dagblog - Comments for "Foreign Affairs On The Mythology Of Intervention"

Nah; whazza bank? We got our

we are stardust — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:54:40 +0000

Nah; whazza bank? We got our last three thou buried out next to the....ahhh! You almost got me sayin' where, you rascal, you.

I'm cooking mass quantities of food to trade for a bunch ol elk meat some folks laid on us; pretty nice. And s'posed ta be workin' on another Dark America story; three days of it got me needin' a giggle-guffaw break, it seems. And on cue: Trope said: ILK!

Our real work? You mean,

quinn esq — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:23:08 +0000

In reply to Sorry I goofed; I was feeling

Our real work? You mean, bilkin' and milkin' with our bros in the banks?

Yeah, baby.

Sorry I goofed; I was feeling

we are stardust — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:32:52 +0000

In reply to All the links are worth

Sorry I goofed; I was feeling a mite bit ilkish since the site turned me into Spam. ;o)

But yeah; the Falk was pretty intense, sort of turning Legal and Moral upside-down. Worth saving, huh? Shoot; there's too much to read. I ain't gettin' my real work done... ;o) Hangin here, goofin' around with mah fellow ilks...

All the links are worth

acanuck — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:54:02 +0000

In reply to Falk's piece at al jazeera

All the links are worth reading. Falk especially.

Stardust, here's a link to the full Foreign Policy article, not just the second page:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/25/the_hard_part?page=full

Falk's piece at al jazeera

quinn esq — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:11:42 +0000

In reply to I lost a long comment

Falk's piece at al jazeera was very solid, I thought.

I lost a long comment

we are stardust — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:51:06 +0000

In reply to This latter piece was

I lost a long comment characterizing these links an hour or two ago when I was declared to be Spam, not simply Anonymous. Don't have the energy to do it again.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/25/the_hard_part?page=0,1

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945...

First one's at least about looking ahead in Libya, Second is much better; even takes on 'precedent'. ;o)

This latter piece was

quinn esq — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:00:05 +0000

In reply to Thanks, Destor; I bookmarked

This latter piece was excellent, I thought. Apparently the guy is a historian of Libya as well.

For me... I hate Gaddafi, want to see his insanity stopped, want to see the citizenry protected, and yet... I can't quite see my way through (and certainly haven't heard the story told) of how we don't end up with Gaddafi holding Tripoli, instigating large-scale not-media-covered slaughters inside that region (with 63% of the Libyan population), with real threats to wreak havoc across the Mediterranean.

*** UNLESS we know that sufficient numbers of powerful insiders remain around Gaddafi are willing and able to undercut him, or unless we know his troops will bolt when it push comes to shove around Tripoli, or unless we can hit him with a drone. ***

A divided Libya, on its own, just becomes an incredible nightmare. Oil production will be shutdown by one side or other... we will see massive internal cleansings (this is a society with secret committees and a lot of reasons for grudges, and for gains)... and since Gaddafi has billions in gold, and stashed in banks, mercenaries easily accessible, plus apparently strong support within some tribes and military quarters. And the rebels are gonna beat that head-on?

Again, all I can say is that unless we have inside dope that Gaddafi can be taken out by drone, or there are those close to him willing to undercut or remove him, or we know his military can be divided... then we're in the shit now. And infinitely moreso, the people of Libya.

And yes, it's this that makes me incredibly angry at the high moral horses than the "pro-intervention" people are on. Oh sure, there are "risks" they say and the "end game" is unclear (for of war, I guess), but then they just go on with their sermons and lectures about morality and ethics and practicality, beating their chests about the poor people about to be massacred, and "don't we care?"

Seriously. They're lecturing the critics of intervention about PRACTICALITY. Dear God.

Thanks, Destor; I bookmarked

we are stardust — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:47:26 +0000

In reply to Foreign Affairs On The Mythology Of Intervention

Thanks, Destor; I bookmarked that one. This one is about the impractical division of Libya into east and west, and why foreign powers won't likely stop at protecting Benghazi, but will want to ooust Gadaffi for good.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67669/dirk-vandewalle/to-the-shores-of-tripoli