Barack Obama is secretly pro-Gadaffi - or he's a *****.

[Zevico]

[QUOTE=gribbler;6014630]You know I specified "on the other side of the world", right?[/q]
You know who else is on the other side of the world? The United Kingdom. Didn't you have a tiff with them some time in the past?

I think it's pretty absurd to claim the US would "wilt away" if it stopped getting entangled in middle eastern conflicts.

That's called "begging the question." You assume in this statement that there are no middle eastern conflicts worth getting entangled in, and then declare, as a result, that the US won't wilt away if it doesn't get entangled. But there have been and sadly enough there may be some in future. Why do you think the US backed up Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1990? For precisely this reason. Can you imagine Saddam burning his way through those two oil providers? Can you think of the economic consequences, the consequences for the Middle East in general, the human consequences if that madman expanded his grip? It makes going to war seem like a relative bargain.

[DaShi]

@zevico

[DaShi]

I too would like to here what types of benefits the US is going to get for spending billions of dollars worth of munitions on a **** hole on the other side of the world.
The only reason I support the help is that it pisses off the thug in SA. Every other possible benefit that I think possible will be offset by all the suffering that's going to happen in the aftermath.
So what benefits do people think we're going to get out of this? Our European allies are still going to hate us when regardless of our continued support.

Our European allies don't hate us.

[DaShi]

I thought they love us now because Obama is President?

Rah was having a Zevico-moment.

[giblets]

You know I specified "on the other side of the world", right?

You know who else is on the other side of the world? The United Kingdom. Didn't you have a tiff with them some time in the past?

Are you referring to the incident where British soldiers were stationed here, on this side of the world?

I think it's pretty absurd to claim the US would "wilt away" if it stopped getting entangled in middle eastern conflicts.

That's called "begging the question." You assume in this statement that there are no middle eastern conflicts worth getting entangled in, and then declare, as a result, that the US won't wilt away if it doesn't get entangled. But there have been and sadly enough there may be some in future. Why do you think the US backed up Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1990? For precisely this reason. Can you imagine Saddam burning his way through those two oil providers? Can you think of the economic consequences, the consequences for the Middle East in general, the human consequences if that madman expanded his grip? It makes going to war seem like a relative bargain.

I think the US would still be here if Saddam controlled a large fraction of the world's oil and was able to act like a monopolist and raise the price of oil above the competitive price. It wouldn't be "wilting away". Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are all members of OPEC, an oil cartel, yet somehow the price of oil is not prohibitively expensive for the US to prosper. Also, "can you think of the consequences for the middle east in general, the human consequences..." is not even remotely an appeal to the self-interest of the US. If US foreign policy should be exclusively concerned with maximizing the well-being of Americans, the fate of Kuwaitis under Saddam is irrelevant.

[SlowwHand]

70 or so years ago we watched while people were hauled away. It did no good for them or for us, as it turned out.

[Cort Haus]

Sloww, are you invoking the Holocaust argument for intervention whenever a PR-company-backed group of rebels cries wolf? That's Mobius territory, you realise, and has been discussed earlier.

Are you calling for war against Syria? Wasn't Iraq touted as (amongst other reasons) a human rights crusade against an evil man who would unleash horrendous terrors against his population?

[Zevico]

70 or so years ago we watched while people were hauled away. It did no good for them or for us, as it turned out.

I respect your argument. I respect you for making it. But I'm not convinced that Libya is a case where mass killings occurred on a comparable scale, or in comparable circumstances. Moreover, intervention here has prolonged a civil war, and may lead to a further civil war if the Libyan "council" breaks up and proceeds to engage in some internecine violence. So I'm not convinced, in other words, because I think the intervention also caused a large number of civilian deaths. And I'm not convinced that the rebels, who have Al Qaeda fighters among them by their own concession, will necessarily improve Libya. It's an unfortunate world we live in--an imperfect one. Not everything we do has the consequence we intend for it. The West undoubtedly intended to prevent massacres in intervening in Libya, but its actions may well have compounded the problem. Libya is a tinderbox of contrary tribal, ethnic and religious interests with or without us.

[Zevico]

The United States has recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) of Libya as the provisional government of that country. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns addressed the Libyan Contact Group meeting–where else?–in Turkey, the Obama Administration’s favorite Middle East mediator despite that regime being a pro-Iran Islamist government that is turning Turkey into a police state. Turkey as a role model for the Arab world, anyone?

Burns said:

“It is critical that the TNC continue to engage with stakeholders across Libya, including those who have served in the government in Tripoli, to form a new, inclusive interim authority that can ensure civil order, respect human rights, provide essential services to the people, and pave the way for a full democratic transition….

“This new authority must represent all Libyans, from all tribes, regions, and minorities of the country. This demands a true commitment by all parties to national reconciliation—-revenge attacks and reprisals must have no part in the new Libya. Libya’s future will be peaceful only if the leaders and people of Libya reach out to each other to make peace.”

Precisely because Burns, a serious professional diplomat, has stated the problems so well, I’m skeptical. For rebel commanders, the TNC is a bunch of corrupt guys with expensive suits, many of whom worked with the dictator, Muammar al-Qadhafi, in an oppressive dictatorship, and lived luxuriously abroad while the rebels were fighting and dying (and looting and burning, too). The rebels are undisciplined; there’s no chain of command; and the tribes in many cases hate each other. Burns describes a utopian situation that I think has very little to do with the reality of Libya.

The Islamists are already calling for the TNC’s overthrow since they–rightly–suspect it from their standpoint of wanting to create a pro-Western government. Let’s see if I am right but I cannot conceive this is going to produce a stable Libya where everyone loves everyone else.

At any rate, Qadhafi is not yet dead or gone. The incompetence of the NATO-supported but not trained rebels; the fact that Qadhafi’s forces know they are fighting to the death; the dictator’s ruthlessness; and his option of retreating to his tribal stronghold has so far shown that reports of his demise have been greatly exaggerated. Of course, it might well happen but the story of repression and violence in Libya is far from over.

Meanwhile, however, the Libya issue gives us still another example of what the high-rankers in the West don’t understand about the Middle East. The Western conception assumes order, hierarchy, stability, and moderation are normal. It expects that guys in nice suits and ties will walk in and become Libya’s government because it knows their names, they have served in high positions previously, and the West recognizes them as the rulers. In addition, the theory is, they will be able to win support with money (through control of the oilfields) and a monopoly on weapons.

But wait a minute! As I said a moment ago (presuming you are reading this article reasonably quickly) The fact that they’ve held high posts previously–under Qadhafi–makes them less trustworthy to the rebels. The fact that they have Western backing makes the rebels more suspicious, as does the fact that these politicians are wearing suits and ties rather than military fatigues. Where were these guys, rebel leaders can well ask, when we were shooting it out? At five-star hotels abroad living it up at the buffet tables?

As for control of the oilfields, not even the rebels have that yet. And as for a monopoly of violence, well, who’s carrying the AK-47s anyway?

A diplomat asked me, “Who’s the most important leader in Libya? The head of the TNC?”

I started laughing.

Libya is a country badly divided between east and west; Arab and Berber; ideology and factions and tribes. It has not had a real political life or any tiny fragment of pluralism for more than four decades. Tunisia has a real chance of democracy; Egypt has a real chance of democratically electing anti-democratic radicals; and Libya is the Wild West of the Middle East.

http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/08/29/trying-to-manage-the-post-qadhafi-libya-while-qadhafi-is-still-around/

[Kidlicious]

Dino's point was that wars should be conducted only to advance the national interests of the nation engaged in the war. Whether or not some call that war "imperialism" is irrelevant.

When nations refuse to advance their national interests--by way of war, if necessary--their downfall will soon follow. And if they wilt away from advancing their national interests at the mere suggestion that "some people" might think war is imperialism, the same result will occur.

I didn't realize that DD was a Nazi until you cleared up his statement for him.

[C0ckney]

urkey, the Obama Administration’s favorite Middle East mediator despite that regime being a pro-Iran Islamist government that is turning Turkey into a police state. Turkey as a role model for the Arab world, anyone?

another reason not to take this joker seriously.

[Zevico]

Read Jenkins' article on Ergenekon and tell me that you think Erdogan is a democrat. Here it is: http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/d...8Ergenekon.pdf

Recall that Erdogan has recently accused--you guessed it--Israel of being behind an article in the Economist (that well known hotbed of Zionist activity) condemning him. He accused Israel of controlling the media. This is the mark of a true democrat.

Recall also that Erdogan accuses the US of carrying out "dark propaganda"--a key Ergenekon codeword for "these guys are part of the conspiracy against everything Turkish." The "dark propaganda"? Releasing Wikileaks! That's right---Erdogan accused the United States of releasing Wikileaks! The man lives on space mountain!

This is the man you would have as a model for the Middle East. A man whose ministers routinely swindle the Turkish people; forment anti-Jewish propaganda; and spread moronic conspiracy theories designed to avert attention from their mishandling of the Turkish state.

Meanwhile, judges, politicans, even eighty year old journalists (!) are arbitrarily arrested and accused of being part of anti-regime coup effort. Some have been in jail for three years now without a hearing. As Jenkins notes in the article above, even the indictments don't even accuse them of anything more specific than 'interfering with government work'--a crime only in a dictatorial country.

These are indictments that are fully supported by the Turkish government.

They are targeted towards the opposition.

The author of the book "the Army of Imams", which details Islamist infilitration in the Turkish police forces, has been arrested. His crime being publishing that very book, copies of which are now illegal to possess in Turkey. Now that's democracy.

Ah, the sweet smell of Turkish democracy!

Sources:

http://www.turkeyemergency.com/2011/the-imams-army-to-be-leaked/

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/turkeys-islamist-government-blames-wikileaks-document-release-on-da-joooos/question-1367023/

http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2011/03/the-wikileaks-cables-on-turkey-2020-tunnel-vision/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/05/us-turkey-wikileaks-idUSTRE6B407420101205

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/29/world/la-fg-wikileaks-turkey-20101130

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/wikileaks-cables-show-u-s-israel-fear-of-fundamentalist-erdogan-1.327607

[Kidlicious]

Lets call him an imperialist.

[Zevico]

Lets call him an imperialist.

Spot on.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/us-weary-of-turkey-s-neo-ottoman-ambitions-in-the-balkans

[Zevico]

I didn't realize that DD was a Nazi until you cleared up his statement for him.

Nonsense, and disappointing nonsense at that. It's not Nazism by any definition. It's a plain statement of fact: if you don't go to war when you have to your nation will suffer the consequences because your enemies will work against you while you dither.

In fact, destroying Nazi Germany before 1939 would have been a prime application of this doctrine, and a commendable and sensible policy.