... and all law might I remind you presupposes some kind of monopolized force which is to say MIGHT MAKING RIGHTR!
Wrong!
The Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other relevant international laws outlaw Wars of Aggression, torture and abuse of persons and Prisoners of War, etc. There are even an International Justice Court and International Criminal Court to put on trial countries and persons who violate these laws.
Yet, the United States (and other countries) have violated these laws with (seeming) impunity.
Why?
Because there isn't an international military and police force the U.N. has to force nations of the world to "fear" (if you will) and respect these laws.
It truly does (i.e. in a virtuous sense) take power to dream of laws concerning the rights of Indigenous Peoples, to dream about the right for everyone to have access to health care, for everyone to have security of person, for everyone to live in equality, for laws to end discrimination (of all kinds) for people to have a right to access to healthy food, for people to have a right to potable, drinkable water, to live in a pollution free, healthy environment, etc.
The difference between my anarchistic setting and the legalistic morality setting that you cling to is that I want violence if it is to exist to be as egalitarian contextual and intimate as possible without the aiding of centralized reified institutions
Now you're the one who's "ghost dancing." the last time wars (or if you prefer) conflicts were fought where there was some equality was WW1 and WW2.
Just as there is no separation between nature and culture there is no separation between the so called law of the jungle and the laws that we have today, the jungle seems a hell of a lot more just and internally consistent compared to what the civilized ones have given us...
I'm sorry, but the genie escaped the bottle a long time ago. Civilization is categorically and unbridgeably different from what you're talking about. The only way we could go back to your primeaval world is if humanity survives some global holocaust and has to start back from "square one." If you want to go live in that kind of world, you're welcome to it but don't expect me to follow you.
Yes its all about oil and your point is?
My point is you've just contradicted yourself from what you posted earlier.
I don't care about how the life blood of modernity is squabled for, when I say iraq I'm talking about misery inflicted by western powers, this is clearly not the case thus far, not even the shiites were asking to be bombed. As for help and strings attached that's a bridge you cross when you get there as it stands the revolutionaries don't have an inherently pro or anti american or capitalist bias...
Wrong. Do you think the Libyans enjoy being bombed by U.S., U.K., French, Canadian and other countries' missiles and aircraft? The narrative we are being fed from the Fawning Corporate Media is that the Libertarias want and asked for U.S. and Western governments military assistance. If you read alternate sources of media, you realize that the Libyan People did not/do not want foreign government military interference. All they ask for are the tools (weapons). They (the Libertarias) will do the job themselves.
... so I don't see this as being an issue, ultimately the people on the ground will decide if they let their representatives be swayed by US demands...
THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE! THE U.N., THE U.S., THE E.U., The ARAB LEAGUE, ETC., MADE THAT CHOICE FOR THEM. THIS IS THE IMPERIALISM EVERYONE IN THEIR OWN WAY ON BABBLE IS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST!
... (worse case scenerio of government friendly to the US is still preferable to gadhafi at this point...
Disagree, sorry.
A U.S. propped up puppet government will result in Libya and the Libyan People being financially raped by Uncle Sam. Something Gadhafi, for his "sins" did not do, nor would a Libertarian government do.
You're missing my point on war frmr, if you've followed my posts here up to this point you should no that I don't like states,...
Yes, I've picked up on that point.
But if nation states are to be abolished, this has to be preceeded by the abolition of capitalism and the unlearning of greed and violence, or else we will have a worse situation than we have now.
At least now we have Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans who recognize themselves as Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans and who recognize there are geo-cultural "arrangements" (however these people see them themselves) called "Afghanistan", "Iraq" and "Libya", where the "goods", resources, etc., that exist within the borders of these geo-cultural arrangements, belong to the Afghan, Iraqi and Libyan Peoples and NOT greedy violent foreign pigs that go by the names of Americans, Canadians, British, French, Italians, Saudis, (Arab) Emerites, Qataris, etc.
Otherwise, the same evils that are occurring now would continue to occur if there were no borders and nation states. Without borders and nation states (with sometimes) strong governments that protect its people and country's resources, there would be no restraint. In the resulting free-for-all, things would be worse.
There is no "equality" in nature.
Where do you get this idea that somehow equality slips into the picture?
Your view of a "Might makes Right" world is that the strong take what they want and need from the weak.
Strength "Might" makes this "Right."
In this violent "Might makes Right" world of survival, the strong, the superior, the Ubermensch survive and the weak, the inferior, the Untermensch suffer and perish.
This is (neo) nazi "Law of the Jungle" ethics.
Don't try to bullshit your way out of this.
In other words: "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."