41–50 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pattern? This civil war wouldn’t have been won by the revolutionaries without support from NATO but there still would have been a civil war. This civil war was not faked by NATO, it was very real – and all things considered the right side won.
If the people in some other Arabic countries did the same thing we would be bombing their ruler's palaces?
NATO saw an opportunity and grabbed it. Were their motives pure? What do I care.
To quote Andrew Sullivan: To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.
Perhaps that Nobel Peace Prize was a bit premature. I would rather Qaddafi had been brought to trial and punished accordingly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope yours is the correct explanation. Nevertheless, I get the feeling that many Americans for some reason sympathize with anti-Americanist foreign leaders, even if their own people consider them ruthless dictators. (I'm not American, btw.)
I have never really encountered anyone in the west who sympathizes with Qaddafi. I think his ruthlessness is pretty much consensus.
Or the same Qaddafi that provided the `special questioning` facilities when the British secret service sent the current democratic leader there to be interrogated about terrorist links.
To quote Andrew Sullivan: To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.
Amazing the shift of perspective... How many who voted for Obama (or at least against John McCain) would expect their vote would elect a President who would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan with a special forces operation, murder an American citizen without due process, and enter into armed conflict with Libya without the consultation of Congress and eventually assassinate a sitting head of state?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps that Nobel Peace Prize was a bit premature. I would rather Qaddafi had been brought to trial and punished accordingly.
I would say a court marshal ending with a televised execution wouldn't been better. This man was evil. And he was crazy. A violent death, no matter how, is what he deserved.
That's what they said on TV, didn't they? Must be true then.
In other words - how do you know? How do you know the picture you are being fed by the media is accurate enough to assign him a "violent death" as a proper punishment? And without a public trial at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never really encountered anyone in the west who sympathizes with Qaddafi. I think his ruthlessness is pretty much consensus.
The same Qaddafi who was a "partner in the war on terror" when Prime minister Blair visited in 2004 ? Or the same Qaddafi that provided the `special questioning` facilities when the British secret service sent the current democratic leader there to be interrogated about terrorist links.
The mood here is very gloomy. Back when they kicked out Ben Ali and Mubarak there was celebration on HN. I guess you're not really a dictator unless you're an ally of the US, huh?
The issue isn't that anyone sympathizes with Gadaffi, but that it calls into question the solidarity and stability of the rebel government. Until now, Libyans have been united by their hatred of Gadaffi but we haven't seen whether the government can pull Libya together in a post-Gadaffi nation or really what kind of government or society will emerge. This execution was an action by Libyans with guns against the express will of the nominal government (which wanted to try him first.) It's a bad omen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the people in some other Arabic countries did the same thing we would be bombing their ruler's palaces?
Shrug. NATO saw an opportunity and grabbed it. Were their motives pure? What do I care.
I guess it's okay that he's dead, but I'm concerned about the way he was killed. A bunch of soldiers ran into his house, stripped him, dragged him through the streets, and shot him at some point. That is some Trojan War shit. I'm still not convinced that the Middle East is civilized... which is why I'm an isolationist. I'm not very reassured by this quote from the transitional government spokesperson: “We were seriou…
If that kind of violence makes you doubt the civility of a people, you might want to add every other country in the world onto your list of "uncivilized places", and yes, including the USA.
> "My definition of "civilization" is a society "ruled by law" and something approaching a "democracy"."
The same "rule of law" that permits the USA to assassinate one of its own citizens without due process, only executive order? The same "rule of law" that permits it to covertly fund and equip rebel forces in democratic countries simply because their leadership dare oppose US national interests? (Chile is the most salient example of this, but far from the only one)
It seems your definition of "civilization" is less concerned with how much unjust blood is spilled, but rather how visible and public said blood is. This seems like a poor definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazing the shift of perspective... How many who voted for Obama (or at least against John McCain) would expect their vote would elect a President who would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan with a special forces operation, murder an American citizen without due process, and enter into armed conflict with Libya without the consultation of Congress and eventually assassinate a sitting head of state?
Which head of state did the US assassinate?