The Libya Thread (III)

I have been looking at a lot of photography of the conflict that is not presented in the main stream press, I have notice a lot former Soviet equipment and arms being used.

All governments, past and present are guilty of the bloodshed occurring today.

This way we will never be free, there is an endless cycle of violence that can never be broken.

Caissa wrote:

So exactly when should countries support revolts in other countries?

Other countries shouldn't. Supporting revolts by interfering militarily in the internal affairs of other countries is to commit aggressive war which is both illegal and morally wrong.

The people of other coutries should support the people in their revolution by acquiring weapons and ammo and make their way themselves to that country to join the revolution as the International Brigades supported the Spanish people in their revolution against a rightwing government and the forces of rightwing oppression and counter-revolution in Spain in the late 1930s.

Ghislaine wrote:

It will be interesting to see if Ghaddafi re-emerges as an ally of Western powers if/when he crushes the rebellion.

He probably will for two reasons:

1. If he wins and remains leader, he is in H.W. George Bushs' words "The devil we know, [and the one we will continue to deal with.]"

2. If he remains in power, the Western powers will want to buy Libyan oil from him.

NDPP wrote:

Cannon to Meet With Libyan Rebel Leaders

"Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said Monday that Canada will consider all options, from tougher sanctions to military intervention, to rid Libya of dictator Moammar Gadhafi...  And he wouldn't rule out endorsing military intervention without the support of the UN Security Council. 'We all agree that Gadhafi must leave.'"

What a joke.

Seriously, if Uncle Sam isn't going to militarily interfere in the internal affairs of Libya, Canada isn't going to either.

What a spectacle, some Canadian poppinjay by the name of Lawrence Cannon is flapping his gums on the world stage, rattling a saber and threatening Canada will unilaterally interfere in the affairs of Libya with Canada's tin pot military.

Mike Stirner wrote:

Laws do not transcend basic movements of might makes right and the US has actually been a far more agressive force alone then any european power was in the pre-UN era post feudalism.

Laws might not.

But what about universal morality?

M. Spector wrote:

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

Obviously it's impractical and undesirable, as a rule, to intervene in any and all countries. Yet it appears that this line of thought goes something along the lines of: because x, y and z countries were allowed to suffer at the hands of a brutal despot a, b and c countries should too.

Who the hell are you to "allow" or disallow what other people do in their own countries? More to the point, who the hell are the US, Canadian, and European governments to "allow" or disallow?

I'll tell you who they are. They are the people you call "imperialists", complete with the sneer-quotes. They are the people who have brought exploitation, misery, death, and war to every corner of the earth, because they [b]allow or disallow[/b] other countries to have their own economies and manage their own affairs.

They are the self-appointed cops and mob enforcers of the world capitalist system. And apparently they have the full support of the cruise-missile left and the limousine liberals.  

Who are you to determine when the people of said country ask for outside help they should be refused on ideological grounds?

Oh, I'll tell you who, an ideologically pure internet warrior. Well, you enjoy being a part of the "Ghadaffi left" and I'll be a member of the "cruise missle left."

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Frmsldr

You are describing an endless circle of violence. The oppressed of today will become the oppressors of tomorrow.

Not necessarily.

Sometimes the things people have been denied the most are the things they hold most precious.

Take me, for example.

The military is a hierarchical and authoritarian organization, where one's superiors have the legal power to restrict the rights of their subordinates and make decisons that affect their life, death, physical and emotional well-being.

Do I therefore prefer authoritarianism, security over liberty, engage in personal power trips over others (or in other words, support inegalitarianism), support restricting freedom of the press and speech to prevent people from expressing "dangerous" ideas, support war and interventionism over anti-war and anti-interventionism?

No. I hold very precious and support liberty, human rights, representative (grass roots "people power") democracy, equality, freedom of the press and speech. I support anti-war and anti-interventionism over war and interventionism.

Too long ... please feel free to open the next chapter.