|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Man it pisses me off that he's actually not getting what he deserves now. Guess all this was worth it for him after all. I've never understood how putting unrepentant dictators and war criminals on trial has ever really been more beneficial than just shooting them on the spot. Saddam Hussein's trial was a circus, the Serbians ran rings around the Hague, and even Hosni Muburak's trial in Egypt had to be taken off-air because it was a complete farce. Even the Nuremberg trials had their moments of triumph for the Nazis. Let's face it. A trial against a deposed leader is a show-trial, more beneficial to the morale of the new nation than the concept of justice. The problem is that the process can be swiftly turned into farce by a defendent who refuses to respect or recognise the process. Better for ones aims, if that becomes the case, to simply take them around the back of the building and shoot them.
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jul 19, 2025 15:29 |
|
|
Pueidist posted:to celebrate gaddafis death demands you remove the event from its entire context. i.e., bin laden was a bad dude, but his death was at best a bittersweet moment because it came as a result of a needlessly bloody and destructive war campaign that obliterated millions of lives. the nato campaign for north africa is a force for evil and that it accidentally results in some level of justice doesnt deserve celebration I half agree with this. A lot of people are supporting Gaddafi out of sheer contrarianism and basically using his "victimisation" as a stick to beat the western powers with. It is quite possible to both be happy that Gaddafi's regime has fallen and angry that NATO stepped in to ensure that it happened. The powers behind NATO are horrible precisely because they were willing at one point to be friends with Gaddafi in order to ensure that their goals in the Middle East were better met, and it was those same goals that kept dictators like Mubarak and Musharaff in Pakistan in power as well. Those strategic goals have not changed, even if the rules have been hastily re-written to no longer support the dictators and instead try to cosy up to their successor regimes. We can celebrate the fall of Gaddafi despite this. He was the personification of evil. When regarding NATO's role in all of this, don't forget that these actions were a panicked and hasty response to a situation that had they had lost all control over (see for example the confused response of our leaders to the Egyptian Revolution). This is a dent in the policy of supporting dictatorships in order to ahcieve regional goals, and that's a positive outcome. Whether that is permanent or not of course remains to be seen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Is it, though? Because the first would absolutely not have occurred without the latter. The point is that it's pretty obvious that NATO didn't intervene for the sake of justice or democracy. Or they A) would never have allied with him or Mubarak in the first place and B) would've intervened in Yemen and Syria which are, as you know, currently having equal problems with justice and democracy and yet have not been liberated by NATO. The anger over NATO involvement is not anger that they intervened, but anger that there will be "terms" for the new libyan government as a result of that intervention. Obama said in his speech that Libya and the USA will now have a "relationship". Libya does not have anywhere near enough leverage or bargaining chips to ensure that the relationship will benefit Libya as much as it does the USA. So it goes like this: Thankyou NATO for getting rid of Gaddafi. gently caress you NATO for basically having ulterior motives for doing it in the first place. And of course in no way does any of that justify turning around and supporting Gaddafi of all people. It's like two really awful people trying to kill each other while you watch. You're glad that one of them finally got killed, but you've still got the other one standing in the room with you afterwards...and poo poo, those two guys were friends five minutes ago. Mr. Self Destruct, your enthusiasm is great, but I think you've fallen into the trap of basic contrarianism. For all of its sins, capitalist democracy doesn't have a monopoly on truth itself. Rasler fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
etalian posted:What will become of the sexy Amazon bodyguard brigade? Currently hiding in Silvio Berlusconi's bedroom. It's Bunga-Bunga time! quote:NATO did have ulterior motives for doing it. Obviously, it's NATO. The analogy was meant in the general terms of NATO vs Gaddafi, not just the specific act of Gaddafi's death. Rasler fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Medvedev removed his - albeit already mostly tacit - support from Assad a few days ago in a statement where his position was for Assad to go. But you know what, as far as I can tell, there have been no public statements from any significant NATO people explicitly saying that they are having problems with the technicalities of intervention in Syria and Yemen - because nobody inside NATO nor any outside bodies are actually putting pressure on NATO to intervene. It's not actually an issue for them. They just haven't seriously considered it. quote:
This is really naive, sorry. NATO is the unified response of western powers (that MEANS something, they're all capitalist democracies and all allies via NATO) to a problem using military force. It is a collective action of those powers and it doesn't matter how diverse they are, they all agree on something because they're all using NATO to achieve their goals. Whilst NATO could be correctly described as a "tool", you're ignorant of the fact that the powers behind that "tool" have common foreign policy strategies and objectives that they intend to meet via NATO, despite how diverse they may otherwise be. If any kind of diversity was behind NATO itself, it wouldnt actually work. Since you mentioned Russia, I'll point out that the reason Russia hates NATO is because it's an opposing power bloc sitting in its back yard, "interfering" with (quite sinister) russian interests. That same power bloc is interfering in the middle east for some very singular reasons. Rasler fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 22:44
|
|