop wondering about the lefts ex-post facto compassions about 1989 Afghanistan. Regurgitating “if we’d only listened to Joe Wilson” is not a plan, Marshall or otherwise. Until you have or had a plan, stop acting like you could or do and it could have all been otherwise.
celticdragonchick
@joe from Lowell:
Joe:
I really do like you, and I tend to stay out of the arguments you get into with some of the other folks here.
All the same, I do think you went over the line with insinuating that Cole is racist, and in being insulting to others who disagree with you here.
Please just consider issuing an apology for that. Not for your position…just for being over aggressive about it.
Just a thought.
AnneMarie
srv
@John Cole: John, facts don’t matter, we’re all still racists because the Bhengazi crowd isn’t using suicide bombs now… Or something.
I suggest you or DougJ throw up a thread on pedophile Catholic priests. That will give joe a real hard on.
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
You’re right; I won’t bother clicking the link, you ass, because I can create a website for the Libyan People’s Front in about ten minutes.
Who are the real leaders of this revolution and what are their intentions? Until you can answer those two questions you’re just a pontificating know-nothing.
Now that the rebels are being pushed back, what next smart guy? Do we destroy the remaining paucity of civil institutions and infrastructure in the name of … Someone, and read that someone as us is going to be on the hook for reconstruction and nation building in Libya, no matter who comes out on top. If that doesn’t give you pause then you’re paying someone to tie your shoes.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@John Cole: Can I apologize? Im very sorry people don’t understand what i’m saying.
I’m trying to do better.
Brachiator
@Barb (formerly Gex):
Sorry, I don’t think this is a meaningful distinction at all. I have argued before about Balloon Juicer hypocrisy, the notion that many really do not care if people are killed, innocents or civilians. They don’t care at all. They just don’t want Americans doing the killing. So, Gaddafi or the Syrian authoritarians can kill people all day long, and the only thing that Americans need do is work on their snark.
This is understandable, it’s just that people who espouse this cannot, in my view, make any claim to being ethical or moral. Nor can they complain when an American authoritarian regime suppress its own citizens. Why should we be an exception?
@Dave:
Fair point. I have had more time to read your other posts, and other comments, and see more clearly what you are saying.
Huh? Egypt is trying to put itself back together. I’m not sure that they would be in much of a position to do much of anything. And, would we have no say if Egypt or some other country backed Gadaffi?
celticdragonchick
@srv:
Would you stop running away with the frakking goal posts?
My back hurts and I can’t run like a used to.
In any event, we have moved from “we couldn’t do it at all” to “we would have except you are a callous, cold hearted bitch who didn’t care in 1989 and that is why we didn’t do it.”
I guess that is progress of a sort.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Comrade Dread: Oh I beg pardon.
I was unclear again.
I meant because we are on the side of the islamists this time.
Arming the rebels is arming the MB, because the MB is embedded in every emergent democratic movement in MENA.
IAF in Jordan, SMB in Syria, JCG in Morroco, al-Islah in Yemen, etc.
Comrade Dread
@joe from Lowell:
And once again, you ignore the human component. I couldn’t give a flying f*** what you support with regard to domestic or foreign policy until you start advocating that we start bombing and shooting human beings that were not actively at war with us and that were not planning on attacking America in an immenent time frame.
Well, I could once again point out my consistency on not shooting people who are not trying to kill us, or my consistant assertion of the stupidity of taking sides in a civil war when you have no idea of what the outcome will be, but instead, I will simply call you a condescending jackass.
Mnemosyne
@John Cole:
I’m sorry, when did the US arm people in Libya several decades ago? I think I must have missed that.
That section does sound an awful lot like you’re saying that we armed rebels in Afghanistan, so therefore it’s a bad idea to arm rebels in Libya. Saying that Libya is in the same “region” as Afghanistan when they’re 3000 miles away from each other and have very different histories is a bit of a stretch.
Paul in KY
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Weren’t we on the side of the anti-Saddam ‘insurgents’ (at least some of them) before we went into Iraq?
At least, that is what Bush/Cheney claimed.
Edit: I will note that I think having Pres. Obama in charge of this is googleplex better than having Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Satan/Voldmort honchoing this situation.
Judas Escargot (aka "your liberal-interventionist pal, who's fun to be with")
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
The MB has rejected violence as a means of achieving goals, al-Q has not.
Therefore, AQ is a direct threat, while mainstream MB is not. Completely different contexts.
I don’t much care what god they pray to.
Joe Beese
The inventor of the Friedman Unit thinks issues a dispatch from his gut:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1
joe from Lowell
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
Why is that inconvenient for my argument?
In a democracy, people are allowed to have differing opinions. I didn’t say I’d vote for the bastards, just that they aren’t America’s enemy.
Hence, my opinion that the MB is not my enemy but rather a legitimate political party that belongs in a democracy.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM: I answered your question. The leader of the LNTC is Mustafa Jalil.
The French have recognized the NTC as Libya’s provisional government.
I don’t know if the UN or the US has recognized them yet.
Mnemosyne
@salacious crumb:
The funny thing is, that article you linked to said that the solution for Afghanistan was going beyond the Marshall Plan and doing more for them than the Marshall Plan did for Europe, not less. So I’m not sure it supports your assertion that we were right to drop our support and take off as soon as the Soviets did.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
I’m sorry, that’s a statement of faith.
I’d say it’s better to look at cases individually than make such broad-brush arguments.
That wasn’t on option on March 17. It was act, or genocide.
It’s the entire world community’s job to stop genocide.
I wouldn’t be supporting this without the UN resolution. I would oppose a unilateral intervention.
Citizen Alan
@douchebag from Lowell:
Just so you know, I just took a screenshot of this comment. Because if things escalate and Obama ends up sending in ground forces, I fully expect you to not only come out in favor of ground forces but to deny that you ever opposed the idea. At this point, I consider you to be the Cris Crocker of Obots. You spend your days rolling around on a bed of Obama pictures you cut out of magazines when you aren’t racing to the internet to launch tear-stained screeds at anyone who challenges the authority of the Immaculate God-King. “LEAVE BARACK OBAMA ALONE!!! LEAVE HIM ALOOOONNNEEE!”
joe from Lowell
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM:
i did, at 1:11 PM.
I have absolutely no problem with arguing at 12:1, but if you’re going to be one of the 12, you’re going to have to be a little patient.
Stillwater
@John Cole: BTW, are you even going to apologize?
Joe thinks the double-down is like a rhetorical WMD or something. Others see it as further evidence he’s a fool.
Comrade Dread
Okay, so if Russia or China had vetoed the resolution, you’d really be okay with not acting despite the fact that you honestly believe if we had not intervened there would be genocide?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Paul in KY: We used the Kurds for a fig leaf, and pissed off Turkey.
We were never on the side of either the shi’ia insurgents (sadrites) or the sunni insurgents (baathists, al-Qaeda in Iraq).
The Bush Doctrine.
The problem is that westernstyle democracy cant spread to majority muslim countries.
When muslims are democratically empowered to vote, they vote for more Islam, not less, and never for westernstyle democracy with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
As we just saw in Egypt’s revolution and democratic elections.
joe from Lowell
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Al Qaeda has put out statements strongly hostile to the very parliamentary democracy that the MB calls for in those quotes.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@joe from Lowell: That is a fine statement, but the fact remains that the goals of the MB and al-Qaeda are the same, while their methods of achieving those goals are not.
Citizen Alan
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
I believe her objection arises from your description of Hellenic democracy plus freedom of speech and religion as practiced in the West as “judeo-christian” as if the dominance of Judeo-Christianity led inexorably to the existence of freedom of speech and religion. Historically, neither Judaism nor Christianity has been particularly tolerant of other religions, and if America had been founded by a Jim DeMint type instead of quasi-agnostic freethinkers, I doubt seriously we’d be any more tolerant on such matters than an Islamist democracy.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
What are you babbling about? We can all still read your post, in which the statement about Eastern Libya is in the blockquote and your statement about “the region” isn’t, and we can all still read your comment, in which you put them both in block quotes.
Why would write something that is so easily disproven with a simple spin of the mouse wheel? Look at your post. Look at Comment #155, from you.
Are they formatted the same? Is something in block quotes in the latter that isn’t in the block quotes in the former? Why yes, yes it is. And by doing so, and with the bold, you make your meaning a lot clear.
As for an apology, I’m sorry you’re an unclear writer and it lead some of your readers to miss your point.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
/sigh
I will never understand WP moderation.
@joe from Lowell: yes, another difference in implementation, but the main goals of al-Q and the MB are the same.
To expell western interventionists from the hajj sites especially and MENA in general and work towards the unity and self-governance of the Arab Nation.
The JAFIs call the Arab Nation “the Caliphate”, but as I understand the MB it would be more like the United States of Islam or a souped up Arab League.
Can’t have a caliphate without a caliph.
;)
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: so by that logic, the Iraq war was justified, because of the reasons we went was because Saddam was a butcher, and after we didnt go unilaterally, we did have Britain, Poland and Spain on our side.
joe from Lowell
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM:
Then don’t cite your own ignorance of something you refuse to learn about as an argument. I’ve given you three sources – an on-the-ground reporter, the group’s web site, and the name to type into the Google Machine.
You’re at the water, horse. Don’t tell me your thirst makes me a bad leader.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Citizen Alan: well…I use judeochristian to refine the description.
For example I would never call Israeli democracy westernstyle democracy.
It is judaic democracy. For example, Israeli jewesses cannot out-marry.
I see that I am occluding a straightforward issue, though.
I will just say westernstyle in future, meaning democracy in anglosaxon christian majority countries, and use Hellenic for classic consent of the governed.
Mnemosyne
@Citizen Alan:
Well, we kinda were founded by the Jim DeMint types. But after a couple of generations of various flavors of Christianity running around the colonies trying to wipe each other out, we already had a bad example of what the country would be like if one religion was allowed to dominate, which helped make the decision for the Constitution.
Of course, it took us, what, over 150 years and a lot of bloodshed to figure that out? I think people in the Middle East have about 75 more years to screw up before we can say they’re slower on freedom of religion than we are.
(Not that you were saying that. “We” being a general “we.”)
Joe Beese
Remember when Obama refused to wait for images of mass graves?
[[ The UN reports that 1 million people have fled Abidjan. At least 462 people have been killed since the crisis began in December, not least of whom were six women gunned down by Gbagbo supporters during a peaceful demonstration three weeks ago. If heavy fighting spreads from the strategic town of Duekoue, an untold number will be killed. Genocide is not out of the realm of possibility. There are already reports of mass graves in Abidjan. At the very least, the country seems to be inching ever closer toward an ethnic based mass atrocity event. ]]
http://www.undispatch.com/be-very-concerned-about-cote-divoire-violence#
Too bad they don’t live in an oil-exporting country. Because in that case, the Obama Doctrine is “Sucks To Be You”.
Tsulagi
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM:
Sure, but you should have clicked. Become edumacated like Joe. You could read the bio of Member #1 of these new freedom fighters Joe champions, former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil Fudail. Graduating from the department of Shari’a and Law in the Arabic Language and Islamic Studies faculty from The Libyan University in 1975, he was appointed to the Public Prosecutor’s office. Catching Kadhafi’s eye, he rose through administration ranks to become the Justice Minister four years ago. He resigned last month after the protests started.
Now if ever there was to be a guy to be welcomed as a liberator pelted with candies and flowers by everday Libyans recognizing his sacrifice, he’d have to be among the first.
John Cole
@joe from Lowell: Two people. You and Grass. Grass understood what I meant when I talked to him. You continue to pretend that it is oh so confusing to use the word “region” after quoting “from a base in eastern Libya.” I mean, what region was I talking about? It could have been anything!
And that is my “unclear writing” that leads you to accuse me of racism and continue, up until this post, to not retract the charge of racism.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
srv
@celticdragonchick:
And 290 million just like you.
D-Chance.
@eemom:
The Number One rule of Civility is… you never talk about civility.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
Look.
Libya CANNOT become Iraq III or Afghanistan II, for the simple reason that the coalition is SUPPORTING the side of the islamic insurgents.
It might be a bad idea, and it might not be smart to give the islamic insurgent/youth/secularists/ex-cabinet ministers, ex-military and ex-diplomats that make up the NTC arms.
But it can’t ever be LIKE Iraq.
Because we are on the side of the populist revolution, instead of trying to wipe the rebels out and impose our version of order/culture/democracy.
srv
@Tsulagi:
I’m sorry, but there’s someone better. Younis, the interior minister, aka, former torturer-in-chief.
boomshanka
obviously in misreading john’s post, joe from Lowell must think that the laws of unintended consequences only apply to arming rebels in afghanistan, because afghans rebels are inherently anti-american freedom hating terrorists, but libyans rebels aren’t and will never turn against us. what a fucking racist!
unless i’m misreading something.
wow, this is kinda fun…
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@srv:
Oh, that won’t happen.
The correct comparison is not Libya and Iraq, but A-stan and Vietnam.
Atrocity incidence is ramping up, and neighboring countries are falling to enemy ideology….like dominos. The unjust, unwinnable, and undeclared war in A-stan is bleeding electoral support.
Can you say…Operation Frequent Wind Part Deux?
Gravenstone
Didn’t ready many responses so if this is covered, apologies. But we’re de facto arming the rebels via Egypt (and our prodigious military aide thereof) already. Just figured someone might want to mention that.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
This is a false analogy and not correct.
The Clean Air Act delegation,like others, is to the Executive Branch for executing laws duly passed by the Congress. This is Admin Law 101.
The War Powers Act, whose constitutionality has never been tested (fyi, the Presidents, including this one, maintain it is unconstitutional as a usurpation of the President’s C-I-C power), is not at all like the Clean Air Act.
There is no law tobe carried out regarding the Libya intervention.
On this matter, you simply are not well informed.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@boomshanka:
they won’t turn against us unless we send our missionaries with guns to try to force westernstyle democracy on them.
Paul in KY
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: That answer, if you added a few ‘wallahs’ & conjugated every other word, would be just what m_c would say.
I do not agree that ‘Western Style Democracy’ can never work in a Moslem nation. I do agree, however, that Western style freedom of speech cannot at this point work in a Muslim nation, due to the bans on certain religous topics being discussed in public and/or print.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Gravenstone: this is true.
Egypt and the Brothers are just across the border with vast stashes of Superior American Armament.
And that is another reason Qaddafi cant hope to survive a protracted engagement. He is surrounded. He outlawed the MB years ago, like Mubarak.
His only hope is to crush the rebellion immediately, while the Right concerntrolls Obama and the Left clutches their pearls over a fantasy OIF Redux.
So arming the rebels might speed this up.
I change my mind.
I think arming the rebels just became a great idea.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Paul in KY: Oh, this is absolutely correct.
But the current state of quranic exegesis and islamic jurisprudence won’t allow it.
I never said it couldn’t happen in the future, but it absolutely cannot happen now.
Shariah outlaws proselytization. Freedom of speech legalizes proselytization.
Incompatible.
Why don’t Americans get all up in the Israelis’ grill over freedom of religion?
It is Israeli law that jewesses cant outmarry.
Neither can muslimahs under islamic law.
Same same.
Tsulagi
@srv:
Well, I said Jalil would be among the first, not the only one. It’s a big pup tent.
Between the guy who locked up Kadhafi’s enemies and the one who tortured them, there can be a healthy competition for who now gets to #1 leading them. They have their countrymen’s best interests at heart. Now. Libyans will clearly recognize that as Joe does.
cyntax
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
Remembering that the rebels have some rather small number of regular troops, who’s going to train them to use these shiny new weapons, when the rebels don’t manage to dislodge the loyalists in urban house-to-house fighting?
Just Some Fuckhead
@cyntax:
According to Joe, there are no loyalists. Only mercenaries.
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@joe from Lowell:
Well, horse, or some nether portion thereof, you are a leader in your own mind but, go ahead and lock and load your keyboard in the name of another US “No one could have anticipated…” adventure. If there was a market for stupid you would be a hedge fund.
cyntax
@Just Some Fuckhead:
The Libyan I heard on the radio this morning must not have gotten that dispatch. One can only assume that enough of them aren’t reading the comments section here.
Tsulagi
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM:
I dunno, that sounds a bit much. A single derivative maybe.
4tehlulz
I don’t see why the UN couldn’t just declare Benghazi a safe area and deploy a few peacekeepers. That usually works well.
Incoherent Dennis SGMM
@Tsulagi:
I apologize for the hyperbole.
Just Some Fuckhead
@cyntax:
Do I need to yell “mercenary” louder for you to understand?
Max Daru
@joe from Lowell: Joe, man, I hope you’re getting paid by representatives of the future East Libya (or whatever the powers that be will call it) since you’ve posted 50 times on this thread alone.
Even if you have some valid points I can’t read you anymore cause you’re overdoing it. Not to mention you come off like a prick.
Paul in KY
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: I disagreed with you on ‘Western Style Democracy’. I think you can theoretically have one, without having ‘U.S. style’ freedom of speech.
Are you m_c acting all respectable and writing out words & using punctuation correctly just to fool us? You can tell me.
P.S. i thought it was you who did all the heavy lifting in Harry Potterland. Seems like you got downplayed in those books…
cyntax
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Wait… I almost I had it. Nope. Lost it.
Better yell louder.
Bob Loblaw
@Paul in KY:
Jesus dude, yes, she’s matoko. It’s not supposed to be hidden. No one cares.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
No, read the UN Charter. Except for self-defense, it is only legal to launch a war with the approval of the United Nations.
Not the Coalition of the Billing.
Please note that this doctrine has both legal implications, but also an important practical one: you can’t just say “The people who agree with us agree with us,” or pick out the 7 members of the “jury” who vote your way. You have to get the whole jury. This doctrine acts as a serious restraint on the use of force.
joe from Lowell
@Incoherent Dennis SGMM:
We restart the bombings of Gadaffi’s forces in the field, now that they’ve come out of Sirte and are traveling along the same roads as they were the last time they suffered such a defeat.
WTF? Have you read even a single word on how this campaign is being conducted?
joe from Lowell
@Comrade Dread:
Actually, the human component is foremost in my mind. If I didn’t think that the use of force would advance humanitarian goals, I wouldn’t be supporting this action.
You can’t just take as divine word the notion that not using force is always and everywhere, in response to every situation, the best thing for “the human component.” The people of Benghazi, the ones being shelled and bombed by Gaddaffi’s forces, are human, too. We stopped that. Had we not applied force, we wouldn’t have.
I can understand the humane values behind your pacifism here, but I disagree with you on the practical question of how best to advance them.
joe from Lowell
@Citizen Alan:
You go on with your bad self.
I think you vastly overestimate how much your opinion of me matters, but it looks like you, like a lot of people on the left, have found yourself an excuse (in this case, blind Obama worship) to avoid doing some hard thinking about the genuinely difficult questions posed by the concept of humanitarian intervention.
joe from Lowell
@John Cole:
Actually, we’re up to at least four now. Check out comment 142, and now comment 244.
Actually, eastern Libya is both a region unto itself, as well as within the larger region known as the Greater Middle East.
Add to that the fact that the vast majority of the references one see to “arming people from this region coming back to bite us” refers to the Middle East in general.
And then, add to that the fact that people from eastern Libya have not, in fact, caused us problems, while people from throughout the Greater Middle East have.
Or, just climb up on your cross, insert the word “racism” into my mouth, and use some foul language. Up to you.
joe from Lowell
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: I consider the desire to work within a democratic system, vs. the desire to eliminate democracy, to be a significant difference.
I consider the use of terroristic violence, vs. the rejection of violence in favor of politics, to be a significant difference.
Yes, they both have Islamic visions. The Bolsehviks and the German Social Democratic Party both had socialist visions. That doesn’t mean one can’t find a meaningful difference between them.
Just Some Fuckhead
@joe from Lowell: What about the folks the rebels are killing? Less than human? Not quite as human as the rebels? Inhuman?
joe from Lowell
@BTD:
Except that the executive branch doesn’t just “carry out” the law, but it goes well beyond that, and is directed to write the law on such trifling matters as what materials qualify as air pollution, what levels are safe, and what regulations should be put in place. Since you don’t seem to know, there is actually a movement among the libertarians to deem such laws unconstitutional, just as you wish to deem the WPR and UN Participation Act unconstitutional, on the grounds that they cede too much of Congress’s power to the executive.
If I’m uninformed in this area, then so is Scott Lemieux, Esq., at Lawyersgunsandmoneyblog, who has both explained this doctrine on his own and seconded me when I explained it.
joe from Lowell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Now we’re getting into a numbers game, and it doesn’t work out well for the “Let Gadaffi be Gadaffi” side. Until we get to “air power and tanks set loose on crowds,” it will remain that way.
Every death is tragedy. Better is better, and worse is worse.
We should use whatever influence we have with the rebels to ensure that any bad acts by them are kept to an absolute minimum.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@cyntax: I think it has more psychological value. And there are a significant cadre of exmilitary in the rebels. Qaddafi will cut and run if it starts to look hopeless.
I just think it would make for less death.
If you can give me a scenario where Qaddafi stays, I might change my mind.
;)
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@Paul in KY:
Oh it was. And I am doing it here too.
;)
Just Some Fuckhead
@joe from Lowell: You already made it a numbers game when you decided it was okay to kill X number of loyalists to protect X number of Benghazians.
joe from Lowell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
And if you shared my concern about humanitarian values – which, I know, you expressly repudiated last week, writing repeatedly that you don’t give a shit about Libyans – then you would agree that it is worse for more people to be killed, and less-worse for fewer.
Just Some Fuckhead
@joe from Lowell:
What values, Joe? You’ve reduced it to a question of math, not morality.
salacious crumb
@joe from Lowell: so why wasnt the UN concerned with the slaughter of Shias by Saddam, i mean after all they could have rallied around George Bush’s reasoning around that?
joe from Lowell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
What are you, kidding?
Reducing the death toll isn’t an advance for humanitarian values?
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb:
You’ll have to ask them, although I’ll note that the UN actually did ok the No Fly Zone over the south of Iraq throughout the 1990s and up until the invasion.
Using UN approval as the legitimate arbiter of when force can be used is the worse possible system, except for all the rest.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m a loyalist protecting my home, my family and my way of life from insurgents tearing my country apart. Joe wants me dead for some reason. I ask him why he wants me dead and he tells me it’s because he’s a humanitarian. I ask him what a humanitarian is and he tells me it’s a person who wants more people killed on one side than the other as long as it’s my side that suffers the most losses.
joe from Lowell
@salacious crumb: If you want me to speculate, I’d say that the list of people Gadaffi has managed to piss off is truly breathtaking in its scope. I mean, the United States, the House of Saud, al Qaeda, and France.
The man’s a uniter, not a divider.
joe from Lowell
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Yes, that’s what’s going on in Libya, and was going on for a month before the UN intervened: mean protesters attacking those poor Gaddafi loyalists who, gosh darnit, just want to protect their homes.
Yes, I remember that.
I congratulate you on your ability to invent a set of theoretic circumstances that, if true, would inevitably lead to the conclusion you wish to reach. That’s a rare talent.
joe from Lowell
Personally, Fuckhead, I still retain my unbridled moral rage at those heartless bastards who shot the shooter who climbed up the tower at the University of Texas.
I mean, they shot him! With guns! Why, oh why, were they so eager to see people die?
They should have just stayed out of it. They could have spent that afternoon tiling their bathrooms, and what about that?
gex
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: A load of nonsense. Your opinions are not facts, any more than the Bell Curve reported on fundamental truths.
It’s judeo-christian because you say it is. End of story. Wow. You argue like EDK.
gex
@Brachiator: Fair enough. It’s all so miserable and intractable I can see both sides. I do overall support the idea that if we can make it better we should. But then, who doesn’t agree with that? It’s the specifics that are lighting up the comment threads.
Fuck living in interesting times.
joe from Lowell
@Comrade Dread:
Yes.
It would be a damned shame if they did, but when I spent six years howling about Bush’s unilateral war, it wasn’t just something convenient to say in a debate with an Iraq hawk. I meant it.
Also, I take back the word “genocide,” and Find and Replace with the terms “massacre,” “mass killing on a horrendous scale,” or “crimes against humanity.” Thanks to Josef Stalin, politicide – the mass killing of people based on their politics, in an effort to destroy a group defined by its politics – is not included in the definition of genocide.
gex
@Paul in KY: Why, our neighbors to the north just recently rejected a Fox like news outlet because they don’t have the same free speech protections as the US (i.e. they can’t lie). But democracy is whatever HGW defines it as, not any other definition and not how it exists or is practiced elsewhere.
Again, it is all just fancy words for “Muslims can’t do democracy.”
John Cole
joe from Lowell, now denying he ever accused anyone of racism:
joe from Lowell at 9:54 am:
joe from Lowell at 9:57:
Sad you aren’t even honest enough to admit what you said, even though it is right there for everyone to see.
Just Some Fuckhead
@joe from Lowell: What fuckall does that have to do with a civil war in Libya? I’m desperately trying to understand ya here and all I’m getting is that you’ve decided one side in a civil war is better than the other side so whoever and howevermany they kill is fine. Did I get it right?
ETA: (And the side you’ve chosen is excused simply because someone else threatened to massacre them, right?)
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@gex: AMG. That is the single greatest insult I have ever been dealt.
I agreed to not use it anymore, you are right, it just occludes the debate.
I will just say westernstyle from now on.
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@gex:
Im sorry, I must be explaining this poorly.
Muslims can do Hellenic democracy, meaning the consent of the governed. Its in the Quran. the Quran is not only holy scripture for muslims, but also a guide to how to live one’s life. And the Quran, in regard to governing, advises governing with the consent of the governed.
But freedom of speech and freedom of religion are incompatible with current islamic jurisprudence.
This could change in the future, if quranic exegesis and shariah law change, but this is the way it is NOW.
Are you saying westernstyle democracy DOES NOT mandate freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Hermione Granger-Weasley
@joe from Lowell: i guess you can say it is the difference between theory and practice.
;)
El Cid
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: The rebels and former officers themselves have been discussing how there are simply too few of those former military. This would be even more significant would it come to training for heavier arms and for strategic planning. It would seem pretty necessary to have some component of advisers from some other nation or nations aid in that training, particularly in the field.
The rebels have been pretty good at rapid offensives and occasionally this takes hold of Qaddafi regime held cities and towns, but it’s not great for long-term holding. (Outside a few strong-holds like Benghazi.)
El Cid
@joe from Lowell:
I don’t think that ever went through the UN. It was the US-UK.
Comrade Dread
If there is some sort of moral imperative that the United States get involved because it can when there exists the possibility of wanton slaughter in a foreign nation, you violate that imperative with your condition that such intervention is only appropriate when other nations give us the green light to do so.
But if there are conditions under which you would embrace non-interventionism, then you have removed the moral imperative from the equation and now we are simply discussing the appropriate conditions and threshholds for engaging in open warfare against a country that has not threatened us or attacked us.
So I therefore find it difficult to believe you when you claim that it was truly necessary for us to intervene at all in this conflict.
Citizen Alan
@moron from Lowell:
Alright, here’s a genuinely difficult question posed by the concept of humanitarian intervention? If we’re going to drop $100 mill a day into Libya on top of what we’ve already squandered in Iraq and Afgh just to help GWB overcome his feelings of personal inadequacy, exactly what is your position on Cote D’Ivoire? You know, that place with the ethnic cleansing but without the oil? Then one Obama hasn’t said boo about to my knowledge?
Citizen Alan
@Hermione Granger-Weasley:
Well, for some values of freedom of speech and religion, no it does not. Eugene Debs spent time in the federal pen just for giving an anti-war speech, after all, and the law under which he was prosecuted is still on the books. British libel laws have enormous power to stifle free speech, as do Canadian hate speech laws which would never pass constitutional muster here. The U.S. arguably has the strongest speech and religion rights of any Western nation, but even here, there is considerable tension between Constitutional guarantees of free speech/religion and public hostility towards unpopular speech and unpopular religions. I believe it was PZ Myers who just mentioned the case of a Wiccan TSA worker who got fired after a fundamentalist Christian co-worker falsely accused her of casting a spell that cause the other woman’s car heater to stop working or some such rubbish.
In short, I would agree that Western democracies have generally stronger commitments to free speech and religion because those democracies are rooted in the Enlightenment tradition, but I’m not persuaded that those rights are mandated by our society. I guess we’ll see the next time we get a Republican president and Democrats try to show up at political events carrying guns and refuse to stay in First Amendment zones.
BTD
@joe from Lowell:
You misunderstood Lemieux’s post on the subject.
He said that DE FACTO, what Obama is doing is no different than what has been done for decades. I agree.
But Lemieux has never stated that it is like the Clean Water Act. OR that it is consistent with the Constitution.
Do not thrust onto Lemieux your ignorance on the subject.
Paul in KY
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: Glad you’re back.
Paul in KY
@gex: She seems to believe that and has backed up her assertion. I disagree, but I think there are Muslim nations/ethnic groups where she would be right.
There are many, many flavors of Muslim.
gex
@Hermione Granger-Weasley: I see that you will continue to add adjectives to the word democracy solely for the purpose of making the point that them “muslins” can’t handle it.
Also, I like how you completely ignored my point about Canada and their different take free speech. Because, your point still stands.
Change “westernstyle” to “American-style” and you’re closer. But you’re still just positing your opinion of our democracy as a fact of our democracy.
gex
@Paul in KY: You are too generous. Just because some Muslims might not currently be amenable to democracy doesn’t mean that their culture is fixed. ETA- HGW seems to think that these are fixed traits of Muslims.
Yeah, I know who we’re talking to, and I know the effectiveness of trying to argue. But I just have to protest the “Muslims can’t do democracy” meme when I see it, especially when espoused by “my side”.