Wow. What a totally fine example of "inclination to actually research and debate the facts." Gatner calls me a right-wing idiot and thus can conclude that since some group of people were wrong about everything that therefore whatever I wrote, which isn't responded to, is wrong.
Todd points out that because Westerners (mostly not the US) aided and abetted lots of bad things in the 30, and 40s and then more westerners (including the US) did other bad things later that therefore .... we should keep the bad things! And certainly to be happy the roadblock is being swept away, no reason for that.
Again: I still don't get the left's ambivalence to the fall of all these dictatorships.
And again: if you'd actually READ Prof. Cole's blog you'd see that the emerging evidence is that rebels are not hard core Islamists. They are Arabs, however.
This is a common refrain from the left, and it is very curious. Why the tender sympathy for this ruling elite? Why is a dictator elevated to an equal party in a 'civil war'? And why suddenly now is everyone so convinced that Libya is just a 'collection of tribes' a point of view no one expressed a month ago? And we "triggered" this war? Because no Arab can do anything without us? What about the weeks and weeks of massive protest before we got involved?
And the list of unsupported claims just goes on and on. What is the "huge monetary reward' available here? What possible 'exit' strategy did we neglect? And why would that be our duty to a horrible dictator? Why are "rebels" in quotes? Who and what evidence is there that any sort of "civil rights" movement was going to work against a man bombing his own citizens and on the verge of wiping out the "rebels"?
The fear and conspiracy mongering from those opposed to this action are curious. To just take the previous poster. Who has claimed our motives are 'pure' - all that's being claimed is that we can affect some good. Is there any evidence that Libya will be a staging ground for a country it has no border with, any evidence of ambitions by the rebels to do that? "What if the new regime is a hard core Islamist regime?" Any evidence at all that the rebels are 'hard core'? And what do you mean by 'hard core' anyway - put a little more pressure on Israel?
What is going on across the Middle East is a once in a generation opportunity to sweep away a massive roadblock to history - a moment as significant as 1989 in Europe. And yet, the lack of excitement from the left over this is just amazing. It is as if the left actually prefers the status quo. There is the constant "but who are these people?" lament, and too often strains of "they aren't ready for democracy". Instead we should be working to get on the right side of this movement.
Thank you for this. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who had these views. The reaction of the left to this intervention is very odd and I've not found any theory to explain it that doesn't involve questioning motives. So I am quite puzzled.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
I propose a new rule: if you can't find it on the map, you don't get to have a view about it - especially about bombing it.
Wonder how many Americans can find Canada on a map? Or their own state?
Wow. What a totally fine example of "inclination to actually research and debate the facts." Gatner calls me a right-wing idiot and thus can conclude that since some group of people were wrong about everything that therefore whatever I wrote, which isn't responded to, is wrong.
Todd points out that because Westerners (mostly not the US) aided and abetted lots of bad things in the 30, and 40s and then more westerners (including the US) did other bad things later that therefore .... we should keep the bad things! And certainly to be happy the roadblock is being swept away, no reason for that.
Again: I still don't get the left's ambivalence to the fall of all these dictatorships.
And again: if you'd actually READ Prof. Cole's blog you'd see that the emerging evidence is that rebels are not hard core Islamists. They are Arabs, however.
This is a common refrain from the left, and it is very curious. Why the tender sympathy for this ruling elite? Why is a dictator elevated to an equal party in a 'civil war'? And why suddenly now is everyone so convinced that Libya is just a 'collection of tribes' a point of view no one expressed a month ago? And we "triggered" this war? Because no Arab can do anything without us? What about the weeks and weeks of massive protest before we got involved?
And the list of unsupported claims just goes on and on. What is the "huge monetary reward' available here? What possible 'exit' strategy did we neglect? And why would that be our duty to a horrible dictator? Why are "rebels" in quotes? Who and what evidence is there that any sort of "civil rights" movement was going to work against a man bombing his own citizens and on the verge of wiping out the "rebels"?
The fear and conspiracy mongering from those opposed to this action are curious. To just take the previous poster. Who has claimed our motives are 'pure' - all that's being claimed is that we can affect some good. Is there any evidence that Libya will be a staging ground for a country it has no border with, any evidence of ambitions by the rebels to do that? "What if the new regime is a hard core Islamist regime?" Any evidence at all that the rebels are 'hard core'? And what do you mean by 'hard core' anyway - put a little more pressure on Israel?
What is going on across the Middle East is a once in a generation opportunity to sweep away a massive roadblock to history - a moment as significant as 1989 in Europe. And yet, the lack of excitement from the left over this is just amazing. It is as if the left actually prefers the status quo. There is the constant "but who are these people?" lament, and too often strains of "they aren't ready for democracy". Instead we should be working to get on the right side of this movement.
Thank you for this. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who had these views. The reaction of the left to this intervention is very odd and I've not found any theory to explain it that doesn't involve questioning motives. So I am quite puzzled.