Have the Libyans Done What Once Thought Impossible?

[moreluck]

I think we should stay out of all the sandy areas except Vegas & Palm Springs.

 

[moreluck]

 

[bbsam]

Seems at the moment the Libyans want us to stay out of it and I think we should honor that.

And I don't doubt that we should and will. But remember, my post was last week when things were far more contentious and fighter pilots were reportedly being given orders to strafe protesters. Far different now that battallions of the millitary are defecting to the other side. All that aside, millitary intervention still serves it's purpose when wisely applied.

 

[wkmac]

And I don't doubt that we should and will. But remember, my post was last week when things were far more contentious and fighter pilots were reportedly being given orders to strafe protesters. Far different now that battallions of the millitary are defecting to the other side. All that aside, millitary intervention still serves it's purpose when wisely applied.

The U.S. government is now deliberating on whether to militarily intervene in Libya out of “shock” over the brutal behavior of 40-year Libyan dictator Muommar Gaddafi. Here we go again. If the U.S. government isn’t supporting dictatorships with money and armaments, it’s invading countries to oust them.
Recall Saddam Hussein, one of the U.S. Empire’s favorite dictators during the 1980s and a reviled one during the 1990s who was ultimately ousted from power by an illegal and unconstitutional U.S. invasion and war of aggression against Iraq.
The thing that I have found fascinating during the past several weeks has been the silence of the American people regarding their own government’s role in the dictatorships and tyranny that people in the Middle East are now revolting against. Every day, I search the mainstream media for articles that express anger and outrage over the supporting role that the U.S. government has played in the torture and tyranny in the Middle East, and the most I find is sympathy with the pro-democracy demonstrators and silence toward the U.S. government’s role in the Middle East tyranny.
I could be wrong but it is my opinion that such silence among the mainstream media is reflective of the mindset of the American people generally.
Most Americans pride themselves on being a moral and righteous people. Many of them go to church every Sunday, repent their sins, and praise God.
Yet, the rest of the week they don’t seem bothered one whit by the fact that their very own government has been supporting for decades the brutality, torture, and oppression that has been employed by dictators in such countries as Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and others. In fact, while the mainstream media debates whether the U.S. military should intervene in Libya, they remain strangely silent over the British government’s financial support of the Gaddafi regime, no doubt with the full support of the U.S. Empire.

Have Americans Lost Their Consciences?

or

Will They Ever Realize Their Hypocrisy?

And do we know that our own media is telling us the truth about Libya? When Al Jazeera English fed raw live feeds from the Egyptian street that first weekend, I watched a lot and the images I saw and yet what was being said by our own media didn't always match up.

Our own media may be more vastly compromised than we ever realized. Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame pointed this out as did the late 70's Church Committee hearing in the Senate.

How quick we forget Operation Mockingbird or the impact of Edward Bernays.

Maybe our consciences are buried under lies told to us by men who live in dark shadows and have no soul to begin with.

 

[bbsam]

Maybe our consciences have nothing to do with it.

I'm not one to believe the US is morally superior to all the other nations of the world. There's simply too much evidence to the contrary. When I posted I thought some millitry intervention might be acceptable, it was not on a moral premise, but a strategic and tactical premise. Finally a dictator going down whom we did not openly support! Possibly a chance to score points with a populace that we hadn't been oppressing through a dictator. Had things played out differently with the millitary more backing Quadafi, might have been a plausible tactic. Nothing about morality though. Not about "liberating" the people from a "tyrant".

 

[moreluck]

Oh, tough stuff....you can't be a member of our club anymore. I'll bet he's shaking in his boots over that!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/01/general-assembly-suspends-libya-human-rights-council/

 

[wkmac]

Before the United States plunges into a third war in the Middle East, let us think this one through, as we did not the last two.
What would be the purpose of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya? According to advocates, to keep Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to attack civilians.
But if Gadhafi uses tanks to crush the rebellion, as Nikita Khrushchev did in Hungary and the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, would that be OK?
What is the moral distinction between using planes to kill rebels and running over them with tanks? Do we Americans just want to see a fair fight?
To establish a secure no-fly zone, we would have to bomb radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites, and airfields, and destroy the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for U.S. pilots.
These would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us.

It's Their War, Not Ours by Pat Buchanan

 

[wkmac]

Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians, Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.
We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further U.S. interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes. Just as we would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one U.S. puppet being replaced by another U.S. puppet. It is ironic, but the U.S. government’s endless promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy in targeted nations.The involvement of a foreign power often undermines true self-determination.

Buying Friends Creates More Enemies by Ron Paul

 

[wkmac]

Maybe what they need now is Tom Paine!

 

[moreluck]

So, the big guy is raging that he will hand out a million arms to a million people who will protect him. Can you imagine the logistics? What does he do, open a gun drive thru ?? Does he even have a million people on his side ?

He's enraged! They better do something with him, because he could still remain in power after all of this.

 

[Lue C Fur]

Michael Moore is upset at the Messiah.

 

[wkmac]

At least Michael Moore is being consistent! Now if Mike can only drop the other shoe and realize it's not the man we put in the office but rather the office itself that is the problem, then we might start getting somewhere.

 

[moreluck]

It's time for Michael to realize what a calorie is !!

 

[bbsam]

It's time for Michael to realize what a calorie is !!

Maybe he and Rush can go on a "Big Mouths Don't Have To Lead To Big Asses" diet/tour together!

 

[moreluck]

Rosie O'donnell could be the emcee with a performance by Kirstie Alley

 

[moreluck]

Somebody, throw this guy a burger .......

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-moore-rips-president-obama-libya/?test=faces

 

[bbsam]

Rosie O'donnell could be the emcee with a performance by Kirstie Alley

Let's not forget Haley Barbour and Chris Christie.

 

[soberups]

Before the United States plunges into a third war in the Middle East, let us think this one through, as we did not the last two.
What would be the purpose of establishing a no-fly zone over Libya? According to advocates, to keep Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to attack civilians.
But if Gadhafi uses tanks to crush the rebellion, as Nikita Khrushchev did in Hungary and the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, would that be OK?
What is the moral distinction between using planes to kill rebels and running over them with tanks? Do we Americans just want to see a fair fight?
To establish a secure no-fly zone, we would have to bomb radar installations, anti-aircraft batteries, missile sites, and airfields, and destroy the Libyan air force on the ground, to keep the skies secure for U.S. pilots.
These would be acts of war against a nation that has not attacked us.

A peaceful, negotiated solution is far more likely between two adversaries who are evenly matched.

When one side has tanks and planes and the other side doesnt, its a massacre.

In the case of China and Hungary, intervention on our part was simply impossible. In this case, intervention is possible. Furthermore, intervention is being requested by both the UN and the Arab League.

I agree that the US needs to stop being the worlds policeman and we need to quit meddling in the affairs of other nations. But if our assstance is being requested by the relevant world bodies, we ought to at least attempt to provide it. And as a practical matter, it is relatively easy for us to take out Libya's air defenses with missile and drone attacks, at little risk to the lives of US personnel.