Lybia has 200 Billion US dollars in foreign banks. All this money was accessible to Muammar Ghaddafi either/or his sons. When the Bengazi tribes vacillantly rebelled, he could have hired mercenaries and pay 1,000,000 dollars per rebel skalp. What is say 1 billion dollars when you have 200 in reserve? What is money for?
But no, he took the honorable way of the desert Arabs. He led his army in person, with his sons, cousins and tribe following him. NATO, from 14,000 feet, bombed the sh-t out of his sons, his cousins, his tribe, his army.
His belief in warrior honor killed him.
20 comments:
They froze his assets. He couldn't use them anyway.
They froze his assets. He couldn't use them anyway.
Now they are freezing his ass, which he also cannot use.
Anon.
Gaddafi had a sense of honour which made him fight to the end. George Bush will get his redemption but there will be none for the likes of Cameron and Obama.
Ivan
They froze his assets when the rebellion started to take traction and NATO started to attack. There was a period of indecision that he should have exploited. Dont forget he was the legitimate ruler for 45 years, with vast international connections, loyal friends like Berlusconi and so on.
And of course he had hidden resources including much gold in Lybia itself. Which is presumably gone, disappeared, evaporated.
But he decided to fight like a man. That machismo killed him.
Khaddafi was a coldblooded killer with no sense of honor. He made up his own rules and did not live by any code. The West tolerated him from time to time because they wanted his oil but no one had any illusions. May his name be erased.
K
What is coming instead will be worse.
Then kill the next one too. Repeat as necessary until the patient is cured. Why weren't the regimes that followed Hitler and Tojo worse than Hitler and Tojo? The problem is not with Libya but with the modern West. If we don't have faith anymore in Western culture, how can we expect others to have it?
K
Cure them of what exactly?
How is Gaddafi comparable to Hitler or Tojo?
The regimes that followed in Germany and Japan are satellites of the US. And there are US bases in both the countries.
What is "Western culture"? Nazi Germany wasn't "Western"? What was it then?
Well, if you think of it, it is not too bad a solution. NATO bombs Lybia to the Stone Age and declares it a protectorate in charge of signing contracts with oil corporations.
Anonymous - cure them of backward thinking and Islamism (which are the same thing).
Khadafi killed many innocent people. He was a dictator exactly in the mold of Hilter, just on a smaller scale.
You say satellites as if that is a bad thing. Ask the people of Japan and Germany how bad it is to be a US protectorate - the US picks up your defense and you get to live in a welfare state and grow rich. I'd say it worked out pretty well for them.
The Nazi's were a conscious throwback to barbarian behavior and used all kinds of pre-Christian symbolism, etc. (plus they threw in some socialism to boot). Quite the opposite of post Enlightenment Western capitalism and rationalism.
K
What is "backward thinking" and "Islamism" and why is it a bad thing other than that it does or may pose a threat to Jews and others?
Most governments end up killing innocent people. Scale matters. If you're just looking at numbers killed, you could say every government is in the mold of Hitler, just on a smaller or bigger scale.
It's not true that the US picks up the the defense tab entirely. The other countries recycle their surpluses into the US dollar and Treasuries and thus end up subsidizing the cost.
There are lots of Gemans and Japanese and others that want US bases out and the relationship severed or altered significantly.
Pre-Christian symbolism and socialism aren't "Western"? There are plenty of pre-Christian symbolism, myths, ideas, motifs, etc. in Christianity. And socialism was a product of post-Enlightenment rationalism like capitalism was. So "Western" is some version of Christianity and or "post Enlightenment Western capitalism and rationalism" that you have in your mind?
The compulsion here seems to be that since Nazism was bad, it can't be described as "Western" since that might paint "Western" as bad as well.
For the record I do think Nazism was bad. I don't have a problem with calling Nazism both Western and bad. I don't think this means "Western" means bad.
That it poses a threat to the Jews is bad enough for me. That they mistreat women and other religious minorities and that no scientific or economic progress has come out of the Muslim world during the last 800 years or so is just icing on the cake.
At some point a difference in degree is a difference in kind. If you can't tell the difference between a dictator like Khadafi and a democratic country, it's probably because you've always lived in a democratic country and can't even imagine how bad it is to live under a dictatorship. It's a whole different ballgame.
There are "useful idiots" everywhere but on the whole there is support for continuing US presence. The Japanese esp. have rethought having the Americans leave as China increase in military power. I'd say of all the occupying powers in history, the US has been the most benign.
I won't argue whether the Nazi's were "Western" or not - I can say that their atrocities were unprecedented in the post-Renaissance West. They used Western means (railroad, chemical factories) to carry out Eastern barbarities.
K
I would say that the fundamental problem in the West today, is that (in no small measure due to the Nazis) it is difficult to embrace a healthy version of nationalism; but in its absence, no defense of the West is possible, and we see it succumbing to mass immigration, fiscal irresponsibility, and Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism.
Make no mistake, all of these things are nails in the coffin of Western Civilization.
Anon.
US nationalism was healthy and intact following WWII. Vietnam killed it. Personally I'm glad that German and Japanese nationalism are both more or less dead or discredited - when those nationalisms were "healthy" they caused more harm than good. In general the nationalism of the last century is highly overrated - all the little chickenshit countries that have their own "nationalism" - Slovak nationalism, Bosnian nationalism, African nationalism, etc. were much better off as part of empires. The only ones that benefit from nationalism are the corrupt local ruling elites who get to plunder the wealth. The common people end up with even less than they did under their colonial masters.
K
K
K:
No question nationalism is dangerous, and the PC people are not all fools for trying to get rid of it.
My point, however, is that linear thinking is not the solution either, because the absence of nationalism, paradoxically, also leads to serious nihilistic pathologies, especially when combined with the collapse of religious faith. Hence the failure to defend Europe; who's going to get emotional about a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels drawing up regulations?
As to the "chickenshit" countries, I would point out that African nationalism never existed, was invented by London School of Economics alumni, and was a thin veneer for intense and lethal tribalism. As for the other countries, people should be allowed to feel what comes naturally, which is pride and defensiveness about one's own; this is a human right, but one, I fully acknowledge, that need to be manged carefully.
As for "chickenshit" countries, you are no doubt aware that the Daniel Bernard, French ambassador to London, and a highly regarded advisor to Chirac, was overheard making a remark in connection with what he described as a "shitty little country", referring to Israel.
He was, rightfully, condemned (at least by some people, and I will add my voice to that, for what its worth).
I hope we can add yours, too.
Anon.
Europe (not to mention the rest of the world) was always populated by mixed ethnic populations - there were Greeks in Turkey and Turks in Greece, Hungarians in Romania, Poles in Ukraine, Ruthenians all over the place, volks GErmans all over eastern Europe, etc. etc. It was this way for 1000s of years. Wilsonian Nationalism caused more pain and human displacement than all the wars and political movements in all of history before the 20th century. What is chickenshit is the idea that every nationality is entitled to have a racially pure enclave of its own. To be honest, I wish that there was not a need for an exclusively Jewish enclave but history (and all those other nationalisms) made it essential for us to get ours too - in a nationalistic world a nation without a state is doomed.
K
I thought Ruthenians were a type of vegetable.
Perhaps I was wrong.
Anon.
Ruthenian is more or less synonymous with Ukrainian. If your nationality missed the boat at the Versailles conference, you were SOL.
K
Post a Comment