Poll: Because Gaddafi was a bad man, it was OK for the West to help overthrow him?

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Sat May 23, 2015, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

even if that turned Libya into a failed state, helped create ISIS, and made life far worse for the Libyan people.

23 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Helping to overthrow Gaddafi was the right thing to do
	5 (22%)
	Helping to overthrow Gaddafi was the wrong thing to do
	15 (65%)
	Helping to overthrow Gaddafi was incredibly stupid and/or evil
	2 (9%)
	Manny, you're presenting a false choice because (please indicate below)
	0 (0%)
	Other
	1 (4%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. Was it right for his people to rebel against him?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. That sounds like a great idea for another poll

I highly recommend that you go for it.

[hrmjustin]

6. This is as good a place as any.

[truebrit71]

25. No. Actually it isn't.

Ask your poll.

[hrmjustin]

27. I can ask here thank you.

[hrmjustin]

31. Who made you the boss of gd?

i am happy right here thsnk you.

[truebrit71]

34. ???

Answer the poll, don't answer the poll, but don't drop a turd in the punch bowl and then feign innocence.

[hrmjustin]

36. I didn't realize asking a question was dropping a turd.

In any event it is clear what you are doing so you can do it by yourself.

Enjoy your day.

[truebrit71]

38. LOL!

...

[polly7]

37. Except, 'his people' didn't rebel against him.

CIA trained Al Quada 'rebel leaders' started it all, and lying propaganda fueled it enough that lies by these very 'leaders' persuaded the UN to send in 'humanitarian intervention' (which was everything but).

Here's the video you're too afraid to watch. It has the timeline and News articles from all around the world that make perfectly clear exactly what happened.

...

[jamzrockz]

93. But Polly7

people on DU have assured me that Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who goes around killing innocent people. They believe that dictator automatically means pure evil and brutal action on innocent people. They say this without any evidence and without any of it being any of their business.

Now that the society they live is in shit, they can comfortably go back to their homes knowing that they have helped liberate the people of Libya from the evil ways of Gaddafi. The whole Libyan affair was the point where I realized that politics for the most part is screwed up and at that point, I promised never ever to vote for anyone who supported the illegal destruction of that country.

[polly7]

96. Informative video, thank you!

I was literally sick watching that day, I'm not sure even what site I was on but I saw his torture and fatal sodomy with a bayonet live. Knowing how every bit of this was a lying sham, I actually felt pure rage - not just for the death of a human being in such a sick, sick way - but for every death we caused, and all those our 'friendly rebels' carried out with no fear of repercussion. The torture, rapes, burning alive of Gaddafi supporters and migrants falsely accused of being Gaddafi 'mercenaries' (our merenaries were the Al Qaeda scum of the earth) went on and on. Every day a new atrocity. But the west cheered! All from lies well delivered to exactly the right people - so much like Iraq, it still makes me sick.

[BainsBane]

3. Your mistake is in thinking foreign policy is about right or wrong

It is about US interests. I would say that it turned out, in retrospect, to be against US interests because of the ensuing instability.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. I don't see "US interests" in the questions or answers.

And I don't even know what it means.

[BainsBane]

9. Then I suggest you pick up a book

on foreign policy or diplomatic history. Any will do. The way you have posed the question is itself a fallacy. The US has never operated based on what was "right." Any arguments about right and wrong are spun for public consumption. Foreign policy by any nation is about how it assesses it's own interests, which can be economic as well as geopolitical. The US has generally acted in ways it believed served its interests but often backfired: Vietnam, Iraq, most of its interventions in Latin America, Iran in 1954, on and on.

Did you never take a course in foreign policy or diplomatic history in college?

[MannyGoldstein]

12. I'm a citizen of the US.

I don't think that Gaddafi was overthrown for me, or for most other US citizens. Nor was Saddam Hussein.

[BainsBane]

15. You and I don't make foreign policy

It has nothing to do with us. It has to do with how US administrations assess national interests, and there has been one clusterfuck after another throughout the 20th-21st century.

Why are you acting so naive on this? I find it difficult to believe you know none of this history. Mosaddegh, Arbenz? You know none of it? Certainly you know about Vietnam.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. You're addressing a different issue.

And assuming that the Republican/Third-Way usage of the phrase "US interests" is the only correct interpretation.

[BainsBane]

19. That's a weak cop out, Manny

The concept of national interests is not Republican or Third Way. It's the basis of any nation's foreign policy. Either you know nothing about your own nation's history, or you flailing because you can't work off script. Either way, it's weak. Was Teddy Roosevelt Third Way? Truman? JFK? LBJ? They were Third Way decades before the Third Way existed? Was the Cold War Third Way? Anyone with ANY knowledge of US diplomatic history knows there has been very little to no difference between the two parties. Democrats and Republicans alike fought the Cold War. If you aren't going to learn the most basic things about your country's history, how can you possible make political decisions in the present? There is nothing admirable in refusing to learn about or engage with your nation's history. It fact, it's tragic, particularly since you hold yourself up as some expert on politics.

This only shows the limitations of your game. You are backed into a corner and can't engage in any thoughtful way with the diplomatic history of your own country, so throw out Third Way when referring to a time period long before the Third Way existed.

The only people who believe the US seeks to carry out benevolence around the world are those who uncritically accept US propaganda as fact. They tend to be Republicans, and I have never before seen anyone who purports to be on the left who didn't understand the gap between public statements on foreign policy and reality. Even the most cursory exposure to foreign policy, an intro poly sci course, shows that the foreign policy is about national interests. It's particularly odd omission for anyone who was alive during the Cold War.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. I'm not going to respond to insults well-marbled with nonsense.

Have a good day.

[BainsBane]

26. You're the one who referred to examples from the Cold War as "Third Way"

Manny. Yeah, I got that was your way of avoiding engaging substantively.

[okaawhatever]

87. +20,000 nt

[hrmjustin]

24. Is every democrat you disagree with Third way?

[BainsBane]

30. JFK is Third Way now too!

LBJ. The whole history of the US is Third Way.
It's the old, backed into a corner and have no response use of "Third Way." So he insulted some Democratic icons. You win some you lose some.

[hrmjustin]

39. Up until recently I never even heard of third way.

[Art_from_Ark]

91. LBJ is NOT Third Way

War on Poverty
Great Society
Medicare
Voting Rights Act
Civil Rights Act

LBJ's economic policies placed great emphasis on helping the people at the bottom of the economic ladder. Not the bullshit "chained CPI", "end of welfare as we know it", "tax breaks for the richest of the rich" and "corporations über alles" that permeate the current politico-economic climate.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. No. nt

[hrmjustin]

46. Thank you.

[brooklynite]

5. As one of the few people here who've actually LIVED in a dictatorship...

...I don't recommend it, even if it's "stable". I have no objection to helping to bring down dictators.

I also note that very few voices here were concerned that bringing down Mubarark might destabilize Egypt.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Did we help remove Mubarak?

Through massive direct military intervention?

I missed that.

[Adrahil]

10. Well, unlike. Mubarak, Qadaffi was willing to use his military....

To annihilate his people.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Can you point to examples of how one was obviously worse than the other?

I didn't know that was the case.

[BainsBane]

32. Mubarak willingly stepped down

in the face of massive protests. Qaddafi used the military on his own people. That in this context is the key difference. I suppose that makes Mubarak "Third Way."

[MannyGoldstein]

41. "Willingly stepped down"?

That's the new phrase used for "lost control of his military"?

[AZ Progressive]

8. Yep, and what has gone to fill in that power vacuum?

[Exilednight]

35. Egypt had the military to fill the vacuum, which certainly was not the most ideal

Situation, but the country did not fall in to all out anarchy like it did in other countries.

Could it have been better? Certainly.

BUT

It could have been MUCH WORSE.

[NuclearDem]

11. Probably because Mubarak was a US ally and Qaddafi was not.

[BainsBane]

33. Obama withdrew support for Mubarak before he fell

Something the GOP has been very critical of.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. You mean "before he stepped down willingly"

Try to keep it consistent, thanks.

[BainsBane]

47. In the face of popular uprising

There is nothing inconsistent in my use of the two terms. And really, after that last discussion, I won't be taking critiques on discussions of international relations from you.

[oberliner]

18. Which one?

What was it like? How did you escape?

[brooklynite]

77. I was an ex-pat in the Philippines when Marcos declared martial law...

One day, the TV stations were off the air, the newspapers weren't being printed and there were military checkpoints on the major roads.

Because we were foreigners, we were able to leave at any time so we stayed (my father was the Asian head of Singer Sewing Machine). But we got a nice perspective on arbitrary arrest, seizure of businesses, suppression of press freedom, and elimination of representative democracy "in the interest of national security".

[Warren Stupidity]

79. So by "lived under a dicatorship" what you actually meant was that

you were the privileged child of an american corporate exec living in an american enclave in an american-friendly dictatorship.

That must have been a nightmare. How did you survive?

[okaawhatever]

88. No, what he actually meant is exactly what he said. He DID live under a dictatorship. Your contempt

for anyone from a successful family is very revealing. Not only that, you didn't bother to research the role Brooklynite plays in Democratic politics. Just recently he housed 4 Ready4Hillary workers in his own home. People he didn't even know. What have you done for the party lately?

[Warren Stupidity]

92. He made a ridiculous claim.

Ridiculous claims are ridiculous regardless of other unrelated factors.

[oberliner]

80. Fascinating

Thanks for sharing that.

[brooklynite]

83. Right...and I've had a comfortable life throughout...

...as a white, male, heterosexual. So I must not care about civil rights, a social safety net and progresdive taxation, right?

You know, I'm going to be busy throwing some widows out of their houses, so could you ask Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and Alan Grayson to send back their contributions? I don't know what I was thinking...

[jamzrockz]

94. I lived under a dictatorship

and I would have been praying that he was as good to his people as Gaddafi and one thing that I would have been 100% opposed to was western military intervention to "liberate" us. I seriously think the world would be a better place if western nations especially US, France and England minded their own damn business.

[sadoldgirl]

13. Destabilizing any country leaves

a vacuum, where no one can tell, who or what fills it.
That is the danger we should have learned from Iraq
at least. So, our interference was if not totally wrong,
to say it at a minimum totally miscalculated.

How many more do we have to follow this road, until
we learn anything?

BTW, the ME is NOT like Europe.

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. Libya now open for ISIS, Africa destabilized and flooded with guns, new immigration crisis...

ISIS comes to Libya (http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/isis-libya/)

(CNN)The black flag of ISIS flies over government buildings. Police cars carry the group's insignia. The local football stadium is used for public executions. A town in Syria or Iraq? No. A city on the coast of the Mediterranean, in Libya.

Fighters loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are now in complete control of the city of Derna, population of about 100,000, not far from the Egyptian border and just about 200 miles from the southern shores of the European Union.

The fighters are taking advantage of political chaos to rapidly expand their presence westwards along the coast, Libyan sources tell CNN.

ISIS Beheadings In Libya Devastate An Egyptian Village (http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/02/17/386986424/isis-beheadings-in-libya-devastate-an-egyptian-village)

Over the weekend a video emerged apparently showing the Libya branch of the self-proclaimed Islamic State beheading 21 men. All but one were confirmed to be Christian laborers from Egypt.

While this new variation on brutality shocked people around the world, the horror — and sorrow — hit hardest in a small, poor Egyptian town: Residents say 13 of the men were from El-Aour, a hamlet on the Nile River that is a mix of Christians and Muslims.

Libya arms fueling conflicts in Syria, Mali and beyond: U.N. experts (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-libya-arms-un-idUSBRE93814Y20130409)

Weapons are spreading from Libya at an "alarming rate," fueling conflicts in Mali, Syria and elsewhere and boosting the arsenals of extremists and criminals in the region, according to a U.N. report published on Tuesday.

The report by the U.N. Security Council's Group of Experts - who monitor an arms embargo imposed on Libya at the start of an uprising in 2011 which ousted leader Muammar Gaddafi - said the North African state had become a key source of weapons in the region as its nascent government struggles to exert authority.

US intervention in Libya was a bad idea.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Apparently, many people believe it was a net win. nt

[hifiguy]

23. I am sure the arms merchants see it that way.

More opportunity to arm all sides and make the $$$$$$.

[Cheese Sandwich]

56. Sadly Republicans clouded the real issues of US intervention in Libya by extreme focus on Benghazi

They distracted from the other important questions about the consequences of the intervention. Probably because they supported the overall policy.

Hopefully the real issues and consequences of US policy will get a good airing during the Presidential campaign. But probably not.

[reddread]

21. IOKIYAHRC

The chaos and dead refugees were worth it.

[libdem4life]

28. Here's a synonym for Clusterfuck or FUBAR ... the Hydra ... every time you cut off one of the

tentacles, two more grow out to get you. This is the only word I can think of to describe the insanity of us trying to fix this feud that started with Abraham screwing around with his slave. Enraged wife Sarah made him send Hagar and Ishmael sent into the desert to die.

[wyldwolf]

40. Should we have interferred in the Rwandan genocide?

1. NO! That would have meant bloodthirsty leaders would have likely been killed. I would have been filled with poutrage!
2. YES! Saving the lives of some of the 800,000 slaughtered women and children would have been worth taking out a few bad men!

[MannyGoldstein]

48. You think that was a very-similar situation? nt

[wyldwolf]

49. In your world, unless two situations are identical they can't be compared?

Perhaps you can tell us at what at what point mass tortures and killings become a situation where we should step in? 100? 200? 10,000?

[MannyGoldstein]

51. We should only step in if we have a good shot at improving the situation,

and no two situations are the same, and correlation is not binary.

[wyldwolf]

54. Interesting reply. So you wouldn't have approved stopping the genocide.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. I said that?

I didn't intend to.

[wyldwolf]

58. No, and that's the problem. You were vague.

So I can only assume that if you were against taking out the perpetrator of mass killings in one country, you'd be against it in another country.

"If we have a chance in improving the situation." Who decides that? The internet progressive league?

[MannyGoldstein]

61. I think that you and I have a different understanding of the English language.

It happens.

[wyldwolf]

66. I think you really don't want to consider Rwanda in this context.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. I'm happy to. nt

[wyldwolf]

68. but you won't consider it in a post.

[MannyGoldstein]

70. As far as I can tell, I've answered any question that you've asked,

that I understood to be a question. If you would like to ask another question, unambiguous and free of insults, I'm happy to take a crack at it.

[wyldwolf]

72. Yes, you've answered every question

[-none]

50. The correct answer is "They did not have any oil"

So we need to let them sort things out.

[wyldwolf]

52. Is there any situation where "progressives" would consent to killing a dictator?

[-none]

59. What do we have the United Nations for?

And speaking of the United Nations, which countries are responsible for it being so impotent?

And then there is the World Court. Guess which country is not a signatory to that body?

Your question is way too open ended for the yes/no answer you are looking for. Best case is "It Depends".

[wyldwolf]

64. We're a member of the UN. England kills a dictator=good. U.S. does it = bad?

[-none]

74. Both are not good. Usually, it is none of our business anyway.

Except for the fact that too often we had a hand in installing them in the first place

We are one of the charter members of the UN and we keep using our veto power to keep the UN weak and ineffective.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Sure

If they're killed as the result of a war that's just and sensible, this "progressive" would be fine with it.

[wyldwolf]

69. Tell us what constitutes "just and sensible?"

[MannyGoldstein]

73. "Just" means for true defensive or humanitarian causes, i.e., not to grab land, resources or cash

"Sensible" means that it has a good probability of having a good outcome.

Probably not perfect definitions, but that's basically how I feel.

[MicaelS]

62. Probably not..considering I have seen many here

Claiming they would not have even executed Hitler.

[wyldwolf]

63. Most truthful answer of the three given to my question.

[-none]

43. How does anyone think how we would feel if some other country decided to invade and overthrow

this country, because of the way we treat some of our own citizens and our war like ways against other countries that have done little to nothing to deserve our military's attention?
A couple of countries in South America, several countries in the Middle East.
Does anyone remember how we acquired Hawaii? Or even our own country?

[polly7]

45. Yes. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Who did Libya invade?

[-none]

55. No one. No one at all.`But we keep poking other countries with sticks until they do something in

self defense and then we use that as a reason to retaliate against them.
Eventually the rest of the world is going to say enough is enough and then we will know the sharp end of the stick.

[Buzz Clik]

53. Please, Jeebus, let the primaries start tomorrow and end the day after.

PLEASE!

This is becoming intolerable.

[BlueJazz]

75. It's like being forced to go to a lousy movie E-V-E-R-Y day. same ol' plot, same characters.

[Fumesucker]

76. Intolerable?

It's hilarious!

I all the way through the thread.

[Buzz Clik]

82. I need to work on taking your approach. n/t

[Fumesucker]

85. Don't hate the player, love the game

When you know someone is casting out tricky memes it becomes a game to see who plays what gambit. It's kind of like being in a game where you bid at the beginning of the hand, you know certain cards are going to get played and you know pretty much when but it takes a while in the hand to see who is going to play what and that's what makes it interesting.

[zappaman]

98. Sit back and laugh.

Really, it's the only sane thing to do.

[Autumn]

65. Other. I don't think it has ever worked out well for any country that

we have decided to "help"

[betterdemsonly]

71. I think Libya would be an issue irrespective of the primaries

though it does make a mockery of the notion of "Hillary having lots of foreign policy gravitas," as does Syria.

[Spider Jerusalem]

78. Unintended consequences

Qaddafi was bad, what's followed Qaddafi has been worse, just as Saddam kind of looks like he may have been the least bad option in Iraq. Although what happened in Libya didn't help create ISIS, it's considerably more complex than that; any ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh presence in Libya is as a direct result of the power vacuum created in Qaddafi's wake, but they'd exist elsewhere without that.

[rock]

81. False Choice

Look at your title statement/question: Because Gaddafi was a bad man, it was OK for the West to help overthrow him. That statement generalized is it's OK for one country to overthrow another's leader because he is a bad man. Who is to judge? Unstated. What's Bad? Unstated. For whom? Unstated. At the very best your question, though interesting, is too vague.

[Aerows]

84. Over throwing him was an incredibly

stupid and evil thing to do. For many reasons. The only reason he got on the hit list was due to nationalizing oil and making a tariff that guaranteed that only 27% of profits from foreign interests buy the oil could leave the country.

Oh how that pissed France, Italy and then everybody else off.

[kelliekat44]

86. "bad man" compared to whom? nt

[pampango]

89. The UN authorized intervention in Libya at the behest of France and the UK primarily

under the Responsibility to Protect civilians. The air attacks was undertaken by Europeans with American logistical support. This was not a rouge US-led military action as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think it is a good idea to protect civilians from attacks by dictators. If the UN approves such protection that is a good thing. The UN did not authorize any such action in Syria. One can hardly argue that civilians there have benefited as a result.

The French Revolution resulted in the Great Terror in the short run. It is hard to judge such things by the short term result but by the desire of people not to live with no rights.

[Exilednight]

90. The French Revolution was a failure. A little man with a big ego went

Wild and began building an empire.

[polly7]

99. Exposed: The "Humanitarian" War In Libya

No Evidence? No Problem!!

How the CIA Used "Libyan Expatriates" To Engineer Consent For Regime Change

One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), an organization linked to the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH). On Feb. 21, 2011, LLHR General Secretary Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir initiated a petition in collaboration with the organization U.N. Watch and the National Endowment for Democracy. This petition was signed by more than 70 NGOs.

Then a few days later, on Feb. 25, Dr. Bouchuiguir went to the U.N. Human Rights Council in order to expose the allegations concerning the crimes of Qaddafi’s government. In July 2011 we went to Geneva to interview Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir.

"How to circumvent international law and justice 101." - originally published by http://laguerrehumanitaire.fr


A film by Julien Teil

Official Website:
http://laguerrehumanitaire.fr
Official web:
http://thehumanitarianwar.com
Official TV:
http://laguerrehumanitaire-film.rutube.ru/

Videos now here (I watched them on the original site when all of it was happening and posted these here at DU) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29428.htm

Must watch videos, the western trained NTC 'Prime Minister' - 'word to ear!' was the source of the 'data (all unofficial and lies, of course) that led to the UN resolution.

[99Forever]

95. Create a vacuum in a place filled with angry hornets.

What possibly could go wrong?




Ya know what trait neocons and neoliberals share the most?

The complete inability to understand that the law of unintended consequences even applies to their stupidity.

[Jefferson23]

97. On Libya and the Unfolding Crises ( 2011 )

1. What are US motives in international relations most broadly? That is, what are the over arching motives and themes one can pretty much always find informing US policy choices, no matter where in the world we are discussing? What are the somewhat more specific but still over arching motives and themes for US policy in Middle East and the Arab world? Finally, what do you think are the more proximate aims of US policy in the current situation in Libya?

A useful way to approach the question is to ask what US motives are not. There are some good ways to find out. One is to read the professional literature on international relations: quite commonly, its account of policy is what policy is not, an interesting topic that I won't pursue.

Another method, quite relevant now, is to listen to political leaders and commentators. Suppose they say that the motive for a military action is humanitarian. In itself, that carries no information: virtually every resort to force is justified in those terms, even by the worst monsters -- who may, irrelevantly, even convince themselves of the truth of what they are saying. Hitler, for example, may have believed that he was taking over parts of Czechoslovakia to end ethnic conflict and bring its people the benefits of an advanced civilization, and that he invaded Poland to end the "wild terror" of the Poles. Japanese fascists rampaging in China probably did believe that they were selflessly laboring to create an "earthly paradise" and to protect the suffering population from "Chinese bandits." Even Obama may have believed what he said in his presidential address on March 28 about the humanitarian motives for the Libyan intervention. Same holds of commentators.

There is, however, a very simple test to determine whether the professions of noble intent can be taken seriously: do the authors call for humanitarian intervention and "responsibility to protect" to defend the victims of their own crimes, or those of their clients? Did Obama, for example, call for a no-fly zone during the murderous and destructive US-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, with no credible pretext? Or did he, rather, boast proudly during his presidential campaign that he had co-sponsored a Senate resolution supporting the invasion and calling for punishment of Iran and Syria for impeding it? End of discussion. In fact, virtually the entire literature of humanitarian intervention and right to protect, written and spoken, disappears under this simple and appropriate test.

In contrast, what motives actually are is rarely discussed, and one has to look at the documentary and historical record to unearth them, in the case of any state.

What then are US motives? At a very general level, the evidence seems to me to show that they have not changed much since the high-level planning studies undertaken during World War II. Wartime planners took for granted that the US would emerge from the war in a position of overwhelming dominance, and called for the establishment of a Grand Area in which the US would maintain "unquestioned power," with "military and economic supremacy," while ensuring the "limitation of any exercise of sovereignty" by states that might interfere with its global designs. The Grand Area was to include the Western hemisphere, the Far East, the British empire (which included the Middle East energy reserves), and as much of Eurasia as possible, at least its industrial and commercial center in Western Europe. It is quite clear from the documentary record that "President Roosevelt was aiming at United States hegemony in the postwar world," to quote the accurate assessment of the (justly) respected British diplomatic historian Geoffrey Warner. And more significant, the careful wartime plans were soon implemented, as we read in declassified documents of the following years, and observe in practice. Circumstances of course have changed, and tactics adjusted accordingly, but basic principles are quite stable, to the present.

in full: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20110330.htm