Wow! There are so many baseless assumptions and stretches in your response that I don't even know how where to begin.
First of all, I never said I didn't have a problem with the USSR arming Gaddafi to the teeth. The USSR was just as responsible for the decades of misery that ensued in the world during that period as were the US and Western Europe. It's HILARIOUS to me that you maintain this bipolar view of the world though, still. That someone is either with the West or they're advocates of the Soviet system. HILARIOUS. SIMPLEMINDED.
Second, it's funny that you bring in Islamism as your intended little trump card. FACT: Selling arms to Gaddafi is as bad as selling arms to (or doing deals with) ANY terrorist (or group of terrorists) that have aims at harming innocent civilians. It's COUNTLESS the number of lives Gaddafi has ruined. And YES - contrary to your baseless conclusions about my allegiances/ideology/whatever the hell it is you're trying to prove - I DO have MORE PERFECT STANDARDS as to how snakes like him ought to be treated. Any society/world I'd be proud to be a citizen in surely wouldn't sell him weapons&etc, even in order to placate him. By the way, what's that all about? Let the mass murderer off the hook because we're scared he might bring more nuclear weapons into the world? HAH! Is that really what you believe the reasoning is? Please. The only reason Libya didn't become Iraq2003 (or at least get mentioned in the "Axis of Evil" speech) circa the same era is because Gaddafi called himself an ally of the West. (And if that's the case, then I'M no ally of the West.) But yeah, he told the Bush administration what they wanted to hear and they publicly called the mass murderer an ally. Just as they allied themselves with King Abdullah Hassan, Mubarak and others. NOT to supress Islamism. But to suppress democracy. To promote imperialist rule, basically. And you clearly support this. So, tell me now Mazlum, who between the two of us has the more braindead ideology? I think it's you!
BTW: Your mention of Kirchner, Chavez, and Galloway as likening Gaddafi to some beacon of anti-imperialism is basically evidence of the last point I made in my original post. Perhaps you'd like to go back and read it? Or was your whole intention just to use the slightly erred weapons statement as a lead in to your own little full-on assault?
it's also quite telling that you call these people "socialists" (along with Syria). Makes me also believe you're the kind of person who calls Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro the same. Yet, despite my left-wingedness, these are not my kind of dudes and never will be. You see, I have a weak stomatch for genocide, top-down bureaucracy, blatant attacks on workers and the poor, racism, war-mongering, propaganda, censorship, and in general, power that cannot justify itself. But I can see that you revel in it so long as it's those who you pledge allegiance to who are doing it.
Have fun with that. I'm sick of arguing with you as there is nothing to gain here.
@GMan: I didn't intend to say that the US sold weapons to Gaddafi. My implication was against the various other NATO forces. And I have since admitted as such.
But thanks for not being a rabid right-wing automaton like Mazlum and for recognizing the facts: that the US does sell material support to, assists, and apologizes for despicable world leaders and dictators.
@Mazlum // I can't respond directly to your post below (for whatever reason), so I'll respond to my own.
I'm happy to know that you've already outed yourself as a red-baiter - an. argument loaded with poison-the-well fallacies and ad hominem attacks. a.k.a. a sign of fear... But fine, I'll play your game.
1) The statistics I linked you to CLEARLY STATED that it was EU sales only! It astounds me that you would feel the need to point that out as if it backs up some point you're trying to make. (Didn't know you were actually trying to make one, tbh.) Neither the data interpreter nor I ever said that the Soviets didn't sell Gaddafi weapons. Because guess what? EVERYBODY WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING KNOWS THIS TO BE THE CASE. So good job at stating the obvious!
2) Once again, the article CLEARLY STATES that it's AFTER 2005. And ONCE AGAIN, It's hilarious to me that you would even feel the need to point this out. As if this exposes me as criminally biased or something...
The fact that the Soviets sold weapons to Gaddafi is immaterial. Better yet, the PERCENTAGE of armaments sold by NATO members to Gaddafi in contrast is also irrelevant. What's relevant is that these members' forces have armed him AT ALL, even within a small window of time. And the question is "why?" BECAUSE IT'S EITHER 1) STUPID OR 2) CORRUPT TO SELL WEAPONS TO THE BAD GUYS! Take your pick.
For even more context, Bush called this psychopath an "ally in the War on Terror" almost a decade ago. For a time, every right-winger in the US forgot about all of Gaddafi's crimes against humanity. Of course, this alienated the people who suffered at the hands of Gaddafi, as they NEVER forgave him. Now the imperialists see an opportunity to play the hero of those that have suffered in order to extend the West's power and influence into Libya (and North Africa) - and they're jumping on it.
THAT'S what I believe. And I could care less if you don't buy it. Because maybe it's not IN YOUR INTERESTS to believe it!
And the hypocritical superficiality of your last statement would make me laugh if I had any sense of humor (or warmth) at all in my cold, hard hammer&sickled heart.
I don't know about MiGs, but I never said they sold them MiGs.
I shouldn't have said "all." But other countries which are part of the NATO alliance (including the US's perpetual ally, the UK) sold weapons to Libya according to the following source:
1. It doesn't matter if the US goes it alone or in conjunction with the UN. The sole question is whether the act of intervention itself is justified. I don't believe that it is.
2. Similar uprisings are taking place in Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. So if we unabashedly support freedom and human rights, why is the US complicit in the crimes carried out by the rulers in those countries?
3. Although the war justification for Iraq was undoubtedly a ruse, the case is still not made for Libya by this contrast.
4. Why does a transnational entity like the Arab League get to decide whether or not a foreign group of nations (such as the UN) can intervene in a particular nation's affairs?
5. So if the UN/US lands forces, you'll suddenly oppose the intervention? If so, I'll hold you to this...
6. Once again, I concur that lies led to the US invasion of Iraq. But once again the Bahrain, Saudi, and Yemeni governments have committed similar acts of violence against their respective citizens. And the US/UN remains complicit.
7. This is a distinctive difference, but I reiterate my point in #1. Also, it's US Tomahawk missiles that have done most of the destruction so far.
8. Once again, I will grant you this fact. Even though I still find it mostly irrelevant for answering the question as to whether or not the US/UN has a right to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign nation.
9. Once again, the means are not what must be justified. What must be justified is whether or not the US/UN has the right to intervene.
10. Call me cynical, but I think the greater danger is a US-backed (or UN-backed) leader (e.g. Mubarak, King Abdullah II) in a "democratized" (i.e.g liberalized) Libya attempting to undermine the truly democratic and revolutionary movements in Tunisia and Egypt. The former Egyptian regime and the S. Arabian regime are two prime examples as to what tends to ensue once these Western nations are able to lay legitimate political and economic claims to the goings-on in oil-rich nations.
The other main issues that bother me are as follows:
~All of the Western nations leading the force against Gaddafi actively promoted, armed, and cut deals with him until just a few weeks ago. In fact, until the uprisings, Gaddafi was considered a de facto ally in the "Global War on Terror". Same as Mubarak.
~This move by the West potentially gives Gaddafi a galvanized regional support network. Suddenly, many may no longer see him as the brutal dictator that he is. He may now become another sort of "false messiah" - a visible champion of anti-Western imperialism in North Africa.
I think the answer to your last question answers the rest of your questions pretty succinctly. You ask why the Muslim Brotherhood (of Egypt) is such a radical party - as if to imply that they are not radical. Well... they ARE radical.
But they're not radical because they're Islamists.
They're radical for the same reason that every other major opposition group in Egypt is radical. The fact that one of these groups might come to power jeopardizes US (and Israeli) foreign policy interests in the entire region.
And even something as simple as free and fair democratic elections is much too radical for the US and Israel.
Wow! There are so many baseless assumptions and stretches in your response that I don't even know how where to begin.
First of all, I never said I didn't have a problem with the USSR arming Gaddafi to the teeth. The USSR was just as responsible for the decades of misery that ensued in the world during that period as were the US and Western Europe. It's HILARIOUS to me that you maintain this bipolar view of the world though, still. That someone is either with the West or they're advocates of the Soviet system. HILARIOUS. SIMPLEMINDED.
Second, it's funny that you bring in Islamism as your intended little trump card. FACT: Selling arms to Gaddafi is as bad as selling arms to (or doing deals with) ANY terrorist (or group of terrorists) that have aims at harming innocent civilians. It's COUNTLESS the number of lives Gaddafi has ruined. And YES - contrary to your baseless conclusions about my allegiances/ideology/whatever the hell it is you're trying to prove - I DO have MORE PERFECT STANDARDS as to how snakes like him ought to be treated. Any society/world I'd be proud to be a citizen in surely wouldn't sell him weapons&etc, even in order to placate him. By the way, what's that all about? Let the mass murderer off the hook because we're scared he might bring more nuclear weapons into the world? HAH! Is that really what you believe the reasoning is? Please. The only reason Libya didn't become Iraq2003 (or at least get mentioned in the "Axis of Evil" speech) circa the same era is because Gaddafi called himself an ally of the West. (And if that's the case, then I'M no ally of the West.) But yeah, he told the Bush administration what they wanted to hear and they publicly called the mass murderer an ally. Just as they allied themselves with King Abdullah Hassan, Mubarak and others. NOT to supress Islamism. But to suppress democracy. To promote imperialist rule, basically. And you clearly support this. So, tell me now Mazlum, who between the two of us has the more braindead ideology? I think it's you!
BTW: Your mention of Kirchner, Chavez, and Galloway as likening Gaddafi to some beacon of anti-imperialism is basically evidence of the last point I made in my original post. Perhaps you'd like to go back and read it? Or was your whole intention just to use the slightly erred weapons statement as a lead in to your own little full-on assault?
it's also quite telling that you call these people "socialists" (along with Syria). Makes me also believe you're the kind of person who calls Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro the same. Yet, despite my left-wingedness, these are not my kind of dudes and never will be. You see, I have a weak stomatch for genocide, top-down bureaucracy, blatant attacks on workers and the poor, racism, war-mongering, propaganda, censorship, and in general, power that cannot justify itself. But I can see that you revel in it so long as it's those who you pledge allegiance to who are doing it.
Have fun with that. I'm sick of arguing with you as there is nothing to gain here.
@GMan: I didn't intend to say that the US sold weapons to Gaddafi. My implication was against the various other NATO forces. And I have since admitted as such.
But thanks for not being a rabid right-wing automaton like Mazlum and for recognizing the facts: that the US does sell material support to, assists, and apologizes for despicable world leaders and dictators.
@Mazlum // I can't respond directly to your post below (for whatever reason), so I'll respond to my own.
I'm happy to know that you've already outed yourself as a red-baiter - an. argument loaded with poison-the-well fallacies and ad hominem attacks. a.k.a. a sign of fear... But fine, I'll play your game.
1) The statistics I linked you to CLEARLY STATED that it was EU sales only! It astounds me that you would feel the need to point that out as if it backs up some point you're trying to make. (Didn't know you were actually trying to make one, tbh.) Neither the data interpreter nor I ever said that the Soviets didn't sell Gaddafi weapons. Because guess what? EVERYBODY WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING KNOWS THIS TO BE THE CASE. So good job at stating the obvious!
2) Once again, the article CLEARLY STATES that it's AFTER 2005. And ONCE AGAIN, It's hilarious to me that you would even feel the need to point this out. As if this exposes me as criminally biased or something...
The fact that the Soviets sold weapons to Gaddafi is immaterial. Better yet, the PERCENTAGE of armaments sold by NATO members to Gaddafi in contrast is also irrelevant. What's relevant is that these members' forces have armed him AT ALL, even within a small window of time. And the question is "why?" BECAUSE IT'S EITHER 1) STUPID OR 2) CORRUPT TO SELL WEAPONS TO THE BAD GUYS! Take your pick.
For even more context, Bush called this psychopath an "ally in the War on Terror" almost a decade ago. For a time, every right-winger in the US forgot about all of Gaddafi's crimes against humanity. Of course, this alienated the people who suffered at the hands of Gaddafi, as they NEVER forgave him. Now the imperialists see an opportunity to play the hero of those that have suffered in order to extend the West's power and influence into Libya (and North Africa) - and they're jumping on it.
THAT'S what I believe. And I could care less if you don't buy it. Because maybe it's not IN YOUR INTERESTS to believe it!
And the hypocritical superficiality of your last statement would make me laugh if I had any sense of humor (or warmth) at all in my cold, hard hammer&sickled heart.
I don't know about MiGs, but I never said they sold them MiGs.
I shouldn't have said "all." But other countries which are part of the NATO alliance (including the US's perpetual ally, the UK) sold weapons to Libya according to the following source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/01/eu-arms-exports-libya
The article also discusses how difficult it is to monitor transactions like this, which in itself is troubling...
A counterargument
1. It doesn't matter if the US goes it alone or in conjunction with the UN. The sole question is whether the act of intervention itself is justified. I don't believe that it is.
2. Similar uprisings are taking place in Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. So if we unabashedly support freedom and human rights, why is the US complicit in the crimes carried out by the rulers in those countries?
3. Although the war justification for Iraq was undoubtedly a ruse, the case is still not made for Libya by this contrast.
4. Why does a transnational entity like the Arab League get to decide whether or not a foreign group of nations (such as the UN) can intervene in a particular nation's affairs?
5. So if the UN/US lands forces, you'll suddenly oppose the intervention? If so, I'll hold you to this...
6. Once again, I concur that lies led to the US invasion of Iraq. But once again the Bahrain, Saudi, and Yemeni governments have committed similar acts of violence against their respective citizens. And the US/UN remains complicit.
7. This is a distinctive difference, but I reiterate my point in #1. Also, it's US Tomahawk missiles that have done most of the destruction so far.
8. Once again, I will grant you this fact. Even though I still find it mostly irrelevant for answering the question as to whether or not the US/UN has a right to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign nation.
9. Once again, the means are not what must be justified. What must be justified is whether or not the US/UN has the right to intervene.
10. Call me cynical, but I think the greater danger is a US-backed (or UN-backed) leader (e.g. Mubarak, King Abdullah II) in a "democratized" (i.e.g liberalized) Libya attempting to undermine the truly democratic and revolutionary movements in Tunisia and Egypt. The former Egyptian regime and the S. Arabian regime are two prime examples as to what tends to ensue once these Western nations are able to lay legitimate political and economic claims to the goings-on in oil-rich nations.
The other main issues that bother me are as follows:
~All of the Western nations leading the force against Gaddafi actively promoted, armed, and cut deals with him until just a few weeks ago. In fact, until the uprisings, Gaddafi was considered a de facto ally in the "Global War on Terror". Same as Mubarak.
~This move by the West potentially gives Gaddafi a galvanized regional support network. Suddenly, many may no longer see him as the brutal dictator that he is. He may now become another sort of "false messiah" - a visible champion of anti-Western imperialism in North Africa.
I think the answer to your last question answers the rest of your questions pretty succinctly. You ask why the Muslim Brotherhood (of Egypt) is such a radical party - as if to imply that they are not radical. Well... they ARE radical.
But they're not radical because they're Islamists.
They're radical for the same reason that every other major opposition group in Egypt is radical. The fact that one of these groups might come to power jeopardizes US (and Israeli) foreign policy interests in the entire region.
And even something as simple as free and fair democratic elections is much too radical for the US and Israel.