Why are we at war with Libya

[Saipan]

Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975

Islamic regime attacked Christians in East Timor.

about Suharto

Ah, old friend of Chretien. Let's remember APEC.

You can't blame Islam for this one, Saipan.

That's exactly what happen. Armed by Chinese (AK-47s)

[bloodyminded]

Islamic regime attacked Christians in East Timor.

Yes, they did, but it was not a radical Muslim-attacking-Christians matter. The invasion would have occurred no matter what the religion of the inhabitants of East Timor.

And--my main point, but which you ignore--it was attacked with the full blessing of the United States, and with ongoing support from Western countries.

Ah, old friend of Chretien. Let's remember APEC.

Oh yes: Chretien, Trudeau, Mulroney, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Thatcher....well, you get the picture.

It was 24 years of support for Suharto's murderous actions. No single politicioan is to blame (though you'd love to pin it all on chretien, out of perversity, I suppose); rather, it was a wholly institutionalzied example of Western-backed state terror and mass murder.

A nice, and relatively rare, clear-cut case.

And I'm not talking run-of-the-mill alliance with a dictator: I;m talking direct and intentional support for state terrorism and mass murder.

That's exactly what happen. Armed by Chinese (AK-47s)

And the Americans, and the British....

Mostly the Americans. They were the main suppliers of arms that murdered two hundred thousand people. Also, they were the most important diplomatic support.

why are you avoiding this, Saipan?

Didn't this discussion start when you asked about "specific" ignorance about Western support for such things?

Are you trying to prove my point for me again?

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

No...Western. The United States, the UK, Australia, Canada...and (I believe, but might be mistaken) France.

Supporting the Indonesian massacres of the East Timorese. And oh boy, there were a lot of murders.

Thank you for proving my point for me, Saipan.

Uh...Well...To be fair,outside the the State Department and the Aussies,I'm not sure the Brits and Canada were directly complicit in General Suharto's regime...There may have been tacit approval but not direct approval...

[bloodyminded]

Uh...Well...To be fair,outside the the State Department and the Aussies,I'm not sure the Brits and Canada were directly complicit in General Suharto's regime...There may have been tacit approval but not direct approval...

Well, I've lost my book, and am trying to find some good material elsewhere; to be fair to your point, Canada's position might not be so obviously egregious. (Or it might be; either way, I'll find out.) Britain was certainly involved on some level--at least supplying troop carriers and armoured vehicles; maybe much more. However, their involvement in the "communist" purge of '65, in which a million or more "communists" were killed, is pretty unambiguous.

but yes, the US was the most obviossu culprit, aside of course from the General himself.

[Jack Weber]

Well, I've lost my book, and am trying to find some good material elsewhere; to be fair to your point, Canada's position might not be so obviously egregious. (Or it might be; either way, I'll find out.) Britain was certainly involved on some level--at least supplying troop carriers and armoured vehicles; maybe much more. However, their involvement in the "communist" purge of '65, in which a million or more "communists" were killed, is pretty unambiguous.

but yes, the US was the most obviossu culprit, aside of course from the General himself.

I did'nt know the Brits were as directly involved in Indonesia...I would be really shocked if the Ausies were'nt directly involved...

There's no question about the US State Department...But that would be no secret about Indonesian involvment OR in most of the Western Hemisphere and many parts of the Middle East and Africa during that period...

[Wilber]

i'm saying there is no one ideological or political position that is prone to wild and fantastical political theories; the laughable fairy tales are a gift to us all, perhaps from a malevolent god.

Or propaganda.

Well, at least people who are educated to the point where they understand how to do basic research...absolutely true.

Like I've said, Western propaganda depends absolutely on people's freely choosing to be ignorant.

And just because they choose to inform themselves doesn't mean they will come to the same conclusions as you or I.

Well, at least I'm trying! you're making zero effort...up to and including misrepresneting what I've said. (Ie there's been no anti-war movement...that's the literal opposite of what I was saying.)

See above.

Yes, because Western propaganda is irredemably entwined with the Public Relations industry (who are not paid billions of dolalrs to inform the public of the plain, unvarnished truth, obviously); and this in turn is inextricably entwined with the advertising industry.

Yup, we Westerners have to pay for our propoganda, autocrats just demand it or else.

[bush_cheney2004]

but yes, the US was the most obviossu culprit, aside of course from the General himself.

Of course...while you search for "your book", I will save the rest of us some time with one word for why Canada was also a "culprit", same as it is elsewhere to this day....MINING. See Barrick Gold in Indonesia as an example.

[bush_cheney2004]

...And just because they choose to inform themselves doesn't mean they will come to the same conclusions as you or I.

Yes...you make a very important distinction, something that escapes self annointed and principled fellows. They assume others have surely been "deceived", when this is not the case at all.

[Saipan]

Yes, they did, but it was not a radical Muslim-attacking-Christians matter.

EXACTLY what it was. By all sources.

And--my main point, but which you ignore--it was attacked with the full blessing of the United States, and with ongoing support from Western countries.

Christians don't bless Moslems.

And the Americans, and the British....

Mostly the Americans. They were the main suppliers of arms

They don't make AK-47's. China does.

Same hogwash was said about Saddam, who was in fact armed by Russia, Germany, China and France. We can go through the specific military pieces. Do you know who made Saddam's Mirage jetfighters? Saddam's tanks? AK-47's and ammo?

Are you up to it?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Saipan

[Moonlight Graham]

Most conflicts don't happen 30 minutes from numerous major air force bases...again, if because we can't intervene in all of them, we shouldn't intervene in any of them?

I think our willingness to intervene has a heck of a lot more in what our own interests are in the conflict rather than whether or not there are nearby military bases.

I agree, we should intervene in some. But choose which one's for the right reasons. If anyone thinks our intervention has much of anything to do with "saving civilian lives" they are out to lunch. Libya vs Darfur, hmmmm. It's about regional interests, and its about what massively powerful lobby/interest groups who have a stake pressure our governments to do.

[M.Dancer]

I think our willingness to intervene has a heck of a lot more in what our own interests are in the conflict rather than whether or not there are nearby military bases.

Both are factors. FRY was easy because of the proximity of bases in the adriatic, same with Libya. Somalia, with no pressing interest, was not as easy, but the US has aircraft carriers and the ability to conduct a seaborne landing...Rwanda, no interests and virtually impossible to do anything quickly. France has intervened a dozen times in Africa and they were limited to sending small contingent of airborne.

I agree, we should intervene in some. But choose which one's for the right reasons. If anyone thinks our intervention has much of anything to do with "saving civilian lives" they are out to lunch. Libya vs Darfur, hmmmm. It's about regional interests, and its about what massively powerful lobby/interest groups who have a stake pressure our governments to do.

Darfur is next to impossible to do anything about for logistical and strategic reasons. Libya on the other hand has a very good reason. It is an object lesson which will be played out throughout the Arab world...and in the end, it is about lives. Whether they are Syrian, Saudi or Italian.

[GostHacked]

Darfur is next to impossible to do anything about for logistical and strategic reasons. Libya on the other hand has a very good reason. It is an object lesson which will be played out throughout the Arab world...and in the end, it is about lives. Whether they are Syrian, Saudi or Italian.

It's not about lives, if it was there would not have been the massacre in Rwanda, or Darfur. Not fooling anyone here.

[Saipan]

It's not about lives, if it was...

...we would be bombing China under Mao, who killed most in the whole of human history. And he did it in "peace time".

[M.Dancer]

It's not about lives, if it was there would not have been the massacre in Rwanda, or Darfur. Not fooling anyone here.

Absolutely no need to fool you. That would be redundant.

Rwanda, no interests and virtually impossible to do anything quickly.

Darfur is next to impossible to do anything about for logistical and strategic reasons

.

Explain if you are able, how, in detail, they could have been prevented. Because once it started...there was nothing that could have been done without whole sale massacres.

[Wilber]

Got a neighbour who works in Sudan for a Canadian company on a UN contract. He was telling me yesterday that he regularly sees Libyan aircraft unloading arms at Kartoum airport. The Sudanese have attack helicopters based where he is and he watches them load up leave and return with their racks empty.

[GostHacked]

Explain if you are able, how, in detail, they could have been prevented.

It could have been prevented, but the desire was not there. Then all of a sudden Libya?

Because once it started...there was nothing that could have been done without whole sale massacres.

Sounds like a typical M. Dancer cop out response.

[M.Dancer]

It could have been prevented, but the desire was not there. Then all of a sudden Libya?

Now that is a cop out.

Will you go on record advocating a ground war with Sudan?

How would we prosecute that war....eh?

Come on, you think you know....

[bloodyminded]

Of course...while you search for "your book", I will save the rest of us some time with one word for why Canada was also a "culprit", same as it is elsewhere to this day....MINING. See Barrick Gold in Indonesia as an example.

I'm not sure if you think I disagree with you; and if so, why you should think so.

[bloodyminded]

And just because they choose to inform themselves doesn't mean they will come to the same conclusions as you or I.

Of course not. It's those most amenable to propaganda who will expose the discipline to broadly agree with propaganda myths. Obviously.

Yup, we Westerners have to pay for our propoganda, autocrats just demand it or else.

Sounds about right.

[bloodyminded]

EXACTLY what it was. By all sources.

Then show the sources.

Christians don't bless Moslems.

You're trying to reframe the discussion more to your liking; and you do so by distorting my clear meaning.

Same hogwash was said about Saddam, who was in fact armed by Russia, Germany, China and France. We can go through the specific military pieces. Do you know who made Saddam's Mirage jetfighters? Saddam's tanks? AK-47's and ammo?

Are you up to it?

???

I'm not arguing with you about Saddam.

i'm stating that some Western nations knowingly supported the invasion and mass murders, materially.

your answer to this is as follows: "China."

But if you think China is wrong to materially support mass murders, then you surely think it's wrong for Western states to do the same thing.

Edited March 29, 2011 by bloodyminded

[myata]

Its Gaddafi - a SOCIALLIST MUSLIM (comeon)

Because he's a bloody murderous thug who unleashed his military against his own people to annihilate anybody, man, woman child, civilian who would dare to challenge his grip on power?

Because he proclaimed his full intent to make a bloodbath and his henchmen were on the way to executing it?

Because he's shown that he'll lie and twist and do anything possible to stay in power and continue his murderous policies?

Because if we allow this sort of murderous tyrants to quash dissent with bullet and torture, there will be no hope of better future for this humanity?

[Wilber]

Of course not. It's those most amenable to propaganda who will expose the discipline to broadly agree with propaganda myths. Obviously.

Don't make the assumption that in a free society with a free media, propaganda only comes from one side of an issue. For example, many environmentalists are every bit as willing to use propaganda and try to impose their discipline as any government.

[bloodyminded]

Don't make the assumption that in a free society with a free media, propaganda only comes from one side of an issue. For example, many environmentalists are every bit as willing to use propaganda and try to impose their discipline as any government.

I'm not making any such assumption. My topic was government propaganda.

Whne an elected government deceives people into a war, that's damn serious business.

And when people start saying, "Yeah, but we get propaganda from other sources too," I find the answer perplexing.

Of course we do--I certainly never suggested otherwise--but this response always sounds vexingly close to defense of government deception.

Imagine talking about Harper lying, or of the liberals' corruption, and then responding, "Yeah, but lots of poeple lie and steal, not just the government!"

Perfectly true.

And so what?

[Wilber]

I'm not making any such assumption. My topic was government propaganda.

Whne an elected government deceives people into a war, that's damn serious business.

And when people start saying, "Yeah, but we get propaganda from other sources too," I find the answer perplexing.

Of course we do--I certainly never suggested otherwise--but this response always sounds vexingly close to defense of government deception.

Imagine talking about Harper lying, or of the liberals' corruption, and then responding, "Yeah, but lots of poeple lie and steal, not just the government!"

Perfectly true.

And so what?

Just pointing out that more than one person can resort to propaganda over the same issue. When there is a contentious issue, I don't just assume the government is the only one trying to propagandize or deceive me.

[bloodyminded]

Just pointing out that more than one person can resort to propaganda over the same issue. When there is a contentious issue, I don't just assume the government is the only one trying to propagandize or deceive me.

No, it's probably better to assume the opposite.

But government deception is of a special kind. I don't elect representatives to blogs or to advertising agnecies.

When the government deceives us, it matters a lot. When the government deceives people into, say, a war, that's openly criminal (I mean by the laws of the land).