Tuesday, 25 October 2011

Such Hypocrisy

From the Same link as the post below,
...U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Britain's new defense secretary, Philip Hammond, said a full investigation into Gadhafi's death is necessary.

Hammond said the Libyan revolutionaries' image had been "a little bit stained" by Gadhafi's death, Hammond adding that the new government "will want to get to the bottom of it in a way that rebuilds and cleanses that reputation."
"It's certainly not the way we do things," Hammond told BBC television...
After bombing the crap out of the country, targeting Gadhafi specifically with bombs, drones and missiles, these self-righteous politicos are whining because someone put a bullet in his head.

What silliness. And taxpayers actually pay these people!

Pardon the rant, but
Take Care


Warren said...

Although I can understand where you might get that impression from the popular media, to say that NATO "bombed the crap" out of Libya is a significant misrepresentation of the military campaign and an undeserved slam against the RCAF.

John K said...

Warren, you know how I tend towards hyperbole. The fact is that we did attack Libya, and people were killed I'm sure, so to make such a big deal about Gadhafi's death, or at least the means of it, I think is a little hypocritical. And I didn't mean to speak unkindly of the RCAF, although I am certainly suspect of the motives and judgement of those who sent them there.

Warren said...

As I said, if all your info is coming from the popular media, it might look like bombs were being dropped willy-nilly. The reality is that more care was probably taken in this bombing campaign to ensure great precision in hitting targets than in any other that has preceded it in history (and I recognize that "care" and "bombing campaign" tend to sound oxymoronic).

Is there some hypocrisy? Probably. Regardless, I would far rather live in a society where some attempt is made to act in accordance with international law, treaties and conventions, than in a society that deliberately ignores or flagrantly violates them.

It may not lead anywhere productive, but I don't believe the leaders involved are silly for calling for accountability.

John K said...

Actually my real point is, "Why were we there in the first place?" Weren't we just trying specifically to eliminate Gadhafi? Didn't we (meaning, "the west") target Gadhafi's compound a few years back, missing him but killing some of his family?
And if it is a human rights issue, is Syria next? Then North Korea? I think not.
Again I say, "Hypocrisy!"

Warren said...

Would you extend your accusation of hypocrisy to the extent of agreeing with this comment on a "The Atlantic" editorial on the killing of Gadhafi?

And didn't the US want this?--the murder of Kadhafi? And didn't the US murder Osama bin Laden? And his American lieutenant? Didn't the US jerk Saddam Hussein's head off? Didn't the US try to kill Kadahfi years ago, when Reagan bombed Tripoli?

It was long ago that the US murdered President Diem in South Vietnam. And the US has long since admitted to 28 failed attempts to murder Fidel Castro.

American hypocrisy is so utterly and viciously stupid. But the world puts up with it because the US has 12,000 nuclear weapons--and has a record of being willing to use them.

Righteousness? Honor? Decency? Truth? Those are foreign words to Americans. All they know--as Obama demonstrates every day--is raw military power.

Someday the US will go bust, and when it does it will fire all its nuclear missiles, and cause the end of all life on this planet. Unless we challenge them now, that is the best future we can expect.

I will admit that, on a visceral level at least, I do have some sympathy with it. And I would suggest that conservative America - including the religious right - has its hands every bit as dirty (or more so) as liberal America.

The original article can be found here:


John K said...

I would agree on the first couple of paragraphs. After that it gets a little over the top.