Libya: should anything be done?

[JimC]

What absolute and utter nonsense! Unless you mean criminal libel or assault, a rigorous leftist critique of the current economic structure in a country like Canada will result in yawns at the worst. Give me chapter and verse how anything that could truly be regarded as "speaking out against the true leaders and true power" has earned anybody in Canada a jail sentence, unless that "speaking out" also involved other, clearly criminal activities!

well, the latest example would be the G20 in Toronto... Montreal. I've been arrested at protests for doing nothing illegal...except, of course, protesting. Your well versed in speaking out your ass aren't you.

G20 protests are almost always violent and destructive. You and others would not have been arrested for holding banners, or chanting slogans, but for trashing property or assaulting police... We've had them in Melbourne too, and they seem to be no more than an excuse to destroy things and hurl missiles at police.

I was attending peaceful mass protests when you were shitting your nappies...

[sandinista]

What absolute and utter nonsense! Unless you mean criminal libel or assault, a rigorous leftist critique of the current economic structure in a country like Canada will result in yawns at the worst. Give me chapter and verse how anything that could truly be regarded as "speaking out against the true leaders and true power" has earned anybody in Canada a jail sentence, unless that "speaking out" also involved other, clearly criminal activities!

well, the latest example would be the G20 in Toronto... Montreal. I've been arrested at protests for doing nothing illegal...except, of course, protesting. Your well versed in speaking out your ass aren't you.

G20 protests are almost always violent and destructive. You and others would not have been arrested for holding banners, or chanting slogans, but for trashing property or assaulting police... We've had them in Melbourne too, and they seem to be no more than an excuse to destroy things and hurl missiles at police.

I was attending peaceful mass protests when you were shitting your nappies...

What absolute and utter nonsense!

and what? Another old fucker who thinks they deserve some kind of praise because they are old sold out fucking hippies. Good luck with that.

[JimC]

What absolute and utter nonsense! Unless you mean criminal libel or assault, a rigorous leftist critique of the current economic structure in a country like Canada will result in yawns at the worst. Give me chapter and verse how anything that could truly be regarded as "speaking out against the true leaders and true power" has earned anybody in Canada a jail sentence, unless that "speaking out" also involved other, clearly criminal activities!

well, the latest example would be the G20 in Toronto... Montreal. I've been arrested at protests for doing nothing illegal...except, of course, protesting. Your well versed in speaking out your ass aren't you.

G20 protests are almost always violent and destructive. You and others would not have been arrested for holding banners, or chanting slogans, but for trashing property or assaulting police... We've had them in Melbourne too, and they seem to be no more than an excuse to destroy things and hurl missiles at police.

I was attending peaceful mass protests when you were shitting your nappies...

What absolute and utter nonsense!

and what? Another old fucker who thinks they deserve some kind of praise because they are old sold out fucking hippies. Good luck with that.

Well then, remain a marginalised extremist protestor who will always be part of a tiny and politically impotent minority, ignored by all except the rabid right, for whom you are the enemy they love to imagine...

The police have your movement infiltrated very effectively, your violent demonstrations will be squashed (without any real carnage, unlike Libya) and you will be forever ignored by the "broad mass of the people" you claim to represent...

Otherwise, enjoy the faded dreams and broken barricades while the world (including those of us from a time of honourable and peaceful protest) move on...

[Gawd]

Jim, you are wrong about protests. Violence and destruction is a legitimate part of protesting as evidenced by every single Arab revolution lately. All the protests had protestors that fought back to show that they mean business. Without the show of force by the protestors, there would have been no change.

[JimC]

Jim, you are wrong about protests. Violence and destruction is a legitimate part of protesting as evidenced by every single Arab revolution lately. All the protests hand protestors that fought back to show that mean business. Without the show of force by the protestors, there would have been no change.

I wasn't generalising about any violent protest, I was speaking of the G20 protests and the like. In a country ruled by a military dictatorship, peaceful protests are often brutally squashed, and there is no ballot box as an alternative. I would not see a violent reaction by protestors as wrong in that context.

And let me add that I am also aware that some police actions, in some situations in the west, have been completely over the top, and deserve censure. That's why we need vigilant lawyers and investigative journalists, and a robust police complaints procedure.

[Gawd]

Jim, you are wrong about protests. Violence and destruction is a legitimate part of protesting as evidenced by every single Arab revolution lately. All the protests hand protestors that fought back to show that mean business. Without the show of force by the protestors, there would have been no change.

I wasn't generalising about any violent protest, I was speaking of the G20 protests and the like. In a country ruled by a military dictatorship, peaceful protests are often brutally squashed, and there is no ballot box as an alternative. I would not see a violent reaction by protestors as wrong in that context.

And let me add that I am also aware that some police actions, in some situations in the west, have been completely over the top, and deserve censure. That's why we need vigilant lawyers and investigative journalists, and a robust police complaints procedure.

You can't cherry pick which protests you like and then tell Sandinista that he is wrong about his particular protest methods. One man's infamy is another one's gain.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's not cherry picking to base one's differing value judgments on different sets of facts. That's called "thinking."

[Coito ergo sum]

'To my Dear Obama, our son', says Gaddafi, defending attack on rebels
19 Mar 2011, 1757 hrs IST, AGENCIES
Calling Barack Obama as "our son", Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sent a message to the US President defending his decision to attack the rebels fighting to overthrow him.

Gaddafi(68) also wrote a letter to the French and British leaders, and the UN Secretary General, saying the Security Council resolution was "void" and violated the UN charter, warning them that they would "regret" any intervention.

"Libya is not for you, Libya is for the Libyans," he said.

Details of Gaddafi's letters were released by the Libyan government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli.

Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, "Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example."

Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, "To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed."

In his letter to Nikolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Ban Ki Moon, Gaddafi said, "Libya is not yours, Libya is for the Libyans. The security council, their resolution is void because it is not according to the charter to interfere with the internal affairs of the country."

You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet on our people, it is Al Qaeda organisation."

http://www.timesnow.tv/Gaddafi-defends- ... 368205.cms

[Coito ergo sum]

The president had a caveat, though. The American involvement in military action in Libya should be limited — no ground troops — and finite. “Days, not weeks,” a senior White House official recalled him saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world ... l?_r=2&hpw

I.e. - we'll shoot a few missiles, so I can claim to be tough on brutal dictators, but I want us out immediately so nobody can criticize me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jim, you are wrong about protests. Violence and destruction is a legitimate part of protesting as evidenced by every single Arab revolution lately. All the protests had protestors that fought back to show that they mean business. Without the show of force by the protestors, there would have been no change.

"legitimate"? Good, if they legitimate for the goose, they're legitimate for the gander. So why are we bombing Mommar Sodaffy again?

[Warren Dew]

“Days, not weeks,” a senior White House official recalled him saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world ... l?_r=2&hpw

Heh, good luck with that.

[Warren Dew]

Well then, remain a marginalised extremist protestor who will always be part of a tiny and politically impotent minority, ignored by all except the rabid right, for whom you are the enemy they love to imagine...

So when we're talking about "speaking out without fear of reprisal", we really mean "speaking out without fear of reprisal, but only if you're in a politically powerful majority"?

That's actually pretty consistent with my definition of "democracy", too. It also shows how different "democracy" is from "freedom".

[JOZeldenrust]

Well then, remain a marginalised extremist protestor who will always be part of a tiny and politically impotent minority, ignored by all except the rabid right, for whom you are the enemy they love to imagine...

So when we're talking about "speaking out without fear of reprisal", we really mean "speaking out without fear of reprisal, but only if you're in a politically powerful majority"?

That's actually pretty consistent with my definition of "democracy", too. It also shows how different "democracy" is from "freedom".

No, anyone can speak out. That doesn't make it a certainty you'll accomplish anything. That requires that the change you're trying to achieve is something that's supported by a significant power base, eighter by sheer weight of numbers or by some other way of exerting political influence.

Noone is stopping radical left-wingers like anti-globalists from speaking out - though they are kept from throwing stones trough the windows of the nearest McDonalds - there are just too many people who disagree with them for them to accomplish anything.

[Warren Dew]

That's actually pretty consistent with my definition of "democracy", too. It also shows how different "democracy" is from "freedom".

No, anyone can speak out. That doesn't make it a certainty you'll accomplish anything. That requires that the change you're trying to achieve is something that's supported by a significant power base, eighter by sheer weight of numbers or by some other way of exerting political influence.

Noone is stopping radical left-wingers like anti-globalists from speaking out - though they are kept from throwing stones trough the windows of the nearest McDonalds - there are just too many people who disagree with them for them to accomplish anything.

Being arrested doesn't count as a reprisal, then? Or does Canada not count as a democracy?

If the latter, I'm pretty sure your definition is different from JimC's definition.

[Hermit]

I could possibly support "democracy" if I ever experienced it. Not sure what "democracy" entails so I am hesitant to "support" it.

A good working definition for me is, "The ability of a citizen to speak up against, and if necessary turn out, his or her government without fear of government reprisals." Hopefully that helps.

Speak up in what sense? Overthrow the government without fear of reprisals? That doesn't exist anywhere. Any government will fight back if they feel the risk of being overthrown. I know this is a little off topic, and I do apologize, but this terminology interests me. Seems very vague.

OK. Time for a concrete example: The Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, visited The People's Republic of China. (His visit caused outrage in the "free world" until President Nixon followed suit shortly after.) Whitlam said to Mao Zedong: "Australia is a great democracy! Anyone can shout out loud: "The Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, is a fink!" without any fear of punishment!" Mao replied: "China also is a great democracy! Here too, anyone can shout out loud: "The Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, is a fink!" without any fear of punishment!"

You can't compare the ability to speak to power between two governments.

You can't recognise a joke.