October 24, 2011

Who Kills Whom?

The Book Review Editor of the NYT, Sam Tanenhaus, thumbsucks over the Growing Threat of Republican Isolationism despite finding little evidence of that menace among GOP presidential candidates, who, with the exception of Ron Paul, mostly express the Invade-the-World conventional wisdom:
Right, Less Might 
By SAM TANENHAUS
Sam Tanenhaus is the editor of The New York Times Book Review.
THE Republican debate Tuesday night included many heated exchanges, but relatively few on the subject of foreign policy. There was instead surprising unanimity, whether it was Mitt Romney and Rick Perry debunking foreign aid, Ron Paul warning that America has become an empire, or Michele Bachmann, in what now seems an ill-timed critique, objecting to President Obama’s having “put us in Libya.”

Obviously, Bachman was wrong because, since then, Obama killed Gadaffi, which therefore permanently debunks all skepticism about the wisdom of America starting a war with Libya. The bottom line of sophisticated globalist thought is: Who kills whom? Obama started an international war with Libya, and then conclusively proved he was right to do so by killing the ex-leader of Libya.
Collectively, the candidates were channeling a broad shift in thinking on the right about America’s global responsibilities. It has been only a few years since George W. Bush labeled himself a “war president” leading a crusade for worldwide democratization. And the sentiments were not his alone. In December 2004 a majority of conservative Republicans agreed “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs,” according to the Pew Research Center. 
In 2011, a roughly equivalent majority believe America “should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems at home.” 
In a time of severe economic woe — a “national emergency,” as Mr. Obama termed it in mid-September — foreign policy issues often lose their immediacy.

Well, foreign adventurism not just loses its "immediacy," it's objectively harder to pay for.
But with the exception of impassioned support for Israel, conservatives have been embracing a retreat from the greater world that recalls the isolationism of a bygone age in which belief in American “exceptionalism” combined with distrust of other countries and “entangling alliances,” even with other democracies. The most conspicuous example is the strong anti-interventionist sentiment in the period leading up to World War II, when conservatives flocked to rallies organized by the America First Committee, with its slogan “England will fight to the last American.”

In other words, skipping over the implied logical links ... Nazis!
... Of course that was before Mr. Obama’s election and the rise of the Tea Party movement. Its ascendancy is “proof positive of the rise of isolationism on the right,” Lawrence F. Kaplan, a columnist for The New Republic and co-author, with William Kristol, of “The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission,” wrote in an e-mail. “It’s no coincidence that the Tea Party has adopted the Don’t Tread on Me flag as its own,” Mr. Kaplan added. “My bet is they have the federal government, not far-away Islamists, in mind.”

My prejudice is for "Don't tread on me ... and I won't tread on you," but that just shows what a prejudiced ignoramus I am. All the sophisticates like Kaplan and Kristol believe in "Don't tread on me while I tread on you." What could possibly go wrong?
Even as the Republican presidential contenders have tapped into isolationist anxieties, they have sat for foreign-policy tutorials with holdovers from Mr. Bush’s presidency, many of them standard-bearers of the aggressive interventionism that Tea Partiers reject. Mr. Romney’s team includes the authors Eliot A. Cohen and Robert Kagan, both identified with the Iraq war. Mr. Perry has met with Donald H. Rumsfeld. Herman Cain has professed his admiration for the writings of John R. Bolton, a hawkish figure in the administrations of both Bushes. 

In other words, the Establishment maintains its chokehold on Republican elites despite all that we've learned in the last few years.
This position assumes that America, which remains, after all, the world’s one superpower, has no choice but to assert its leadership in a complex world — as, perhaps, Mr. Obama demonstrated in his Libya policy. He followed a middle course criticized by neoconservatives, who found it too timid, and by isolationists, who warned against “mission creep.” But it seems to have been vindicated last week with the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Who kills whom. What more do you need to know?

By the way, new cell phone footage suggests Gadaffi was sodomized while being lynched. Ha-ha, what a loser! I've watched enough TV detective shows to know that, unlike in the bad old days, prison rape is now considered a great topic for gloating jokes. (This evolution of social norms must be part of what Steven Pinker calls The Civilizing Process.) This new information about Gadaffi's end just proves how right Tanenhaus and the rest of respectable opinion are, and how wrong sickos like Ron Paul are for not wanting America to be involved in things like this.

So, forget "Who kills whom?" The new international cosmopolitan standard of right and wrong that only scary kooks like Pat Buchanan express doubts about is "Who sodomizes whom?"

89 comments:

helene edwards said...

But it seems to have been vindicated last week with the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Remember that line the next time a lib tells you his is the party of "rationality." Might does not equal right, except when it does.

Anonymous said...

Obviously, Bachman was wrong because, since then, Obama killed Gadaffi, which therefore permanently debunks all skepticism about the wisdom of America starting a war with Libya. The bottom line of sophisticated globalist thought is: Who kills whom? Obama started an international war with Libya, and then conclusively proved he was right to do so by killing the ex-leader of Libya.

This is somewhat reminiscent of neocon and movement conservatives with regard to the "Surge" in Iraq. You cannot question the wisdom of invading Iraq because the surge apparently made the whole thing worthwhile. Regardless of the costs, WMDs, imminent threat, etc., the surge means we were correct.

Jokah Macpherson said...

No entangling alliances? Ha! What do dead white guys like George Washington know of true patriotism?

Anonymous said...

What's funny is the way Israelis look down on Americans despite the copious amounts of blood and treasure we've spent on their behalf.

I guess it's similar to the way Jews in the US look down on (and make constant fun of) Evangelical Christians and fly-over rubes, despite the fact that these are the people who support them most.

It's kind of funny when you think about it.

Well, not really actually.

Simon in London said...

"The bottom line of sophisticated globalist thought is: Who kills whom? Obama started an international war with Libya, and then conclusively proved he was right to do so by killing the ex-leader of Libya."

Reminds me of The Iliad. Nothing changes.

Unamused said...

"Gadaffi's end"

... heh

Udolpho.com said...

the surge was just the force level that should have been applied in the first place, and it did work even though lots of anti-Iraq War people were kind of hoping for a big meltdown so they could end their war protest on an up note (obviously the surge didn't justify the war but only anti-Iraq War people ever imagined this argument)

Wes said...

Yeah I have wondered about this cultural trend to make male rape something funny. I assume it is ok culturally because it is mainly black guys attacking white guys in prison, so that is acceptable.

Does anyone know if male rape is actually more prevalent in prison then it was 50 or 100 years ago?

greenrivervalleyman said...

French war-planes (no doubted piloted by butt-kicking Angelina Jolie look-alikes), American drones, and now a grisly demise worthy of the 2nd act of Pulp Fiction. Kaddafi's overthrow at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer has gotta be the most lavishly-produced snuff film ever.

(BTW, I still love the Qahtwaffi orthography jokes, Steve!)

Anonymous said...

Glenn Greenwald has been writing about this, too: "That’s how foreign policy greatness is established: by how many heads the Emperor can display on a pike." http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/a_remaining_realm_of_american_excellence/singleton

Anonymous said...

The thing is Gaddafi was a danger to his people but not to us. In fact, Western leaders told us he was safe. I think they took him out cuz they were embarrassed about his closeness to him as he prepared to kill his people.

anony-mouse said...

'What do dead white guys like George Washington know of true patriotism?'

Washington's farewell address was written by Jefferson who when he became President sent the Marines 'to the shores of Tripoli'

Where is that Tripoli again?

Could Obama be a true Jeffersonian?

jody said...

lol. i remember "the surge" and how annoying the 'cons were during that. and what did the surge accomplish udolpho? pretty much nothing, like anything the US did in iraq. we'll see how much the surge "accomplished" in a year here.

this libya thing even dumber though, because the US did not really have much to do what happened, didn't start it, didn't finish it, then obama took 100% credit for it. this obama guy, man, what can you say. he emphatically stated he did not engage in war, then months later claimed he won a war. WOW! now that's impressive!

gaddafi got sodomized then shot in the head by some random third worlder. contrast this with with the, relatively, orderly process by which bush actually went into iraq, captured hussein, sent him to trial, and had him properly executed for proven crimes, then mounted a massive effort to stabilize and rebuild the country. it was all totally stupid of course, but the liberals were up in arms. as were any of the conservatives left with a brain. a vanishingly small cadre of folks these days.

airtommy said...

the surge was just the force level that should have been applied in the first place, and it did work

The surge didn't even exist, silly. The British removed their troops (there weren't very many) and America added the same number of troops. The total troop level stayed the same.

The surge was a marketing campaign.

ATBOTL said...

I don't understand how liberals can be so oblivious to the fact that the NYT and other supposedly liberal institutions are run by neocon sympathizers.

Robert Holmgren said...

The death penalty is bad, because poor black folks might be proven innocent given enough time and the inability of enough witnesses to show up at a trial 30 years hence.

But the death penalty is good if enough wild-eyed Arabs forego a trial and put the shiv up his rear while dispatching the scoundrel with a well placed shot to the forehead.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if male rape is actually more prevalent in prison then it was 50 or 100 years ago?

When you had all or predominantly white prisons, it was probably rare or non-existant.

I suspect it's mostly a black and black against white thing.

A young American who was imprisoned in Korea for a serious offense (in Korea) says that prison rape is unknown:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/books/28grim.html

Anonymous said...

Btw, we should have a stealth conservative join the Democratic party, pretend to be a blue collar liberal, and push for 'affirmative action against privileged Jews'. That way, GOP dodges the 'antisemite' smear.

San Franciscan non-monk said...

OT: The great John McCarthy, friend of Steve, has died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist) A great man who, happily, received his full allotment of life and filled it with worthy work. RIP JM.

beowulf said...

Unlike our incumbent president, President Bush was of the view that sodomizing prisoners is wrong.

Today, I have signed into Law S. 1435, the "Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003." The Act provides for analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State and local institutions, and for information, resources, recommendations and funding to protect individuals from prison rape. The Act also creates a National Prison Rape Reduction Commission...
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 4, 2003.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statement_on_Prison_Rape_Elimination_Act

Hunsdon said...

Steve:

This is excellent. I have always enjoyed your blog---hey, that's why I hang out here, that's why I check for updates a couple of times a day, right?--but this is excellent.

I really enjoy your writing. Sometimes, looking at this world, I think that I've turned into a cockroach or something, and have ideas that no sane person would entertain. Then it's like, "Hey, I wonder what Sailer has posted?" and there's a well reasoned, well written post about something or other.

Your work is appreciated. (Just not by the Very Serious Thinkers.)

Regards,

Hunsdon

Anonymous said...

contrast this with with the, relatively, orderly process by which bush actually went into iraq

Is this sarcasm? It's hard to tell on the net.

Wes said...

Thanks Anonymous for the link on the lack of rape in Korean prisons. I think this is one of the great injustices of our time. If a guy gets imprisoned for a drug offense or committing some fraud, he should not be subjected to this kind of brutal humiliation. It is stunning to me that society just giggles and accepts it.

The same Nice White People that like to pat themselves on the back for their embrace of compassion and inclusion remain oddly silent on this issue. Not a proud moment.

Anonymous said...

"I think they took him out cuz they were embarrassed about his closeness to him as he prepared to kill his people."

"We burned the village in order to save it" is what that sounds like to me. Except that only idiots would think that Obama, Sarkozy, etc. ever had any interest in saving that "village". NATO bombing, NATO support for an insurgency that would have been quickly squashed otherwise - how many people did THAT kill? Since when are neocons concerned about the welfare of the Libyan people? "He prepared to kill his people" - how many of his people did NATO prepare to kill and then killed?

Anonymous said...

i just got through with Buchanan's book- it's scary, sobering... inevitable.. its amazing how blind our elites are....

Anonymous said...

This is ridiculous, Paul was attacked by Bachmann, and then the rest of the field were practically falling over each other to sound more hawkish than she was. Do you notice how when people on the left like Kucinich oppose war and intervention they are principled, but when people on the right like Paul do oppose invading other countries they are a bunch of fascistic nationalists.

Another County said...

Agree on the sentiments about prison rape. That needs to never happen. Talk about giving sow guy a kosher meal or a sweat lodge or whatever, let's ensure the prisoners aren't getting raped and move on from there.

I'm sure there is a deterrent factor for many in that prison doesn't sound as bad without the possibility of rape, but then there is the tolerability factor for the rapers. On the extreme, big queer, tough homies (whatever small percentage that is) are probably drawn to prison where they can live as bad ass fats and never have to admit what they are.

Anonymous said...

i just got through with Buchanan's book- it's scary, sobering... inevitable.. its amazing how blind our elites are....

They're not blind at all. They're perfectly aware. If you've read think tank policy papers you'd know that they've known about, acknowledged, demographic trends and projections for years.

Let's! said...

"By the way, new cell phone footage suggests Gadaffi was sodomized while being lynched. Ha-ha, what a loser!"

Steve Sailer is so caring and gentle. I am so morally inferior that all I can think of is...justice for Lockerbie...finally.

Matt said...

Politics aside,the NYRB is the only journal of liberal opinion that's worth reading every issue.

It's impossible to pick it up without learning something new. The same cannot be said of Harper's or it's senile cousin, the New Yorker.

If they have to publish the occasional George Soros tonguebath interview to keep the lights on there, more power to them! They're doing good work, mostly.

Anonymous said...

they've known about, acknowledged, demographic trends and projections for years.
yes but they think it will turn us into a post racial utopia.

Anonymous said...

justice for Lockerbie...finally.
You think 'lockerbie's are going to end with the end of ghadaffi, buttercup?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the justice for Lockerbie comment. F that guy , actually S that guy - how terrified must some of the passengers been falling to their deaths?

Yes, the Muslims that did it were savages but oh well worked out in his case.


Dan in DC

Mr. Anon said...

"By the way, new cell phone footage suggests Gadaffi was sodomized while being lynched."

Well, these things happen in a democracy.

Anonymous said...

yes but they think it will turn us into a post racial utopia.

No, they don't. They know and acknowledge that it leads to more crime, less cohesion, etc.

Anonymous said...

"Politics aside,the NYRB is the only journal of liberal opinion that's worth reading every issue."

Book reviews in THE NATION and TNR are very good too.

Anonymous said...

"Thanks Anonymous for the link on the lack of rape in Korean prisons."

I think Kors take out their madness in movies and killing dogs.

Anonymous said...

And in going nuts over Apollo Ohno. A bunch of loonies.

Anonymous said...

Where is the link to Gaddafi sodomy?

Nanonymous said...

Where is that Tripoli again?

Could Obama be a true Jeffersonian?


Right, he is. Those Libyan pirates made our trade with the mighty Greece all but impossible. We had to take Kadaffi down to keep our economy from crumbling.

Anonymous said...

"Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003." The Act provides for analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State and local institutions,"

Thread drift... Okay, so where is the analysis of prison rape coming out of this act? Any links? I repeatedly read that males are raped in this country more than females and while it sounds plausible, I never saw reliable data on it.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer is so caring and gentle. I am so morally inferior that all I can think of is...justice for Lockerbie...finally.

You must be one of degenerate cowards that seem to abound in our society these days that gloats over the sodomy at Abu Ghraib and the sodomizing of white prisoners in American prisoners by black and hispanic gangs.

Anonymous said...

Okay, so where is the analysis of prison rape coming out of this act? Any links?

www.spr.org

Grumpy Old Man said...

You didn't really write, "Gaddhafi's end" in the context of sodomy, did you?

ben tillman said...

I don't understand how liberals can be so oblivious to the fact that the NYT and other supposedly liberal institutions are run by neocon sympathizers.

It probably has to do with the fact the the NYT hasn't explained it to them.

ben tillman said...

I agree with the justice for Lockerbie comment.

I don't. Only the victims or their representatives can mete out justice, and the US governnment as a much greater victimizer of the American people does not qualify as such a representative.

Another possible explaination said...

The theory pushed by talkshow host Alex Jones is that Gadaffi was fooled into driving out in broad daylight to negotiate surrender with Hillary Clinton who flew to Libya to meet with him.

His argument is thus. There are reports of white flags everywhere in the town. It's also inexplicable why his caravan would chose to drive out into the open in neat files in morning daylight with NATO planes and US drones everywhere. The chief negotiator for Gadaffi's tribe was executed in his home. It seems odd Hillary would unexpectedly visit a warzone not to mention it was perfectly timed with Gadaffi was capture and killing. Plus the official MSM story for the first days when most people pay attention was an obvious fabrication (killed in a gun battle) based upon youtube and rt.com videos immediately available.

Maya said...

"I agree with the justice for Lockerbie comment."

As I've said before, I only started to research Gaddaffi and Libya recently. However, from what I understand, the link between Gaddafi and Lockerbie has never been established. Didn't he invite a bunch of skilled workers from all over the world to help construct a more modern Libya, and weren't a bunch of them Palestinian? I read in several articles that a Libya-based Palestinian terrorist organization was thought to be guilty of several terrorist acts and that Gaddaffi ended up kicking all the Palestinian workers out because of these events.

I'm not saying that Gaddaffi didn't order this atrocity. I simply believe that the most precious thing we have here isn't the elements of democracy, but the republic built on certain principles. What happened to Gaddaffi, carried out and supported by us, is against the laws and principles of our republic. The whole ordeal is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

I don't know Steve.
The only moral to be drawn from the whole Gaddafi debacle is that you just simply cannot trust the west.
Remember how a few years back Tony Blair kissed and cuddled Gaddafi? (I wonder how it must feel like having such a dear acquaintance publically butchered?, it can't be a pleasant feeling).Apparent that brainless bigot John McCain also flew to Libya to grovel at Gaddafi's feet.
The minute the west (ie David Cameron and Sarkozy) saw a moment of weakness and vunerability they struck - like a predator would do at a prey animal.What does that tell you about the deep character and instincts of these men? - are these the sort of men you would entrust with your life?
Perhaps the message has got through to the Iranians that the west is nothing but a bunch of treacherous snakes - just like the mullahs and older Iranians always said, perhaps the naive and idealistic young Iranians have been taught a lesson.

beowulf said...

Okay, so where is the analysis of prison rape coming out of this act? Any links? I repeatedly read that males are raped in this country more than females and while it sounds plausible, I never saw reliable data on it.
There's this new website called wikipedia... :o)

The report cited data that showed each year in the U.S. detention facilities (jails, prisons, et al.) 60,000 inmates are sexually abused. The report noted that too often prison rape is seen as a joke rather than the problem it represents...
The report set out a series of recommendations aimed at curbing the number of rapes in U.S. incarceration facilities. Among the recommendations were better staff training in recognizing assaults, addressing overcrowding, and providing proper mental health care and medical care for victims...
The report's finding that 2.9 percent of inmates reported sexual abuse by staff versus 2.0 percent of inmates who reported rape by other prisoners was called surprising by commission chair Reggie Walton. Walton was specifically surprised by the incidence of male staff on male inmate sexual assault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prison_Rape_Elimination_Commission

eh said...

Tanenhaus is Jewish. Jews are often concerned about 'isolationism' because of Israel. But non-isolationism is the bread and butter of the military-industrial complex, which is self-prolonging at this point, and which is also mightily influenced by Jewish intellectuals and Jewish lobbying money. All of that has been pretty effective since being labeled an 'isolationist' has been more or less a smear for some time. So there you have it: as you say, he has nothing to worry about.

Anonymous said...

There is a reason why the male prison rape gag has become a trope and running joke in modern American culture.
You see, it is the easiest way for a blue comedian (both professional and amateur) to raise a quick and dirty cheap laugh - guaranteed.
What with bottoms, the phallus and the stalwart of all comedy - the hapless dupe whom we can all disavowal in a paroxysm of immunity and transference being involved, what's not to like?
As Freud said 'laughter is subliminated orgasm'.By invoking strong Freudian tropes (the anus, the phallus and the transference laden dupe - the 'butt' of all ill-humor, no pun intended!), the blue comedian is virtually assured of a hearty belly-laugh and the good favor of his audience for the rest of his act.

Svigor said...

Walton was specifically surprised by the incidence of male staff on male inmate sexual assault.

So when do we stop hearing about people being shocked at learning homosexuals do what a reasonable person would expect from them?

Anonymous said...

"Remember that line the next time a lib tells you his is the party of "rationality." Might does not equal right, except when it does."

Democrats aka liberals don't feel the need to appear rational or fair anymore. Immigration and demography have put them on autopilot to win all the cookies, forever, no matter what happens. That's what the 111th "Fuck You, Historic America" Congress was all about: a preview of coming political attractions.

The outcome of Decision 2012 notwithstanding, Obama gets a monument next to Lincoln's -- that is, if the ruling ethno-caucus doesn't jackhammer the statue of Lincoln out of its seat and replace it with a cheap Chinese Obama since the country has no money left to build any new national monuments.

Anonymous said...

It must be said what goes by the name of 'isolationism' is often interventionism-by-other-means.
For example, if you want Bobby to get beaten up, you might subtly encourage someone to kick his butt and then look the other way. Your hands remain clean but you enjoy Bobby getting whupped.

During the WWII era, I believe some people who opposed the entering the war were sincere Pacifists. But others wanted US to stay out cuz they secretly or not-so-secretly rooted for the Nazis or wanted Nazis to defeat commies and liberals in Europe. Many people in the America First movement felt this way. They really thought Germany would defeat Russia in no time(if we stayed out). But if Russia had attacked Germany first and Western Europe had been threated by communism, I think most people in the America First movement would have calld for helping 'our white brothers' against the Bolshie horde(though many progressives and leftist Jews would have then called for non-interventionism.)

Similarly, the peaceniks during the Cold War era were often pro-commmunist interventionists-by-other-means. They wanted US military to withdraw around the world because they were convinced that communism/Marxism would triumph without America's defense of reactionary regimes. So, many people who opposed our involvement in Vietnam really wanted communists to win. Though they called for 'peace' in Latin America, they really meant US shouldn't get engaged by supporting rightwing regimes so that leftwing insurgents could win. They were using peace as a cover for communist aggression.

I think Ron Paul is a genuine isolationist and not an interventionist-by-other-means-posing-as-an-isolationist. I just wish he weren't so dogmatic and orthodox about it. The kind of purely principled isolationism he's calling for is dangerous.

Anonymous said...

"The only moral to be drawn from the whole Gaddafi debacle is that you just simply cannot trust the west."

In politics, no one can trust anyone. Does any Democrat trust Republican or vice versa? Only dumb McCain wanted to sincerely ingratiate himself among Democrats.
Even Hillary and Obama don't trust one another. They pulled all sorts of dirty tricks in 2008. They kissed and made up but ONLY politically. Personally, they're bitter rivals.
That's just how politics is.
Don't trust anyone, not even your friends.

I would say Gaddafi's bigger problem was he trusted himself. He got so wrapped up in his aura and surrounded himself with yes-men and flatterers that he became indifferent and oblivious to the desires/demands of people. He thought of himself as an invincible and much-beloved leader of his people, a river to his people.
He lived wrapped up in his own lies. He should have taken a good look in the mirror and seen the real him. Like Harry Callahan said, 'a man's got to know his limitations'.

Anonymous said...

Gaffy's downfall is a great lesson to all those in power. Many Western leaders seem glib and sneering--and vainly moralistic--in their victory over him, but what happened to Gaddafi can happen to anyone(or their descendants). Even today, if Bush II were to fall into hands of Sunni Iraqis, what happened to Goofy would happen to Dubby; he'd be torn to pieces. It might even happen in the US if anti-war left--those calling him a 'war criminal'--got their hands on him in a back alley. The likelihood of such happening to Western leaders is close to nil today, but the rage and passions are already there. And just as Africanization of Libya radicalized Libyans, Muslimization of Europe could lead to more Breiviks. (The irony of West's support of rebel is each of them is like a Libyan Breivik.) We've seen riots in London and Paris. Those are just preludes. In history, a 100 yrs is nothing. 100 yrs from now, it's not farfetched to imagine mobs dragging out western leaders and doing to them what was done to Gadaffi. It could come from the new Muslim/African majority or from the resurgent Right.
Those who laugh today cry tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

If we wanna reduce prison rape, we need racial segregation. And to justify that, white folks have to say blacks are tougher/stronger.

Anonymous said...

I always thought the Lockerbie bombing was done by the Iranians as a payback for having had their own civilian airliner shot down by the US. That seems to be fairly straightforward. The evidence against Libya seems sketchy and contrived, very unconvincing. Reparations may have been agreed to simply as an expedient measure.

Rainforest Giant said...

Didn't any of you read futuristic utopian fiction? We will all be a 'smooth caramel complexion' and be about the same height and weight with 'pleasant regular features'.

The effect is supposed to be something like that of an American Indian. Who of course, all look alike.

Rainforest Giant said...

Oh, and BTW every seventy or eighty something old man should be tortured and sodomized to death before being finished off with a shot to the head. Isn't that what American Exceptionalism is all about?

Polichinello said...

The surge didn't even exist, silly. The British removed their troops (there weren't very many) and America added the same number of troops. The total troop level stayed the same.

The British troops had largely become a Potemkin force by that time. They avoided conflict at all cost, which is why the Sadrist faction took over Basra. American forces would later dislodge them. So you did have a net surge.

Still, I agree with the larger point that it was a marketing campaign. The big winner on the ground was the use of Shiite militias to cleanse Sunni neighborhoods. They drained the sea that the hostile Sunnis militias swam in. THAT's how you win guerrilla wars. Of course, that doesn't make very good copy when your foreign policy is based on the belief in the magical power of Democracy, so the Bush Administration kept quiet about it.

Anonymous said...

"Responding to international pressure, Libya's interim government said Monday it would establish a formal inquiry into the circumstances of Gadhafi's death."
Western hypocrisy can indeed be incredible. From the air, Nato forces blew up countless people via airstrikes, incinerating many of them on the spot. And surely innocent civilians got killed too. But the West now pressures the rebels to come clean on how Gaffy really died cuz unruly violence is no way to begin a democracy(as if Libya really has a chance of becoming a western-style democracy. Besides, the West isn't really a democracy anymore, with book banning and speech controls). The West egged on Libyan rebel violence until now; it looked the other way while rebels were lynching a whole bunch of people, especially black Africans(though, to be sure, atrocities surely went both ways). But now the West is suddenly ho-hum into 'rule of law'. By the way, speaking of rule of law, did Obama follow the Constitution when intervening in Libya? This is so much like PATHS OF GLORY where some upper crust general pulls the strings and eggs on those below him to go on the attack but then pretends his own hands are clean and admonishes others--the very people he egged on--for the failures and/or abuses.

Truth said...

The real reason Barry Got Rid of Mohmar?

Evil Sandmich said...

new cell phone footage suggests Gadaffi was sodomized

Thank you for not linking.

Anonymous said...

"The big winner on the ground was the use of Shiite militias to cleanse Sunni neighborhoods."

OK, but where did the Sunnis go? When Detroit got cleansed of whites, whites simply went to Detroit's suburbs. Where did Sunnis go from those Sunni neighborhoods? Just curious.

Anonymous said...

@airtommy said

The surge didn't even exist, silly. The British removed their troops (there weren't very many) and America added the same number of troops. The total troop level stayed the same.

The surge was a marketing campaign.

Nice try, actually by May 2007, the British only had 5,500 troops in Iraq:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11107739

The US addedd 20,000 troops via the surge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007

And we also extended Army and Marine units, who were set to depart Iraq, by a few months also contributing more numbers to the surge.

Polichinello said...

Where did Sunnis go from those Sunni neighborhoods? Just curious.

A lot moved to other sections of Iraq that are more remote and easily contained. Many took off for Syria and Jordan.

Marc B said...

Establishment types on both the left and right are quick to use the term "isolationist" for those they disagree with but rarely describe those with a philosophy they deem acceptable as globalist. The nationalist sentiments of the Tea Party are a healthy development in modern conservatism, but obviously the Republican establishment has obviously managed to subvert those desires with the current crop of front runners, minus Paul or Bachmann.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Lockerbie, let's have some perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Anonymous said...

Gaddafi looks like Paul Muni of Scarface fame. Given the knife used on his rear, maybe a movie is on the way called Scarbutt.

Goldman Sachs said...

16 Things Libya Will Never See Again


There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.

Having a home considered a human right in Libya.

All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 dinar (U.S.$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25 percent of Libyans were literate. Today, the figure is 83 percent.

Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kickstart their farms are all for free.

If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need, the government funds them to go abroad, for it is not only paid for, but they get a U.S.$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance.

If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50 percent of the price.

The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.

Libya has no external debt and its reserves amounting to $150 billion are now frozen globally.

If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.

A portion of every Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

A mother who gives birth to a child receive U.S.$5,000.

40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $0.15.

25 percent of Libyans have a university degree.

Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Manmade River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.

He may have been a despot, but a pretty mild one by 3rd world standards. By many accounts, better than our Western despot rulers.

Somebody is goining to make a lot of money buying up all those assets on the cheap, securitizing everything of value and endebting the government and populace.

Anonymous said...

justice for Lockerbie...finally.


You have be pretty damn clueless to think that what happened in Libya had anything to do with either Lockerbie or justice.

ATBOTL said...

What most Americans don't realize is that the "surge" had little effect on the violence. We outmaneurvered the Sunni insurgents by allowing Shia death squads to slauhgter them until they came to us for protection. That happened well before the surge. The last year or so of heavy American causulties, we were mainly being attacked by Shia militias. The lame US media never clarified that. That's what all the braying about "explosively formed penetrators" was about -- Iran told the Shia militias how to make them.

Once the Iran backed factions of the Shia(as opposed to the more Western, secular Shia lead by Ayad Allawi) had consolidated political control, Iran called off it's proxy militias and attacks against US troops went down. The US did not really retake Basra. The Sadr militia humiliated the Iraqi army in its failed US ordered assault, then were ordered to stand down by Iran. A Sunni-secular coalition won the last election, but the Iranian backed government simply refused to leave power and put opposition leaders in jail.

Iran won the war.

Anonymous said...

"16 Things Libya Will Never See Again"

Yes, theoretically them things were free. But when something is free but not available, it aint much good.

It's like 'stuff in the store is free' but the shelves being mostly empty.
And medical care may be free in Cuba, but the average Cuban isn't gonna get much of it.

Anonymous said...

If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.

Really? So why does anybody work for less than the average of the profession?

Anonymous said...

Somebody is goining to make a lot of money buying up all those assets on the cheap, securitizing everything of value and endebting the government and populace.

Right. There is tremendous economic rent (the excess of market price over cost) to be had by privatizing the assets. Under Gaddafi, by keeping the price lower and closer to cost, much of the economic rent was effectively being distributed to citizens.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 2:18 said: "16 Things Libya Will Never See Again"

Yes, theoretically them things were free. But when something is free but not available, it aint much good.

Hunsdon replied: Are you speculating, or do you have evidence?

Anonymous said...

And to justify that, white folks have to say blacks are tougher/stronger.

No. Whites are outnumbered by blacks in prison. Equal numbers of whites and blacks divided into two violent gangs would result in the white gang destroying the black one.

Anonymous said...

"No. Whites are outnumbered by blacks in prison. Equal numbers of whites and blacks divided into two violent gangs would result in the white gang destroying the black one."

But I've noticed... even in schools with many more whites than blacks, the fear is white of black.

Anonymous said...

"Hunsdon replied: Are you speculating, or do you have evidence?"

If things were so fabulous, why did people rebel?

In communist countries, tons of stuff were supposed to be 'free'. But people in commie nations fled to non-commie countries, not vice versa. Even poor people in capitalist nations didn't flee to commie nations.

NLF or the Neanderthal Liberation Front said...

"16 Things Libya Will Never See Again"

This partly explains Gaffy's downfall. He promised too many free stuff, which made too many people lazy and dependent on handouts. Such people don't develop the economy, and Libya had no economy outside oil all these yrs.

Also, when Gaffy ran out of goodies to hand out, the people felt cheated.
If you promise free stuff, people are not only gonna grow lazy but get mighty angry at you when you can no longer deliver.

NOTA said...

Anon:

Is that right? This page shows a majority white population, though it doesnt separate hispanics from non-hispanic whites.

An interesting aside here is that about half the federal prison population is in for drug offenses. Presumably most of them are serious bad guys (I think small time dealing and possession would usually land you in state prison, not federal prison, but I may be wrong), but I'd bet some substantial fraction were little danger to anyone but themselves. And at any rate, we spend a lot of money locking those people up--the war on drugs and our broader society-wide decision to lock up lots of people may make the streets safer (though I think we have to be far past the point of diminishing returns), but it sure costs a lot of money and a lot of years of peoples' lives being locked in a cage and occasionally raped by the guards or other inmates.

Anonymous said...

But I've noticed... even in schools with many more whites than blacks, the fear is white of black.

That's because you're ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room - State power which backs blacks.

Violent retaliation by whites would be much more common if there wasn't hostile State power backing blacks with infrastructure like prisons dominated by black gangs.

Anonymous said...

If things were so fabulous, why did people rebel?

There are different tribes in Libya. So part of it was tribal. Also it's clear that people like and want power and status over others and this desire isn't necessarily sated for everyone by material goods.

Anonymous said...

"Establishment types on both the left and right are quick to use the term "isolationist" for those they disagree with but rarely describe those with a philosophy they deem acceptable as globalist."

Look at most of the politicians and their positions. It should all be called eye-sore-nationist.

Anonymous said...

lol. i remember "the surge" and how annoying the 'cons were during that. and what did the surge accomplish udolpho? pretty much nothing, like anything the US did in iraq.

Check out Iraq Body Count. It's pretty obvious what the surge did: it reduced killings by about 50% over a couple of months and about 90% within a year and a half.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Not terribly well informed, are you?

Cennbeorc

Taxpayer Cannon Fodder said...

lol. i remember "the surge" and how annoying the 'cons were during that. and what did the surge accomplish udolpho? pretty much nothing, like anything the US did in iraq.

Check out Iraq Body Count. It's pretty obvious what the surge did: it reduced killings by about 50% over a couple of months and about 90% within a year and a half.

Cennbeorc


Great! So by dramatically increasing spending by increasing US headcount at $1M/soldier (the surge) and increasing even more expensive armed contractors (post-surge) we've gained exactly what from the chaos we've created and the radical Islamists we've put into power?

Anon87 said...

Justice for Lockerbie? Isn't Abdelbaset al-Megrahi still free?? Thanks Mandela!