This reminds me of another uncomfortable interview: https://youtu.be/bUhZmO6P0NU?si=hZ7GdaajxaAQc-H6&t=902

Gaddafi knew some English, but the reticence of the translator - - - told a different story than what M.G. was laying down.

...or Gaddafi.

"Really, Hillary is evil?"

Well, Bill, I suppose it depends on your definition of evil, doesn't it.

To me, voting for both the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act (twice!) is an absolute disqualifier. Like it used to be in '08 when HRC ran against Obama. Remember that one, Bill?

Now, looking at it from a country that had its leaders punished for waging a war of aggression, and rightfully so, Hillary meets my definition of evil. Her push for war in Libya, her immoral comments on the ghastly death of Gaddafi, her militaristic calls for a more robust foreign policy (aka war), her calls for a no-fly zone in Syria (aka war with Syria & Russia)... Bill, that shit is evil. And it's only the lesser of two evils because her opposition is Trump.

So spare me the horseshit. I don't even have to judge her economic policies which basically are the same flavour of neoliberalism as always, her hawkishness is enough evil for several lifetimes.

The Dreadful Chronology of Gaddafi’s Murder

"Much has been written about the catastrophe visited upon Libya following the murderous attack by France and the US—400,000 people driven from their homes, an endless cycle of terror and reprisal, the creation of yet another failed state in the wake of a US foreign policy initiative. But the real damage was done to Africa itself, for had Gaddafi’s proposal for a trans-African banking system reached fruition, that unhappy continent for the first time in centuries would have had true freedom and real independence within its grasp, a circumstance the Western powers could not abide. Freedom and justice were never part of the West’s agenda."

Super Tuesday!

MoA has a great, short piece on Clinton's role in the destruction of Libya, which includes this gem, which I had totally forgotten.

At least Obama put a stop to it. Except for the CIA facility at Mogadishu's airport where they held people in an underground dungeon and comforted them with some electric current through the genitals. Yeah, except for that.

Also, let's not talk about the torture camps run by the military, by contractors or by the Iraqi forces trained and instructed by folks like Colonels James Steele, who had already run Salvadoran death squads. And while we're at it, let's not talk about the outsourcing of torture to the goons of Gaddafi, Assad and Mubarak.

By the way, Brazil just published documents about 20 years of torture. Who trained the torturers? The usual suspects...

@ghark
@notarobot

I recall news reporting just prior to military intervention in Libya was suggesting that Gaddafi's forces were approaching Benghazi and there were expectations of massacre if they were to reach it.

Wikipedia for what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

"9 March 2011: The head of the Libyan National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, "pleaded for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties".[38] Three days later, he stated that if pro-Gaddafi forces reached Benghazi, then they would kill "half a million" people. He stated, "If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Gaddafi's regime, and his ships are not checked, we will have a catastrophe in Libya."[39]"

"17 March 2011: The UN Security Council, acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, approved a no-fly zone by a vote of ten in favour, zero against, and five abstentions, via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany.[49][50][51][60][61] Less than twenty-four hours later, Libya announced that it would halt all military operations in response to the UN Security Council resolution.[62][63]"

48 - and counting - sharia courts in the UK, and muslims recently given the right to conduct their own divorces. They have no intention of integrating into the society or the laws/practices of the host country. A birth rate outstripping that of the indigenous populace of countries they have "settled" by so much, that it is estimated the whole of Europe will be muslim in 50-75 years (Gaddafi himself said; "All we have to do is wait"). Islam is not simply a religion, it is a theocracy, and its followers are intent on inflicting its medieval practices on the world. As for "moderate" muslims; when was the last time they marched en-masse to denounce the barbaric practices carried out in their name? Is islam something to fear? Damn right it is.Christopher Hitchens said, many times, that if we don't wake up soon, it will be too late.

???

This is appalling. So Gaddafi and Assad's brutal repression of their people had nothing to do with the uprisings. Naturally those uprisings were Israeli manipulation. Meanwhile, Egypt was recently liberated from Mubarak's dictatorship.

So, I guess the summary is that good dictators are those that support Russia or China, and bad dictators are connected with Israel and the west. Legitimate uprisings of the people are those against dictators supportive of the west, and staged 'uprisings' are those that unseat dictators connected to Russia and China.

This is sick minded thinking. I hope someday you look back in horror at the time when you supported Bashir al Assad and Gaddafi's brutal murderous campaigns against their own people.

You know, dictators like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein regularly hired goons to go on rallies and protests against their rivals so that when western journalists come all you hear is 'praise Gaddafi! shame on the rebels! ahyayayayay!'

Just saying.

The Archbishop of Canterbury disgracefully said; "the introduction of the Islamic justice system in the UK is 'unavoidable." Islam (submission) is an all encompassing ideology and MUST be avoided. 84 sharia courts exist in the UK and the popularist, frightened, excuses we have for leaders, think that is ok? Gaddafi said; "All my muslim brothers have to do is wait. Well, soon our politicians will have plenty of time to reflect on how their waiting and appeasing took us back to the dark ages.

The Archbishop of Canterbury disgracefully said; "the introduction of the Islamic justice system in the UK is 'unavoidable." Islam (submission) is an all encompassing ideology and MUST be avoided. 84 sharia courts exist in the UK and the popularist, frightened, excuses we have for leaders, think that is ok? Gaddafi said; "All my muslim brothers have to do is wait. Well, soon our politicians will have plenty of time to reflect on how their waiting and appeasing took us back to the dark ages.

@GeeSussFreeK As Netrunner says, virtually nobody advocates specifically for statism. In theory, pretty much everyone can agree on the Libertarian principle of your rights end where mine begin. The trouble is a very widely ranging difference of opinion on where my rights and your rights begin to overlap.

I would propose though that the most extreme 'statists' of late would have to be the ranks of Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Bashir Al-Assad, and Omar al-Bashir to name a very short list of those imposing the most rigid of adherence to the absolute power of the head of a state. If you oppose statism, at least to some degree the removal or end of such men holds common cause with your ideals, no?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.
This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.
I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.


Wow Yogi, we agree on something .

I think your view is pretty much bang on. The only difference between Dem. and Rep. presidents is the reasons they give for acting purely in their own self interests(which very often coincides with making decisions that are in America's self interests).

Where I disagree with Ron Paul's conclusion is about what the answer to all this should be. I don't for a second believe Ron Paul would be any different than all those before him. Instead of selfish wars he'd maybe follow the course of selfish isolationism. Take the recent example in Libya. America had two selfish options, go in or don't. Not going in would mean keeping the President's hands clean and money in America's pocket, and Ron Paul insists that what he'd have done. It also would have meant leaving thousands of Libyan civilians to Gaddafi's death squads. It would mean a Libya still ruled today by Gaddafi, with a newly subdued and less numerous population.

I don't see a clearly white/black obvious ethical choice in most geopolitical decisions, it's always messy. The Iraqi's that hate America the most(the Sadrists) don't hate them for all the things that America did to them, but for America's failures to act. The hate America for it's failure to push into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In lieu of that they want revenge on the Sunnis. They want to commit their own eviction of all Sunni's from Iraq, or in it's stead to kill them for what Saddam had done with their aid. Was America wrong to stick around in Iraq after evicting Saddam and trying to stand in the middle, stopping a civil war driven by revenge against the Sunnis?

Ron Paul and Chomsky are generally agreed on minding our own business is the only ethical choice. It's hard to make that argument for Libya. It's impossible to make that argument for Rwanda. There are situations in our world were the ethical choice IS to go to war and stop something even more evil than war inherently is. What Ron Paul and Chomsky understand though is that no matter how grave the evil you oppose, your actions will create people who hate you for interfering. War makes it inevitable that your own forces will commit crimes against innocents, and their families will hate you. Ron and Chomsky conclude that means never get involved, I call that cowardice and insist there are situations that demand paying that price and coming to the aid of our fellow man when faced with terrible evils like genocide. In theory, every signatory nation to the convention on genocide agrees with me on this point too.

Wow. Extra thanks to you Herr Boise.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I don't usually like Jeffrey Ross, but he must have found some better writers for this gig.
*promote