Some people seem strangely surprised that Moammar Gaddafi appears to be completely insane but every time I have heard something he had to say he appeared insane to me. And this goes back two and a half decades to when he first responded to Reagan’s bombing that killed one of his daughters. He’s a loony-tune. And if Gaddafi is preparing to blow up oil pipelines, as Time reports, then I don’t know how effective it will be for Obama to pressure the oil industry to put pressure on him.
If the threat to Europe’s oil supply is so great and the humanitarian risks so dire, then maybe Europe can intervene on their own for a change. It’s not that what happens in Libya is not our problem, but why does it have to be our responsibility? John Boehner told me that we’re broke. So, if we’re broke, then let someone else kick Gaddafi to the curb.
Well one reason it’s our problem is the True Progressive version of American Exceptionalism:
Everything in the world is our problem, which thereby means it’s Obama’s fault for not fixing it. Within 2 seconds.
Yes, indeed. American exceptionalism is alive and well among American “progressives” as is evidenced on a regular basis right here on this blog.
America has the responsibility – nay, the right – to shape the word to its liking.
Exactly.None of this is going to be solved by the US or EU intervening. That will only make things worse. They would do beter to look at the things they have done to contribute to the disaster already and learn.
Well I don’t think we have the right to shape the world to our liking, or even impose traditional “Western” ideas of what is correct, but I am of the camp who believes that the wealthiest of countries have the responsibility to aid the poorest (especially because it is the West who stole most of the wealth from the world to become as rich and powerful as they are). Now I am not saying we follow the IMF and the World Bank, which are essentially telling them what to do with the “aid” — which I wouldn’t even call aid, thus the quotes — and then strapping them with debt. And if they don’t want the aid then I would argue against it. A common problem I see with a lot of aid that IS provided is that it’s not even something they wanted. For example, in Bolivia, I know a Peace Corps volunteer who was there during their time of service and pointed out that many private aid organizations would go there, build something, and then leave. A couple problems she noticed:
1.) The people were never consulted as to what exactly they “needed.”
2.) The aid group in question built a bathroom with plumbing.
3.) The people never used it for its purpose, and stored their food and such inside of it.
And this happens all over, at least in her own experiences. As a PC volunteer, they only provide what the people need. This is what always was odd to me. Why can the US provide the proper form of aid with the Peace Corps, where they ask what the people need, but not any other organization?
I am also against all forms of missionaries because I see it as cultural imperialism. They aren’t out to help the people in need first; their first desire is to save the savages from damnation, with a secondary idea of helping people. As an example from a friend in India that he witnessed personally, missionaries would go with medicine, and give the people fake medicine and tell them to pray to their gods. When it inevitably didn’t work — as it was just fake — they would then offer a second medicine, and this time tell them to pray to Jesus. When it worked, they would convert to Christianity. And that’s just one example.
And speaking of the IMF, they heart tyrants:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/business/23views.html
Yes, Europe can intervene on their own front door, particularly when humanitarian and economic reasons dovetail so well.
So who is saying America has to do something about this problem? I mean, outside the beltway press corpse?
Look, I don’t know what the freak is really going on in Egypt, Libya, etc., but one thing the last couple decades have taught me is that you won’t get the real story from the Military-Oil-AIPAC-Media-Industrial complex. And yeah, I know Italy is going nuts in panic about Libya, but maybe, just maybe, their PM’s internal crisis is motivating some of his panic. Hell, I don’t know.
I submit, as an example of how distorted our news is, the Kosovo slaughter of 1998. You may recall at the time how horrible the news was. Then Clinton decided to bomb. Then refugees began streaming over the borders in droves. US TV media was on the ground to meet them. Night after night, images of these poor people we were saving.
A very funny thing happened with that event. The GOP leadership, as usual against anything a Democrat does even if it was exactly what they would have done in the same situation, was adamant that the bombing was unnecessary. They got their usual army of think tankers to come up with some arguments against Clinton and noted that: a) the war crimes all started after the bombing began, not before, and b) the refugee migration also started after the bombing, not before.
Of course, the village media ignored them. But here’s the kicker: by accident the GOP was telling the truth. 98% of the crisis was precipitated by the bombing. Many of the stories of outrage that motivated the bombing turned out to be fake. Yes, there was a lot of nasty stuff going on, but this had been true in Yugoslavia most of that decade.
So why did we really bomb? And why did the media get behind it? And why did the media, for maybe the only time in the last two decades, give the GOP complainers almost NO air time?
Air bases. TONS of huge Kosovo air bases. The PERFECT strategic position in the former Soviet satellite for secure bases that can act as supply stations to a) support the really nasty dictatorships in the central asian carbon-rich countries such as Kazakistan and Uzbekistan, and b) support Israel against it’s carbon-rich middle eastern enemies, PARTICULARLY IRAQ. Before Kosovo the nearest bases were in Germany — over an hour further by flight and also subject to all kinds of inconvenient humanitarian limitations. Kosovo is a MUCH better location. And as long as we support the local corrupt regime they’ll be allowed to stay.
In the years followed a lot of stories came out about horrible abuses by US and UN troops/”agents” in Kosovo and sex slaves, etc. Well, they came out in the international press — they were mostly hushed up in the US. No, this was not a humanitarian mission at all.
So, the moral of the story. First, what the US press tells you is what the military-oil-israel powers that be want them to tell you. Second, that the GOP is simply useful to those powers most of the time, but the GOP leadership is not calling the shots. Third, what is really happening in Egypt/Libya is probably something we won’t figure out until years from now.
One opposition Libyan after the other. One academic analyst after another. Not within the beltway, but on Al Jazeera English. And English-speaking Libyans in the liberated areas who remember that Ronald Reagan did not delay in bombing the neighborhood of Gaddafi’s house.
As for what is really happening, Gaddafi is promising a charm offensive tomorrow, inviting in the media to see what opponents are calling a Tripoli cleaned of blood and graffiti.
It is very interesting how many progressives, like me, are trapped in the past. And how everyone reads fundamentally ambiguous situations according to their preconceptions. And how absolutely blind the US media has been for the past quarter century.
GreenCaboose, Yes, the Kosovo house of horrors was a real kicker. Then Mr. Curveball gave the US people the Iraq war. So, two major military confrontations based on lies within about five years. And now the country is crippled. What is the story in Afghanistan: a third lie?
It is literally quite amazing hoe much foreign policy news has entered into our living rooms. Usually when any subject about foreign policy comes up, people just roll their eyes, tune it out, or don’t give a damn!!! I swear a lot of people probably couldn’t find either Egypt or Libya on a map.
But foreign policy has taken center stage in recent weeks, and it’s refreshing to hear, good or bad!! What happens in the world is paramount to our everyday lives.
I commend the main cable channels on their coverage, especially CNN. Anderson Cooper, Nic Robertson, and Ben Wedeman. Richard Engel on MSNBC, and others. Very good reporting.
I’m one of those who’s surprised at this man’s insanity. I never really paid attention to politics prior to 2008 so that’s my excuse.
So one of our bombs killed his daughter? omg. that is really tragic.
So one of our bombs killed his daughter? omg. that is really tragic.
that is what was widely reported at the time. however:
i don’t know what the circumstances of the daughter really was. FWIW, wiki just refers to her as an “adopted daughter” without any reference to a controversy over when she was adopted.
“he appeared insane to me. And this goes back two and a half decades to when he first responded to Reagan’s bombing that killed one of his daughters.“
And I suppose if Reagan or anyone else bombed your house and killed your son your response would come across as sane?!
Having said that, he does often come across as out of touch with reality if not downright delusional. On the other hand, a lot of his remarks, when examined without bias, come across as courageously honest, and right on the money, despite being the opposite of what most want to hear. For example, a few years ago he addressed the rulers of the Gulf states in an unrestrained, and very accurate way.
He probably is not what most of us would consider normal psychologically speaking, but I would not use any father’s reaction to the murder of his child as evidence of that, nor do I think it is as simple as you seem to present it.
We shouldnt also forget how Ghadafi has played the game by allowing those nice western oilcompanies to do business and protecting them against tribal trouble and of course how he has discoraged immigration to the EU throughhis country at the behest of the EU. And of course how he toes the terrorism line. He may not be the wests favorite dictator but he certainly dances to their tune or has until recently
PAN AM 103
Could you elaborate?
Google. Great invention.
You’re pulling my leg. Is all of this down to the Lockerbie bombing. Complete nonsense. Everyone loved the Libyan dictator as long as he delivered the goods. This is not a time for moralizing.
And your point is…?
I’ll take a wild guess that it might have something to do with this …
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/25/flynn.lockerbie.gadhafi/
I know about Pan Am 103. What I don’t understand is how that relates to my remarks concerning Qadhafi’s sanity or lack thereof.
My point is very simple. The US gets justice and tons and tons of cash for Loekerbie. For instance, how much justice and cash did the Iranians get for the Iranian plane the US shot down over the Persian Gulf? Some money, for sure. The US is so self righteous, it always knows what’s best for others. I know my people. The whole world looks at the US in horror at what is happening in the US.
I’m entirely for leaving Libya to the Libyans. If that happens, there is no need for my opinion. But everyone knows how Libya needs to go. A people reclaiming the country—good romantic piece of traditional schmaltz. When will the US people reclaim their own country? Are the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya really spontaneous uprisings of the people? I wonder very much about that. We’ll see. If so, the peoples of these countries are titans.
Well, if that’s your point, then we don’t disagree at all.
Ten people were killed in demonstrations against the government in Iraq today, according to the BBC. Has that event of lesser magnitude caused any comment around here. The constant hype in the media as if everything happens to entertain them is appalling and just keeps getting worse. I’m signing out of here. For tonight.
Ah, clearly you don’t understand. Everything is fine and dandy in Iraq now that the always benign U.S. has bombed and tortured and demolished it into a brand sparkling new
backward, repressive theocracyvibrant democracy. We don’t need news about Iraq anymore.Yes, my response would come out as sane, because I am not a lunatic. I might be distraught. I might make a lot less sense than normal. But I wouldn’t be a lunatic.
We always know how we are going to handle a hugely tragic and traumatic event in our lives – until we are actually faced with it.
Ever heard the terms “insane with grief” or “driven mad by grief”?
Ever listen to Gaddafi talk? If you kill a madman’s adopted child he’s going to sound like a madman. Not necessarily so for a normal person. Why are you focused on that anyway. I only mentioned it because that was the first time I ever heard him speak. And he was a rambling lunatic. Nothing changed is my point.
Yes, I have even listened to him talk without the assistance of a translator. He rambles, and doesn’t always seem to be making a lot of sense. On the other hand, he often hits the nail right on the head without regard for the fact that what he is saying is exactly what his listeners do not want to hear.
I do think at the very least he has a seriously disordered personality. On the other hand, I do recall the nearly-universal belief that Saddam Hussein was crazy, which is quite a dangerous conclusion to come to when dealing with someone like him. Sociopathic, for sure. Narcissistic and megalomaniacal, yep. But then find me a “national leader” of any sort who does not have above-average helpings of those things in his/her personality.
Saddam was more like Stalin. Extremely smart, but paranoid and sociopathic. They also shared a strange inability to correctly assess their enemies’ intentions.
Gaddafi is just crazy. I don’t know how he’d score on standardized tests, or how much innate intelligence he has, but he’s not sane. And he hasn’t been in my memory.
Perhaps he’s deteriorated somewhat, but just because he sometimes says something true means nothing.
Usama bin-Laden said a lot of things that were true in the process of saying a lot of things that we not true, and even more things that are not morally justifiable. Is he crazy? I don’t know. Gaddafi I do know. He’s nuts.
Saddam saw himself as a latter-day Stalin. He was often out of touch with the reality on the ground because he was surrounded by people who told him only what they wanted him to hear. He and George Bush had that in common along with a number of other things.
no, this is Europe’s problem. we barely have diplomatic relations with Libya.
Thank you.
No. It is the Libyans’ problem, and it is for them to solve.
Once, just for once, couldn’t the west accept the fact that others have the right and the responsibility to run their own affairs?
Hurria,
How much do I profit personally from US and western imperialism? Why do people have the ‘responsibility to run their own affairs’? I’d say they can delegate them to others if they wish though I would agree they have the ‘right’ to arrange things themselves.
Lets reminisce, how many times in our lifetimes have we seen +the genre photos on the front pages of newspapers of nervous, white westerners being evacuated from ‘a trouble zone’. The lean, strong husband carries a child, the wife trails behind with another child in tow, all look unwashed and confused as they hustle across the airport terminal to catch their plane to safety. That is what Qaddafi and the US and the EU come down to: a business deal. What will the next Libyan government change things with all that sweet, sweet crude?
I’m not sure what your point is. We are not talking now about dictators and their regimes, we are talking about the people of a country, who are at this moment rising up and attempting to take their country back from a despotic regime. They have not delegated responsibility for running their affairs to anyone, certainly not to Qadhafi, and certainly not to the government of the United States.
Outside “assistance” in these matters always comes at a price, and historically the price for “assistance” from the United States is off the charts.
My point is that that’s not what the US is about. Meddling is its theme song. You live there (?) (grew up there?) and you still don’t seem to get it. We can only hope for the best. If things get out of hand the US can not stand by and let things get worse. Trusting to others’ judgment is not the source of the wealth and power of the US. We all profit from it. You don’t?
It most definitely is the Libyan’s time, not ours. Of course it is virtually impossible to not see the courage of the Libyans and not want to join in their fight.
Clear a path for them to put the pieces back together, yes; but this is their moment, their blood and after a brutal history of suppression the promise of freedom needs to reside in their own courage.
Every night I listen to the young Libyan woman who calls in to Anderson Cooper and tells of her fears, begs for recognition and her promise to bravely fight. And the first thing I am struck with is that the people of the street are night and day different from the American perspective of mobs of terrorists. No one can overcome the blackened perception we have of the country of Libya being populated by tribes of terrorists better than the reality on the ground.
The Libyans must tear down the face of Khadafi’s brutality.
Was the Rwandan genocide just the Rwandans’ problem? When the US and the rest of the world left it to the Rwandans to solve, they/we were accused of racism (if the genocide is among brown people, we don’t care, etc.). Seems to me, we are damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
You are arguing based on a false equivalence. What is going on in Libya right now is a popular revolution – an attempt by the people of a country to overthrow a government – not a genocide by one ethnic/religious/tribal group against another. Don’t confuse the two.
I can understand your skepticism, but there is not necessarily a clear and fast distinction between the genocide and popular revolution, because a popular crackdown against a popular revolution may take on a genocidal character. From all reports, Qaddafi is trying to enlist tribes against tribes and non-Libyans against Libyans.
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=41130
also:
<snip>
UN ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, who has called for Gaddafi to step down, said he had received information that Gaddafi’s collaborators have started “attacking people in all the cities in western Libya,” AP reported. The diplomat added that Gaddafi was using foreign mercenaries to fight protesters.
“I think the genocide has started now in Libya. The Gaddafi statement was just code for his collaborators to start the genocide against the Libyan people,” he said.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/world-news/europe/eu-prepares-for-worst-after-gaddafi-genocide-threats-
23022011/
Sorry — “popular crackdown” should read “crackdown”.
You are really stretching hard here, I am afraid.
The comment was made by a Lybian, not by me. I’m just bringing it to your attention.
The fact that it was a Libyan who incorrectly and hyperbolically applied the word genocide to a government crackdown does not make the term any less inaccurate.
Booman Tribune ~ Everything is Our Problem
Yes, Gaddafi is, in all probability, certifiably insane, and the killing of his daughter probably contributed to his delusional paranoia. But then in seems to many that the USA, collectively, went certifiably insane after 9/11, certainly as far as its foreign policy and delusional attempts to blame the tragedy on Iraq was concerned.
i think libya is a lot different than egypt in terms of this being an american problem. a large part of the egyptian military’s funding comes from u.s. aid (egypt is the second largest foreign aid recipient, after israel). that meant that the u.s. had enormous influence on the actions of the military. had the egyptian military not been warned by the obama against using violence against egyptian protesters and if it had violently cracked down on them, i think the u.s. would have been culpable for letting it happen.
it’s a similar situation with bahrain, where the government is essentially propped up by the u.s. and saudi arabia, notwithstanding the wishes of the largely shia’ populace, because that’s the HQ of the american fifth fleet, the naval force that protects oil shipments through the straits of hormuz.
in libya, qadhafi’s regime is not supported by the u.s. in the same way. we can honestly say it is not our problem and we should let the libyan people find their own way.
i’m very sympathetic to the “everything shouldn’t be an american problem” idea. but in reality the u.s. has already involved itself in a lot of regions in the world and already strongly influences events. once the u.s. is already involved to say that the u.s. should not use its influence in a positive fashion is simply wrong. in an ideal world it would be better if the u.s. hadn’t been funding mubarak’s military. but the u.s. has, so when a problem crops up that involves that military force it is at least partially an american problem.
Correct, which is why I never questioned whether Obama should inject himself into the Egyptian question.
“had the egyptian military not been warned by the obama against using violence against egyptian protesters and if it had violently cracked down on them, i think the u.s. would have been culpable for letting it happen.“
Another America-centric assumption. Of COURSE it is Obama who is responsible for the Egyptian military’s decision not to violently crack down on the insurgents. How could the Egyptian military have possibly made its own decisions without Obama telling it what to do. And I suppose if Obama had told the military to do whatever it took to keep U.S. buddy Mubarak in power, they would have slaughtered insurgents by the thousands? I mean, everyone knows that brown-skinned U.S. allies have no decision making ability of their own, and no free will.
You are really naive, in my opinion. And you deliberately missed his point. He was talking about American responsibility. If Obama didn’t tell the military to spare civilians, he would be responsible if they chose not to do so. He didn’t say that they had to obey Obama.
If Obama had told the military that he expected them to crush the resistance, well, then he’d be responsible for that if they followed his instructions.
Egypt’s military is not independent. It is an extension of U.S. force, just like the Shah’s army was. Iran’s army was still buying replacement parts from us in 1986, as well as TOW missiles and other goodies. The entire upper echelon of Egypt’s army has either been trained here, or in the case of the oldest, in Moscow. They use our weapons, our training, our tactics, and the intelligence agencies are folded into our own.
It’s so easy to blame our influence and so hard to credit it.
did you read what i actually wrote? i gave the specific reason that the u.s. would have had responsibility, and it wasn’t that brown-skinned people have no decision-making ability.
the egyptian military is on the u.s.’ payroll. u.s. taxpayers supply a large slice of the egyptian army’s overall budget. i wish it weren’t true, but that is how things are. that means that the u.s.’ actions or inaction will have an enormous effect of how the egyptian military was willing to act. not because they are brown (putting aside the variety of colors that actual egyptians come in) or lack free will, but because like any other human being, there is a strong tendency to act in the interests of the ones who cut your paycheck.
Not American-centric at all, and I find nationality to be a burden. I truly believe that if the army cracked down that people would be blaming that on Obama (myself being one of them). We know that Saudi was telling Mubarak and the US to just shoot the people. And we also know that Israel and the US want to preserve their precious peace treaty at any cost.
I find nationality and national pride to be one of the greatest impediments to peace and progress in the world, so it seems we are in agreement there.
Yes, I suppose that if the army had cracked down a lot of people would have blamed Obama, and that is representative of the America-centric attitude that irks me so much. If the Egyptian army had cracked down on the people, I would have blamed…..get ready….the Egyptian army.
For sure they’d deserve their share of the blame, but I guess I’m just in agreement with As’ad:
why does it have to be one or the other?
things have multiple causes and blame is not a zero-sum game. saying the u.s. is responsible for a human rights violation that it funded does not mean that the perpetrators of the violation get off the hook.
to bring the discussion back to what is happening in libya, when one of qadhafi’s mercenaries kills a protester, i think the mercenary is guilty of murder and i also blame qadhafi for financing the murder. saying one is guilty does not mean i can’t also blame someone else.
We don’t disagree that responsibility/blame is not a zero-sum game.
Specifically regarding Qadhafi and his mercenaries, or Mubarak and his thugs, I have repeatedly quoted the Buffy Sainte Marie song, Universal Soldier whenever people try to absolve American American soldiers who kill and destroy in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly when they do so by trying to portray them as co-victims of the war instead of co-perpetrators. They are no less responsible for the war than are the politicians who start the wars, particularly in the case of an all-volunteer military. The same applies to Qadhafi and his mercenaries, Mubarak and his hired thugs, the Bahraini rulers and the people they send to fire on insurgents.
US involvement would provide a reason for some Libyans to rally to Gaddafi. That is the last thing we want to happen right now. This should be obvious to everyone.
There are two Muslim countries that the US could potentially enlist to provide a partial no-fly zone or some other kind of assistance: Turkey and Egypt. Egypt is somewhat pre-occupied, and the Turks are not Arabs, but either is far more likely to be able to act without provoking a backlash than the US or any European country. I haven’t decided if they should or shouldn’t, but those are really the only two countries that could get involved that wouldn’t be certain to make things worse.