Arab League turns back on Ghaddafi

[scouterjim]

The Arab League now backs a no-fly zone in Libya

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/million-libyans-aid-uk-france-seek-no-fly-20110307-195811-643.html

[jbg]

The Arab League now backs a no-fly zone in Libya

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/million-libyans-aid-uk-france-seek-no-fly-20110307-195811-643.html

I guess they want to contain the damage and not back a loser as well. So much for their "principles",

[bloodyminded]

I guess they want to contain the damage and not back a loser as well. So much for their "principles",

Which countries, again, act on "principles"? I can't remember.

[DogOnPorch]

Which countries, again, act on "principles"? I can't remember.

What? Not enough 'state terrorism' for you now?

[bloodyminded]

What? Not enough 'state terrorism' for you now?

What's the little anti-semite DoP on about now?

[Guest American Woman]

Which countries, again, act on "principles"? I can't remember.

Surely you recognize that there is a matter of degree among the nations of the world.

[GostHacked]

Maybe we should let the Arab League and the African Union take care of Libya.

[bloodyminded]

Surely you recognize that there is a matter of degree among the nations of the world.

Yes, but this goes both ways. The Western democracies have in many acted betetr, internationally, than have ,any other nations. But we have also, at times, behaved much worse. So using a measurement of "degree" is an exceedngly complex matter.

[eyeball]

Yes, but this goes both ways. The Western democracies have in many acted betetr, internationally, than have ,any other nations. But we have also, at times, behaved much worse. So using a measurement of "degree" is an exceedngly complex matter.

It's no more complex than measuring the difference between when an adult and a minor are in an abusive relationship.

It's usually taken as a given (notwithstanding a severe mental impairment) that the adult should know better and by the same token democracies should too.

[Bob]

Which countries, again, act on "principles"? I can't remember.

Several do. Are you suggesting that all countries all equally unprincipled?

[Bob]

Surely you recognize that there is a matter of degree among the nations of the world.

That's exactly what I want to know from him, as well. Acknowledging that would be a first for bloodyminded, who almost always not-so-subtly implies moral equivalence between countries like America and its people to places like Egypt and their people.

[bloodyminded]

Several do. Are you suggesting that all countries all equally unprincipled?

"Several" begs an obvious question, does it not?

So let's clarify" which countries act on "principle," and which of these countries never, in your view, acts in an unprincipled fashion?

[Bob]

"Several" begs an obvious question, does it not?

So let's clarify" which countries act on "principle," and which of these countries never, in your view, acts in an unprincipled fashion?

Answer American Woman's question, and then we can talk. Tell us we're wrong in assuming that you were suggesting that all countries are similarly unprincipled, and that there aren't examples of countries that are much more principled and moral than most others. Tell us that's not what you meant.

[bloodyminded]

That's exactly what I want to know from him, as well. Acknowledging that would be a first for bloodyminded, who almost always not-so-subtly implies moral equivalence between countries like America and its people to places like Egypt and their people.

But this is a profoundly stupid remark, and in more than one way. First of all, I don't so easily conflate "their people" with the countries in question, since most of the ills committed are not performed by evil individuals, but are part of a rather lunatic institutional framework.

Democracy, electability, accountability complicate the matter to be sure...but in favour of the "Egyptian people" within the formulation you have here devised. (It's certainly not part of my argument, and never has been...just to make that clear).

As for "moral equivalence," I reject this argument at first blush; it's little more than a worn-out talking point by now, conveniently free of substantive meaning, and interestingly always on offer when somebody criticizes the United States. (No one hears it said if someone critiques, for example, France...why not?) Matters are too complex to get sanctimonious and defensive about criticism of the most powerful state on Earth...as if they're always getting a bum rap they don't deserve, which is preposterous.

If your really believed in the argument, how would you then view Egypt's paucity in the realm of massive state terrorism, relative to several Wstern democracies' open, outright and material support of this in East Timor--up to an attempted genocide, not incidentally?

If I were to enagage in "moral equivalence" on this score, according to your formulation, I would say that the United States (being the prime supporter of Indonesian State terror through 25 years, as well as having given permission for the violent act of aggression in the first place) is more guilty than Egypt.

However, I don't view the world in a simplistic, black and white, good vs evil way, and I recognize profound difficulties, not least the institutional factors, as I have said.

But you not only either are a) totally unaware of monumental Western criminality in this case (and there are others) or you don't think it warrants much interest, much less condemnation; since the US and its allies were the material supporters of state terrorism and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, it must have been justified.

Even if you have no clue what this justification might be.

That's what's known in layman terms as "religious belief," Bob.

So...not only are you either ignorant or supportive of massive terrorism...you have the gall to deem the criticism of such terrorism as "moral equivalence"?

Wow.

Edited March 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Answer American Woman's question, and then we can talk. Tell us we're wrong in assuming that you were suggesting that all countries are similarly unprincipled, and that there aren't examples of countries that are much more principled and moral than most others. Tell us that's not what you meant.

Well, sicne we are plainly talking about the alleged Gold Standard--the United States of America--let's start there. Each situaiton is somewhat unique, so let's pare this nosnense down and go one after the other.

How is the US foreign policy "principled"? No platitudes, please, and no pretences that this or that President moaning deliriously about "liberty" even appraoches real evidence. What--exactly what--are the "principles", and how are they continually enacted and re-enacted; and how is the lack of principle (even by stated standards) not in evidence?

[Bob]

But this is a profoundly stupid remark, and in more than one way. First of all, I don't so easily conflate "their people" with the countries in question, since most of the ills committed are not performed by evil individuals, but are part of a rather lunatic institutional framework.

Democracy, electability, accountability complicate the matter to be sure...but in favour of the "Egyptian people" within the formulation you have here devised. (It's certainly not part of my argument, and never has been...just to make that clear).

As for "moral equivalence," I reject this argument at first blush; it's little more than a worn-out talking point by now, conveniently free of substantive meaning, and interestingly always on offer when somebody criticizes the United States. (No one hears it said if someone critiques, for example, France...why not?) Matters are too complex to get sanctimonious and defensive about criticism of the most powerful state on Earth...as if they're always getting a bum rap they don't deserve, which is preposterous.

If your really believed in the argument, how would you then view Egypt's paucity in the realm of massive state terrorism, relative to several Wstern democracies' open, outright and material support of this in East Timor--up to an attempted genocide, not incidentally?

If I were to enagage in "moral equivalence" on this score, according to your formulation, I would say that the United States (being the prime supporter of Indonesian State terror through 25 years, as well as having given permission for the violent act of aggression in the first place) is more guilty than Egypt.

However, I don't view the world in a simplistic, black and white, good vs evil way, and I recognize profound difficulties, not least the institutional factors, as I have said.

But you not only either are a) totally unaware of monumental Western criminality in this case (and there are others) or you don't think it warrants much interest, much less condemnation; since the US and its allies were the material supporters of state terrorism and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, it must have been justified.

Even if you have no clue what this justification might be.

That's what's known in layman terms as "religious belief," Bob.

So...not only are you either ignorant or supportive of massive terrorism...you have the gall to deem the criticism of such terrorism as "moral equivalence"?

Wow.

I have no idea what you're going on about - that was quite the irrelevant tangent. Feel free to answer American Woman's question, anytime, and we can resume this discussion on-topic. It was a relatively simply question.

[Bob]

Well, sicne we are plainly talking about the alleged Gold Standard--the United States of America--let's start there. Each situaiton is somewhat unique, so let's pare this nosnense down and go one after the other.

How is the US foreign policy "principled"? No platitudes, please, and no pretences that this or that President moaning deliriously about "liberty" even appraoches real evidence. What--exactly what--are the "principles", and how are they continually enacted and re-enacted; and how is the lack of principle (even by stated standards) not in evidence?

Answer the question you were asked, please. Were you suggesting that there aren't countries and people that act more morally and principled than others? Do you not recognize that there are degrees of "acting on principle" when examining countries and peoples? Your earlier post suggests that you do not, which in all seriousness, wouldn't surprise me given your posting history.

[bloodyminded]

I have no idea what you're going on about - that was quite the irrelevant tangent. Feel free to answer American Woman's question, anytime, and we can resume this discussion on-topic. It was a relatively simply question.

First of all, I did address the question.

As to your remark here...it isn't tangential, because we're talking about "principled" foreign policy.

That's the subject. You, actually, are the one avoiding it, not me. I assume you're simply unwilling to admit to uncomfortable truths (demonstrable...public record, Bob).

So I took the radical view that offering some evidence of why the notion is fallacious is preferable to muttering substance-free platitudes about "principle."

If you don't wish for evidence or examples of how I've come to my conclusions, what are you looking for, exactly?

For my part, I would love to hear some evidence proving the superior principles in terms of foreign policy--and I asked for some--and you chose to ignore it. (Though how some good ones would make up for mass murder is far from clear, of course.)

You also avoided addressing my example itself--instead dismissing one of the worst mass slaughters of the postwar era as "an irrelevant tangent," even as it was specifically included precisely to address the question you illiterately declare I haven't touched.

So, just to clarify: the "principled" foreign policy of Canada, the UK, Australia, and (by far in the lead) the United States was materially culpable--intentionally culpable--in an act of staggering State terrorism and mass murder that is objectively worse than anything Hamas has managed to do.

And by belitting it, you are acting as a direct apologist for terrorism and mass murder. Congratulations.

[Bob]

This is a complete waste of time. Before giving us evidence, why not make a claim? Come out and directly answer American Woman's question - do you or do you not recognize that there are varying degrees of principle and morality to which various countries and peoples subscribe to?

I'll assume you don't, as you're trying to suggest, while being too afraid to explicitly state it, that America is worse than Hamas.

See, this is why you are a ridiculous poster.

[bloodyminded]

This is a complete waste of time. Before giving us evidence, why not make a claim? Come out and directly answer American Woman's question - do you or do you not recognize that there are varying degrees of principle and morality to which various countries and peoples subscribe to?

I'll assume you don't, as you're trying to suggest, while being too afraid to explicitly state it, that America is worse than Hamas.

See, this is why you are a ridiculous poster.

Countries are not moral agents, so they can scarcely "subscribe to" such principles.

And no, to clarify, America is not "worse than Hamas." America produces, domestically, a system that is far superior to what Hamas does--not because of American "morality" (as compared to Palestinian "immorality," apparently), but because of institutionalized matters. In terms of foreign policy, America behaves far worse than Hamas--but again, it's not about moral character, its about the institutional factors at play.

Now...are you going to condescend to answer any of my questions, which are, after all, germane to the discussion? Or are you going to be a "ridiculous poster" as you call it?

What do you say to the example I offerred, of direct complciity by several Western nations in a terrible act of invasion, long-term oppression and mass murder?

Edited March 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Muddy]

Back to the subject at hand. It does not matter what the Arab world thinks about a no fly zone. They will not act and help the poor sods fighting modern aircraft , mercenaries and tanks with AK 47`s and untrained plumbers,lawyers and medical students banging away with anti aircraft guns. As for moral equivalence of some nations over others. When tragedy strikes in the form of natural disasters who are the first at almost every incident with aid ? Can you that hate America so much at least acknowledge that it is the boogey man, America that is on the scene first with aid.

[bloodyminded]

Back to the subject at hand. It does not matter what the Arab world thinks about a no fly zone. They will not act and help the poor sods fighting modern aircraft , mercenaries and tanks with AK 47`s and untrained plumbers,lawyers and medical students banging away with anti aircraft guns. As for moral equivalence of some nations over others. When tragedy strikes in the form of natural disasters who are the first at almost every incident with aid ?

Cuba was the first to offer aid to America after Katrina.

Can you that hate America so much at least acknowledge that it is the boogey man, America that is on the scene first with aid.

I don't hate America at all. You think criticism of America equals hating America, for reasons you don't spell out.

Perhaps we shouldn't hold the Western powers responsible for supporting terrorism and mass murder?

Is that your suggestion?

[Muddy]

Cuba was the first to offer aid to America after Katrina.

I don't hate America at all. You think criticism of America equals hating America, for reasons you don't spell out.

Perhaps we shouldn't hold the Western powers responsible for supporting terrorism and mass murder?

Is that your suggestion?

You still missed out on the subject matter of this thread in your reply. Besides when did I say it was you I was referring to about hate of the USA?

Again the Arab world has condemned Kaddaffy but will still not inforce the no fly zone themselves that they say they care about. They want the USA to do it and when people die the hate will be the USA`s to endure.

[Guest American Woman]

Cuba was the first to offer aid to America after Katrina.

That doesn't answer the question that was asked. Why do you have such a difficult time giving the U.S. any credit?

[wyly]

Can you that hate America so much at least acknowledge that it is the boogey man, America that is on the scene first with aid.

Cuba was actually the first in Haiti after the quake...