U.N. Tiger Finally Has Some Teeth

[M.Dancer]

. It's all part of the plan.

Does it come with an Illumaniti decoder ring?

[GostHacked]

And where exactly do I buy one of your tinfoil hats?

You think this kind of thing happens overnight? This is a grand chess board you know!

[bloodyminded]

They don't. The reason for this war is not to free the people of Libya from Qaddafi. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. What does 'stable' look like in those countries? It's all part of a bigger plan that will involve other countries. Instability in the middle east and north Africa has been in the works for some time. It's all part of the plan.

I don't agree. I think one of the few honest intentions of Western interference has been the stated wish for "stability."

I'm not even arguing that what is wanted is legitimate stability, or even effective stability on its own terms. Certainly the Western nations don't give a flying fuck about "liberty"...demonstrably we do not care about it. But yes...definitely, stability is preferred. Hence the immediate hand-wringing over the end of Mubarak, belatedly hidden as they noticed (virtually doing a double-take like characters in a poorly-written sitcom) that their "realpolitik" exposes them to the world for the opposition to liberty that they actually are.

Edited March 22, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Wilber]

It's an interesting conundrum that democracies are inherently more stable than autocracies in the long term. Problem is, how do you get there?

[Bonam]

It's an interesting conundrum that democracies are inherently more stable than autocracies in the long term.

Hmm well living in our Western democracies we would certainly like to believe this, but what do you base this statement on? Almost all of the longest lasting human civilizations in history have been of a mainly autocratic nature. Some that started democratically became more autocratic over time (Rome), others viewed their rulers as embodiments of gods (Egypt), and of course we have many examples of monarchies that remained stable (that is, remained in existence) for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years.

[GostHacked]

It's an interesting conundrum that democracies are inherently more stable than autocracies in the long term. Problem is, how do you get there?

You fight for it, but the fight comes from within.

[GWiz]

So let's get this straight. When GWB sent out the Legions without building broad-based coalitions, that was bad. So when Obama won't send out the Legions until he has broad-based coalitions, that's bad too.

Yup, damned if you do, damned if you don't...

[Wilber]

Q

Hmm well living in our Western democracies we would certainly like to believe this, but what do you base this statement on? Almost all of the longest lasting human civilizations in history have been of a mainly autocratic nature. Some that started democratically became more autocratic over time (Rome), others viewed their rulers as embodiments of gods (Egypt), and of course we have many examples of monarchies that remained stable (that is, remained in existence) for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years.

Rome had many civil wars. Emperor was a very high risk occupation. Same goes to Egypt.

[Wilber]

Q

Hmm well living in our Western democracies we would certainly like to believe this, but what do you base this statement on? Almost all of the longest lasting human civilizations in history have been of a mainly autocratic nature. Some that started democratically became more autocratic over time (Rome), others viewed their rulers as embodiments of gods (Egypt), and of course we have many examples of monarchies that remained stable (that is, remained in existence) for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years.

Rome had many civil wars. Emperor was a very high risk occupation. Same goes for Egypt.

[ToadBrother]

You fight for it, but the fight comes from within.

Despite his own obvious autocratic leanings, it has often been observed that Napoleon introduced a flowering of democracy on the Continent. I would be very wary of adopting claims such as yours as absolute axioms. For instance, Britain introduced Westminster democracy to India, and why, there it is, all those years later.

[xul]

Perhaps the French haven't forgotten UTA 772.

I don't think revenge matters a lot on a great power's policy, though it may be used as an excuse to involve in a lucrative war or conflict.

Gadhafi doesn't play a alone hand, or only count on his mercenaries like CNN-kinds having been telling us. It's obvious that some tribes in the country support him meanwhile other tribes rebel against his regime. So if you chose supporting rebels unconditionally, you would have chosen to confront not only Gadhafi but the tribes which he represents their interests. There isn't a clear defination between the tribal people whose interests Gadhafi represents and the "Gadhafi loyalists" who only exist on the TV screen of CNN news. That's what has made the war in Afghanistan "unwinnable". I think this is why this time the US wants to hand over the leadership of the campaign to NATO---I guess Obama just wants to copy what China has been doing all the time---to be an industrious good oil-digger and let others play bad guys.

[Wilber]

Revenge may not be a primary motivator but it sure can make things sweeter. As for the rest, the world will be a better place without Ghadaffi.

.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Wilber

[Saipan]

U.N. Tiger Finally Has Some Teeth

Yep, they managed to keep Tibet occupied.