The US and the Allies bomb Lybia. I am sure it is all about freedom and democracy. Oil has nothing to do with it, just like Iraq.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gadhafi-forces-enter-rebel-citys-outskirts-20110319-072025-534.html

Tuesday: John McCain was/is a crazy??

Tuesday: I never cared about debates, this man was a war naval aviator who endured more than most of us and a long track record as a US sen.. to call him a craze is disrespectful and wrong. You may be right about Palin.. but I believe the republican machine picked her however.. if there were to be a revote NOW.. He might win

Artful Dodger: You're right

Artful Dodger:

> I notice you didn't disagree that he's the weakest president in history.

> and who ordered those strikes? Bush? Oh wait. Obama is president now. Guess he did it.

Isn't that a contradiction? He is so weak that he orders bombing Lybia.

Well, I suppose that what some people call "weakness" others might call restraint.

If it were Bush, he would be talking no UN backing, full scale shock and awe, followed by 500,000 troops, only to find a weak, spent army and no WMDs. Now, there is a proof of strength if I ever saw one.

Of course, to point to the fact that interfering in Lybia is against one of the main principles of the UN Charter is a moot point because the UN ceased to mean anything in the 1970s. Whatever happened to the UN not inerfering in the internal affairs of a nation?

Well, Obama is trying to play the "we support democracy" game. I wonder if he would do the same with Saudi Arabia? Oops! I forgot that this country that does not even allow women to run for elections (something that Lybia allowed under Ghadafi) is one of our favorite allies. Then there is Pakistan, and a few other favorites in the Middle East. I suppose that democracy is in the eye of the beholder.

Artful Dodger:

> Name calling is what the left does best.

I suppose that is why you labeled Obama a "Marxist". Is that not name calling?

Well, I am sure there are a lot of Marxists out there who would find the insinuantion of Obama a Marxist an insult. Obama is nothing but a capitalist banker's pet. If Obama were a Marxist, he would have dismantled the whole banking system and nationalized it, instead of giving away billions in bailout money. Stealing from working class taxpayers to give to capitalists, that is anything but a Marxist move. If anything, it is something Republicans would do. But then, the bailout was originally the brainchild of the Bush administration. Republicans thought of it, and Democrats carried it out. It just goes to show. When the chips are down, both parties end up being the same.

Tuesday: He "deserves" to be prez, but wouldn't make a good one.

Why? Because his face twitched and got red at debates?

Actually, a few posts with some name calling and turning personally argumentative have been deleted.

Back on topic without "fighting" please.

Artful Dodger: But you said.... "And the comments just keep rolling in. I like this one best!"

So I guess you have some thought that feels calling Obama Marxist is appropriate. Yet Marxism in itself (just like Socialism) covers a great many ideologies. Just like someone could say they are Republican yet also a member of the Tea Party

... But that as much seems to a dogmatic cry based on the cold war divisions. ie propaganda.

Artful Dodger: Yes there is.... using 50 year old fears based on the cold war stereotyping like that used by McCarthy to cause hate and fear within the people listening/reading in the USA seems to be the current right wing approach to any debate on matters currently in the news.

Yes.. I know what a thesis is... I also know when someone is constantly using stereotypes of no particular substance and posting such (propaganda) as a means to say they are right.

eg... the claims that the "left" are all abandoning Obama.. where is actual figures supporting such claims.. is it like the Daily Mail article you posted as quoted from some blogger that only told a fraction of the truth of the articles he was quoting from?

Well, people can debate all they want about the differences between capitalism and communism. In reality they have become so similar that sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference. In the end, both systems boil down to who has the money and the power. For example:

- In Communism wealth and political power are in the hands of a small Communist party elite that makes most of the decisions on how the government should be run.

- In Capitalism wealth and political power are in the hands of a small corporate elite that makes most of the decisions on how the government should be run.

- In Communism the masses are kept from revolting against the system by convincing them that the Communist system exists to ensure that all working class people are equal and endowed with political power through the "soviets" (or some similar system of people's council wich in effect has little political power).

- In Capitalism the masses are kept from revolting against the system by convincing them that the Capitalist system exists to ensure that all working class people are free and endowed of political power through elections (a voting system that gives people minuscule political power).

- Communism uses propaganda to make sure that the masses are convinced that their system is the best and that other systems are flawed and failed.

- Capitalism uses propaganda to make sure that the masses are convinced that their system is the best and that other systems are flawed and failed.

The great proof of how similar both systems are is the ease with which the US became really chummy with China and how both countries integrated their financial and economic systems into a system of cheap production and mass consumption.

Of course, neither capilaists nor communists want to accept that both systems are elitist and that people are free only as long as their actions do not threaten the power of the ruling elite and the economic elite. Both systems glorify individuals and engage in the cult of personality. Just as the USSR was fascinated by the cult (and hatred) of its communist leaders, so western countries are fascinated by the actions of its ruling politicians and multibillionaires. It is all the same thing, just packaged differently.

Artful Dodger: All I can say is if anyone wants to believe that they will believe anything.
More like rumour spreading. Surely most people would not believe it?

Artful Dodger: Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now - where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife - which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press...

"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behaviour by Iraqi factions," he said...


*************************

I don't think even Bush meant for USA troops to stay in Iraq permanently.. That was the plan or.. part of the plan they didn't have back then when they invaded Iraq wasn't it??

Übergeek 바둑이: As has been practised over the last century and into this... Yep.

Just reading up on the cold war and find this....

"Fallout from the testing was not - as most people mistakenly believe - confined to Southern Utah. Its silent, unseen poison has touched the lives of thousands of people nationwide, spreading as far as the East Coast and Canada. A 1997 report released by the National Cancer Institute found that much of the nation was blanketed with fallout from the atmospheric tests performed at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 to 1962. Records of the Public Health Service and Atomic Energy Commission show that fallout from Nevada poisoned milk in New England, wheat in South Dakota, soil in Virginia and fish in the Great Lakes. In addition, contaminated milk was shipped to Nevada. Hay was shipped to California. Sheep were sheared and their wool sold out of state. One air force colonel theorized that there isn't anyone in the U.S. who isn't a downwinder.

John Gofman, who worked for the Atomic Energy Commission and has written definitive books on the effects of radiation, says the government underestimated by 20 times the rates of cancer radiation caused during the years of atomic testing. The accumulated fallout exposure from the Nevada Test Site was three times as much as that from Chernobyl, according to 1998 congressional testimony from Owen Hoffman, former chief scientist for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Testing moved underground in 1963, with nuclear tests conducted twice a month at the Nevada Test Site until testing was banned in 1993. During those 30 years of underground testing, however, 15 percent of the 760 announced tests leaked radiation into downwind areas.

For four decades, the U.S. government covered up the human and environmental devastation of fallout from atomic testing. During the years of testing, the government continually reassured citizens that atomic testing was safe and even encouraged families to "participate in a moment of history" by watching the blasts. Some Utahns still have copies of the pamphlets issued by the government featuring pictures of tranquil cowboys and bylines assuring: "Fallout does not constitute a serious hazard to any living thing outside the test site." Officials claimed that radiation in bombs was no more harmful than sunshine....

...In terms of dollars, the nuclear arms race cost America $5.5 trillion, according to figures in "Atomic Audit." But in terms of human health and suffering, nuclear testing was catastrophic. Given the half-life of deadly fission byproducts like iodine-131, plutonium-283, strontium-90 and radioactive cesium-137, we have yet to see the end of the suffering caused by atomic testing.

I wrote my story hoping to help people understand how the nuclear age continues to shape our lives. I am not an expert, but I am a downwinder.

http://waynesimister.mysite.com/utahpast.htm

Map showing exposure levels... http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/fig1.html

Artful Dodger:

> Go...stay...go...Does Obama have a clue what he's doing? Of course, it would help if we had a strategy.

Here is a question: "Does the American government have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of a country?"

Whether Americans like it or not, what is happeneing in Lybia is an internal matter and it is up to Lybians to sort it out. It is up to the Lybian people to fight for their rights and depose their dictator. Why should Obama push for regime change? Why should he interfere at all? Is Lybia a sovereign country? Or is it right for Americans to use their military might to impose their kind of regime (like they did in Iraq)?

If the US is using military might to change regimes in the Middle East, why not force change in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? After all, Pakistan has been the largest source of illegal trafficking of nuclear technology and is by far the country that has supported terrorism the most (even more than Iran or Lybia).

The reality is that the American government does not care whether a government is a democracy or a dictatorship. A government is friendly as long as that government does business for the benefit of American monopolies. If the American government cared about democracy, it would have stopped doing business with dictatorships and totalitarian governments a long time ago. No more Saudi oil, no more cheap Chinese goods, no more cheap minerals from Africa, etc.

It is very hypocritical to single out Lybia, when Pakistan and Saudi Arabia remain the biggest terrorist threats the US faces.

Gadhafi is easy to get rid of... n' I think after recent(ish) negotiations to persuade him stopping his nuclear program by Blair... He worried even the Arab League and gave them an opportunity to have the focus taken off their countries problems.

 Übergeek 바둑이: or why or the Ivory Coast in West Africa or Sudan if because A Dictator is murdering his people? However it looks like this Coalition is falling apart..but what you said about the U.S. also goes for Europe and their Oil dreams and hypocrisy, if not double for them.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752521,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

Artful Dodger: by the way , that Libyan terrorist that got released from prison via a special sneaky  deal by the UK Government is still alive... apparently he had a miracle of good health after being said that he was going to die real soon... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40760074/ns/us_news-security/
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041

.. Is it me or are some of those reports.. opinions?

Just they were discussing whether the ol' presidenti was a legit target (on the news) after one of his compounds was hit. They were asking on whether Gadhafi could be killed under the UN resolution.... amongst talk that Gadhafi was thinking about emigrating to a Latin American country.

On the BBC news now.. how Benghazi'ans are thanking coalition forces for saving them from the "no mercy" attack Gadhafi was promising.

(V): and I'm sure Jefferson Davis and Oliver Cromwell would be thanking any coalition that bailed them out too. Just like the Taliban was so grateful for help against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Who knows who these rebels are...Again.. the U.S. should stay out of other civil wars. But I thought that the UK was Qaddafi's best buddy after that Lockerbie intrigue..how quickly things turn... oh and they"re not MY opinion .. they are German and UK..well Australian anyways, news articles..oh and yes..MSNBC.. that noted Republican news organ..(sarcasm intended).. I know since they don't meet someones agenda here ..some try to twist and discredit things here

GT: I was referring to them being an opinion of those who wrote the articles, not you!!

As for Gadhafi being the UK's bestis buddy I think the release might have been part of the deal to get Gadhafi to stop thinking Nuclear. That UK arms companies have been supplying him.. that as far as I've heard since this war has started has stopped or is being stopped. It seemed the justification for selling him arms was that as a country Libya was allowed to defend itself.

If you can try and watch Question time.. BBC prog.. the point on arms sales was brought up. Last weeks or the one before I think.

Artful Dodger: no doubt

Artful Dodger:

> I tend to agree with you here. I think that one factor for going after Gadhafi is the
> Lockerbie bombing. One has to wonder what the US will do next?

The truth is that Gaddafi was ignored for a long time. After the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 the outgoing Reagan administration and the new Bush administration put a lot of pressure on him.

It was determined that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, a Lybian intelligence and security forces officer, had planned the bombing, although he maintaned his innocence for 8 years. Gaddafi handed over Megrahi and another man to be tried. It was that handing over that thawed the relations between Gaddafi and other European countries. Even the George W. Bush administration took a relatively more moderate stance towards Gaddafi on accounts of his deals with Europeans and and his willingness to trade oil.

Gaddafi did not become an issue until this wave of protests reached the news. Before then people did not really care about him. Now everybody talks about him.

The propaganda machinery is in full force now, from both sides. Western countries would like nothing more than some puppet to rise to power (somebody like Egypt's Mubarak). If our western governments really cared about democracy, they would not support and pour cash on a dictator like Mubarak while condemining one like Gaddafi.

Nobody cares about how the government in Bahrain has dealt with protesters. In that country the government has oppressed the Shia majority for decades. Our western governments have turned a blind eye because Bahrain sells cheap oil, runs banking monopolies, and oppresses a pro-Iranian Shia majority. While Lybia is made a big deal in the news, Bahrain is nothing more than a footnote.

Then there are worse, more oppressive regimes and bloody conflics that get ignored. I wonder if they would declare a no-fly zone over Tibet and Chechnya, and put sanctions on China and Russia. Would they stop buying diamonds and Europium ore from Congo and send US troops to stop the slaughter there? I don't mind our western governments talking of promoting democracy. What I can't stand is double-faced hypocrysy.

Übergeek 바둑이: The name of the country is “Libya”. :)

Artful Dodger:

> no matter that man's health, he should never have been released. He should have died in prison.

I am not going to defend Megrahi. However, people whould take in account several things. His trail and conviction happened just prior to and as the 9-11 terrorist attack occurred.

"Court proceedings started on 3 May 2000. The crucial witness against Megrahi for the prosecution was Tony Gauci, a Maltese storekeeper, who testified that he had sold Megrahi the clothing later found in the remains of the suitcase bomb. At the trial, Tony Gauci appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question, and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold. Nonetheless, Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in March 2002. Five years after the trial, former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, publicly described Gauci as being "an apple short of a picnic" and "not quite the full shilling". ... During the trial, the defence showed that Megrahi's co-defendant, Fhimah, had an air-tight alibi, having been in Sweden at the time of the sabotage."

So the prosecutions star witness caould not even be sure if it was the accused he sold the clothes to, or when. However, the judges had no reasonable doubt at all.

"Megrahi's appeal against his conviction in January 2001 was refused on 14 March 2002 by a panel of five Scottish judges at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. According to a report by the BBC, Dr Hans Köchler, one of the UN observers at the trial, expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings and spoke of a "spectacular miscarriage of justice"."

So the appeal against the rather dubious evidence presented was refused in early 2002, just after the 9-11 attack. It is no wonder that they were eager to find him guilty.

"Dr Hans Köchler wrote to Foreign Secretary David Miliband on 21 July 2008 saying:
As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi's case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?"

So the prosecution, following orders from the Foreign Secretary, was withholding evidence from the defense.

"The first official call for the release of Megrahi was made by Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland the Rt Rev Professor Iain Torrance. In July 2003 he petitioned British Prime Minster Tony Blair to consider his release in view of the widespread unease in Scotland concerning the safety of the verdict. The year before, the Kirk’s leading scientist, Dr John Cameron, had written a report criticising the technical evidence presented at the trial in The Hague. Nelson Mandela had also asked for the intervention of the Western Christian churches in what he described as a clear miscarriage of justice."

Poor technical evidence?

"On 14 September 2008, the Arab League Ministerial Council passed a resolution calling for the 'political hostage' Megrahi to be released from prison in Scotland. The resolution demanded that the UK government should hand to Megrahi's lawyers the documents which the SCCRC had identified, adding that Britain's refusal to do so represented a 'miscarriage of justice'. The Arab League also endorsed Libya's right to compensation for the damage done to its economy by UN sanctions which were in force from 1991 until 1999."

So if the Megrahi trial was found a mistrial, they would have to pay compensation not just to Megrahi, but to the entire Lybian economy.

It seems to me that if Megrahi was guilty, the prosecution must have had other evidence not presented in trial. For example, intelligence reports that could compromise some operative high in the Lybian government. Otherwise I don't see how they could have no reasonable doubt about his guilt. I suspect that the ultimate decision to release him was influenced by the poor evidence and the political influence that the UK executive branch of government put on the judiciary branch.

Apparently the man was given 3 months to live, with a chance of living up to 20 years if his cancer went into remission. 2 1/2 years later he is surviving. His doctors in Lybia credit his being near his family as helping to imrpove his health. I suppose there is a big difference between living in a jail cell surrounded by guards, or living a vila in the Mediterranean coast surrounded by his wife and children.

Pedro Martínez:

> The name of the country is “Libya”. :)

Lybia, Libya. I should take spelling lessons!

Übergeek 바둑이: No worries, it's often misspelled even by journalists… :)

... in reference to the constitution where some people in the USA would deny other people in the USA the right to have a choice regarding parenthood?

Tuesday: Nope, it ain't. It would help if sex education and contraception were more widely taught in some areas of the USA.

.. But the religious nuts don't like that idea.

(V): I'm pretty sure we all pay school taxes, regardless of having children

The Col: ... Aye, just like everyone pays towards the funding of the military..

.. yet how many of us actually declare war on another country outside our respective governments declarations?

I'll bet Gadhafi is shak'n now

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+head+NATO+mission+Libya/4503678/story.html

The Col: It would seem so. BBC news is reporting that "..... Col Muammar Gaddafi is seeking to convince Western powers to accept a plan which would see him cede powers to his son, Saif al-Islam, for a transitional period of two to three years in return for a ceasefire. A Libyan official the pan-Arab newspaper that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi had discussed the proposal with US, British and Italian diplomats. He is said to have also wanted assurances that the Gaddafi family would not face prosecution...."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/9438022.stm

The Col:

> I'll bet Gadhafi is shak'n now

How heroic of our Canadian military to be lackeys for Nato. I am sure they really care about civilians, specially when Qatar just announced that they are ready to start shipping oil from East Lybia. I am really, really sure western oil companies will make no money once Gaddafi leaves power. And I am sure that all the oil money will really go to help poor Lybians, rather than fatten the pockets of oil company executives. Well, it is western style democracy, which means do whatever makes the monopolies rich.

Übergeek 바둑이: Would you rather have Gaddafi's progrom continue? Yes the rebels have said oil will flow and of course us in the west will get the oil.... but in the end result will be one less dictator and murderer in power.

(V):

To be replaced by whom? An oil company executive like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan? Or by a bank embezzler like Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq? What guarantee is there that he will not be replaced by a corrupt puppet or another dictator?

Like I said before, I don't see our western power doing ANYTHING to change Saudi Arabia. According to the opposition inBahrain 250 have been detained and 44 are missing following the protests there:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110328/wl_nm/us_bahrain_arrests_1

"Earlier this month, Bahrain's Sunni rulers, the al-Khalifa family, imposed martial law and called in troops from fellow Sunni-ruled Gulf neighbors, including top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, to quell weeks of unrest during pro-democracy protest led by mostly Shi'ite demonstrators."

Will they bomb that country too? I doubt it because they sell cheap oil the way our western empires want. That is the only difference. It is all about oil. Anything else is nothing but empty ideological excuses. Democracy counts only when it gives western monopolies a business advantage.

Joe Biden comes and urges the Bahrain monarchy to hold talks with the opposition.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110327/pl_afp/bahrainpoliticsunrestus_20110327165457

So the world's hypocrites say "lets hold talks in Bahrain, and let's bomb Lybia". Nice double standard.

Übergeek 바둑이: as always.. the human nature 's dark side prevails.. double standards been happening that way forever.

Übergeek 바둑이: What guarantee is there he will be replaced by another dictator? It might be that at least with this 'battle' the peoples revolt might actually work!! It would be worse if the NATO forces left the rebels to one like Ghaddafi? Do you remember the Iraqi uprising that was encouraged by the west and then let down in terms of logistical support? Saddam massacred the rebels.

I know Saudi Arabia is going through it's revolution and people are and will be killed, detained, etc... Unfortunately we have 'Iraq', North Korea amongst others which have drained Trillions of $ and tied up a fair proportion of troops.

I don't see no magic wand suddenly ending those commitments.

As one friend once said.. it's like peeling an onion with a strawberry at the middle.

(V):

The kings of Bahrain figured that the protesters were dangerous to his regime, so he ordered the army to send in anti-riot police. They shot at the demonstrators, threw tear gas at them and detained over 250, 44 of which have disappeared. Then Joe Biden comes out and says that talks is the way to go. What about providing logistical support to those protesters? Are we leaving them to the wolves, like you said we did in Iraq?

> Unfortunately we have 'Iraq', North Korea amongst others which have drained Trillions of $ and tied up a fair proportion of troops.

So we can spare money and planes for Libya. We can send weapons to the rebels (in case anyone noticed, those rebels are armed to the teeth. I wonder who supplied the weapons.)

I think we are just making excuses for our double standard. Bahrain is OK because they run big banking consortiums and sell cheap oil. Libya is not, because Gaddafi nationalized the oil industry. I don't buy the pro-democracy ideology. I suppose it is acceptable to let Bahrain oppress its population because they are mostly Shia muslims. Libya is a different story. We do oil deals with Gaddafi when it is politically and economically convenient, and when it is convenient we bomb him too. Maybe I am the only who sees oil as the main motivation in all of this. If Libya had no oil, would any of this be happening? Would any of our governments care?

Übergeek 바둑이: Quite honestly ... I don't think they can stop at least some changes. It might be another Solidarity

.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Polish_trade_union%29 ..... type movement. Some deaths are inevitable.. But it worked.

"If Libya had no oil, would any of this be happening? Would any of our governments care?"

Not as much quite probably. ... .. but use citizens would. And we still as humans 'aid'.

Übergeek 바둑이: "If Libya had no oil, would any of this be happening?"
of course not.