hint, he likes policy of supporting rebels:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/26/ellison.libya.obama/index.html?hpt...
US Muslim congressman and progressive Democrat speaks out on Libya
Mon, 2011-08-29 15:55
#1
US Muslim congressman and progressive Democrat speaks out on Libya
Mon, 2011-08-29 15:56
#2
America had to get involved. Without U.S. and NATO engagement, Gadhafi would have hunted protesters, as he threatened, "house by house" in Benghazi. He would have squashed the rebels and sought revenge against those who dared to question his rule. A Gadhafi victory would have been tragic for the people of Libya, and it would have dimmed hopes for greater freedom in the Middle East.
Second, U.S. policy toward Libya was effective. Yes, it's true that some fighting continues in Tripoli and Gadhafi loyalists still control some towns, but Gadhafi's brutal dictatorship is over. Libyans no longer fear him, as we saw this week after they overtook his compound. A long road lies ahead, but the Obama administration must be credited for crafting a sensible and prudent foreign policy toward Libya.
Mon, 2011-08-29 16:27
#3
I think there is a typo in the thread title. 'speaks out on Libya' is actually spelled 'shamelessly pushes war-mongering propaganda on Libya'
Mon, 2011-08-29 16:34
#4
Bec.De.Corbin
I think there is a typo in the thread title. 'speaks out on Libya' is actually spelled 'shamelessly pushes war-mongering propaganda on Libya'
That's your take, but dosen't it really depend on whish side you support... A-IAAC?
Mon, 2011-08-29 16:56
#5
No.
Mon, 2011-08-29 17:03
#6
In another thread, ikosmos reminded me of the context of [url=http://www.zcommunications.org/confronting-empire-by-arundhati-roy][colo... Roy's address[/color][/url]. It was the lead-up to the war on Iraq..
As the disparity between the rich and the poor grows, the fight to corner resources is intensifying. To push through their "sweetheart deals," to corporatize the crops we grow, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the dreams we dream, corporate globalization needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, authoritarian governments in poorer countries to push through unpopular reforms and quell the mutinies.Corporate Globalization - or shall we call it by its name? - Imperialism - needs a press that pretends to be free. It needs courts that pretend to dispense justice.
Meanwhile, the countries of the North harden their borders and stockpile weapons of mass destruction. After all they have to make sure that it's only money, goods, patents and services that are globalized. Not the free movement of people. Not a respect for human rights. Not international treaties on racial discrimination or chemical and nuclear weapons or greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, or : god forbid : justice.
...
When George Bush says "you're either with us, or you are with the terrorists" we can say "No thank you." We can let him know that the people of the world do not need to choose between a Malevolent Mickey Mouse and the Mad Mullahs.
Mon, 2011-08-29 17:50
#7
Northern Shoveler
Wow amazing an American politician who agrees with American foreign policy. I am soooooo impressed. Especially when it is opinions expressed on the CNN, that bastion of unbiased reporting about the US role in the world.
Mon, 2011-08-29 17:56
#8
ikosmos
Ripple, there is another line from A. Roy that is also pretty good and appropriate here.
"Killing people to save them from dictatorship ... is, of course, an old U.S. government sport."
Mon, 2011-08-29 19:46
#9
Wow amazing an American politician who agrees with American foreign policy. I am soooooo impressed. Especially when it is opinions expressed on the CNN, that bastion of unbiased reporting about the US role in the world.
Well, Ellison is also a guy who helped sponsor a resolution to impeach Dick Cheney for, among other things, fabricating evidence in the buildup to the Iraq War, and threatening aggression Iran without provocation.
So, while Ellison may indeed be wrong about Libya, if you wanna rebut his position, I don't think it's enough to simply say "Well, obviously, he's an an American politician who supports American foriegn policy". Because I don't think that's an accurate description of what he is.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_Resolution_333]link[/url]
Mon, 2011-08-29 19:56
#10
Northern Shoveler
A Democrat attacking Dick Cheney is not all that strange. Get back to me when he seeks Obama's impeachment for allowing the bombing of numerous countries using drones in civilian areas.
Partisan politics aside this is just another american politician supporting his imperial right to rule the world.
Tue, 2011-08-30 09:23
#11
knownothing
Tue, 2011-08-30 09:24
#12
What really disturbs me about the thread title is the word "Muslim". We are supposed to care about his apparent religious beliefs? The fact that he bows down to Allah gives him some credibility on anything? We are now going to identify people by their religion?
"U.S. Christian President bombs Libya"
"Israeli Jew bombs Gaza"
"Jewish babbler posts in this thread"
"Canadian atheist pedestrian hurt in early morning traffic mishap"
It shows how low our civil society has sunk when such divisive descriptors pass without mention.
ETA: To be very clear, my criticism is directed against DaveW in this instance. The linked article does not mention Mr. Ellison's religious affiliation. I won't even get into why DaveW calls him "progressive".
Tue, 2011-08-30 23:10
#13
A long road lies ahead, but the Obama administration must be credited for crafting a sensible and prudent foreign policy toward Libya.
What a joke!
1. It was France under Nicolas Sarkozy and the U.K. under David Cameron who largely crafted the "No-Fly Zone", the military intervention, the War of Aggression on Libya, regime change and war crime humanitarian bombing of Libyan cities, houses and people. Uncle Sam (i.e., the Obomba administration) was a latecomer.
2. Entering the war on Libya is that and nothing else. (A) War is not "foreign policy."
Wed, 2011-08-31 00:21
#14
- War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.
Carl von Clausewitz - War is only caused through the political intercourse of governments and nations - war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
Wed, 2011-08-31 01:21
#15
hint, he likes policy of supporting rebels:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/26/ellison.libya.obama/index.html?hpt...
The United States showed the benefit of a foreign policy that supports national movements working for democracy. We cannot impose change, but we can bolster emerging efforts for positive reform.
Yes, anything is better than Gadaffi's rule. Even if it means handing Libya over to LIFG rebels previously listed by western countries as a terrorist organization linked to al-Qa'eda. That all changed after June 2011 though. al-Qaeda, CIA/MI6 and NATO are all best friends forever in the war on democracy.
Wed, 2011-08-31 01:32
#16
Sven
What really disturbs me about the thread title is the word "Muslim". We are supposed to care about his apparent religious beliefs? The fact that he bows down to Allah gives him some credibility on anything? We are now going to identify people by their religion?
"U.S. Christian President bombs Libya"
"Israeli Jew bombs Gaza"
"Jewish babbler posts in this thread"
"Canadian atheist pedestrian hurt in early morning traffic mishap"
It shows how low our civil society has sunk when such divisive descriptors pass without mention.
Best post I've read in many days.
Wed, 2011-08-31 14:31
#17
- War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
That would put the U.S.A. in good company with Benito Mussolini, Hiro Hito and Adolf Hitler who shared von Clausewitz's sentiments.
- War is only caused through the political intercourse of governments and nations - war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
As the 9/11 terrorist acts were not "caused through the political intercourse of [a] government[s] and[/or] nation[s]" then it was not an of war.
Wed, 2011-08-31 14:58
#18
I would agree. It was an act of terrorism. However since it may have been supported or financed by another government, it could be considered politics of sort(tho I dont know, its too murky and fraught with propoganda to untangle who was responsible for what except the actual participants)
Wed, 2011-08-31 15:13
#19
I would agree. It was an act of terrorism. However since it may have been supported or financed by another government, it could be considered politics of sort(tho I dont know, its too murky and fraught with propoganda to untangle who was responsible for what except the actual participants)
There has been a web of deceit spun over 9/11. It is an elaborate attempt by the Pentagon, CIA and members of the Bush administration and its successors to cover their tracks and hide their complicity and invovlement in it.
This is the "New World Order" as run by the American Empire.
Wed, 2011-08-31 18:54
#20
I would agree. It was an act of terrorism. However since it may have been supported or financed by another government, it could be considered politics of sort(tho I dont know, its too murky and fraught with propoganda to untangle who was responsible for what except the actual participants)
Yes and it looks a lot like long-time cold war ally Pakistan was involved in financing 9/11 terror. There is evidence that Pakistan's army intelligence ISI/MI6 agent Omar Saeed Sheikh wired $100,000 dollars to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. Saeed Sheikh is also accused of murdering WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qa'eda". Unfortunately for Pearl he suddenly found himself between a rock and the truth. Two 9/11 commissioners are on the record as having met with ISI chief Mahmud Ahmed on Capitol Hill the morning of 9/11/01. None of this was mentioned by the official 9/11 Commission cover-up.
Wed, 2011-08-31 23:06
#21
Bec.De.Corbin
- War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.
Carl von ClausewitzThat would put the U.S.A. in good company with Benito Mussolini, Hiro Hito and Adolf Hitler who shared von Clausewitz's sentiments.
- War is only caused through the political intercourse of governments and nations - war is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with an admixture of other means.
Carl von ClausewitzAs the 9/11 terrorist acts were not "caused through the political intercourse of [a] government[s] and[/or] nation[s]" then it was not an of war.
Great, now you're counter-pointing famous dead people.
Sweet...
Thu, 2011-09-01 00:08
#22
Great, now you're counter-pointing famous dead people.
Sweet...
Yeah genius,
imagine how smart we would be if no one ever learned a thing from history - i.e., from "famous dead people."
Oops, what am I thinking?
That's why the U.S./NATO/ISAF-Afghan war, the U.S. covert Pakistan war, the Iraq war, the Yemen U.S. drone proxy war and the Libya war have/are occurred/occurring and saber-rattling toward Syria - failure to learn anything from the Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia War and Soviet-Afghan War.
The Somalia war from the U.S. CIA "Blackhawk Down" and Canadian torture and murder of a young Somali in the 1993 Somalia war/intervention fiasco.
The current provocative actions by the U.S. and its South Korean puppet client state from the Korean War (1950-53.)
The current saber-rattling toward Iran from the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
The views expressed by von Clausewitz represent the pre-Geneva Conventions, pre-U.N., pre-Nuremberg Trial and Principles, pre-League of Nations, pre-WW1 and pre-Hague Conventions world.
A world where war was (considered) a legitimate and perfectly acceptable state policy.
A world that we are sadly sliding back into once again.
A world that the U.N. should prevent from occurring according to the values expressed in its own Charter, but is tacitly condoning instead.
Thu, 2011-09-01 00:45
#23
ikosmos
Actually at its origin the UN was totally distrusted and virtually boycotted by the Soviets and their allies. Hence the US could have their way at the UN on Korea, etc. The President of Venezuela has suggested the establishment of a new UN for "the South" (of the world) that excludes the USA altogether. I heartily agree.
Thu, 2011-09-01 01:32
#24
Exclusion of any kind is discriminatory and would not be healthy.
The veto powers however, should be eliminated and all security council seats be rotated among the member nations
Thu, 2011-09-01 03:26
#25
Actually at its origin the UN was totally distrusted and virtually boycotted by the Soviets and their allies. Hence the US could have their way at the UN on Korea, etc.
The U.N.'s origin is 1945-46. During that time I can understand Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia distrusting and not being very enthusiastic members.
Czechoslovakia for being screwed by Britain and France over the Sudetenland at the Munich Conference.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland for being abandoned to the territorial expansion of Joseph Stalin by the West.
Yugoslavia for the U.N. ignoring its request that Italian officers and members of Mussolini's government be tried for war crimes/crimes against humanity in the World Court for the tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent Yugoslavians who were gunned/machinegunned down and buried in mass graves by Italian fascist forces during WW2. N.B. these were the same crimes the German nazis committed in Poland starting in 1939 and contemporaneously committed along with their Italian fascist Axis partners after the fall of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1941.
The Korean War (1950-53) which took place somewhat later than the U.N.'s inception year(s) occurred because the U.S.S.R., a Permanent Member of the U.N. Security Council, pulled its representative(s) from the Council in protest of the 1949 Berlin Airlift.
Because this enabled the Korean War to happen, the U.S.S.R. and now Russia, has made sure that its representative(s) are always present at every U.N. Security Council meeting.
Thu, 2011-09-01 03:52
#26
I love these participatory history threads. I learn something new all the time.
Thu, 2011-09-01 12:28
#27
Manic Wombat
I love these participatory history threads. I learn something new all the time.
You and me both!
This is where I go to school.
Former soldier's posts have sent me on some epic research journies. LOVE IT! Do you have a blog, guy?
Thu, 2011-09-01 22:10
#28
I love these participatory history threads. I learn something new all the time.
You and me both!
This is where I go to school.
Former soldier's posts have sent me on some epic research journies. LOVE IT! Do you have a blog, guy?
No, just the stuff I post here on babble.