Roddenberry and Libya
Non-causal
space faring cultures. Seeing as Libya has no space program let them
work it out themselves. (even if some people are killed in the
process) If there is some sort of extreme situation of ethnic
cleansing or all out war... let the UN Security council and general
assembly do the cleanup and take moral responsibility over any mess.
(the main reason the organization was created)
If western nations step in and take a side.... they will only go to be
accused of manipulating the internal affairs of yet another Muslim
country. If Gaddafi wins... they'll be accused of supporting a
dictator. If someone else wins.... they'll be accused of overthrowing
his government and putting in place a frontman.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. Ergo... save money and the
headaches and just watch from the sidelines. (although also make it
privately clear to countries that are exporters of Islamic extremism
that the same is expected of them or all bets are off)
If a hands-off approach doesn't work.. .there was no great loss (not
like Gaddafi was exactly pro west). At minimum it would be useful to
see how a more laissez-faire approach to middle east politics goes.
Hopefully the Libyan people are sick of fighting with western nations,
sick of extremists, and sick of dictators.
Puppet_Sock
> A theme in various Star Trek spin-offs is non-interference
Such a theme is hopelessly silly. Not even the show followed it.
Go back to reading The Guardian.
Socks
Non-causal
Except I am not a fan of the Guardian. Too sensationalist and self-
righteous for my tastes. (makes even some of the ranters at the NY
Times look moderate) And I thought it was obvious I was kidding about
Star Trek (just a colorful intro).
However, in my opinion a military intervention in Libya (without the
UN to take on moral responsibility if things go bad) risks turning the
place into yet another endless war-on-terror money pit for US
taxpayers. (that will not reduce Islamic extremism and if anything
will do more to encourage it). No country or people like to having
people in a distant nation telling them what they do. Human nature.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Non-causal
If the focus was mostly on just supplying humanitarian aid to any
Libyan requiring it (rather than taking sides with weapons) and acting
as an intermediary between various factions... it might go a long way
to both settling things down in Libya and improving things with the
Libyan people themselves. (since no one could accuse Americans of
taking sides. All there would be left is the goodwill it showed to the
Libyan people)
I realize Oists are against altruism but one doesn't have to frame it
as altruism if one doesn't want to. Think of it as a much cheaper
economic alternative to American taxpayers being drawn into being yet
another country's policeman.
Charles Bell
> However, in my opinion a military intervention in Libya (without the
> UN to take on moral responsibility if things go bad) risks turning the
> place into yet another endless war-on-terror money pit for US
> taxpayers.
http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/libyan-rebels-pleading-for-help-from-president-bush/
By Gary P Jackson
Just how pathetic is Obama's leadership? The Libyans, who are being
murdered by Gaddafi, are asking for for President Bush to intervene.
And no, not W, but his father, George H.W. Bush!
Libyan Rebels Pleading For Help From President .... Bush!
"Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-
turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in
1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.
Muhammad min Libya, guardian.co.uk,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/libya-revolution-no-fly-zone
Libya is united in popular revolution -- please don't intervene
Don't get me wrong. I, like most Libyans, believe that imposing a no-
fly zone would be a good way to deal the regime a hard blow on many
levels; it would cut the route of the mercenary convoys summoned from
Africa, it would prevent Gaddafi from smuggling money and other
assets, and most importantly it would stop the regime from bombing
weapons arsenals that many eyewitnesses have maintained contain
chemical weapons; something that would unleash an unimaginable
catastrophe, not to mention that his planes might actually carry such
weapons.
note to Mr. M, from The Guardian, a no-fly zone *is* intervention and
one that has many risks and no benefits to the military that carries
it out.
Non-causal
> "Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-
> turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in
> 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.
In every country one can find a voice of someone that will support "so-
and-so politician". What matters is does it help Libya (or America,
or anyone else) for Americans to intervene militarily?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/libya-...
Thanks for the link. Interesting read. (and guessing the source of
Puppet's "Guardian" comment) I have to agree with the sentiment of
the article (despite that its coming from the Guardian).
Again... if America intervenes militarily (without UN Security council
agreement and troops from other nations).... the narrative will
eventually become "America props up another front man in Muslim
country". It is against American interests to intervene solo. Better
to send humanitarian aid and let the Libyan people work things out for
themselves. (and I don't think Gaddafi's government will survive
either way). If there needs to be a no-fly zone... all the nations on
the security council agree (so no one can later try and wag self-
righteous fingers at anyone else)
Non-causal
citing its history as the country's colonial occupier."
"Germany said military action would be counterproductive and would
only feed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's propaganda machine.:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-03-us-troops-libya_N.htm
(My suspicion is many more nations would agree with this sentiment)
We've all crossed this road before haven't we? Some of America's
longtime friends suggested it was a bad idea to go the last time
(despite we knew you'd get angry at us for it). We are saying it
again.
To the American taxpayer.... ask yourselves.... honestly and without
hubris.... was what was accomplished in Iraq worth a trillion of your
dollars? Do you really feel safer or do you feel yourselves caught in
constant fear over what 1/6 of the world's population will do? Human
beings like you... despite all the flaws they may have.
In its short history, America has a proud history of standing up for
freedom. A beacon of light. I beg you don't ruin it by alienating all
your friends and allowing yourselves to become just one more nation
that became so full of itself it started imposing their will on other
nations. Let Libyans choose their own path.
Charles Bell
> "Italy ruled out any possible Italian military participation in Libya,
> citing its history as the country's colonial occupier."
>
> "Germany said military action would be counterproductive and would
> only feed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's propaganda machine.:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-03-us-troops-libya_N.htm
> (My suspicion is many more nations would agree with this sentiment)
>
> We've all crossed this road before haven't we? Some of America's
> longtime friends suggested it was a bad idea to go the last time
> (despite we knew you'd get angry at us for it). We are saying it
> again.
>
> To the American taxpayer.... ask yourselves....
What upset Peikoff and O'ists who followed his line of thinking was
that they thought the Iraq War (both of them, actually) was an
altruistic war, but it was only being sold PARTLY as such to liberals
who President Bush thought would be swayed by that argument. [Though
it is also true that both Bushes were altruist liberals, just not so
much Woodrow-Wilson Doctrinists.] However, if there is oil involved,
even if the primary mission was to destroy and prevent any nests of al-
Qaeda and sympathizers, it is in American interests that oil flow from
as many possible sources, and Iraq was not only one that had been
stopped up (by the U.S. and allies) but had fallen into a U.N.-Germany-
Russia corruption scheme.
This is all true with Libya except for the fact that there is no other
reason to be there as far as we know now. If the oil fields could be
kept going without Libyan participation -- should they attempt some
sort of national-economic suicide -- it makes a kind of sense to keep
them going without Libyan participation, but the same argument against
intervention in the Suez Crisis can be applied here: that it is futile
to have Libyan oil fields under constant threat of attack (by suicidal
monsters) just like the Suez Canal might have been after Nasser stole
it and the British and French were to have retrieved it back. The oil
in Libya no more belongs to the Libyan people than the Suez Canal
belongs to the Egyptians, but wars are cost-v-benefit actions. The
single most stupid thing is that lefite Libyan Guardian newspaper
commentator suggested that any country commit to altruist war against
Khadafi with a no-fly zone.
spar...@yahoo.ca
> However, if there is oil involved, even if the primary mission was to destroy and prevent any nests of al-
> Qaeda and sympathizers, it is in American interests that oil flow from as many possible sources, and Iraq was not only one that had been
> stopped up (by the U.S. and allies) but had fallen into a U.N.-Germany- Russia corruption scheme.
Even looking at things from a purely economic perspective, the oil in
Iraq America has pumped out since 2003 is nowhere near worth the
trillion dollars the US spent. It could have used that money to build
how many nuclear plants instead? (that could now be coming online)
Neither was security improved as the political pundits claim. In my
opinion Bush played right into the hands of Osama by allowing his ego
to draw him into a conflict rather than use calm reason. It's self-
evident to me Osama counted on Mr. Bush overreacting and hoped that
reaction would trigger a counter reaction in the Islamic world (which
it did... bringing him fresh recruits and sympathy). Mr. Bush wasted
both the worlds sympathy, American taxpayer dollars needlessly, and
along with Osama got the entire world world worked up. 9/11 was
terrible but we have to put it into context too. It was done by
terrorists not a government. Although I could somewhat understand the
Taliban being disposed there was no good reason to do so for Saddam.
Bush took someone even the Arabs hated (which worked towards showing
Americans could be friends with Arabs) and astoundingly turned him
into a virtual martyr. If we had all focused on just shaming Islamic
extremists for 9/11 (rather than bickering with one another) far more
would have been accomplished to undermine Islamic extremism.
You need to stop making excuses for Bush just because you voted for
him and happen to be American. He was an idiot. (and I say this as
someone that liked his father) Aside from a dumb war, torturing
terrorists, he was even a "conservative" that couldn't even balance a
budget (cutting taxes while expanding federal spending) further
expanded the US deficit (although Obama has turned out to be even
worse fiscally)
> The oil in Libya no more belongs to the Libyan people than the Suez Canal
> belongs to the Egyptians
In practice every nation owns its own resources. It can certainly
"sell" or "lease" resources for companies from other nations to
develop but in the real world it still ultimately falls under the
control of their legal jurisdiction. Although of course nationalizing
sold property can lead for tit-for-tat penalties there are subtler
ways to exert nation sovereignty to reassert control (e.g. increase
property taxes and fees paid to the government to the point it is no
longer profitable). One can buy property in America but the government
still taxes it (and one can't go on to declare a sovereign nation by
simply declaring property rights)
Now that you bring it up though, it would be an interesting question
to pose to Oists. If someone bought private property in a jurisdiction
run by Oists... would they then have a legal right to declare national
sovereignty if they so desired? (seeing it's property they paid for)
Or would an Oist government step in with force in an attempt to limit
the extent of their property rights?
Non-causal
Committee, recently returned from a trip around the Middle East where
he met with government leaders in Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia. He said
the best way for the U.S. to help fledging governments manage the
transition to democracy was to avoid the appearance of interfering or
dictating the countries' internal affairs. There's a lot of skepticism
in Egypt, in Tunisia and in other countries because of our support of
past rulers," he said"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-mccain-gadhafi-insane/story?id=13069590&
page=2
A well reasoned reply by McCain.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 6, 4:52 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > However, if there is oil involved, even if the primary mission was to destroy and prevent any nests of al-
> > Qaeda and sympathizers, it is in American interests that oil flow from as many possible sources, and Iraq was not only one that had been
> > stopped up (by the U.S. and allies) but had fallen into a U.N.-Germany- Russia corruption scheme.
>
> Even looking at things from a purely economic perspective, the oil in
> Iraq America has pumped out since 2003 is nowhere near worth the
> trillion dollars the US spent. It could have used that money to build
> how many nuclear plants instead? (that could now be coming online)
>
The cost of Wars against islamo-fascism was to leave open avenues of
free trade among civilized men, not that the U.S. was somehow to be
enriched, but certainly that things not be made worse in keeping Iraqi
oil off the market indefinitely.
There were many things no done well in re-structuring Iraq and one of
them was not de-nationalizing oil in Iraq.
> Neither was security improved as the political pundits claim.
Not a single civilian American at home or abroad was killed from 9/11
to the end of the Bush Presidency. Just how many have been killed
since? More than a dozen. Four slaughtered off of Somalia as a direct
consequence of the policy of the Obama Administration. There were
about twenty per year in the 684 from 1970 up to 9/11/01. By 2012
Obama will have us right back up there capped by another 9/11 into the
next President's administration.
This is not to mention the American soldiers killed in Obama's War in
Afghanistan -- which will have been lost not in victory as in Iraq but
in defeat.
Non-causal
> Not a single civilian American at home or abroad was killed from 9/11 to the end of the Bush Presidency.
I hear some pundits occasional say that but it's not actually true.
The truth is MORE Americans died after 9/11 than during it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
If Mr.Bush didn't decide to evade Iraq those thousands of Americans
(mostly young men) would have been alive today. (not to mention who
knows how many more Iraqis) Aside from the trillion dollars wasted he
also wasted their lives.... all to prove what a tough guy he was
rather than think through the consequences of what he was doing.
Aside from being no WMDs... he accomplished absolutely nothing dealing
with "Islamo-terrorism" when it comes to Iraq. There were few
terrorist incidents in Iraq before Bush invaded (and Saddam had
essentially nothing to do with 9/11). In fact, if anything Bush
effectively managed to make made Iraq even more Muslim than it was
under a more secular Saddam. Albeit that was not Bush's intention, Al
Qaeda couldn't have done a better job encouraging Islamic
fundamentalism in Iraq (and elsewhere) than he managed to do.
> This is not to mention the American soldiers killed in Obama's War in
> Afghanistan -- which will have been lost not in victory as in Iraq but
> in defeat.
Lets not forget Bush started the war in Afghanistan-and when he left
office the war was still going on. As I said, I could understand
Afghanistan (since the Taliban's relationship to Osama has become more
evident) but by going to Iraq he turned the appearance of the conflict
into an unofficial war against Islam (how many of the world's 1.1
billion Muslims interpreted it) This lead to more Muslims pouring in
from other nations to fight in Afghanistan as well Afghans themselves
seeing the situation as an attempt to erase Islam through force. And
by lashing out at his allies (who suggested not to go to Iraq) he
slowly lost support in Afghanistan too. (which has essentially become
America's war where once it was a united global effort)
In addition, even purely from a tactical standpoint, two fronts is
never a good idea if it can be avoided (resources get divided). Even
if he decided to invade Iraq, Bush should have first finished in
Afghanistan. There was no urgency to oust Saddam. He just wanted to
hit back but he spend too much effort/money on chasing the wrong
targets. Barring having died of natural causes....Osama is still out
there.... planning away. History will forever show Bush failed to get
the primary perp responsible for 9/11. In my opinion he is one of the
worse Presidents in US history. He failed with his economic policies.
His foreign policy. And even in his moral judgment as a human being.
Any how. What's is done is done. I don't feel that way about the
entire Republican party. They just tried to be loyal to their elected
leader and country during a difficult time. Bush just let them down
with bad choices. The mean reason I am still so hard on Bush is
because its important recognizing his choices were bad (else one risks
repeating the same mistakes)
Charles Bell
> On Mar 6, 12:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Not a single civilian American at home or abroad was killed from 9/11 to the end of the Bush Presidency.
>
> I hear some pundits occasional say that but it's not actually true.
No civilian American not acting in a mercenary role at home or abround
lost his life to islamic terrorism.
No American ship was pirated off of Somalia, too.
Moreover, there has been no sustained war in American history in which
Americans, being defended by its military in a war abround, not only
were not requested and/or required to make sacrifices but actually
benefited from a steadily growing economy in spite of the fact that
Soros-socialists tried to short the economy after 9/11 and supported
the successful effort to replace Congress in 2007 determined to
destroy the economy, which it did.
Non-causal
> On Mar 6, 1:58 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 12:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Not a single civilian American at home or abroad was killed from 9/11
> > > to the end of the Bush Presidency.
>
> > I hear some pundits occasional say that but it's not actually true.
>
> No civilian American not acting in a mercenary role at home or abround
> lost his life to islamic terrorism.
Sorry I just noticed you qualified as "civilian" but I'm sure the
families of the thousands of young soldiers that died in Iraq would
have wished their sons, fathers, and husbands were still alive today.
They died pointlessly.
Charles Bell
> On Mar 6, 2:54 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 1:58 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 12:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Not a single civilian American at home or abroad was killed from 9/11
> > > > to the end of the Bush Presidency.
>
> > > I hear some pundits occasional say that but it's not actually true.
>
> > lost his life to islamic terrorism.
>
> Sorry I just noticed you qualified as "civilian" but I'm sure the
> families of the thousands of young soldiers that died in Iraq would
> have wished their sons, fathers, and husbands were still alive today.
> They died pointlessly.
They died "pointlessly" with people like you who do not value the
fight to keep freedom and the sole responsibility we put upon a
fraction population ofthe extraordinary to do that.
It was typical of the left to count up every single death in Iraq in
excess of the number that were killed on 9/11 and make some issue of
it. It was disgusting then as it is now that they discount the deaths
of every soldier killed in Obama's War in Afghanistan for a Commander-
in-Chief who does not want victory, has said he does not even know
what victory would be, but uses them as a way to buy time through the
2012 elections.
Non-causal
> On Mar 6, 10:36 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 2:54 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 1:58 pm, Non-causal <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 12:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Not a single civilian American at home or abroad was killed from 9/11
> > > > > to the end of the Bush Presidency.
>
> > > > I hear some pundits occasional say that but it's not actually true.
>
> > > No civilian American not acting in a mercenary role at home or abroad
> > > lost his life to islamic terrorism.
>
> > Sorry I just noticed you qualified as "civilian" but I'm sure the
> > families of the thousands of young soldiers that died in Iraq would
> > have wished their sons, fathers, and husbands were still alive today.
> > They died pointlessly.
>
> They died "pointlessly" with people like you who do not value the
> fight to keep freedom and the sole responsibility we put upon a
> fraction population ofthe extraordinary to do that.
Patriotism isn't necessarily bad but blind patriotism can be.
Anyone who's sensible (and being honest) knows the Iraq war was
primarily fought out of a combination of fear and an attempt to secure
oil not for the sake altruistic desire for "freedom" for the people
of Iraq. I would note even you above say " However, if there is oil
involved, even if the primary mission was to destroy and prevent any
nests of al-Qaeda and sympathizers, it is in American interests that
oil flow from as many possible sources"
Saddam won't be missed but that trillion dollars and those lives could
have been put to far wiser use than disposing of him. (e.g. improving
the qualify of life for Americans, investment in nuclear/alternate
energy, actual altruistic gestures to alleged enemies, etc...) During
the gulf war it was in American interests to invade Iraq. Invading
Iraq in 2003 was against American interests. Just because some
government politician claims something is in the national interests
doesn't actually make it always so.