"Drone Loving Parade."
Jeremy Scahill is one of the premiere journalists of our time.

Moving this video to radx's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Are you listening conspiracy theorists? Scahill goes on record in here declaring that "we didn't even get the oil contracts in Iraq". How does that fit the argument that Iraq's government is still an American puppet solely there to hand over Iraqi oil to Bush's friends?

This was a good talk and it needs to be had way, way more. Some of Scahill and the other's comments flail around a bit though. The one question about the NATO role having 'broken' Libya aught to have been answered and wasn't. Namely, Libya under Gaddafi for the last 4 decades wasn't broken?

After Scahill's listing of all the downsides to drones, particularly in Pakistan, at the least response was right there about being stuck without a good solution and having to take the least bad one. After all, even getting Bin Laden led to enormous anger in Pakistan, and not just over the how. There were elected members of Pakistan's National Assemblies declaring their outrage that the Pakistani military failed to protect Bin Laden, as he was an Islamic hero. The public sentiment in Pakistan IS against the drone attacks, but at the same time the militants the drones are hitting have killed at a conservative estimate, 10 times as many Pakistani civilians.

Scahill summarizes my problem with him early on at the 2 minute mark: I don't care that Muammar Gaddafi is gone.

Let me be clear, I care very deeply that Gaddafi is gone. In fact, that aside most of Scahill's assessment of Libya is agreeable. Of course, the importance of Gaddafi's presence or removal to Libyans can hardly be understated. You simply can not care about the Libyan people and at the same time not care whether or not Gaddafi remained in power.

Scahill goes on to ask how forced regime change fits into international law and order.

The real question is how failing to force regime change against convicted war criminals like Gaddafi and Omar al-Bashir can be justified under international law and order. Every signatory to the convention on genocide is obligated to act to prevent or punish those responsible for committing genocide. Where is the outrage with all the nations that FAILED to support the mission in Libya to stop Gaddafi's promised genocide? Where is the outrage with all the nations STILL FAILING to punish Omar al-Bashir for what he order done in Darfur?

The fallacy here is that only actions should require justification, while inaction never requires any justification at all.