So which part do you disagree with? I believe that Gaddafi was a despot can you make a case for him?
One thing I will say though he should not have been disposed of in that summary manner but put on trial.
I'm antiwar. But being antiwar comes with responsibility. Being antiwar means that I speak truth it .. regardless of who does it.
There is no question that the silence .. the see-no-evil head-in-the-sand approach that democrats and the left have taken with Obama is due to the fact that he is their guy.
He's also droning planet earth. How did they miss that?
He's murdering innocent people, women children, and babies. How did they miss that?
Have you heard this discussion on MSNBC? Al Sharpton isn't going to say it.
I'm antiwar. But being antiwar comes with responsibility. Being antiwar means that I speak truth it .. regardless of who does it.
There is no question that the silence .. the see-no-evil head-in-the-sand approach that democrats and the left have taken with Obama is due to the fact that he is their guy.
He's also droning planet earth. How did they miss that?
He's murdering innocent people, women children, and babies. How did they miss that?
Have you heard this discussion on MSNBC? Al Sharpton isn't going to say it.
Media coverage of the wars took a nosedive during Bush's 2nd term, and have stayed at roughly that level ever since.
Why? Becuase of national war fatigue. People didn't want to hear about it anymore, and the media caters to what people want to hear. Because that's what brings them profits.
War support & protest isn't nearly as politicized as you are portraying.
Are you aware that more than 2 million Libyans came out in support of Gaddafi while Obama, NATO, and his band of AL Queda rebels were destroying their country?
They came out in support WHILE their country was being bombed.
It was the largest protest in world history.
Obviously, they don't read American press.
I've already made the case in prior postings of what he has done for Libya and why more than 1/3 of the country risked their lives to support him.
I don't know who they are bac. The blogs I read have always been saying the same thing and continue to do so with Obama as President. I haven't watched MSNBC since they got rid of KO, but I take your word about Sharpton. Probably Maddow too. You know, that is career shit. That always happens. That's inside the beltway stuff, you know that better than anyone, you've been inside the beltway. That's never going to change.
Have you read Digby or Glenn Greenwald lately? They have never stopped. I think the career boys like Ezra and his ilk have flipped. Sure.
I seem to remember that Nicolae Ceaușescu also used to have huge rallies right up to the very moment that the people rose up and got rid of the tyrant.
War fatigue?
We are murdering innocent people all over the planet.
Our military is broken with American soldiers killing themselves faster than any enemy.
Our Treasury is rapidly being depleted by the military industrial complex .. and we have what? War fatigue?
You make my point more than you know.
Put a republican in office and watch how fast so-called liberals and democrats recover from their fatigue.
BAC when haven't we been murdering innocent people all over the planet? The Gulf war, 500k dead children in Iraq under the Clinton era sactions, Afghanistan...go back pre Bush I, Guatamela, Chile...need i go on? When did Americans ever give a shit in large numbers? Other than in Vietnam when our own were dying in large numbers and just as importantly, on the nightly news, and in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and for a couple of short years afterwards. It seems to me that the Iraq war was extremely controversial because it was so obviously invented. But other than that, by and large, Americans don't give a crap and if Mitt Romney gets elected and conducts air strikes in no fly zones, no one is going to give a shit either. That's America! IMO.
Hard to disagree with that good sister.
In other words .. screw what Libyans want.
If a tyrant was to be gotten rid of .. it should be the people who do it .. not foreigners looking for profit and murder.
I wonder if you would have used the same argument for Pol Pot and Hitler? Pol Pot is a very good example, here was a foreign power namely the communist Vietnamese removing the government of Cambodia by force when the West and the Chinese refused to deal with anybody but the Kmer Rouge.
I'm ashamed to say I didn't know about the dead children in Iraq. Or that Albright said publically that it was "worth it". I saw a Documentary right about 2005-2006 and that is when I decided I couldn't support Hillary. But now i've pretty much concluded that American foreign policy endures.
Refresh my memory on which nation Gaddafi threatened.
Pol Pot and Hitler are an extreme reach.
We attacked Libya for the profit.
Given American history .. tell me you're not shocked by this revelation.
Which nation did the Kmer Rouge threaten apart from their own people and the border regions of Thailand? Remind me, as I must have forgotten, how much oil did Bosnia have when the West went to the aid of the Bosniaks of Srebrenica, Prijedor, Kljuc, Mostar, Banja Luka and Sarajevo?
Thank you for the post, good brother, i will read up on the EU/US/UN/Sock Puppets lastest fatal farce.Republicans have never met a war they didn't like .. but I also recognize that war and genocide are not issues that democrats and and Obama supporters even want to talk about these days. Particularly those who screamed at the top of their lungs when Bush was doing it.
Out of sight .. out of mind.
You may not want to read this ..
The 2012 Libyan Election Farce
All candidates are neo-imperial candidates – Wall Street proxy Jibril of “National Forces Alliance” presumed winner.
by Tony Cartalucci
July 9, 2012 – Ideally the West would like to install “liberal” pro-globalist candidates into power in each of the nations it has destabilized and destroyed during its premeditated, engineered “Arab Spring.” In the case of Egypt where Mohammed ElBaradei was sufficiently exposed and his presidential aspirations effectively derailed, the West’s Muslim Brotherhood proxies made for a viable second option.
In Libya, a similar scenario has unfolded with two tiers of Western proxies poised to take power – pro-globalist technocrats like US-educated Mahmoud Jibril (Gibril) Elwarfally’s National Forces Alliance, and of course NATO’s terrorist proxies within the Muslim Brotherhood along with Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) warlords like Abdul Hakim Belhaj.
In Egypt where relative economic and social stability returned after the brief chaos and violence of the early 2011 protests, the alternative media was able to sufficiently expose and disrupt “liberal” candidate ElBaradei. In Libya, the nation has been plunged into nationwide lawlessness, violence, and sweeping genocide by sectarian extremists, tribal confrontations, and militant opportunists. The people of Libya have been too busy defending themselves and desperately fighting for their own immediate survival to function as a nation-state, let alone scrutinize candidates politically before the farcical Western-hyped elections.
In other words, no matter who wins the so-called elections in war-torn Libya, the West has ensured all the candidates are loyal proxies, and will most assuredly have one of these proxies in place to guide Libya according to its own agenda rather than that of the Libyan people.
The New York Times has already proclaimed in its article, “Party Led by Pro-Western Official Claims Lead in Libya,” that Jibril’s party is the likely winner. Readers might recall that in May of 2011, Jibril had made a pilgrimage back to the United States where he received his higher education and spent years teaching in Pittsburgh, to speak before the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution (Brookings page here) about turning Libya into a “lake” to develop the skills of Africans to serve the needs of markets in the European Union.
Jibril will serve not as an “elected representative” of the Libyan people, but as a technocratic proxy implementing not only the West’s designs for Libya, but carrying out its role in recolonizing and exploiting both the vast populations and resources of the entire African continent. Jibril, or whoever the West finally installs into power will not only carry out this agenda, they will do so under the guise of a “democratic mandate.” While impressionable and/or duplicitous people the world over applaud Libya’s elections, they are but the most superficial attempt to spin NATO’s genocidal destruction of one of the most developed nations in Africa.
And despite these elections, Libya will remain largely lawless and a terrorist safe-haven by design so that it may continue serving its purpose as a weapons, fighter, and cash hub for NATO militant proxies throughout the region, particularly verses Syria.
Libya’s “transitional government” led by Western big oil representative Abdurrahim el-Keib had already played a significant role in carrying out Western designs against other geopolitical targets throughout North Africa and the Middle East, including Mali and Syria where Libya has shipped both weapons and fighters to augment NATO-backed terrorists seeking to overthrow these targeted governments. Libya under el-Keib has also lent significant political support to the West’s Arab World agenda. Along with the government of Tunisia – led at the time by US funded “activist” Moncef Marzouki, Libya had withdrawn recognition of Syria’s government. The US-installed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has likewise backed Western designs throughout the region, most recently backing US calls for intervention in Syria.
What the uninformed public believes it is seeing is a transition to “democracy” across the Arab World and each of these nations joining together to ensure such a transition in remaining “dictatorships” takes place. It might be mistakenly believed then that the United States is merely “reacting” to this unfolding paradigm in a supportive capacity.
What has happened in reality is that the so-called “Arab Spring” was planned by the West as early as 2008 with activists literally flown to the United States to receive training, funding, and equipment with which to return to their home countries and begin a campaign of coordinated destabilization. It was under this cover of seemingly legitimate peaceful protesting that more violent elements, organized as early as 2007 or even earlier (as was the case in Libya), began violently overthrowing regimes targeted, according to US Army General Wesley Clark, as early as 1991, with a complete list documented as early as 2001. This list, provided during General Clark’s talk at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007, included seven nations slated by the Pentagon for destabilization and destruction: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
http://deadlinelive.info/2012/07/08/the-2012-libyan-election-farce/
another "smoking gunship", another neocon/lib agenda almost fufilled. Give it a little more time.This list, provided during General Clark’s talk at the Commonwealth Club of California, October 3, 2007, included seven nations slated by the Pentagon for destabilization and destruction: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya Somalia, Sudan, and Iran
War fatigue?
We are murdering innocent people all over the planet.
Our military is broken with American soldiers killing themselves faster than any enemy.
Our Treasury is rapidly being depleted by the military industrial complex .. and we have what? War fatigue?
You make my point more than you know.
Put a republican in office and watch how fast so-called liberals and democrats recover from their fatigue.
good point, but the Dem's are in power now, and silent on what happened in Libya.But when were Democrats so anti-war? Plenty of them voted for the Iraq War Resolution (though more voted against it than for it in the House I believe) and pretty much everyone voted to strike Afghanistan. I remember Barbara Lee came out against that, anyone else? I like to separate out Democrats, liberals, and leftists. If we look to elected politicians of any party to set our moral guidelines we would be in a very dark place.
I personally IRL do not know any anti-war people who became pro-war once Obama was elected. However, there is no doubt that many middle of the road Democrats on the internet are pro war now. I just don't know how representative they are.
Is Vietnam ancient history?
How about Iran .. done by the CIA?
Does Iraq ring any bells?
Bosnia and the Balkans were part of western expansion.
You said you'd like to keep it simple.
The question on the table is Libya .. and you've already implied that what the people want doesn't matter.