Gaddafi not a socialist? Hmm, let's see. Libyans had free health care, free education, and heavily subsidized food readily available. Gaddafi even shared excess oil profits, depositing cash in every Libyan bank account. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and Gaddafi was set to get an award for achievements in Human Rights from the UN before NATO and the US started bombing Libya.


So you ARE a supporter of Gaddafi then. Things were wonderful in Libya under the benevolent leadership of such a great socialist leader, and that is now all destroyed by capitalist haters.

If those are the facts you believe there is no persuading you. I hope some day something manages to lift the wool from your eyes.

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.

You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.

Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.

Gaddafi not a socialist? Hmm, let's see. Libyans had free health care, free education, and heavily subsidized food readily available. Gaddafi even shared excess oil profits, depositing cash in every Libyan bank account. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and Gaddafi was set to get an award for achievements in Human Rights from the UN before NATO and the US started bombing Libya.

For anyone that wants to educate themselves on NATO's war crimes and the rebel terrorist groups we support, read this guy's blog:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/libya-confirmation-could-take-days.html
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/libya-v-day-3-weeks.html

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?
And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.


From you that's a compliment.

The evidence of Gaddafi's pending genocide is undeniable, from his own public declarations of it, to his deputy minister to the UN, do Gaddafi's forces deliberate actions to attempt and implement it. What evidence do you have of the rebels genocide? So far, the only source claiming that was Gaddafi's own media, which got really silent on the matter now...

Oh, and before you show any dead bodies remember there is a distinct difference between war crimes like massacres that likely did occur on both sides in the fighting in Libya, and a genocide. A genocide is a concerted effort to track down and exterminate a specific group of people. There is zero evidence the rebels have or ever did have any such plans, while Gaddafi announced his publicly from his own mouth. The fact you can't accept this says something very sinister about what ever glasses taint your vision.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.


But we aren't talking about a dictator who was a true socialist, so your comment is about some other imaginary situation. The REAL situation was Gaddafi, a convicted war criminal who had publicly declared his plans and intent to commit a genocide against those protesters that dared to suggest they should get the right to vote on who should lead Libya.

You insist on refusing to talk about the actual situation in Libya because it seems to create some kind of trouble for your hatred of anything Western. Accept that sometimes even the brutally selfish and imperialistic motivated actions of the west CAN be a lesser evil. Is that really so devastatingly incompatible with your world view?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.


You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?

And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.

>> ^messenger:

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.


They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.

The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.

I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

>> ^messenger:

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.



I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.

He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?

That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.

Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?

Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

So what, we have to accept the legitimacy of leaders who are actively exterminating their own people now? I was against Afghanistan. I was against Iraq. Gadhafi was right in the middle of killing Libyan citizens, those citizens asked for aid, and we decided to help them install a government that won't butcher civilians? How dare we! Sovereignty is a convenient concept for regulating actions between nations. It isn't a moral necessity. This was a case where the moral choice was not the one that respected sovereignty.
I don't see a world in which puppet governments are making us a colonial power, though I won't deny that Bush and Cheney hoped for that. Iraq is now aligning with Iran. Karzai is so far off the reservation that if Afghanistan were Vietnam, we'd have assassinated him twice by now. Most critics of the Libya action are worried that the transitional government is a bunch of Islamists who played nice to get our help and now intend to train terrorists and pick fights with Israel. The truth is that Libyans will probably be a lot friendlier to the US and Europe than they were a year ago. But maybe, for once, that's because we've earned it.
>> ^criticalthud:
I'm a little weirded out too by what just happened in Libya. As much of a fucktard as Gadhafi was, this was yet another leader of a sovereign nation felled by a U.S. and oil-interest-backed coup. No one is really talking about that. Instead, even Jon Stewart is taking an "atta-boy" attitude towards this administration. and relishing in how little it cost.
the next Lybian regime will be a democracy in name only and friendly to US and European interests: light, sweet crude.
Then the IMF will come in under the pretext of "re-building" the country and really fuck the people.
I think we are still a little complacent about our country essentially waging aggressive war.



we have of course, actively supported dictators who have exterminated their own people or violently put down any protests. and we continue to. it's happening right now. The point is, "revolution" in the name of democracy only occurs when US interests are favored. otherwise the US categorizes 'rebellion' or 'revolution'...or even dissent as a terrorist action against a legitimate state. When it favors the US or other high powered interests, "revolution" is simply a pretext for us to topple regimes that are unfriendly to US interests.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

Thumbs up for the guy making the peace sign at the end, this video makes it very clear that the age of violence in Libya is truly at an end, god is great indeed.


Peace? or Victory?




Yes, I noticed your checking of "the Box". Just decided to make a point.

Wat?
>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^gorillaman:
You have to remember that these are soulless savages. One group of savages oppresses another and periodically the tables turn. At least one of them is dead now. Maybe some day we can make real progress on eliminating the four or five billion more who are exactly as evil as Gaddafi.

The 9 month bloodshed in Libya is a pleasant afternoon in the park compared to what was done to Iraq over a decade for money by the richest and fattest men ever to live. I assume you're including the western ultra mass-murderers in this analysis?
Also, big difference, this is a WIN.
Fuck anyone who abuses power to hurt children. If I met him on the battlefield I'd have killed the secret police running, manipulative propagandist torturing murdering fuck myself.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^gorillaman:
You have to remember that these are soulless savages. One group of savages oppresses another and periodically the tables turn. At least one of them is dead now. Maybe some day we can make real progress on eliminating the four or five billion more who are exactly as evil as Gaddafi.

The 9 month bloodshed in Libya is a pleasant afternoon in the park compared to what was done to Iraq over a decade for money by the richest and fattest men ever to live. I assume you're including the western ultra mass-murderers in this analysis?
Also, big difference, this is a WIN.
Fuck anyone who abuses power to hurt children. If I met him on the battlefield I'd have killed the secret police running, manipulative propagandist torturing murdering fuck myself.


Life under Gaddafi in Libya was equally posh and cozy compared to life under Saddam. The right tyrant was put down first. You can't judge post-Saddam Iraq without understanding the horrific state it had been put into by Saddam's years of depravity, mass murder and absolute repression. Gaddafi was a very soft by comparison.

>> ^gorillaman:

You have to remember that these are soulless savages. One group of savages oppresses another and periodically the tables turn. At least one of them is dead now. Maybe some day we can make real progress on eliminating the four or five billion more who are exactly as evil as Gaddafi.


The 9 month bloodshed in Libya is a pleasant afternoon in the park compared to what was done to Iraq over a decade for money by the richest and fattest men ever to live. I assume you're including the western ultra mass-murderers in this analysis?

Also, big difference, this is a WIN.

Fuck anyone who abuses power to hurt children. If I met him on the battlefield I'd have killed the secret police running, manipulative propagandist torturing murdering fuck myself.