Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Invade Libya?

1

since the break up of the soviet union, NATO has become a non-entity.

Posted by redux | December 21, 2006 11:26 AM
2

Back in the spring Americablog thought we should bomb Iran and Syria too. Just like Dan Savage, Middle East policy and use of force isn't their strong point.

The Bush admin just took them off probation, perhaps starting with a policy of taking them off probation might be a better way to go. The move on to other levels and types of diplomacy.

Does AJ have some bomb manufacturing stock or what.

Posted by mirror | December 21, 2006 11:51 AM
3

I love that pie in the sky, G.I. Joe stuff where some super-elite dudes chopper in and rescue people in the blink of an eye, and always with "minimal civilian casualties". A.J. - Military Mastermind! Also.. "American and Western ideals of due process, presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and sovereignty" !?!?!?

Posted by david | December 21, 2006 11:52 AM
4

In principle it's pretty fucked up that they're being executed, and one of them's a Palestinian so I actually don't think the mid-east world would get that pissed. Qaddafi's a secularist, remember?

And I mean, if you could do it real quick, and just get them out and take off, I actually do think that would be a reasonable thing to do, I mean you would actually be saving some people's lives and not much more would probably come of it.

Buuut the real reason is that there is no way it would actually be that clean. Some helicopter would go down, and everything would get real fucked up real quick.

Posted by john | December 21, 2006 11:56 AM
5

@2-

I assume you mean putting Libya back on probation?


So how does Bulgaria have the clout to get NATO to act on anything? Considering the amount of injustice and violation of human rights in the world, military action is hardly feasible. Should we have invaded Iran over that journalist who was arrested, raped, tortured, and murdered? Unfortunately, no.

Posted by keshmeshi | December 21, 2006 12:40 PM
6

What is all this business with invading? Invading? That's no Foreign Policy. Don't we carpet bomb anymore? Do we even have nukes anymore? What the hell has happened to our great nation?

I'm a little concerned.

Posted by Ol' Button Hands | December 21, 2006 12:44 PM
7

Remember when we went into Panama to arrest one man?

That went really, huh?

Posted by Lanik | December 21, 2006 1:05 PM
8

err, really well, I mean

Posted by Lanik | December 21, 2006 1:14 PM
9

We can't invade, GWB has us pinned down in a Quagmire.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 21, 2006 1:17 PM
10

That’s really horrible and I have no doubt that it was most likely that these so called confessions were obtained by torture and severe beatings. But if were invading Libya, why not invade Bulgaria for their atrocious treatment of gypsy street children in Sofia.. which according to Human Rights Watch ranges from police torture to mob attacks. Officials are also involved in many of the crimes against the Roma. And discrimination, right out lynchings are a way of life for many Roma in Bulgaria, and other parts of eastern europe. I know white folks love the story of civilized Europeans being killed by mean Arabs, but Bulgaria is no paradise of Human rights, unless of course the Roma don’t matter to you cuz theyre brown.

As a Latino who traveled eastern Europe and was constantly mistaken for a Roma, I gotta say, Im down with invading Bulgaria, Rumania and most of the eastern Europe shit holes, except Bosnia.

Posted by SeMe | December 21, 2006 1:59 PM
11

@5 Sorry Kesh. Got a little hurried.

@4 Uh.... well if the "real reason" is casualties, why don't we drop into some refugee camps or villages in Darfur and rescue a 100 people? We could do it with no casualties. Oh, yeh, forgot. Even Bulgarians are "white people."

But why do diplomacy? Bush could easily figure there is more to be gained politically by actually upping the body count of Arabs while rescuing some white folks from the clutches of the evil Omar.

Too much damn militarism! And what's with this first-strike gay-hawk left anyway? Where does that come from? (I'm hoping Dan doesn't agree with this, but instead was doing a little self-parody here in order to goad those like me who love him but cant forget that ignorant support for the Iraq invasion.)

Posted by mirror | December 21, 2006 2:02 PM
12

If what we're after is political gain, then why not just let the prisoners be executed?


Come on, who says the West can't play the martyr game, too?


What you do, see, is first you let them commit the atrocity, and then you carpet-bomb them.

Posted by robotslave | December 21, 2006 4:11 PM
13

I thought the headline said "Invade Labia" and I got excited for a second, seeing your past outspoken stance on such an invasion, then I had a double-take and was once again deprived of a simple joy in life.

Posted by Joh | December 21, 2006 5:55 PM
14

The other problem would be the prison guards we'd have to kill while trying to save the six prisoners.

Posted by Papayas | December 21, 2006 9:34 PM
15

Dude, I totally have that covered. Clorophorm. It's such a sexy way to invade a country!

Posted by Jessica Savitch | December 22, 2006 1:59 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).