the revolution in libya

do you see a way out Awe?

edit: i mean about the general state and direction of the country.

good question.

also, don't overestimate the involvement of the us in libya. i see it more as a europe vs libya kind of thing, with the us giving a helping hand. (although it's more like big brother (US) helping little brother (EU) out) or better: it's the nato, not specifically the us.

as opposed to the us explicitly attacking afghanistan with or without nato's approval. this time it was nato's decision. although it's obvious the us plays a relatively large part in the decision-making process of the nato.

[youtubehd]YhoGNlWsObg[/youtubehd]

  On 6/24/2011 at 9:51 PM, GORDO said:

do you see a way out Awe?

 

edit: i mean about the general state and direction of the country.

we will either end up in authoritarianism, theocracy, fascism, or communism. I cannot imagine a single alternative to those mentioned. And even if a beneficial system does arise out of this, it will extract a gigantic cost at the expense of the lower and working classes, our infrastructure, natural resources, and production capacity.

The financial system we have in place now is bound for a massive failure sooner or later, either we adapt to the challenge, or we await increased and more brutal forms of oppression, domestically and foreign.

this is a systemic catastrophe. we haven't been ruined by one or two presidents.

The difference of course being that Libyan people reached out and asked for help, whereas in Iraq the US just dropped 150,000 troops on the ground.

The South Vietnamese asked for help too. Contra forces as well, and many others? Is this enough of a justification?

The problem with this position, is that it makes the intervention out to be a morally sincere one, and thus further justifying our constant interventionism. People drudge up the same arguments with Iraq, Afghanistan (women's rights, democratic system), Latin America in the Reagan era, and so on.

  On 8/24/2011 at 8:59 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

The South Vietnamese asked for help too. Contra forces as well, and many others? Is this enough of a justification?

 

 

The problem with this position, is that it makes the intervention out to be a morally sincere one, and thus further justifying our constant interventionism. People drudge up the same arguments with Iraq, Afghanistan (women's rights, democratic system), Latin America in the Reagan era, and so on.

I'm just comparing it to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which were actual invasions. Nobody there was asking for US intervention. The US had military advisers in Vietnam long before the civil war broke out, and they were paying the French way for the majority of the French-Indochina war. Also, Diem was a hand-picked US puppet in the South. The head of the Libyan council, Mahmoud Jibril, - sure he was educated in the States, but he also worked in the Gaddafi government.

If the US lands troops in Libya, then yes, I will oppose that measure. Releasing assets to the rebels to secure their government? http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dabc248e-cda6-11e0-bb4f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1VySqFdRx

I'm ok with that.