BetweenTheLines
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34
The nice thing to do would've been admitting culpability (or not having done it, lol). His paying of the settlement had nothing to do with 'nice'.
LOL
Gaddafi killed in Libya
- Thread starter Bardeaux
- Start date
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
MyFinalRest said:
Your analysis of global international dynamics and rule in dictatorial states is somewhat lacking.
Really, I think that a good starting point is asking our approach to support of bottom-up uprisings (looking at various relevant contextual factors), then adding in the question of global military intervention.
ebola
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
Umm...not sure why you selected that bit of text to quote and not something else? I think I understand the "dynamics" just fine, thank you. These foreign "bottom up" uprisings are not the concern of the American citizenry. Military intervention from the USA has never been for the good of the people. This isn't some sugar coated help "fight for democracy" bullshit.
After having been almost forced to witness numerous videos and images of the new mob abusing, maiming, and then molesting the corpse of Ghaddafi, I'd rather have not had my tax dollars used to help these fuckers. Nobody is really sure what is going to come about from this. Perhaps I have yet to understand why Democrats have been so hot on this Libyan Civil War while our country was getting fed up with a shitty domestic situation and making plans to hit the streets...well, I've got "some" theories.
Perhaps you can elaborate on this a bit more then.
What's your opinion of things? You said absolutely nothing in the above post other than brief and vague criticism of my opinion.
After having been almost forced to witness numerous videos and images of the new mob abusing, maiming, and then molesting the corpse of Ghaddafi, I'd rather have not had my tax dollars used to help these fuckers. Nobody is really sure what is going to come about from this. Perhaps I have yet to understand why Democrats have been so hot on this Libyan Civil War while our country was getting fed up with a shitty domestic situation and making plans to hit the streets...well, I've got "some" theories.
Perhaps you can elaborate on this a bit more then.
What's your opinion of things? You said absolutely nothing in the above post other than brief and vague criticism of my opinion.
Last edited:
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
http://www.erichufschmid.net/events-Sept-2011.html
This is an Eric Hufschmid take on Libya. I'm not endorsing it, just posting it for the hell of it. NSFW. It's Eric Hufschmid - it's offensive - you've been *WARNED*.
This post is not intended to be part of a response to ebola.
This is an Eric Hufschmid take on Libya. I'm not endorsing it, just posting it for the hell of it. NSFW. It's Eric Hufschmid - it's offensive - you've been *WARNED*.
This post is not intended to be part of a response to ebola.
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
Your analysis of global international dynamics and rule in dictatorial states is somewhat lacking.
ebola
I wasn't aware of an attempt on my behalf to provide such a complete analysis. I was simply wondering what the fuck is with you guys and this Libyan Civil War obsession among young and alleged foreign policy "savvy" liberals and their GOP "counterparts." I've said it before - I've got my ideas...
Why should MFR, an americunt citizun, feel good about the brutal maiming, torture, and murder of Muammar Ghaddafi? (I hopefully don't need to add a "rape" to the previous sentence)
Last edited:
BetweenTheLines
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34
nor should it be, as they're not americans..
no, it's not - but not only is democracy, or at least a small shuffle towards it, a bonus for everyone, the truth is it helps 'sell' the idea in the 1st place
Because he deserved it, because it was just, because it may've made the world a better place.
(and this stands even if he hadn't killed american citizens and soldiers)
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Eh, sodomy with a large knife isn't really justified here. Whether taking out Gaddafi was or wasn't the right thing to do will be evident in time, but I can't see how anyone can support the torture of any human being whether or not they "deserved it".
BetweenTheLines
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34
DAMN! ewwww... I hadn't been keeping up with this in the past couple months, but was aware they'd found him. Torture is NEVER justified, my comments were wrt him being killed, not tortured (apologies for coming off the wrong way, had posted that while rushing and thought the agreement was just with his death..)
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
mfr said:
'cause I was being cheeky; it's amusing.
Given that 'we've' already erected the largest concentration of military power in the history of the planet, maybe it can be used for good rather than evil. Then again, maybe not. Maybe it's nigh impossible to use such institutional means while retaining the ethical guidepost of bottom-up social movements. Maybe not. Historically, even multilateral military intervention has still been fraught with pitfalls.
My opinion is as of yet unformed. That's why I asked questions rather than giving answers.
ebola
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
^I'm still asking questions too, but the last 100 years or so of American foreign policy has been fairly foul with regards to people abroad and our citizens in need here at home.
Sure we have a powerful military, but it isn't really powerful enough to police even a decent portion of the world. If we actually had good people in charge, it could actually be used for good, but even then, the dynamics between interventionalist politics and others' national soverignty can become a sticky mess. Not to mention the expense of life and money.
It seems less of an institutional problem - although creating the proper intstitutional framework in such a situation can be daunting - and more of a basic human culture issue i.e. people will tend to resist outside influence strongly applied to their domestic groups. What was once welcome can easily overstay it's visit and become highly unwanted. Staying out of it seems to be the safest option. Although Ghaddafi was no angel, his brutal murder and the possible future failure of this new "democracy" will likely come back to haunt Clinton and Obama.
Also, did the Libyan fight to topple Ghaddafi cease to be a "bottom up" struggle when NATO joined in?
ebola, did you catch the little Michael Sheuer clip I posted back on page 2? I certainly have thought that "arrogance and racism" play into this and am glad that Sheuer is coming out so boldly like this. Ghaddafi was certainly defiant of the "mostly white" global "consensus." Even though he made significant gestures to indicate he had no desire to be a threat outside of Africa, he still retained an air of defiance and sought to establish an Africa free of Western influence. I think that when the "West" saw him as becoming a "low apple hanging from the tree", they went to finish off this defiant character that had previously humiliated them. It was a great chance to make a show of force and show that the whites of of the West are still capable dominating certain rogue nations.
But, I don't know. Honestly, I never gave a fuck about the whole thing much. I'm more concerned with the decay of the domestic United States.
Sure we have a powerful military, but it isn't really powerful enough to police even a decent portion of the world. If we actually had good people in charge, it could actually be used for good, but even then, the dynamics between interventionalist politics and others' national soverignty can become a sticky mess. Not to mention the expense of life and money.
It seems less of an institutional problem - although creating the proper intstitutional framework in such a situation can be daunting - and more of a basic human culture issue i.e. people will tend to resist outside influence strongly applied to their domestic groups. What was once welcome can easily overstay it's visit and become highly unwanted. Staying out of it seems to be the safest option. Although Ghaddafi was no angel, his brutal murder and the possible future failure of this new "democracy" will likely come back to haunt Clinton and Obama.
Also, did the Libyan fight to topple Ghaddafi cease to be a "bottom up" struggle when NATO joined in?
ebola, did you catch the little Michael Sheuer clip I posted back on page 2? I certainly have thought that "arrogance and racism" play into this and am glad that Sheuer is coming out so boldly like this. Ghaddafi was certainly defiant of the "mostly white" global "consensus." Even though he made significant gestures to indicate he had no desire to be a threat outside of Africa, he still retained an air of defiance and sought to establish an Africa free of Western influence. I think that when the "West" saw him as becoming a "low apple hanging from the tree", they went to finish off this defiant character that had previously humiliated them. It was a great chance to make a show of force and show that the whites of of the West are still capable dominating certain rogue nations.
But, I don't know. Honestly, I never gave a fuck about the whole thing much. I'm more concerned with the decay of the domestic United States.
Last edited:
EndlessSummer
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 199
Israel has a completely "democratic" regime in the sense of the word. Iraq's a shithole frankly. Not that I support Israel really (they can be quite dickish), but it's kind of the facts. Libya will be better off (freedom-wise) w/o Gaddafi but the power vacuum will be obvious for quite a while.
monkeyemergency
Bluelighter
The other day at the uni campus this guy came up to me with pamphlets explaining why gaddafi was a 'hero'. Very Strange indeed. TBH didnt sway me at all lol. He sounds like he was a bit of a psychopath...
BetweenTheLines
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34
"a bit"?
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
I wouldn't call him a hero, but I don't think he was worse to his people than your run of the mill dictator in the region.
BetweenTheLines
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34
Being on par with the dictators of his region still makes him the opposite of a hero, no?
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
You mean like...an anti-hero?
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
While the term "anti-hero" is arguably broad, it traditionally refers to a flawed hero. Basically someone who still fills the hero role, without the attributes of a hero. So they'll still do good, but just without the attributes that we'd associate with "hero". Sometimes it would be just due to them being deeply broken in some way. Sometimes they just don't act the way we'd think a hero would.
Think a lot of Clint Eastwood roles, for example "Gran Torino", where Clint plays a gruff, distant old man whose speech is filled with racial slurs, but still does the right thing in the end. Or Han Solo in "Star Wars: A New Hope", in the version where he shoots first. Or Brad Pitt's character in "Inglorious Basterds", where he's doing heroic things (fighting Naziism), but through horrific means -- torturing, disfiguring and killing prisoners, for example.
Not sure where Gaddafi would fit the role of an "anti-hero". But YMMV.
Think a lot of Clint Eastwood roles, for example "Gran Torino", where Clint plays a gruff, distant old man whose speech is filled with racial slurs, but still does the right thing in the end. Or Han Solo in "Star Wars: A New Hope", in the version where he shoots first. Or Brad Pitt's character in "Inglorious Basterds", where he's doing heroic things (fighting Naziism), but through horrific means -- torturing, disfiguring and killing prisoners, for example.
Not sure where Gaddafi would fit the role of an "anti-hero". But YMMV.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
It was just a play on words 
Feldais
Bluelighter
So let me get this right......the whole world saw the images of a bloddy and pleading Ghadaffi and a lot of this death photos, but we can not see the ones taken of Osama? WTF? Ghadaffi's murder was a very public one and trust me I do not shed a tear for the man or the way his corpse was treated thereafter. When a dictator's people hits the streets in celebration and cry out in joy......that prolly means he was a bastard who got was he deserved.
An interesting theory is that he was not taken alive because had he been he would have to have faced war crime and crimes against humanity at the UN. Other dictators have and have spilled out secrets regarding elitists provoking incidents in the Balkans and stuff like that. Point is he may have been a son of a bitch, but one SOB who had a lot of acquaintances in the US military, UK, and Arab agencies. Ever heard of Oswald and Ruby? lol I get that vibe here.
An interesting theory is that he was not taken alive because had he been he would have to have faced war crime and crimes against humanity at the UN. Other dictators have and have spilled out secrets regarding elitists provoking incidents in the Balkans and stuff like that. Point is he may have been a son of a bitch, but one SOB who had a lot of acquaintances in the US military, UK, and Arab agencies. Ever heard of Oswald and Ruby? lol I get that vibe here.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Dictators tend to be gruesomely killed once captured by their own people. From the French revolution to fascist Italy to Gaddafi. I'm sure if US servicemen had captured him he would have stood trial like Saddam. Saddam also had dirty secrets about US policy during the 80s when he was working for us. I don't see how Gaddafi would have been any more of a liability.