There was an uprising to support in Libya. Not saying it was or wasn't the right decision, but there was an opening. There's no such thing in NK to support.
Srebrenica is not a good analogy. That was a carefully planned operation which was part of an overall military plan to carry out a genocide.
Not that I disagree with you, but the problem is that we cannot (at least that's what they tell us) withdraw all the troops and automatically start with a clean slate. There are forged alliances (that sometimes work) and friendly (kind of) regimes that we have supported and that (partially) help us (or some corporations) with our interests (or that of our CEOs) in the region, and by withdrawing our troops we would allow enemy powers (depending on our current government) to fill in the power vacuum we would left, and most likely (or so we fear), the rise of unfriendly regimes (that we could try to woo too). IOW, there's no clear or clean path to leaving the MENA and once we leave there would be a mess too and it is very likely that then our European and Asian allies would call for the US to intervene... So yeah, it is not like making Single Payer work in 3 simple steps...
True, Kin Jung is a much better despot than Gaddafi. and now he has the bomb, so all we can do is pretend nothing horrible is happening North Korea #neveragainunlessitistoodifficult
Well that is why we support dictators, well as long as they are friendly and buy our weapons, we are afraid (with reason many times) of the alternative. Egypt is a perfect example of the bad* choices we tend to make. *Bad IMO.
1. While working in the Gulf of Guinea, did you talk to any central bankers? 2. Gaddafi's brainchild, the African Union had a chairman from 2009-2010: Muammar al-Gaddafi, profiled here by the New York Times. 3. I understand your reluctance to take Sid Blumenthal's word for it (and Hillary Clinton's position derived - at least in part - from that), but the British Parliament nevertheless found it necessary to put that bit of analysis in as a central piece (paragraph 20 for those reading along) regarding their own analysis of the motivations of the French (paragraphs 18-23), who were first to push the idea of bombing/invading. 4. This April 2011 Guardian opinion piece by David Swanson outlines a litany of problems with the intervention. Toward the end, it cites this particular allegation, in which:
Not sure who you're aiming that comment at. I'm tend to be more of an interventionist/liberal-humanitarian than most here.The question is not "who's the better despot" but rather "where is there an opening for intervention"? I was pointing out that the situation in Libya was different than that in the DPRK. If you know of an active, armed uprising in North Korea that could use our support, by all means get that intel to the people who matter toot sweet.
Well, pretty much every single decision in the MENA is potentilly a Fvck up and for the most part, every chance we take, one way or the other, comes back to bite us. Off course the best option would be to withdraw most of our troops and reduce our involvement in the region, but we know that it will take a long time to accomplish it, and I'm guessing that 1. There would be negative consequences for the withdrawal (probably some positives but most detractors would not point out to them), and/or 2. People in the area and our allies would call for our intervention (and we would probably oblige).
Instead of posting ridiculous hit-and-run memes, why don't you elucidate what you think that is, exactly?
Man, I would hardly take Blumenthal, a known cretin (and conspiracy theorist to boot), seriously. Just a simple google search would show you that no serious news or policy outlet has even considered this canard as a cause of the Lybia crisis. It is being peddled by the usual online cranks and conspiracy theorists (globalresearch, newamerican,sputniknews, truth-out and the likes...).That in itself should disqualify this nonsense and you should know that as well as anyone here. By the way, the piece you mentioned in the Guardian is as you wrote an opinion and can hardly be confused with real facts and news! To answer your question, yes was in touch swith banking officials, government ministers and principals in the region. I was working closely with O&G, a strategic sector if there is one in West Africa. Naturally, that topic never came up simply because it didn't even appear on the radar. That was one of Gadaffi crazy ideas for Africa (among them creating the United states of Africa or building the first African satellites constellation). Besides of being a dictator, he was a lunatic as well. That single currency/ Gold Dinar he that he was pushing was well known in Africa and virtually everyone just gave it lip service. The idea that this was "discovered" by french agents is simply stupid when Gadaffi himself had announced it at different African summits. If you really think countries like Senegal or Ivory Coast, pretty important nations in West Africa would tie themselves to a new currency under Gaddaffi, that is clear you don't know the dynamics of the region. Beyond that, places like Gabon, Mali or Niger are heavily dependent on France militarily and financially and would have no interest to get involved into that dynamic. Last but not least, with Idriss Deby in Chad (one of the most powerful leaders in the region), who has been fighting the Libyans (and beating them), that Gold dinar crap was already dead on arrival. If you want to know more about the region, feel free to PM me, i spent 4 years on and off there and knows it pretty well.
Yet the Secretary of State at the time took his counsel on Libya. The British Parliament committee took it seriously enough to make it a part of their analysis. Yes! I presented it as such in full disclosure. I would like to see if I can find something that you will accept more readily, but my time is limited. Regardless of his supposed success or failure to get other African states to go along, he was pushing it himself, no? I recall the last time I tried to PM you didn't go so well, but maybe I'll try again.
The British parliament may have taken it seriously but that does not make it a serious issue though.This is a crank story man....Some of the other reasons mentioned originally about Sarkozy motivations may have some validity but this one is not one of them. It will be hard to find this story from a reliable source. It mostly peddled by cranks sites. Yes Gadaffi was pushing it, as he was pushing a lot of other crazy ideas, hence the lips service.
To keep it simple, I would say it is partly humanitarian, since Benghazi was about to fall to Gadaffi forces as well as Sarkosy's desire to raise his standings and get some plaudits from the French before the elections. The Lybia rebel "cause" was fairly popular in France with the famous philosopher Bernard-Henry Levy being a major supporter.
Bi Parisan proposal to authorize our Yemen adventure, or get out http://www.theamericanconservative....e-challenge-vote-for-war-in-yemen-or-get-out/ On Wednesday, in a show of bipartisan unity against unauthorized wars of choice, Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah),Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) courageously introduced a Senate joint resolution under the War Powers Act, directing President Trump to halt all current U.S. military activities in Yemen. If passed, the president would have 30 days to stop U.S. forces and resources from continuing to assist the Saudi-led conflict against the Houthis there. The war has been raging on for two years and has resulted in millions of Yemeni displaced, starving, and suffering from a catastrophic cholera epidemic. ....... The Pentagon has long turned national security fleas into elephants to justify gratuitous undeclared wars and bloated budgets. It races abroad in search of hornets’ nests to destroy and creates new opponents to fight. In the eyes of our multi-trillion-dollar military-industrial-counterterrorism complex (MICC), to lose a friend is a misfortune, but to lose an enemy is a catastrophe. These background dynamics explain our unconstitutional and gratuitous intervention in Yemen. At present, the U.S. military’s sustained assistance makes us a co-belligerent with Saudi Arabia under international law. It makes our soldiers legitimate targets for Houthi counterattacks. It makes the United States complicit in Saudi Arabian war crimes committed against civilians, including bombings of hundreds of homes and the starvation of millions caused by a Saudi blockade. Alas https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/201...st/28reuters-yemen-security-usa-congress.html It was not immediately clear how the resolution would move forward without support from the Republican leadership. Spokesmen for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Loos like round 2 in Egypt. Egyptian security forces face resistance while trying to detain anti-Sisi protesters. #Egypt@UN.@amnesty #ميدان_التحرير https://t.co/NQi7nkcNiE#Egypt— Hanief Manzoor Dar (@haniefdar) September 21, 2019