I think there's more hope for getting the police under control than there used to be-- at least word that there's a problem is getting out, and social media makes it harder to pretend that police outrages are rare.
(nods) while we're closer to a police state than not, the guys on top haven't declared all out war on dissent yet. But they have slowly done as much to chill, dissuade and intimidate as could be done without provoking alarm for years. It will take protracted, consistent action to address this. That's why I'm mentioning this. Because I find it appalling it _got_ to this point. Could see it coming years ago, but especially once the knives came out during the MAI talks in the mid 90's.
..if we thought it was worth _killing people_ to protect "Libyan citizens simply seeking to assert their rights"... The other way to look at it is that, despite the propaganda to other purposes, it's worth killing people to prevent the side that has an air force using it against the side that doesn't. Air/ground battles are typically *very* one-sided. Looked at that way, NATO got to flex its muscles and prove that it's still relevant, its member states got to bolster their public image of being pro-human-rights, and nobody has to deal with Qadaafi any more (he was too unpredictable to be a good pawn).
...not that this improves the hypocrisy issue...tahkhleetNovember 2 2011, 03:41:24 UTC
...since the police _do_ kill citizens in the USA all the time. Not in those numbers, but law abiding citizens who were in the wrong place at the wrong time in the war on drugs, plus a lot of "disappearances" of minority ethnicity political agitators. Plus, it's clear the cops don't care if they do kill anyone putting the screws on the OWS stuff. so far they've been on a tight leash but you can see them snapping at the protestors at the end of that leash. When the government says "killing your citizens without cause merits you being killed" for Libyans but not for Americans this is epic hypocrisy territory.
Re: ...not that this improves the hypocrisy issue...403November 2 2011, 03:54:32 UTC
That it is. My point was just that there are plenty of reasons in the land of power politics to have wanted Qadaafi gone, and no high-minded ideals need be involved except as a cover story.
Re: ...not that this improves the hypocrisy issue...tahkhleetNovember 2 2011, 04:02:35 UTC
ah. yes, true. But I'm saying the _public_ rhetoric of the elected officials was "to protect their rights". So the degree of hypocrisy is quite blatant. Naturally I would agree their _real_ reasons were little to do with the stated reasons...
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
Reply
..if we thought it was worth _killing people_ to protect "Libyan citizens simply seeking to assert their rights"...
The other way to look at it is that, despite the propaganda to other purposes, it's worth killing people to prevent the side that has an air force using it against the side that doesn't. Air/ground battles are typically *very* one-sided. Looked at that way, NATO got to flex its muscles and prove that it's still relevant, its member states got to bolster their public image of being pro-human-rights, and nobody has to deal with Qadaafi any more (he was too unpredictable to be a good pawn).
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment