He actually has more ample justification for this kind of brutality than he had before NATO intervened.
O RLY
cuz before NATO he was playing nice
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:23 (twelve years ago) link
reading comprehension, mo. The actions do not need to change for the justification to change.
― Aimless, Friday, 8 July 2011 23:29 (twelve years ago) link
Republican Representative Tom Cole narrowly won a ban on military spending to train or equip rebels fighting to topple Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
...
One of the most successful budget-cutting efforts was led by Representative Betty McCollum, a Democrat who doggedly pressed her drive to slash more than $120 million for military bands.
:(
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/usa-budget-defense-idUSN1E7670UA20110708
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:32 (twelve years ago) link
if the justifications don't matter why did you bring them up
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:33 (twelve years ago) link
i mean come on, out of the entire military budget she's sticking it to BANDS for a 120 mil
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:33 (twelve years ago) link
seriously it's always "LOOK! OVER THERE!" *runs away* with you
xp
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:34 (twelve years ago) link
If, by our actions, we are supplying Q with greater justification in the eyes of the world (this requires you to understand that not everyone in the world automatically sees Q as a monster of depravity) then I should think that matters. Who said it didn't?
― Aimless, Friday, 8 July 2011 23:38 (twelve years ago) link
rmde
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:39 (twelve years ago) link
Shakey, I realize you think you are providing a constant stream of unanswerable ripostes and you also clearly think I am ducking them and dodging furiously, but from where i sit, you are riposting based on a hasty and superficial reading of whatever I say, leading to unwarranted conclusions, which you then answer brialliantly, except, they are the products of your misunderstanding and not actually answering me so much as the voice in your head that you impose on me.
All that dodging you perceive so clearly is me trying to point out your misunderstanding (aha! wriggling out of what I just said, by your lights, in order to avoid answering your brilliant riposte!) by patiently going back and correcting your misperceptions of my statements.
I've been through this so many times on the internet I've come to recognize it. But, do go on. I love to hear you talk. Don't let me stop you.
― Aimless, Friday, 8 July 2011 23:44 (twelve years ago) link
are you asking me a question? I asked you a question. Trayce answered it.
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:47 (twelve years ago) link
er Tracer
You seem to be of the opposite opinion, and that letting Q kill a bunch of people is preferable to taking a chance that said killing can be indefinitely forestalled. You have yet to explain why you think this is so.
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, July 8, 2011 9:42 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 July 2011 23:48 (twelve years ago) link
First, some clarification.
We are already letting Q kill a bunch of people. He is killing them on a daily basis. This act of "forestalling" that you speak of also entails killing people on a daily basis. Letting this go on indefinitely entails both Q and ourselves killing a bunch of people, indefinitely.
Since many people are already being killed, and maintaining our current level of military activity ensures that this killing will go on and on and on, then it is disingenuous to imply, as your question does, that only one of these choices entails "a bunch of people" being killed. This implication serves a fine rhetorical purpose, but it also carries a large degree of distortion and oversimplification. As such, it is what is called a loaded question.
Answering loaded questions is not a sensible pastime. Perhaps you might like to rephrase your question in such a way that a reasonable person might be able to respond.
― Aimless, Saturday, 9 July 2011 00:03 (twelve years ago) link
France has denied claims that it has changed its policy towards the Libyan conflict and is negotiating directly with the regime of Muammar Gaddafi, but has called for political flexibility over the terms and timing of his departure.
The country's foreign ministry said on Monday that the Libyan leader must go and insisted there were no direct negotiations with him, as claimed by his son.
That is from the Guardian (UK)
― curmudgeon, Monday, 11 July 2011 19:57 (twelve years ago) link
Since many people are already being killed, and maintaining our current level of military activity ensures that this killing will go on and on and on, then it is disingenuous to imply, as your question does, that only one of these choices entails "a bunch of people" being killed.
it's a question of scale. I think the number of people killed by pursuing Option A (NATO backing of rebels) is smaller than the number of people that would be killed under Option B (letting Q settle his own internal affairs). This is the issue.
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 11 July 2011 20:01 (twelve years ago) link
Is Q gonna get to live in the South of France!
TRIPOLI (Reuters) - France said Muammar Gaddafi was ready to leave power, according to emissaries, the latest sign contacts were underway between the Libyan leader and NATO members to find a way out of the crisis.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 12 July 2011 14:49 (twelve years ago) link
As far as France as concerned he isn't technically part of the Libyan government anymore iirc
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 12 July 2011 15:00 (twelve years ago) link
Technicalities.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 12 July 2011 15:05 (twelve years ago) link
obviously Q leaving is a net positive. otoh I hate these amnesty-for-dictators deals in principle.
― a man is only a guy (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:09 (twelve years ago) link
Yeah, but how binding are they? Chile went back on Pinochet's. I guess you just say that the agreement was made under one government, when they left, and will be broken by another afterwards, who aren't restricted by the agreement. Plus the amnesty doesn't trump international law which allows anyone else to punish them if their nation is unable or unwilling. So you need to get them out of the country. Then Thatcher can let them go again.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:40 (twelve years ago) link
happy 100th, air power!
http://counterpunch.org/patrick07252011.html
― you call it trollin' i call it steamrollin' (Dr Morbius), Monday, 25 July 2011 19:26 (twelve years ago) link
(Reuters) - Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's camp has vowed to push on with its war against rebels whether or not NATO stops its bombing campaign,
Great.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 13:40 (twelve years ago) link
Then there is this:
The assassination of Gen. Younis is a major challenge to the rebels – and to the strategy of the US and others who recognized the rebels as Libya's government and must stay the course.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0802/Can-US-Libya-strategy-survive-the-assassination-of-rebels-top-general
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 14:48 (twelve years ago) link
lol that's just him pushing the narrative that NATO had something to do with initiating the hostilities in the first place (it did not, btw)
― Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 19:13 (twelve years ago) link
?? has anyone ever thought that?
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 19:19 (twelve years ago) link
Q's blamed the whole conflagration on "outside agitators" and "foreign elements" since day one
― Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 19:20 (twelve years ago) link
hmm yeah i don't think he meant NATO
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 19:24 (twelve years ago) link
7/25: Late on Saturday Gaddafi said in an audio message on state television that the unrest that has swept his country since a popular uprising erupted in mid-February was a "colonial plot."
He did not elaborate.
He also denied accusations by international rights groups of a brutal suppression of dissent and allegations that his regime had killed thousands of protesters.
― Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 19:37 (twelve years ago) link
he blames whoever's handy
TS: bombing Gaddafi's dupes in Libya or bombing Assad's dupes in Syria
I've come to hate Sarkozy & Cameron for forcing this intervention on the rest of NATO. Its pretty clear that Obama wanted no part of it from the beginning.
― waxing gibbous (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 19:58 (twelve years ago) link
It's much better when the US are forcing their allies into wars of course. The US has done fairly little so far, too. But yes, of course, we should be supporting the rebels/people in Syria as well.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:04 (twelve years ago) link
It's amazing how much that Racky wants no part of, he gets.
Patrick Cockbun on the Younes killing and our 'freedom fighters':
http://counterpunch.org/patrick08012011.html
― satan club sandwich (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:07 (twelve years ago) link
Syria, as we've discussed before, because of its involvement with Iran and Lebanon (and other issues), seems more complicated than Libya (although Libya has obviously been a more complicated situation than the Brits and the French once apparently thought it would be)
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:08 (twelve years ago) link
x-post- I am always a bit skeptical of Cockburn's often out there views. Morbs, is anyone else saying this?
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:10 (twelve years ago) link
The nature of the civil war in Libya has been persistently underplayed by foreign governments and media alike. The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognize the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields.
yeah, uh... I don't really buy this
― Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:11 (twelve years ago) link
is Patrick related to Alexander?
more probably motivated by a desperate need to give an ugly civil/tribal stalemate some degree of legitimacy.
― goole, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:14 (twelve years ago) link
alexander, andrew and patrick cockburn, all brothers
andrew also father of olivia "wilde", importantly.
― goole, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:16 (twelve years ago) link
Both of them go a little too far in an extreme simplistic way for me.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:17 (twelve years ago) link
was gonna read that patrick cockburn piece but i was distracted by "The Forced Drugging of America's Children"
― max, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:27 (twelve years ago) link
first the drugging, then the slavery
― Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:28 (twelve years ago) link
The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognize the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields.
yeah we did all this really, didn't we? the energy companies were doing ok trading with gadaffi / who does cockburn recognizer as the leader(s) of libya? etc.
i think claud would be very disappointed in this though: is junior really complaining about a 'mysterious self-appointed group' running things? is he some kind of liberal democrat now?
but it is pretty clusterfucky over there. do 'get' why the clean-hands feeling of non-intervention / letting someone else intervene appeals.
― je suis marxiste – tendance richard (history mayne), Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:35 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.maynereport.com/templateimages/logo.gif
― zvookster, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 20:38 (twelve years ago) link
i see this after all yr posts now
oh, you
― goole, Wednesday, 3 August 2011 01:26 (twelve years ago) link
Juan Cole does not agree with the Cockburns either:
But logically speaking there are only four likely outcomes.
1. Qaddafi wins and conquers the East
2. The Free Libya forces over time win and take Tripoli
3. Elites in Tripoli overthrow Qaddafi and seek a national unity government with Benghazi
4. The country is partitioned
The UN allies won’t allow Qaddafi to take the east and massacre and imprison thousands, however much Alexander Cockburn, the Tea Party, and the World Socialist Web site would like to see that happen, or at least they object to practical steps to prevent it.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 5 August 2011 13:46 (twelve years ago) link
rebels claim Tripoli is surrounded, Qadhafi cut off
probably less than 100% true, I'm guessing
― Richard Nixon's Field of Warmth (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 15 August 2011 19:00 (twelve years ago) link
Wow, this story making the rounds now, after recent stories re rebel dissension and in-fighting
― curmudgeon, Monday, 15 August 2011 19:15 (twelve years ago) link
Helpful map:
http://www.twitpic.com/67nmsz
― polyphonic, Wednesday, 17 August 2011 22:34 (twelve years ago) link
increasingly looking like Q's days are numbered, imho
we'll see
― that mellow wash of meh (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 19 August 2011 20:45 (twelve years ago) link