Arab Deaths and US Hypocrisy

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
John V. Walsh March 21, 2011

The stench of death hanging over protest centers in the Arab world is more than matched by the rank hypocrisy befouling Washington and the lesser capitals of Western Empire. There is, however, not the slightest allusion to “hypocrisy,” in the imperial media. The “H” word is not to be used with respect to Obama or the other lords of Empire, even though it is as obvious as the proverbial nose on one’s face; the censorship in the mass media is holding.

Consider it. The Western powers have now launched a full-scale military assault on Moammar Qaddafi’s Libya, never a reliable “partner” of the West. First there were denunciations and demonization of Qaddafi following the Libyan uprising in the East, then sanctions, then the attack. Ostensibly, the attack is to “protect” the Libyan people from the hand of Qaddafi. But is such a rationale even remotely credible?

Look at other events happening on the very same weekend the attacks began. In Bahrain Shia protesters by the score are being gunned down by the Sunni police of the Al Khalifa “royal family,” sometimes killing the protesters like animals with hunting rifles. They are joined by the tanks of the Saudi “royals,” the same Saudi Arabia whence came the majority of the perpetrators of 9/11. There are no American cruise missiles aimed at the Saudi tanks and no threats from the Western powers to stop the carnage of the thugs ruling Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. What comes from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

In Saudi Arabia itself Al-Jazeera tells us: “The ban on public demonstrations (throughout the country) comes amid media reports of a huge mobilization of Saudi troops in Shia-dominated provinces in order to quell any possible uprising…. 10,000 security personnel are being sent to the region by road, clogging highways into Dammam and other cities.” And in Riyadh: “Several protesters were arrested in Saudi Arabia on Sunday at a demonstration demanding the release of thousands of prisoners, held captive for years without trial.

They were among dozens of men and women who tried to push their way into Riyadh’s interior ministry building, which was fortified with up to 2,000 special forces and 200 police vehicles, according to the Associated Press news agency. ‘We have seen at least three or four police vehicles taking people away,” said an activist there who declined to be named. ‘Security forces have arrested around 15 people. They tried to go into the ministry to go and ask for the freedom of their loved ones.’” But the US sponsors no UN resolutions about the “Right to Protect” in Saudi Arabia. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Then there is Yemen, another U.S. ally, where today the Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country’s “president” for 32 years, is massacring his people by the score. In response there is nothing more than a muffled call for “maximal restraint” by Obama and company. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Or regard the spectacle of Gaza where Apartheid Israel is again launching a bombing campaign on a besieged and helpless population. Not a peep of protest from the U.S. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

All that is just this weekend. But behold the events of recent weeks Let us not forget Egypt where hundreds or thousands of unarmed protesters were slaughtered while the U.S. in the person of Joe Biden and others cautioned that “president” for 41 years and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, was not a dictator. Hillary Clinton defended him as a personal friend of hers and her family. This is the same Mubarak, whose police tormented the entire Egyptian population to the point that virtually everyone knew someone beaten or tortured. This is the same Mubarak, whose prisons always had room to torture CIA victims transported there from around the world, an endless cargo of “extraordinary renditions. Mubarak killed and killed with guns, goons and helicopters before he fell. And from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

The failure of the Egyptian army to join in the slaughter, apparently for fear of being on the losing side, was the sole reason the slaughter ended. And now the same army, consulting interminably with the US, is working a counter-revolution in that hapless country.

Whether it will prevail against the people is anyone’s guess, but there is no doubt that the US is working overtime to turn back the clock and shackle Egypt to a new model of the old imperial harness.

This is a small sample. Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia and other U.S. allies could be added to the list of those perpetrating endless atrocities against their people for many decades. And from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

I conclude with the caveat that I am not holding up Gadhafi as a model. What goes on in Libya I cannot tell at a distance. But as Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, drawing on the testimony of Dartmouth professor Diederik Vandewalle, an expert on Libya, has noted, the rebellion in Libya seems to be one of the east versus west of the country, a return to old tribal boundaries. That is quite different from Egypt where the demand is for development and democracy. Is there anything unique about Libya other than its disloyalty to the West? I can think of only one other thing which distinguishes it from Egypt or various other African dictatorships. Libya has a Human Development Index which is the highest in all of Africa. In fact it puts Libya in the same league as the developed nations of Europe.

Certainly man does not live by bread alone although a bit helps. But it would seem that Libyans need less protection than the many U.S. Arab allies, which not only brutally oppress their people but also impoverish them.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Good stuff. As usual, Chomsky has also chimed in as the voice of reason in this whole mess.. This assumption that allowing the civil war to resolve itself is support of a dictatorship is just the usual propaganda people keep falling for so that nato can loot and plunder.

As you've mentioned, we pick and choose our Arab allies - and that has nothing to do with democracy. The Saudis have been getting away with the same extremism that Colpy, YJ and Durry would vomit over, but they don't seem too agitated over the extremist regimes supporting our economy, lol.


Chomsky warns that direct military intervention in Libya will turn out to be a serious mistake.


“When the United States, Britain and France opt for military intervention, we have to bear in mind that these countries are hated in the region for very good reasons. The rich and powerful can say history is bunk but victims don’t have that luxury,” he says.


“Threatening moves, I’m sure, evoke all sorts of terrible thoughts and memories in the region – and many people across Africa and the Arab world will be seriously antagonised by military intervention.”
Chomsky adds that in Egypt public opinion polls have shown about 90 per cent of the population thinks the US is the worst threat they face.

He stresses that Libya is a humanitarian problem. “It is also a civil war and intervening in a civil war is a complicated business,” he says. “We may not like it, but there is support for Gadafy.”

On shifts in western alliances with authoritarian regimes, Chomsky says that in a long series of cases it became impossible for the West to support its favourite dictators.


“At that point there’s a game plan that goes into operation. It’s being followed in the Arab world, basically to send dictators out to pasture when you can’t support them any longer and produce ringing declarations of your love of democracy,” he says.


Saudi Arabia provides an example of the contradiction in western policy, he says.


“Saudi Arabia is the centre of radical Islamism. It has also been the major ally of the United States and Britain, which have tended over the years to support radical Islam in opposition to secular nationalism. Saudi Arabia is a pretty harsh dictatorship."


On the subject of oil and current events across North Africa and the Middle East, Chomsky says: “The overriding concern for control over oil has dominated British policy for a century and US policy for almost that long. Of course that will remain.”

Strikes will 'antagonise' many in Arab world, says Chomsky - The Irish Times - Mon, Mar 21, 2011

Same old song and dance for us, eh?
 
Last edited:

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Arguments for and against

So what are the main arguments for and against forceful intervention in Libya?

For, I think there are three basic ones:
▪ Humanitarian: to care for the victims of the current fighting, and in longer perspective to end the suffering of Libyans under the dictator.
▪ Democratic: to support Libyans who want to make a better life for themselves.
▪ Power: to re-stabilise the global oil economy, get a western-leaning leader installed, and make a generally impressive display of western power.

In political discourse, these motives get served up in various blends, sometimes with one being used to mask another, but all are present.

Against, I see five basic ones:
▪ Risk aversion: seeing a no-fly zone as the first step towards a large scale intervention, with human and economic costs that are much too high, and which the risk averse think may well fail anyway.
▪ Lack of capacity: because it seems we don’t know how to do it; even a small mission with a couple of helicopters goes wrong and ends up with British Special Forces arrested by farm guards in the middle of the night.
▪ Moral objection to the use of force, even in a good cause: too much can go wrong and too much harm can be done.
▪ Passivity on the basis that the affairs of other countries are no business of ours in any case; let them get on with it.
▪ Sovereignty: Libya is a sovereign state and whatever we do must be constrained by that simple if often inconvenient fact.

Again, these objections can be served up in different mixes and the most actively articulated objection may not always be the most deeply felt one.

Two separate if related core issues are at stake here. One of them is the question of sovereignty and politics. This encompasses the second and third of the arguments in favour of intervention (support democracy and exert power) and the fifth argument against (don’t intervene in sovereign states’ affairs).


The moral argument around the use of force


What I would like to address here is the moral argument around the use of force, encompassing the humanitarian and democratic arguments deployed in favour of intervention balanced against risk aversion and moral objections. For those who are not completely pacifist in their approach to this kind of question, there are always dilemmas and case-by-case uncertainties to sort out.

Although each case differs from the next, however, there are some general principles that can be referenced, even by those of us who exist in the moral grey zone where force is not always wholly bad. The most important may be the precautionary principles of the Just War tradition: only use force as a last resort, be sure success is likely, and do not do so much damage that it outweighs the good in the intended outcome.

Last resort is the starting point of this argument. It is a long established moral principle and a couple of hundred years ago, Samuel Johnson expressed it rather well: “He may be justly hunted down, as the enemy of mankind, that can choose to snatch, by violence and bloodshed, what gentler means can equally obtain.

Conclusions

The conclusion that emerges is along the lines of, Don’t use force unless you absolutely have no alternative, and then do it properly.

Or: Don’t opt prematurely to use a military instrument that is a long way short of certain to get the job done.

But it is precisely this latter which western leaders seem now to be doing.

With the added risk that, by reaching so slowly for the hip, they are giving Qaddafi ample warning of what might be coming at him, so that he will pour on the pressure to get the action over before intervention is ready, and will himself be very ready if and when the intervention starts.


Intervention in Libya? A case of shooting from the hip, slowly | openDemocracy
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Chomsky is a slimy, insignificant opportunist.

Q'Daffy has long been the enemy of the west, no matter what his recent play-acting........have we forgotten Lockerbie?

The rebels may not be pro-western, and the new regime in Libya might not be our buddy.....but it is at least a 50-50 chance they won't be worse than the Colonel.

Libya is reachable............has never been our supporter, and war, like diplomacy and politics, is the art of the possible.

Personally, I'd LOVE to invade Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Yemen, Syria, North Korea, Iran...............bring them to heel, kill their leaders, and convert the people to Christianity.

But it is simply not possible.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Personally, I'd LOVE to invade Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Yemen, Syria, North Korea, Iran...............bring them to heel, kill their leaders, and convert the people to Christianity.

Yea, because Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and the rest just aren't enough of an upgrade, lol

But let's not move the goal posts. I'd like to get to the meat and potatoes of the moral dilemma surrounding this conflict. As would many others, I'm sure.
 
Last edited:

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Chomsky is a slimy, insignificant opportunist.

Q'Daffy has long been the enemy of the west, no matter what his recent play-acting........have we forgotten Lockerbie?

The rebels may not be pro-western, and the new regime in Libya might not be our buddy.....but it is at least a 50-50 chance they won't be worse than the Colonel.

Libya is reachable............has never been our supporter, and war, like diplomacy and politics, is the art of the possible.

Personally, I'd LOVE to invade Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Yemen, Syria, North Korea, Iran...............bring them to heel, kill their leaders, and convert the people to Christianity.

But it is simply not possible.

How liberal of you.

You interventionalist cons crack me up.

Wouldn't spent a nickle to get a poor mentally ill person off the street but are always too willing to spend billions and put our assets at risk to blow up some dirty Muslims that are sorting themselves out.....yee haw!.....they blowd up real good.

War is good tv eh Colpy?:roll:
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
How liberal of you.

You interventionalist cons crack me up.

Wouldn't spent a nickle to get a poor mentally ill person off the street but are always too willing to spend billions and put our assets at risk to blow up some dirty Muslims that are sorting themselves out.....yee haw!.....they blowd up real good.

War is good tv eh Colpy?:roll:


So, we should have let Q'Daffy kill off a couple of hundred thousand in a revenge blood-letting?

And continued to buy oil from him?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Either we support monsters by buying their oil (and standing aside while they murder their people)................or we support opposition movements and hope they turn into regimes worthwhile of our support.

Because the oil will sell anyway. It is the lifeblood of western civilization, like it or not, and it will remain so for decades to come.

That is the reality we have to deal with.

Let's make the best of it.

BTW, all you folks that have gone off the deep end over this little quote "Personally, I'd LOVE to invade Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Yemen, Syria, North Korea, Iran...............bring them to heel, kill their leaders, and convert the people to Christianity." should understand that the nations listed are among the worst human rights abusers on earth, and YES I would love to see their dictators in their coffins, and the yoke raised off the necks of the people....I make no apology for that. DEATH TO TYRANTS

But you all need a little reading comprehension....or do you all have AADD????? You missed the last line????

"But it is simply not possible."
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
So, we should have let Q'Daffy kill off a couple of hundred thousand in a revenge blood-letting?

And continued to buy oil from him?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Either we support monsters by buying their oil (and standing aside while they murder their people)................or we support opposition movements and hope they turn into regimes worthwhile of our support.

What?!?

What about the option of 'not buying their oil' to stop fueling their stupid regimes???

They don't get our money. That is more than enough to show a cease of support.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Great. Just great.

So why are we supporting this military intervention if it doesn't have a goal?


Because the UN says so of course. It's a MANDATE so Obama tells us. So because the UN says and it is a MANDATE we have to go bonkers and bomb the snot out of the Libyans.

We have been blessed by the UN so we are free to rain steel upon Libyans and protect other Libyans.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
What?!?

What about the option of 'not buying their oil' to stop fueling their stupid regimes???

They don't get our money. That is more than enough to show a cease of support.

But buy it from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela,?

What is the difference?

Oil is the constant....we MUST have it.......that is the reality.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Because the UN says so of course. It's a MANDATE so Obama tells us. So because the UN says and it is a MANDATE we have to go bonkers and bomb the snot out of the Libyans.

We have been blessed by the UN so we are free to rain steel upon Libyans and protect other Libyans.

Well, yea, but I really don't see actual 'argument' here. There's no real breakdown by the media or anyone that informs us as to the real consequences of these actions.

But buy it from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela,?

What is the difference?

Oil is the constant....we MUST have it.......that is the reality.

OK. Well what's our current consumption rate? What amount of consumption is enough to sustain us? And how much supply is provided by extremist nations? How much is exported by pacifist nations?

I do understand where you're coming from, but it's not a simple as "needing a resource."
 
Last edited:

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
So, we should have let Q'Daffy kill off a couple of hundred thousand in a revenge blood-letting?

Not my problem Colpy, what is my problem is some poor Canadian bugger in an alley lying in his own filth.

And continued to buy oil from him?

Again, don't care.....plus we don't really need anyone elses oil do we Coply. It's people like you cons that have led us down the road of needing dirty energy and you still resist it.

Over 35 years of inaction since the first energy crisis.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

I did, f*ck em.

Either we support monsters by buying their oil (and standing aside while they murder their people)................or we support opposition movements and hope they turn into regimes worthwhile of our support.

Hope they turn into regimes that love kittens and puppy dogs? You mean like the one in Afghanistan after the war with the Russians....how did that play out again?

Neo-cons.....what maroons.:lol:

I say it's high time we do something we haven't tried.....do nothing...stay out of their business and stop making ourselves targets and weapons for the extremists.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Nor can they know.

That's not necessarily true though.

We can know the estimated cost of this operation (and how that effects taxpayers).
We can know the estimated probability of removing this dictator.
We can know the scope of this no-fly zone and the level of force to be used.
We can know the total amount of casualties and can compare that with expected casualties (both good and bad guys).

And I'm sure a lot of people want to know the economic benefit from our looting and plundering.

But the media tells us none of this.

I mean, christ, the least they can do is pop open excel and give us a legitimate breakdown. Everyone is in mental disarray because the most critical concepts surrounding the ordeal are never put into perspective.