Monday, March 21, 2011

Dissent on Libya

  • "Only in America does it take an act of Congress to name a building, but no congressional authorization whatsoever to go to war against a country that has not threatened the United States," writes Laurence Vance — Our Crazy, Evil Government When It Comes to War.

  • Ron Holland says that "while we wish the people of Libya and their color revolution victory over crazy Gaddafi, they have likely been the unwitting pawns in a major deception by Washington to hide a dramatic Middle East foreign policy shift" — The Anglo-American Gaddafi Deception.

  • "We have no bloody business in Libya, and no idea what we hope to achieve there," says Englishman Peter Hitchens — Why can't we just let the Libyans fight it out (...then make friends with the winners. "So why are we rattling the drums of war and fuelling up for a fight in a place where our national interests would be best served by staying out?"
  • Labels: , , , , ,

    Bookmark and Share

    8 Comments:

    Blogger Francis Xavier said...

    Why can't we just let the Libyans fight it out (...then make friends with the winner?

    There is the story that when Gordon Brown, a Scot, bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland he and his Scottish advisers had to justify to their fellow politicians how they would pay to bail their friends out. Simultaneously, BP was working on Libyan projects which promised a windfall. So tax revenue from the BP project was offset against the bailout, or so the story goes. It would certainly explain why the British choppered spies and commandos to the rebels' leaders.

    4:15 PM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    Banskters and oilmen! Say it ain't so!

    4:46 PM  
    Blogger Francis Xavier said...

    That written, replacing Gaddafi, who disappears Libyans who speak badly of him, will be a giant step forward for Libya.

    I am no rah rah man for military attacks, but getting rid of a man who chose to ally himself with Robert Mugabe can only be a step forward.

    Is Gaddafi's rule, under which dissidents are murdered in cold blood, legitimate under Roman Catholic moral teaching?

    I think not.

    Toppling tyrants is not a sin.

    12:26 AM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    He will not be missed.

    "Is Gaddafi's rule, under which dissidents are murdered in cold blood, legitimate under Roman Catholic moral teaching?"

    The Catholic Encyclopedia on Tyrannicide gives no conclusive answer.

    "Toppling tyrants is not a sin." I tend to agree, as did Mencius.

    12:53 AM  
    Blogger The Sanity Inspector said...

    Col. Klink is Italy's customer, where are they in all this?

    As for this set-to, I've no idea who these rebels are. Maybe they are democrats, maybe they are just a rival tribe, maybe they are Al-Qaeda, Maghreb Division. One of the consequences of having Libya be one man's plaything for 40 years is that there are no robust democratic institutions from which capable opposition can emerge. The dissenters are all exiled or eliminated.

    BTW, today is J.S. Bach's birthday.

    11:18 AM  
    Blogger Pints in NYC said...

    Why didn't "we" do this years ago? Why now, after the lunatic completes his tenure as president of the African Union?

    Is it because he declared himself King of Africa, or something like that?

    11:22 AM  
    Blogger Tiago said...

    Technically, the United States have not attacked Libya; the United Nations have, using US (and UK, and French) troops and materiel. Does Congress need to concur to every motion of American troops which are lent out to Ban-ki Moon?

    11:51 AM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    Inspector, thanks for the reminder and yes, these rebels are complete unknowns.

    Pints, I have to admit, this "King of Africa" dresses well.

    Tiago, the US Constitution is strangely silent about Ban-ki Moon and the UN.

    2:18 PM  

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home

    Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.