Nine years after a US-led attack on Libya and murder of its leader, the democracy and liberation promised by Hillary Clinton and her band of “humanitarian interventionists” has never arrived. Instead, the once-wealthiest African country is mired in civil war and the standard of living has plummeted. There are several warring factions and militias vying for control, none of which seems strong enough to rule the country. This is a valuable cautionary tale about the disasters of US interventionism – which is precisely why no one wants to talk about it. Watch today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
Yes, it is very much Hillary’s War. When Obama refused, she did a tour of Europe promising the US would support a European attack. Then she insisted in Washington that the US could not let them fail, as they would without US ammo stocks, air-to-air refueling, AWACS, and more.
This is important because it is Her team of interventionist hawks who are now mis-labeled as “center-left” and running for the Democratic nomination as if they are peace candidates. They are anything but peace candidates. It is like running Dubya against Trump.
I still trust the Dems far more than the GOP. As commenter Dave Sullivan has noted many times, if you look at the ACTUAL Congressional votes for the various foreign policy resolutions introduced since Trump was elected, generally the overwhelming majority sided with the position likely held by the AW readers/leadership, with a smattering of Republicans voting along with them.
Could it be partisan voting? Maybe, but it is possible to genuinely have convictions as an elected representative. I might have more faith in Congress once its makeup better resembles the ethnic makeup around the world.
Plus, there’s Trump’s general lawlessness/awfulness enabled by GOP leadership to consider…
“I still trust the Dems far more than the GOP.”
How could anyone trust the corrupt leadership of either major party? Ignore the “limited government” rhetoric of the Republicans, and the “helping the working class” rhetoric of the Democrats. Both are liars, and they are in it for the money and power. I have the same argument with Republican partisans that I have with Democratic partisans, and there is no principled difference between the two.
I don’t know what political circles you frequent, but right-wingers are losing their shit over Sanders and The Squad (AOC, Tlaib, Omar, etc..). It’s probably all kabuki, but among the actual Trump-loving voters/citizens I know they view it as a threat to the status quo.
Plus, as I said, there’s the ACTUAL VOTING TALLIES ON THESE RESOLUTIONS. Resolutions getting approved or disapproved has tangible effects.
You know how many wars of choice were started by Democrats? Let’s see, Libya, arming the Syrian headchoppers, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan with the mujahadeen (1979), Viet Nam, etc. And they certainly helped and perpetuated many others. And the Republicans are no better.
Vote for the individual, if they’re anti-war, not for the party. Both parties are hopelessly corrupt and in thrall to the war machine.
Hey, remember who was in charge from 2000-2008? What message would it have sent if we voted a member of that party to a third consecutive presidential term?
I hoped that as a POC Obama would see war against foreigners as less acceptable than every single one of his predecessors
Hey, remember who was in charge from 2000-2008? What message would it have sent if we voted a member of that party to a third consecutive presidential term?
I hoped that as a POC Obama would see war against foreigners as less acceptable than every single one of his predecessors
Under Gadaffi, Libya was a sanctuary for displaced and stateless people, from the Tuaregs to the Saharawi. His oil wealth helped free half the continent from colonial rule. He backed Nelson Mandela back when the CIA was helping the Apartheid regime to frame and imprison him. For all this and more, the Colonel had to die. For all this and more, Hillary had to transform Libya into a scorched slave market. All dictators are dicks, but Washington hates the benevolent kind the most. All dictators are dicks, but few are bigger dicks than Hillary. What does it say about a country when all its greatest butchers are democratically elected?
Where does the buck stop in your world?
What the hell does that mean? You’re going to have to be a little more precise than that.
1. I don’t owe you anything.
2. Since when did the Secretary of State have the power to decide whether or not to go to war, and the president, the person responsible for making the go/no-go decision bear no responsibility?
I never said Obama wasn’t responsible, but it’s become common knowledge that he kicked that ball to Hillary and she ran the show. They should both be in jail.
That I will not argue.
Strange, anarchists/libertarians should be happy about Libya’s current state.
Impotent government unable to enforce laws!
Men exercising their gun rights pursuing prosperity under the free market!
Sweet, sweet freedom as far as the eye can see!
Logic’s not your strong suit, is it?
I plead guilty of using hyperbole to make a point; only scumbags would be ‘happy’ about what’s happening in Libya.
On the other hand, you and most of the commenters here are very upfront about your opposition to the state. You yourself blogged about the government shutdown a year ago and hoped that Trump would use this opportunity to get rid of “non-essential” government offices. Obviously by putting the onus on Trump, you would let his moral code determine which of these would qualify. And you know as well as me that closing down some services would hurt vulnerable people; whether that was an issue for you or not certainly wasn’t clear.
So, I had to chuckle when a defense of a head of state appeared here, since failed states are all over the world and life is miserable for the people living there. This one was only singled out because of Clinton’s intervention.
If my statement about people here being happy about Libya is to what you object, then I concede your criticism but it wasn’t my point.
If you reject my using Libya as an example of a stateless society — well, that sounds like the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, which would be ironic considering your statement.
Having too many warring rulers is not the same thing as having no rulers. There is nothing close to a free market in Libya. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but, the underlying principle of libertarianism is self-restraint with regard to the use of violence.
Ah, the NAP. A laudable thing it is, except many don’t subscribe to it and it’s worth nothing if it isn’t enforced.
“except many don’t subscribe to it”
Ah, I think we’ve found a Hobbesian. You can always tell a Hobbesian, as their posts are nasty, brutish, and short.
The history of the world, where countless groups invaded their neighbors for reasons ranging from self-enrichment to religious persecution would seem to suggest that it is a rare privilege to be able to live peacefully. One big reason Americans even live in relative peace because someone already did the heavy lifting of slaughtering the natives with their peaceful, cooperative societies so that their land could ultimately end up in our hands.
“One big reason Americans even live in relative peace because someone already did the heavy lifting of slaughtering the natives with their peaceful, cooperative societies so that their land could ultimately end up in our hands.”
It was never necessary to slaughter the natives to obtain “peace.” Doing so made all of us spiritually and materially poorer. Violence begets violence. The war torn condition of the world is a result, not only of our current actions, but, also, because of our actions of hundreds of years ago. There is so much bad Karma floating around, that it is not even clear how fast the world can be repaired, even if we immediately started doing the right things. It is certain, however, that there will be no improvement ever if we keep doing the wrong things.