Political for a Change - Libya
Mar. 27th, 2011 10:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cloudy_oneI don't really consider myself a peace nut or anything like that. I'm not big on foreign intervention though.
I've been hearing a lot about this Libya situation lately and it was interesting when I heard that the people had decided to revolt. This morning though Byron comes into the room and watches CBS Sunday Morning and I find out that America has decided to send in airstrikes to help the Libyans. While I'm sure the rebels appreciate the help at the moment, it tends to come with other obligations. There are already talks at the UN of Libya having to make a Democracy shift. At no point have I heard about the Libyans really wanting democracy, just not wanting to be under a despotic rule anymore. Sam has a habit of letting me know some of the better ways to look at things like this from different views, so I thought I'd do a little snooping through Libyan news sites instead of just looking at what AP and Reuters have to say.
Of course the websites of the state and "The Leader" are pretty biased, but I think it's interesting a lot of the terminology they use. AL Gathafi ("The Brother Leader" as he's called on his site) tends to stray from talking about the situation much on his personal site. He is quite the hobby philosopher though as it turns out. The state site tends to use a lot of specific language. I was taken aback by how often the words "colonialism" and "crusader" were used. Again, they have a lot to gain from showing America in a negative light, but I think it says a lot that words like that still have so much power in an age when that shouldn't be an issue anymore. The Crusades were a horrible black mark in the history of the Western world and the effects are still being felt. Colonialism has been all but outlawed, though it is still practiced in more muted degrees even by the developed world. They are inflammatory words and I guess that's what the point was.
Looking at it from my point of view I don't take kindly to America's involvement in foreign affairs which don't impact it so directly. The a tiny degree I could see intervention in the middle east but purely for the sake of protecting oil investments. I don't think that's morally right, but I can make logical sense of it. The oil in Libya goes mostly to France and Italy. We get hardly any from it. If anything it would make more sense for those European countries to be going in and doing airstrikes, not us. Besides that I don't need to include a list of the countless quotes out there from founding fathers like John Adams, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin saying how they don't approve of America sticking her nose into the affairs of others. There are things which need to be taken care of here. Being so involved in international, not politics, but wars, creates international resentment. Our military is spread too thin as it is. It is an obvious problem when we have to hire private mercenaries to supplement that. Heck, I don't even support US military bases in ally countries like Germany and Korea, let alone military action in countries where we don't belong.
There is a huge battle cry for gearing back on dependance on foreign oil and going with substitutes to gasoline and petroleum. We have that technology already in many respects, it's a matter of tightening our belts while we integrate them. America has many natural resources. Out here in New Mexico there are people who could make a living by taking what the desert provided. There are thousand year old ruins of those civilizations standing today. With the bounty of a properly managed country like this we don't have to worry about importing a lot, especially things for which we must go to war (official or not).
I also don't agree with the spread of democracy. If a country, a group of people, wish to go that route, more power to them. It shouldn't be forced though. It is not the best or even most fair form of government for all people. Some would do better under a form of communism, socialism, or even monarchy. People make their own fates, and I wouldn't appreciate it if someone came and told my family how to live because they thought it was best. I doubt anyone likes being forced into an ideology with which they don't agree. In some senses it is a modern Crusade to convert the world to democracy (instead of Christianity).
In any case, I don't like what's happening in Libya with foreign intervention. I'm all for the rebels getting what they want, but it's important that it stays in their hands and that others don't feel a need (really a want) to get involved. It's their revolution, let them ask for help if they like, but then don't press anything on them which they don't want or didn't agree to.
Libya Online: http://www.libyaonline.com/
Al Gathafi Official Site: http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm
Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation: en.ljbc.net/home.php
I've been hearing a lot about this Libya situation lately and it was interesting when I heard that the people had decided to revolt. This morning though Byron comes into the room and watches CBS Sunday Morning and I find out that America has decided to send in airstrikes to help the Libyans. While I'm sure the rebels appreciate the help at the moment, it tends to come with other obligations. There are already talks at the UN of Libya having to make a Democracy shift. At no point have I heard about the Libyans really wanting democracy, just not wanting to be under a despotic rule anymore. Sam has a habit of letting me know some of the better ways to look at things like this from different views, so I thought I'd do a little snooping through Libyan news sites instead of just looking at what AP and Reuters have to say.
Of course the websites of the state and "The Leader" are pretty biased, but I think it's interesting a lot of the terminology they use. AL Gathafi ("The Brother Leader" as he's called on his site) tends to stray from talking about the situation much on his personal site. He is quite the hobby philosopher though as it turns out. The state site tends to use a lot of specific language. I was taken aback by how often the words "colonialism" and "crusader" were used. Again, they have a lot to gain from showing America in a negative light, but I think it says a lot that words like that still have so much power in an age when that shouldn't be an issue anymore. The Crusades were a horrible black mark in the history of the Western world and the effects are still being felt. Colonialism has been all but outlawed, though it is still practiced in more muted degrees even by the developed world. They are inflammatory words and I guess that's what the point was.
Looking at it from my point of view I don't take kindly to America's involvement in foreign affairs which don't impact it so directly. The a tiny degree I could see intervention in the middle east but purely for the sake of protecting oil investments. I don't think that's morally right, but I can make logical sense of it. The oil in Libya goes mostly to France and Italy. We get hardly any from it. If anything it would make more sense for those European countries to be going in and doing airstrikes, not us. Besides that I don't need to include a list of the countless quotes out there from founding fathers like John Adams, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin saying how they don't approve of America sticking her nose into the affairs of others. There are things which need to be taken care of here. Being so involved in international, not politics, but wars, creates international resentment. Our military is spread too thin as it is. It is an obvious problem when we have to hire private mercenaries to supplement that. Heck, I don't even support US military bases in ally countries like Germany and Korea, let alone military action in countries where we don't belong.
There is a huge battle cry for gearing back on dependance on foreign oil and going with substitutes to gasoline and petroleum. We have that technology already in many respects, it's a matter of tightening our belts while we integrate them. America has many natural resources. Out here in New Mexico there are people who could make a living by taking what the desert provided. There are thousand year old ruins of those civilizations standing today. With the bounty of a properly managed country like this we don't have to worry about importing a lot, especially things for which we must go to war (official or not).
I also don't agree with the spread of democracy. If a country, a group of people, wish to go that route, more power to them. It shouldn't be forced though. It is not the best or even most fair form of government for all people. Some would do better under a form of communism, socialism, or even monarchy. People make their own fates, and I wouldn't appreciate it if someone came and told my family how to live because they thought it was best. I doubt anyone likes being forced into an ideology with which they don't agree. In some senses it is a modern Crusade to convert the world to democracy (instead of Christianity).
In any case, I don't like what's happening in Libya with foreign intervention. I'm all for the rebels getting what they want, but it's important that it stays in their hands and that others don't feel a need (really a want) to get involved. It's their revolution, let them ask for help if they like, but then don't press anything on them which they don't want or didn't agree to.
Libya Online: http://www.libyaonline.com/
Al Gathafi Official Site: http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm
Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation: en.ljbc.net/home.php
