Shameful And Disgusting

[poliphilo]

We armed Gaddafi- knowing the kind of thing he was- and now we're disarming him. We gave him the means to tyrannise over his people and now we're taking it away. Those are our toys on the ground we're destroying with our newer toys in the air. 

The use of air power is always disgusting. The boys on the ground- hapless tools of the dictator- didn't stand a chance.  But air power is all the Libyan rebels want from us. If we level the playing field which our arms dealers made uneven they'll do the rest. They don't want British or French or American troops showing up in their towns. And if they did they'd fight them. We get to do the dirty work and they'll do the stuff on the ground that involves personal heroism and gains the glory. We'll have won the war for them but it'll be the native-born who get to run up the flags over Gaddafi's compound. It's they who'll get the victory parades. They're using us, even as they despise us- which is fair return for the way we've used and despised them whilst clutching their mad-dog of a dictator to our greedy bosoms.

There's nothing about the war in Libya that isn't shameful and disgusting. It is shameful and disgusting that we kill from the air. It is shameful and disgusting that we are trying to destroy a ruler we were flattering only a few months back. It is shameful and disgusting that we are doing this in league with other Arab regimes (the Saudis for instance) who are just as foul as Gaddafi.

 

Everything about this war is shameful and disgusting- and redounds to our dishonour.  The only comfort is that it would have been even more shameful and disgusting to have let Gaddafi win.

Comments

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Your last line is the point.

To me, I feel that way about violence in general. The use of violence is NEVER a good solution -- it's just that, sometimes, every other course of action is even worse.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

That's right.

The concept of "the just war" is a useful one. Most wars fail the test, but this one, I think, just about passes.

[trixibelle-net.livejournal.com]

Would you mind if I reblogged this? It says everything I think.

[suzilem.livejournal.com]

I'm concerned about the "slippery slope"

[ron-broxted.livejournal.com]

If 2 felleyeen with pitchforks can take out 8 SAS it is time to worry!

[veronikos.livejournal.com]

I'm not even clear on who the rebels *are*. I mean, are they pro-democracy forces? Or are they Al-Qaeda-backed nutjobs? I was also suspicious during Egypt's protests, when Iran's President, Achmad Imadinnerjacket, was heard to be encouraging the uprising. Why? The reporting on all of this has been nothing but shameful newsertainment.

[loxian.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Me too.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Please do. I'd be honoured.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Now that was funny...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Gaddafi says they're Al Quaeda- which suggests to me that they're not.

The Arab uprisings seem to be genuinely popular and largely secular- which isn't to say that the most extreme, illiberal (and unscrupulous) elements won't end up on top.

[trixibelle-net.livejournal.com]

:o)

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Armed uprisings make authoritarians of every stripe very uneasy. The natural order of things is the wealthy and powerful on top and everyone else playing a supporting role. Anything that questions that order or suggests that it might be overthrown by self-motivated and self-organizing nobodies starts them whinging and snarling and looking to other authority figures for direction.

It's hilarious watching Republicans like this make common cause with the likes of Hugo Chavez and Muammar al-Gaddafi. Or is it shameful and revolting? I get those mixed up, sometimes.