seldom do we get a chance to see so much hypocrisy surrounding one issue. if many reports are to be believed, this situation goes a bit beyond merely rounding up a few mercenaries. this is precisely the sort of thing that would normally have bleeding hearts howling and licking their chops, but the best we can muster is "oh, you mean the mercenaries". anywhere else in the world, under any other circumstances, these actions would be loudly decried as a tyranny, but hardly a cry is heard. simply because it is under the guise of spreading democracy. you remember that, don't you? it's what we were so vehemently vilified for in iraq. that and bringing down a bloody dictator that had been proven to support terrorist activities around the world. i'm sure y'all will point to the popular support in libya as the greatest difference between these two fracases. who here won't admit that there was quite a bit of prodding by the west to get this little coup going? those of you that raised your hands may now go to the back of the room and hang your heads in shame. you've been shown to be imbecilic partisan hacks and should no longer be allowed to participate in intelligent debate.
from beginning to end, this libyan adventure has been chock full of contradictions and hypocritical maneuverings. the comparison of western actions in libya and iraq seems inevitable, but has been brought up short whenever possible. the differences seem to be all that matters. this time around, it wasn't the great satan, america, who instigated international interference. it was the global community itself. more specifically, the european voice of the global community. america had apparently resigned itself to its place in the world as the global community's watchdog/lapdog. little was made of the speculation that this was a war for oil, though europe receives a significant percentage of its oil from libya, and what little there was aimed itself mostly at american interests. any incidences of friendly fire "accidents" or civilian casualties were relegated to page three and quickly dismissed as natural occurrences in the fog of war. this whole battle seemed short and sweet. it might be claimed that there was more internal support for this war than for the imperialistic designs that were supposedly evident in both iraq and afghanistan, but an alternate rationale may be more to the point. this time we were fighting in support of many of the same elements responsible for worldwide islamic terrorism and that gave support to the insurgency in those other theaters. all in all, the socialistically inclined voices of the world seem to see this as one of those moment in time when we should all gather 'round the campfire and sing kumbaya, in sharp contrast to the venom spewed on our other recent endeavors.
the partisan hackery certainly hasn't been restricted to the left side of the board. in these very forums, as well as a few less obscure spots, i've read attempts by those with a more conservative view to paint libya's erstwhile leader in a more rosy light. they point to the good he has done for his people, the oil wealth he spread among the citizens of his country, and seem to say "well, he wasn't all bad". that he did this through the socialistic means of nationalizing the oil industry seems lost on these folks. y'all remember what "nationalize" means, don't you? it's where the state steals all that private enterprise has built and holds it in the name of the people. it is certainly true that this did improve the lot of the libyan people, but that hardly excuses the abuses he heaped on his nation's citizenry or the terrorist activities he endorsed and supported. what those folks to right of center should realize, what we should all realize, is that qaddafi's tyranny is the natural outcome of the means he utilized to control the nation's wealth. such a swerve toward socialism demands a strong arm at the wheel and the resultant tyranny that always seems to follow. every major socialist power has had a single man or party that wields such power, controlling it at what is assumed to be the behest of the people. this is power taken from the people, lost power that equates to lost freedoms. along with the inevitability of intrusive centralized control is the equally inevitable disquiet of the people when they begin to miss those freedoms they relinquished for the sake of comfort.
i would like to believe that the libyan revolution, along with the whole arab spring phenomenon, will end in a freer middle east. i'd like to, but i can't. this latest bit of news only deepens my fears that the "democracy" spreading throughout the region is of the darker sort. a people steeped in fear cannot be expected to rule wisely. a people infiltrated by hate cannot be expected to do anything other than their worst impulses demand. a people so used to being ruled over with an iron hand are far more likely to resign themselves to another form of tyranny than to pick up the reins of their own destiny. the combining of the power of the present persian state with that of nations newly freed of their masters seems almost impossible to avoid and destined to result in the emboldening of jihadist style sentiments and even more danger for the world at large.
