Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, March 20th, 2011 1:38pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Why is anyone listening to this 1960s marxist dinosaur? "Political writer."

You know something, if someone is shooting at my family just because they don't want to lose power, the UN can disgrace me that way all they want...

I guess Blankfist's drum circle didn't make a difference after all.

and RT? Really? The mouth piece of the fucking Kremlin?

>> ^Smugglarn:

I guess Blankfist's drum circle didn't make a difference after all.
and RT? Really? The mouth piece of the fucking Kremlin?


I wish I played drums.

Yes, lets send in the nuetral observation team to watch Gaddafi butcher civilians. Bright idea.

The people are trying to stand up to him, and he's committing outright genocide. Of course, we must do what we can to help the people liberate themselves. Unlike Iraq, this is not just for the hell of it - we are helping the people free themselves, when they do not have the strength themselves, as opposed to Egypt, Tunesia and so on.

If we sit and watch as the civilians are butchered, we are no better (or at least very little better) than the butchers ourselves.

>> ^gwiz665:

The people are trying to stand up to him, and he's committing outright genocide. Of course, we must do what we can to help the people liberate themselves. Unlike Iraq, this is not just for the hell of it - we are helping the people free themselves, when they do not have the strength themselves, as opposed to Egypt, Tunesia and so on.
If we sit and watch as the civilians are butchered, we are no better (or at least very little better) than the butchers ourselves.


I don't exactly prescribe to your exact moral position on this, but it does seem like a "better" version of Iraq as open rebellion has been happening in the whole region. The tricky problem is, how do you support rebels without directly supporting rebels (look at how well cruise missiles helped stop the fighting in Iraq), while also having to maintain diplomatic relations with the ruler if the rebellion fails, even more so if you are saying he is a war criminal? I can't bring myself to vote for this video though, this lady seemed like she was harboring some irrational hatred for anything US, even though I think it is France (lol?) leading the charge on this one.

Just a little moral question for ya. If you buy a CD player that you don't need, are you morally responsible for the homeless person you didn't give lunch money? Not trying to be snarky, I just find problems with believing in that exact moral position. It would result in a complete stimy of action because you actions could never be probably meshed with all outcomes of maximum happiness. Technocratic morality boredom, signing out!

Who is that hippie?

Well, we are sitting and watching as civilians are butchered, aren't we? Jemen and Bahrain are right nextdoor, but those dictatorships are still backed up. Not to mention the Saudis, who sent troops to gun down the protest in Bahrain.

And who are "the people" in Lybia? I still haven't heard any clear information about the rebels in Libya. From where I'm standing, it still looks very much like a fight between different clans, a civil war. Egypt in particular can't be compared, almost the entire people were rebelling against Mubarak. That's clearly not the case in Libya.

We know jack shit about the domestic context of all the non-Gaddafi actors on the ground, so the kind of intervention currently taking place, an external intervention for mixed motivations, is likely to backfire. Mixed motivations, because I don't believe for a second that oil and particularly the refugee issue are not taken into account in any decision making process.

I'm not saying the UN resolution is right or wrong, I'm simply saying it's a fucking hypocrisy to start a "humanitarian intervention" while supporting the same behaviour next door. Not that I believe in any reasonable chance of success of such an intervention by NATO powers without strong support from at least Turkey and the Arab nations anyway. The Arab League already condemned the airstrikes, so their support is not as strong as it was claimed to be. And why would it, both the Arab League and the CCASG consist of oppressive regimes themselves. If the Arab nations were serious about ending Gaddafi's rule over his people, they would have to take the lead on this one. The track record of NATO/EU intervention is one catastrophe after another, so it has to be them.

There is an obligation to help the civilians currently being slaughtered, but the current plan appears to have risks for the Libyan people outweighing the humanitarian benefit. The best use of the UNSC Resolution seems to use it as little as possible. Any form of escalation will only make things worse. It's up to the opposition now to demonstrate that they have the backing of the people, then their political and popular weight could cause the regime to implode.

Still, it just feels like Kosovo all over again, UÇK and everything, but worse.
>> ^gwiz665:

The people are trying to stand up to him, and he's committing outright genocide. Of course, we must do what we can to help the people liberate themselves. Unlike Iraq, this is not just for the hell of it - we are helping the people free themselves, when they do not have the strength themselves, as opposed to Egypt, Tunesia and so on.
If we sit and watch as the civilians are butchered, we are no better (or at least very little better) than the butchers ourselves.


Sarkozy might have reasons of his own, domestic ones. And let's not forget that just last year, France backed Morocco against the civil uprise in Western Sahara by blocking the UN.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

even though I think it is France (lol?) leading the charge on this one.

Well, it's not about just calling him a war criminal - he is a war criminal (or that's what the evidence I've seen so far leads me to believe, at least). I wouldn't want diplomatic relations with him, I would want to topple him by force. Like Hitler.

In answer to your question. No, you are not morally responsible for the misery in the world. No more so than your conscience dictates. I do think there's a difference between someone actively forcing someone as opposed to someone who have made some bad choices. At some point we, as a society, should say when enough is enough. If there is a benevolent dictatorship, if you can imagine such a thing, then we should not break that up for the hell of it, if the people don't care. If the people are actively rebelling against their dictator and he strikes back with full force, then I think that we should try to minimize the suffering from it

Do the least harm is basically what I want to live by, but I don't want it to be "I go out in the world to fix suffering where I see it", it's a balancing act, eh? When a certain threshold of suffering is passed, it seems prudent to me to take action.

For instance, if someone was homeless I would not necessarily give him money and stuff, but if someone fell over and hurt their leg, I would. It's all a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit being a limiting of suffering.

/ramble
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
The people are trying to stand up to him, and he's committing outright genocide. Of course, we must do what we can to help the people liberate themselves. Unlike Iraq, this is not just for the hell of it - we are helping the people free themselves, when they do not have the strength themselves, as opposed to Egypt, Tunesia and so on.
If we sit and watch as the civilians are butchered, we are no better (or at least very little better) than the butchers ourselves.

I don't exactly prescribe to your exact moral position on this, but it does seem like a "better" version of Iraq as open rebellion has been happening in the whole region. The tricky problem is, how do you support rebels without directly supporting rebels (look at how well cruise missiles helped stop the fighting in Iraq), while also having to maintain diplomatic relations with the ruler if the rebellion fails, even more so if you are saying he is a war criminal? I can't bring myself to vote for this video though, this lady seemed like she was harboring some irrational hatred for anything US, even though I think it is France (lol?) leading the charge on this one.
Just a little moral question for ya. If you buy a CD player that you don't need, are you morally responsible for the homeless person you didn't give lunch money? Not trying to be snarky, I just find problems with believing in that exact moral position. It would result in a complete stimy of action because you actions could never be probably meshed with all outcomes of maximum happiness. Technocratic morality boredom, signing out!

You may be right, it does seem like every time "we" get involved it turns to shit faster - it could be that it's shit already and the media exposure makes it apparent to us. I dunno. I'm not a politician, general or intelligence officer, I can only work on the evidence in front of me.

It's basically one big shit storm either way.
>> ^radx:

Well, we are sitting and watching as civilians are butchered, aren't we? Jemen and Bahrain are right nextdoor, but those dictatorships are still backed up. Not to mention the Saudis, who sent troops to gun down the protest in Bahrain.
And who are "the people" in Lybia? I still haven't heard any clear information about the rebels in Libya. From where I'm standing, it still looks very much like a fight between different clans, a civil war. Egypt in particular can't be compared, almost the entire people were rebelling against Mubarak. That's clearly not the case in Libya.
We know jack shit about the domestic context of all the non-Gaddafi actors on the ground, so the kind of intervention currently taking place, an external intervention for mixed motivations, is likely to backfire. Mixed motivations, because I don't believe for a second that oil and particularly the refugee issue are not taken into account in any decision making process.
I'm not saying the UN resolution is right or wrong, I'm simply saying it's a fucking hypocrisy to start a "humanitarian intervention" while supporting the same behaviour next door. Not that I believe in any reasonable chance of success of such an intervention by NATO powers without strong support from at least Turkey and the Arab nations anyway. The Arab League already condemned the airstrikes, so their support is not as strong as it was claimed to be. And why would it, both the Arab League and the CCASG consist of oppressive regimes themselves. If the Arab nations were serious about ending Gaddafi's rule over his people, they would have to take the lead on this one. The track record of NATO/EU intervention is one catastrophe after another, so it has to be them.
There is an obligation to help the civilians currently being slaughtered, but the current plan appears to have risks for the Libyan people outweighing the humanitarian benefit. The best use of the UNSC Resolution seems to use it as little as possible. Any form of escalation will only make things worse. It's up to the opposition now to demonstrate that they have the backing of the people, then their political and popular weight could cause the regime to implode.
Still, it just feels like Kosovo all over again, UÇK and everything, but worse.
>> ^gwiz665:
The people are trying to stand up to him, and he's committing outright genocide. Of course, we must do what we can to help the people liberate themselves. Unlike Iraq, this is not just for the hell of it - we are helping the people free themselves, when they do not have the strength themselves, as opposed to Egypt, Tunesia and so on.
If we sit and watch as the civilians are butchered, we are no better (or at least very little better) than the butchers ourselves.

Sarkozy might have reasons of his own, domestic ones. And let's not forget that just last year, France backed Morocco against the civil uprise in Western Sahara by blocking the UN.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
even though I think it is France (lol?) leading the charge on this one.

From what I've gathered, the US's policy has been to only support nascent revolutions when they reach critical mass implicitly (or in this case where there is violent suppression, explicitly).

Diplomatically this is smart. If a country's people don't have the will to follow through with a revolution on their and the US actively plays a part in stirring one and fails, the dictatorship in power will likely become highly isolated. That will lock it away from modernization, insulate it from western investment/democracy and cause the country to stagnate politically and economically. Perhaps not to the extent of North Korea but suffering from the same problems.

Whether anyone would like to admit it or not, I would bet anything that the relations that the US had with Egypt's military was utterly instrumental in throwing Mubarak out of power. The civil institutions that it has being able to support on the taxes of foreign investment and tourism will probably help it from falling back into dictatorship.

Not to mention, the specter of intervention could cripple either a country's attempts at revolution or the entire movement. Obviously, Africa has a history of colonialism. The Middle East has much more recent and current interventions. If there was genuine intervention and US/European involvement beyond simply behind the scenes diplomacy and preventing violence against civilians and rebels, it would give the dictators a huge amount of credulity and a mandate for their strongman rule.

As far as it being a European idea, let's face it, even if European leaders led the charge, US involvement by way of it's military spending being greater than the rest of the world combined is pretty much a requisite for involvement.

I see... so all of this could have been resolved if someone had just let Omar know he could have just retired? To bad the people over there didn't realize that.

radx said: I'm not saying the UN resolution is right or wrong, I'm simply saying it's a fucking hypocrisy to start a "humanitarian intervention" while supporting the same behaviour next door.

I can mostly agree with that. Although, to be fair, Bahrain's leadership wasn't promising a home by home cleansing of the nation. Still, you are absolutely right about the hypocrisy.

That said, how would you like that hypocrisy resolved?

I firmly believe that the only words Gadhafi has spoken that we can count on are his promise to cleans the nation, house by house, of the opposition. I am convinced that Libya was on the verge of seeing a domestic genocide. The evidence of Gadhafi promising to do so, and then deploying his military in preparation make a case that can't be denied.

With that in mind, I must conclude that the intervention in Libya IS serving a humanitarian cause, despite any hypocritical intentions or motivations behind those supporting it.

I support the intervention in Libya because I am convinced it is the only thing standing between the Libyan opposition and genocide.

We've done more in Libya in two days than we did in Rwanda for two months. More than 800,000 people were slaughtered during their civil war while the world watched. I prefer not to repeat that mistake and - since Belgium doesn't have dibs on Libya - we can.
*lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by MrFisk.

I'm OK with genuine international action in support of a revolution already in progress against a dictator that my country has helped to empower.

We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.

To me it seems pretty obvious why Libya was urgent for us to get involved in, while not intervening in neighboring countries (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemmen, etc.).

OIL.

Everything in the economic world stayed curiously stable through all the unrest in the middle east, until Libya's oil supply burped for a second. Then everything went haywire on the markets, gas prices immediately jumped like $0.50, and the Dow plunged.

Now I see that today we had a near 200 point rally after the news that we're going to be liberating Libya.

These events are not unrelated. Obama got his marching orders, and then he issued them to the UN, who sent in the missles, bombs, and little kids with guns.

Wall Street is all cheshire smiles today, fat and happy with the knowledge that once more worthless blood will be traded for precious oil.

>> ^NetRunner:

To me it seems pretty obvious why Libya was urgent for us to get involved in, while not intervening in neighboring countries (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemmen, etc.).
OIL.
Everything in the economic world stayed curiously stable through all the unrest in the middle east, until Libya's oil supply burped for a second. Then everything went haywire on the markets, gas prices immediately jumped like $0.50, and the Dow plunged.
Now I see that today we had a near 200 point rally after the news that we're going to be liberating Libya.
These events are not unrelated. Obama got his marching orders, and then he issued them to the UN, who sent in the missles, bombs, and little kids with guns.
Wall Street is all cheshire smiles today, fat and happy with the knowledge that once more worthless blood will be traded for precious oil.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

They constitute less than 3% of our oil in the US, not that big of a deal in that respect. In raw crude, it is less than 2%.

@GeeSussFreeK you want to make an argument to go along with your factoid? Are you saying Libyan oil production doesn't affect oil prices?

Believe me, this is one I want to be wrong about. I wish I believed it was all about noble notions. Maybe for a lot of the people out there calling for intervention, it is. But I don't buy it. I'm willing to believe it's a confluence of oil, nobody liking Gaddafi, and the fact that he's murdering civilians. But we don't like lots of people, and to be frank, lots of dictators murder civilians. Yet Libya is where we're drawing a line in the sand, and quickly too.

>> ^NetRunner:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK you want to make an argument to go along with your factoid? Are you saying Libyan oil production doesn't affect oil prices?
Believe me, this is one I want to be wrong about. I wish I believed it was all about noble notions. Maybe for a lot of the people out there calling for intervention, it is. But I don't buy it. I'm willing to believe it's a confluence of oil, nobody liking Gaddafi, and the fact that he's murdering civilians. But we don't like lots of people, and to be frank, lots of dictators murder civilians. Yet Libya is where we're drawing a line in the sand, and quickly too.


O ya, don't throw me in the support camp by any means. Just pointing out that we aren't in a "real" threat of oil not being at the gas station any time soon or something. You are attesting to a thing that is hard to know, but most likely some truth. It's why things like wikileaks are nice, get to see the REAL reasons behind political actions. This all seems like a boondoggle in the making.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
O ya, don't throw me in the support camp by any means. Just pointing out that we aren't in a "real" threat of oil not being at the gas station any time soon or something. You are attesting to a thing that is hard to know, but most likely some truth. It's why things like wikileaks are nice, get to see the REAL reasons behind political actions. This all seems like a boondoggle in the making.


Well, I'm not suggesting that if we lose Libya's oil we won't have any, I'm just suggesting that Libya ceasing to produce oil will reduce global supply, and that global demand will stay the same, which means prices will go up, maybe by a lot since it takes a big increase in the price of oil to get people to actually use less...

And yeah, I'm worried it'll turn into a boondoggle too.

The Libyans are attempting to liberate themselves. By taking air combat out of the equation, the UN is evening the odds. The French gave us assistance in our own American revolution. Why do you oppose liberty in Egypt? Is liberty just for white people? >> ^blankfist:

We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The Libyans are attempting to liberate themselves. By taking air combat out of the equation, the UN is evening the odds. The French gave us assistance in our own American revolution. Why do you oppose liberty in Egypt? Is liberty just for white people? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.



Because we pick and choose who we "liberate". The comment was rather clear, I thought. I don't oppose liberty anywhere. You're trying to justify your party's warlust. Why did you oppose liberty in Iraq when apparently we were liberating the Iraqis? See how stupid that sounds? This is warmongering and more neocon/Democratic interventionism, dystopianBUSHtoday.

"Is liberty just for white people?"

Yes, liberty is only for Aryan Neo-Nazis in the South. Sigh. Come on, you're smarter and bigger than a comment like that.

Sorry to interrupt your sanctimonious wank session, but there is a huge difference between the citizens of Libya revolting against their dictator and Bush invading Iraq. There was no revolution in Iraq. You do realize that. Right?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Sorry to interrupt your sanctimonious wank session, but there is a huge difference between the citizens of Libya revolting against their dictator and Bush invading Iraq. There was no revolution in Iraq. You do realize that. Right?


Not in 2003. There were two former revolutions in Iraq though. One with the the Kurds, that ended with them being mass murdered by Saddam. Later, the Shia had a revolution, seized several cities, and were mass murdered by Saddam. We just watched those unfold and waited a few years before doing anything about it...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The Libyans are attempting to liberate themselves. By taking air combat out of the equation, the UN is evening the odds. The French gave us assistance in our own American revolution. Why do you oppose liberty in Egypt? Is liberty just for white people? >> ^blankfist:
We pick and choose which civilians we "liberate" these days, and somehow the UN apologists are okay with that.


Because we pick and choose who we "liberate". The comment was rather clear, I thought. I don't oppose liberty anywhere. You're trying to justify your party's warlust. Why did you oppose liberty in Iraq when apparently we were liberating the Iraqis? See how stupid that sounds? This is warmongering and more neocon/Democratic interventionism, dystopianBUSHtoday.
"Is liberty just for white people?"
Yes, liberty is only for Aryan Neo-Nazis in the South. Sigh. Come on, you're smarter and bigger than a comment like that.


Yes, we DO pick and choose who we "liberate". You are right about that. I must say I find it strange you are OPPOSED to the idea of liberating people from living under a dictator that had publicly declared his intent to commit genocide against his own people.

Yes there are plenty of other places in terrible shape that we aren't helping out. Yes, nations are choosing to help in Libya for selfish reasons. Mostly concerns over caring for refugees though, oil is a secondary concern to that cost. It remains that actions in Libya are averting a dictator from committing a genocide he had publicly declared he was going to commit, and was hours from regaining the control needed to get it under way.

Do all you people really oppose stopping a genocide and helping a people oppose a vicious dictator all because those helping are in it for themselves?

@bcglorf, I'm glad you're a fan of war and death and violence. Good for you. You're right up there with the neocons. Kudos.

I like how Dennis Kucinich put it, "Bombing villages to save villages, we've been through that in Vietnam."

Here's the whole video:

blankfist said:
bcglorf, I'm glad you're a fan of war and death and violence. Good for you. You're right up there with the neocons. Kudos.

I'm as big a fan of war as you are of genocide.

Or, maybe you should be quite while the big people talk about grown up things.

Do you deny that Gadhafi was in the process of implementing the genocide he promised to commit?

>> ^bcglorf:

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Bombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya?loadcomm=1#comment-1173434'>^blankfist</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bcglorf" title="member since July 23rd, 2007" class="profilelink">bcglorf</a>, I'm glad you're a fan of war and death and violence. Good for you. You're right up there with the neocons. Kudos.<br> <br> I like how Dennis Kucinich put it, "Bombing villages to save villages, we've been through that in Vietnam." <br> <br> Here's the whole video: <br> <div id="widget_119510214"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=193991&width=540&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script><div style="display: none; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; width: 550px; height: 562px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsvid_370811317"><embed style="display: block; margin: 5px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sjJWsbAcG_I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&color2=0x4fb3e2&border=0&rel=0&showsearch=0&iv_load_policy=3" width="540" height="432"><div style="float: left; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240); margin: 5px 5px 0pt 0pt; font-size: 14px; -moz-border-radius: 4px 4px 4px 4px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" id="vsvote_370811317"><a rel="nofollow" href="#" title="Sift this video up!" style="text-decoration: none; padding: 3px 5px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); display: table-cell;">▲ 1</a></div><div style="padding: 3px 5px 0pt 0pt;"><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(215, 237, 248);" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona">Kucinich: War is a swamp, Obama Libya action unconstitutiona</a><a rel="nofollow" style="float: right;" title="Visit VideoSift.com" target="_blank" href="http://videosift.com"> </a></div><div style="height: 0pt; font-size: 0pt; clear: both;"></div><div style="margin-top: 5px; padding: 5px; overflow: auto; width: 540px; max-height: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(167, 217, 240);"><div style="padding-bottom: 5px;"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">Showing 1 of 1 Comment</a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 10px; font-family: Tahoma,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(239, 239, 239); border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 3px; font-size: 11px;">
A role model for Democrats.
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10px; text-align: right; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
written by <strong style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">blankfist</strong>
</div>
</div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/video/Kucinich-War-is-a-swamp-Obama-Libya-action-unconstitutiona" target="_blank" title="View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift" style="font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; color: rgb(31, 146, 199); text-decoration: none;">View Full Video and Comment Listing at VideoSift</a></div><div style="text-align: right; margin-top: 5px;"><div style="float: left; font-family: tahoma,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Logged in as <b><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bcglorf" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-decoration: none; border: 0pt none;">bcglorf</a></b>!</div><a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration: none; font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: -1px; font-family: Verdana,Lucida Sans,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(167, 217, 240);" href="#">close</a></div><script async="" src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?action=load&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideosift.com%2Fvideo%2FBombs-for-peace-UN-completely-disgraced-in-Libya%3Floadco

mm%3D1%23comment-1173434&video=193991" type="text/javascript"></script></div><a rel="nofollow" href="#" style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; margin: 0pt; padding: 5px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(79, 179, 226); -moz-border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(31, 146, 199);" id="vsthm_370811317"> </a></div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=193991&
;width=540&comments=15
&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_119510214').appendChild(s);</script><br></em>
I'm as big a fan of war as you are of genocide.
Or, maybe you should be quite while the big people talk about grown up things.
Do you deny that Gadhafi was in the process of implementing the genocide he promised to commit?


Sorry, I have a hard time understanding the grown ups when they leave comments like this. Or maybe I should just be quite.

blankfist:Sorry, I have a hard time understanding the grown ups when they leave comments like this. Or maybe I should just be quite.

Har, har, siftbot's quote feature barfs from time to time.

Do you take the live's of Libya's people seriously or not? Do you deny that Gadhafi was within hours of making good on his promised genocide?

>> ^bcglorf:

blankfist:Sorry, I have a hard time understanding the grown ups when they leave comments like this. Or maybe I should just be quite.
Har, har, siftbot's quote feature barfs from time to time.
Do you take the live's of Libya's people seriously or not? Do you deny that Gadhafi was within hours of making good on his promised genocide?


I'll answer that question if you answer this one: Is English your native language?

That's not how oil prices are calculated. Oil is an internationally traded commodity and is priced based on OPEC, not on how much any individual country imports.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
They constitute less than 3% of our oil in the US, not that big of a deal in that respect. In raw crude, it is less than 2%.

Sorry Blankey.

My very close Croatian friend is quite happy that the United Nations Protection Force helped save her and her family from certain death.

Not every military action is warmongering or rooting for violence. Maybe you should take her out for coffee one day and let her tell you stories about the dead bodies in the streets and how many young school friends are dead. Then maybe you should explain to her that while it's nice that she's not dead, but the US and UN should've just let her die because to do otherwise would be supporting violence and warmongering. And noone has any obligations to help anyone else, because we may have to be taxed one dollar each, and we all know that our own personal money is more important than keeping kids from being slaughtered.

I am in no way in support of the US actions in Libya. But these conflicts are not black&white.

>> ^volumptuous:

Sorry Blankey.
My very close Croatian friend is quite happy that the United Nations Protection Force helped save her and her family from certain death.
Not every military action is warmongering or rooting for violence. Maybe you should take her out for coffee one day and let her tell you stories about the dead bodies in the streets and how many young school friends are dead. Then maybe you should explain to her that while it's nice that she's not dead, but the US and UN should've just let her die because to do otherwise would be supporting violence and warmongering. And noone has any obligations to help anyone else, because we may have to be taxed one dollar each, and we all know that our own personal money is more important than keeping kids from being slaughtered.
I am in no way in support of the US actions in Libya. But these conflicts are not black&white.


So, if some good is done, then policing the world is justified? Good to know. And if you can work in some "I bet you won't tell this woman her family deserved to die" bullshit, that's good for bonus points! Bravo! Go Team America!

Even Noam Chomsky sides with me. Good grief, I'm in bed with the devil.

from: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20110321.htm

Chomsky warns that direct military intervention in Libya will turn out to be a serious mistake.

"When the United States, Britain and France opt for military intervention, we have to bear in mind that these countries are hated in the region for very good reasons. The rich and powerful can say history is bunk but victims don't have that luxury," he says.

"Threatening moves, I'm sure, evoke all sorts of terrible thoughts and memories in the region Ð and many people across Africa and the Arab world will be seriously antagonised by military intervention."

Chomsky adds that in Egypt public opinion polls have shown about 90 per cent of the population thinks the US is the worst threat they face.

He stresses that Libya is a humanitarian problem. "It is also a civil war and intervening in a civil war is a complicated business," he says. "We may not like it, but there is support for Gadafy."