It's a bit odd to see someone basing so much of his comment on ad hominem credibility arguments, given that the Libyan people themselves seem quite pleased with the intervention. There is no angrylibyanpeople.net blog as far as I know, but I hope we can agree that they don't suffer from white man's burden.
It’s also sad that Professor Cole and some of his cult members on this blog are unable to recognize principled opposition to Western aggression, and resort to slander and dragging people’s names into the mud. I guess it’s a sign of weakness of arguments. But hey, Professor Cole, I am sure, will get more consulting jobs from the Pentagon. Useful idiots come to one’s mind. I stopped paying any attention to Cole when he admitted where his money comes from.
The irony and lack of self-awareness here is pretty suffocating.
I think this is right. Regrettably, some of my friends on the Left are inclined to oppose any policy action that benefits anyone in a position of economic or political power -- regardless of any other consequences. So if the removal of Gaddhafi somehow redounds to America's benefit or the benefit of some oil company somewhere, then regardless of the humanitarian interests and democratic values at stake, they oppose the removal of Gaddhafi. This stance is frequently accompanied by a related view, which seems to hold that if a policy intervention benefits someone in a position of economic power, then that must necessarily be the motivation for the policy intervention. This allows for the requisite moral outrage. Slap the dreaded NEOLIBERAL label onto this prepackaged set of arguments, and voila.
It's distressingly formulaic, unnuanced, and deaf.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Very smart response with some thoughtful counterpoints (notwithstanding the factual error that Joe from Lowell noted).
It's a bit odd to see someone basing so much of his comment on ad hominem credibility arguments, given that the Libyan people themselves seem quite pleased with the intervention. There is no angrylibyanpeople.net blog as far as I know, but I hope we can agree that they don't suffer from white man's burden.
It’s also sad that Professor Cole and some of his cult members on this blog are unable to recognize principled opposition to Western aggression, and resort to slander and dragging people’s names into the mud. I guess it’s a sign of weakness of arguments. But hey, Professor Cole, I am sure, will get more consulting jobs from the Pentagon. Useful idiots come to one’s mind. I stopped paying any attention to Cole when he admitted where his money comes from.
The irony and lack of self-awareness here is pretty suffocating.
I think this is right. Regrettably, some of my friends on the Left are inclined to oppose any policy action that benefits anyone in a position of economic or political power -- regardless of any other consequences. So if the removal of Gaddhafi somehow redounds to America's benefit or the benefit of some oil company somewhere, then regardless of the humanitarian interests and democratic values at stake, they oppose the removal of Gaddhafi. This stance is frequently accompanied by a related view, which seems to hold that if a policy intervention benefits someone in a position of economic power, then that must necessarily be the motivation for the policy intervention. This allows for the requisite moral outrage. Slap the dreaded NEOLIBERAL label onto this prepackaged set of arguments, and voila.
It's distressingly formulaic, unnuanced, and deaf.