Obama says: "Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power... You've seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people."
Note the implicit statement that the dictator once had legitimacy. Why would Obama think that?
March 3, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
162 comments:
IMO, it's a necessary fiction because we have been dealing with him for decades as though he were a legitimate ruler.
According to the UN Gaddafi has legitimacy. Libya until very recently was on the Human Rights Council, there are humanitarian awards given in his name, etc. Human Rights Watch complains more about Israel in a year than tey have ever complained about Gaddafi in his entire career.
Why wouldn't Obama think Gaddafi is legitimate? He's got plenty of company in thinking that.
I don't agree, but I didn't go to Harvard, so what do I know?
Note the implicit statement that the dictator once had legitimacy. Why would Obama think that?
I would dearly love to hear President Obama's own answer to that question without days to come up with a well-spun answer. To hazard a guess, one might read up about the president's take on Honduras.
Obama says: "You've seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people."
Not unlike yourself, Barry.
Because Qaddafi's an anti-American tinpot dictator, much like Freder's hero, the child-molestor Danny Ortega. Anyone who stands up and gives Uncle Sam the finger is alright in his book.
Oh, he killed a bunch of Americans in terrorist attacks? Well, mean old Ron Reagan made him do it. Not really his fault.
Did Gadaffi's people think he was legitimate? If so, then he had legitimacy with them despite treating them like an after-class demonstration on sexuality at Northwestern University.
Most countries around the world very quickly recognized his government after his coup.
Since he was replacing a monarchy with a 'socialist' form of government, everyone probably thought, "Oh, cool" and life went on.
I would say he had 'legitimacy' for a short period of time after he took power, but then he went all squirrel turd on everyone...
Why? Because Obama doesn't want to be imperialistic and suggest that America has an opinion on anything or any one, not even Qadafi or Chavez.
(But those damn racist tea-partiers really need to get punched back twice as hard.)
Why would Obama think that?
You're talking about someone who regards Joe Biden as "a first-class intellect," Professor.
Maybe when his beloved pastor Jeremiah Wright traveled with Farrakhan in 1984 to visit him in Tripoli. Sounds like they thought he was pretty legitimate to me.
Note the implicit statement that the dictator once had legitimacy. Why would Obama think that?
Bush normalized diplomatic relations with Libya in 2006. Maybe that's it?
AA "we" already know you dislike/despise Obama so why the ad nauseam redundancy ...
Much like feeding Christians to the lions as the Romans cheered, AA continues to feed her conservative flock!
Bush normalized diplomatic relations with Libya in 2006. Maybe that's it?
Probably not. If that were so, Obama would claim the exact opposite of whatever Bush did - he'd say, "Sure, I inherited this Libyan mess from my predecessor, and I believe it was a mistake to normalize relations with a illegitimate government..." or something.
No, it's probably something else :p
"Why did Obama think that?"
He may not actually think that but I assume that is what the teleprompter told him to say.
Also, how do we know, in fact, anyone has lost legitimacy? Without a fair election etc? I'd say Yugo Chavez has lost his legitimacy too? The question though is what would Obama's teleprompter say?
Remember that Obama's family has always believed that a King in his kingdom is the best form of Government. That is also called The Strong Man's rule, and it is natural to Obama. So he is telling the old Strong Man to step aside for another Strong Man to be named later.
Is there a Libyan Government in exile that I don't know about, that has descended from Idris?
In other words, if Qaddafi is not the legitimate leader, who is?
Poor choice of words on Obama's part, but I think realistic.
He found Kadafi's birth certificate...
Parents were a camel and a goat. Therefore not married in the eyes of Allah.
"Qaddafi has lost legitimacy and must leave"
And this time Barack rilly means it.
"Why would Obama think that?"
Because Barack Obama is a fucking moron.
Oh the withdrawal pains from my Ukranian angel.
"Bush normalized diplomatic relations with Libya in 2006. Maybe that's it?"
But of course, Barack Obama was elected in 2008, so anything Bush did in 2006 would be meaningless since Barack Obama is now the President of the United States and he has maintained normal relations with his brethren in Libya.
You really make Obama look like a pussy when you blame mistakes he has made in his presidency on George W. Bush.
Is that your goal, Garage? To make Obama seem like a pussy, always blaming the other for his mistakes?
Kerry went over and found out that Kadafi was never a Colonel and the river in Libya is not navigable at Christmas time but Kadafi still keeps his hat.
@Amy:
"Maybe when his beloved pastor Jeremiah Wright traveled with Farrakhan in 1984 to visit him in Tripoli. Sounds like they thought he was pretty legitimate to me."
Damn, you beat me to it.
And, Gore is jealous of Kadafi's footprint, while Edwards eyes his Ukrainian wet nurse.
The Obama Doctrine (as explained by Garage Mahal):
"The buck stops over there."
Don't be silly, Pres. Obama said that Qaddafi lost legitimacy "with his people." The qualifier makes the statement certainly accurate. His people are who matters in this process, really.
For those that are ridiculing the President, should we send in the Navy/special forces, or what exactly should we do? It is easy to bitch, it isn't easy to solve problems.
Hmm, might have something to do with Rev. Jerry Wright, the flamboyant fellow with the flowery features.
Wasn't he good buds with Guadaffi?
ok, ok, AA as your conservative crew does indeed enjoy their daily name calling meme ie throwing insults/expletives/ad hominems at Obama 24/7.
It's the main course for dinner at AA.
Any deviation(s) should be avoided at all costs ...
Bon appétit!
"...lost legitimacy with HIS people..."
The people with whom he had legitimacy. What's insidious about this? Sure he had legitimacy with SOME Libyans. Stalin had legitimacy with HIS people, Hitler with his, Kim Jong-il with his.
Isn't this another non-issue? Aren't there enough real issues?
Because Qaddafi is only a colonel?
At that rank, shouldn't one just spend the day dealing with the madcap pranks of the captains in your M.A.S.H. unit?
Maybe he'll move on to his own show, "Hello Muammar"?
Don't be silly, Pres. Obama said that Qaddafi lost legitimacy "with his people." The qualifier makes the statement certainly accurate. His people are who matters in this process, really.
Qadaffi is a dictator who took power in a militar coup. When did he ever earn legitimacy "with his people"?
Lefties like Obama love the idea of an anti-western strongman who's beloved by his people. Very romantic in a Che/Fidel kinda way.
The Department of Corrections was said to have lost legitimacy with the convicts who took control of Attica Prison. Obama means he wants to wait and see if the Warden sends in the National Guard and gets his prison back or retires.
(The Crypto Jew)
It's the main course for dinner at AA.
Any deviation(s) should be avoided at all costs ...
Bon appétit!
No one makes you stick around, you know…I don’t go to HuffPo or Kos, for a reason…do you just like abuse or do you just like complaining?
Joe
The truth shall set you free!
take care
(The Crypto Jew)
Kaddafi WAS the “legitimate” ruler of Libya, just like Great Britain WAS the legitimate ruler of Palestine and India, UNTIL the inhabitants withdrew their support or acquiescence and threw them and Kaddafi out…I know it’s the “barrel of a gun” argument, but Mao is right, in this case.
" ... your conservative crew does indeed enjoy their daily name calling ..."
We're not "name-calling." We're ridiculing. Huge difference.
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: "5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
We read the rules, and we read them well, and every change we get to ridicule the intellect of Barack Obama, we will.
And he gives us so many opportunities!
Well "Reagan" are you seeing the edit story about what Drudge linked to and then Reuters removed?
Basically Obama has painted himself into a box and the radical left put him there.
And more importantly the world knows it.
You cry and whine about your unions cushy jobs and want "representation" but you don't mind cutting the defense budget while at the same time managing to send overseas ballots out too late and questioning the hell out of them when they do return.
I dunno "Reagan" you have any bright ideas?
"IMO, it's a necessary fiction because we have been dealing with him for decades as though he were a legitimate ruler."
BINGO! First post nails it!
The same necessary fiction has been employed by us to justify our friendly dealings with a number of tryants, (the Shah, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, among others).
@Joe - That's a valid definition, but the question is why Obama would think Qaddafi once had legitimacy.
Lefties don't normally define "legitimacy" that way and I think Obama was trying to convey something other than the mere fact that Qaddafi is losing practical control of the country when he used the term.
Crypto is right: Legitimacy is with "the consent of the governed." (...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...)
After 40 years, the governed of Libya have withdrawn their consent to the system Qaddafi instituted and maintained.
Bye bye Mo!
(The Crypto Jew)
Lefties don't normally define "legitimacy" that way and I think Obama was trying to convey something other than the mere fact that Qaddafi is losing practical control of the country when he used the term.
Because when push comes to shove, Leftists, Conservatives can all be Realists when necessary…
Just curious Shiloh, how do YOU feel about BO's response to the situation in Libya?
Why would Obama think that?
The traditional way of organizing human economic activity is that the stronger thugs come in and take what you have, and perhaps rape the women and enslave the men.
That's legitimacy.
Even today in Chicago.
Our Constitution is only 200 years old and demonstrably unjust.
He had legitimacy when the ex-Republican lobby folks, like Bob Livingston, who in fairness did claim he reached his tipping in 2009 and finally ended the relationship, were representing the dictators of the Middle East and massaging congress for favors.
The question is not why Bob Livingston might think that Qaddafi once had legitimacy, but why Obama thinks that, r-v. Focus.
Note the implicit statement that the dictator once had legitimacy. Why would Obama think that?
Because Obama opens his mouth it is much more a question of timing.. not substance.
Thread jacking because this is a truly idiotic post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM
Tea Party welcoming committee!
Hey, nice threads
"We condemn you, but France and Germany condemned you first"
IMO, it's a necessary fiction because we have been dealing with him for decades as though he were a legitimate ruler.
Not for decades -- for about five years. For the quarter-century before that we treated Libya like we do Cuba.
But it is true that the US government has treated Qaddafi as legitimate for a while now.
He had legitimacy when the ex-Republican lobby folks [...] were representing the dictators of the Middle East and massaging congress for favors.
It's just the Republican lobby folks. Democrats don't do it.
True story.
Probably when there weren't violent riots opposing his rule.
Any other dumb questions?
Widespread riots reflecting the sentiments of a large majority of the country.
FLS:
"...After 40 years, the governed of Libya have withdrawn their consent to the system Qaddafi instituted and maintained..."
When exactly did they give consent in the first place?
Now try Cuba. When was Castro legitimized?
garage mahal wrote: Bush normalized diplomatic relations with Libya in 2006. Maybe that's it?
George W. Bush, messiah, meatpuppet, and devil incarnate all rolled in one. Soldier, statesman, ChimpyMcHitler, take your pick, whatever serves the immediate interest of His Oneness. He was more than President Bush, he was Precedent Bush, the all purpose excuse.
Obama sez "When Bush did it, it was Bad (or Stupid, or Venal, or all three at once) because the people I listen to say so. When I do it it's Good, Noble and Wise, because the people I listen to say so. And if you don't like that just remember Bush set the precedent."
"We condemn you, but France and Germany condemned you first"
Even tin horn dictator Chavez is ahead of Obama.
I think the most important thing for the fictive right-wing president to do right now (whom you imagine should be in charge) is to remind the Libyans how backward they've been for so long, by never having agreed to a constitutional system guaranteeing rights and liberties and stable transitions of power just like ours.
That would be a really effective, foreign policy move.
For a bunch of dumb fuckfaces.
Legitimacy?
More like death squads. That was 'legitimacy' to the Libyan people.
Obama has certain phrases that he utters. He does not really think about what they mean. If he thought about it, he might well agree that Qadaffi never had legitimacy, but that would require thought.
This is one of the reasons that he relies so heavily on teleprompters.
@C4
"For a bunch of dumb fuckfaces."
LOL.
You're off to a flying start.
Madawskan:
Well "Reagan" are you seeing the edit story about what Drudge linked to and then Reuters removed?
Answer: No, and I do not know what you are talking about. Further, your sentence is borderline gibberish.
"Basically Obama has painted himself into a box and the radical left put him there."
I don't know what you mean by radical left, nor what box the Pres. painted himself into. He is saying Qadaffi should leave, do you disagree?? Or, what does the "radical right" think the U.S. should do?
"And more importantly the world knows it."
Again, I really don't know what you are talking about. The U.S. is working through the U.N. to form a consensus to pressure Q to leave. I'm not sure how Obama's claim that Q is illegitimate is some shock to the world at large.
"You cry and whine about your unions cushy jobs and want "representation" but you don't mind cutting the defense budget while at the same time managing to send overseas ballots out too late and questioning the hell out of them when they do return."
Answer: I do not belong to a union and am self-employed. I don't think unions are evil and I think corporations have plenty of power. Obviously, given the crushing regulations and overwhelming socialism that Pres. Obama has promoted, your friends the Koch Bros. have managed to "earn" and keep billions. Where's the beef? WTF are you talking about regarding ballots as it relates to Qadaffi? I'm lost on that one, so be careful you don't enter into the Charlie Sheen-zone.
"I dunno "Reagan" you have any bright ideas?"
Answer: Not really. I would hope the European democracies would take the lead on this one, but I think we should support them in that endeavor. Especially if we end up with a really great left-wing dictator like Castro. Not.
"He had legitimacy when the ex-Republican lobby folks ... were massaging congress for favors."
What was your point?
Was your point that Obama is no better than money-grubbing Republican lobbyists? Is that your point?
Because I think that's the equivalency you just drew.
Didn't we elect Obama to change all that shit? Well?
Why is the dumb motherfucker still running a gulag at Gitmo? Is he unable to issue orders to Generals to evacuate Cuba? Do they follow his orders? Or not?
Why is Barack Obama killing brown people? Is he incapable of getting peace any other way other than shooting rockets at people to whom he has not extended habeus corpus? Is he a fuckimg murderer?
Why did Barack Obama renew the Patriot Act? Is he incapable of vetoing legislation he disagrees with?
Why did Barack Obama sign legislation that included an individual mandate. He swore to us that if we elected him he'd oppose such a thing. That it was morally wrong to try to end homelessness by forcing the homeless to buy homes. That such a method was fucking stupid.
What is it with your guy?
He seems to be a fucking pussy unable to man up and run the country like he told us he would.
Guys, you just don't get it.
The most important thing for Obama to do would be to declare the Libyan people to have been too politically backward and primitive for so long, to have denied Qadaffi's grasp on power all this time.
Because that's the declaration hidden in this right-wing alternative proposition to what Obama should have said.
Thanks for putting your bigotry up against Obama's successful diplomacy. I just don't know why I never got around to considering these obviously very serious, and well-thought out proposals.
Any more brilliant ideas?
Why would Obama think that?
Biden might have told him that it was a big fucking deal.
@c4
"Guys, you just don't get it."
A legend in your own mind, eh, old boy???
"Thanks for putting your bigotry up against Obama's successful diplomacy."
I just spit out my Pepsi - good one!!!
"I just don't know why I never got around to considering these obviously very serious, and well-thought out proposals."
Because, you are in love with yourself?
"Any more brilliant ideas?"
Just waiting for your orders, C4!
You're off to a flying start.
Why thank you. ;-)
But seriously now... Just how much berating of the Libyan people do you think Obama should do before giving the all-important American blessing to their revolution? Should he just put them down a little bit, or go all-out full-on hatred on them a la that shown by the Tea Party toward someone of Kenyan Muslim ancestry?
Just give me a gauge here on the reading we should set on the Berate-O-Meter.
Weekly PSA on troll feeding:
For those who feel a need to waste their time responding to Ritmo/C4, "it's worth reposting a Ritmo comment from earlier last week, displaying what he's up to at Althouse, and why he comments here:"
Ritmo Brasileiro said It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy. Getting you shit-eaters to complain about the taste after opening your mouths wide and saying "Ahhhh..." to every bad idea under the sun is very satisfying, I must admit. - 10/16/10 10:28 AM"
Because he is a community organizer, not a student of history or geopolitical realities.
Not a good qualification for POTUS, but hey, the women swooned and the legs tingled ....
Way to go Your Coolness. Just sit and dither and yawn and stare off into space. The crisis will pass and we can get back to what’s really important in this American of (y)ours – PARTAY, DOOD! Golf, vacations, golf, state dinners, golf, vacations, more golf. But oops, someone has beaten our boy to the punch.
Now, thanks to our reborn Silent Cal we'll have to settle for whatever monstrosity Chavez, Qaddafi, and Tin-Pots-R-Us come up with, or else fight or be the neo-colonialist pariah of the Third World, or both. Jeez...
@C4
"But seriously now... Just how much berating of the Libyan people do you think Obama should do before giving the all-important American blessing to their revolution? Should he just put them down a little bit, or go all-out full-on hatred on them a la that shown by the Tea Party toward someone of Kenyan Muslim ancestry? "
C4, anytime YOU preface one of your nuggets of wisdom with 'but seriously now', everyone's asshole puckers.
Why do you need to drag the Tea Party into this?
Zero has already set the stage for himself.
I am sure his able staff of leftards will handle this with the grace of a ballerina.
@Fen
Didn't you enjoy poking the big dog on the other side of the fence with a stick as a child?
Ritmo Brasileiro said It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy. Getting you shit-eaters to complain about the taste after opening your mouths wide and saying "Ahhhh..." to every bad idea under the sun is very satisfying, I must admit. - 10/16/10 10:28 AM"
I see Flim-Flam Fen, (who is obsessed with me), cannot get the taste of poop out of his mouth and would rather re-hash golden oldies than debate the Althousian proposition of denying the right of the Libyan people to political expression in the way that they've decided to be legitimate.
Because like how most Democratic politicians think, power is legitimacy. So Putin is legitimate, Chavez is legitimate.
Sarkozy is legitimate, as is Cameron, but their politics don't mesh as well with the socialist,leftist views of Barack so he does not want to look like he really likes them. That is why Hosni had to go now, because he was America's dictator. Gaddafi can hang around for a while longer because he wasn't an American Stooge.
Maybe Mugabe can visit and together they can test out new ways of suppressing their peoples.
I knew you guys were poor thinkers, but I didn't think you'd feel that making a mantra out of something could substitute for your own argument.
Fen, if you repeat your religious benediction often enough, people will accuse you of being a cult leader.
I always knew you were a follower, but declaring a new cult and trying to lead it doesn't make you any more independent or admirable.
Pretty soon, I'm just going to post that thing myself. ;-)
And just to warn you, Fen, as repetitive as your masturbation habits are, discussions are supposed to follow a different dynamic.
When exactly did they give consent in the first place?
Shortly after the military coup.
Now try Cuba. When was Castro legitimized?
Shortly after he took over and all his opponents fled.
I think the tendency is to think "legitimate" implies "Western": a state that a) upholds the rule of law; b) is democratic; and c) is based on a market economy. But even a brutal tyranny can be legitimate if the people accept it.
everyone's asshole puckers.
You give new meaning to political debate, Don't Tread. Or should I say, "Don't Spread"?
LOL.
@C4
"...debate the Althousian proposition of denying the right of the Libyan people to political expression in the way that they've decided to be legitimate."
Wrong-o, Ritmo. I see you've turned on the 'Leap-O-Rama' machine early...
Obama's statement implies that 'Godawfully' had legitimacy at one time. I don't believe its the kind of 'legitimacy' we think it is.
Legitimacy in a country like Libya is measured at the end of a gun barrel.
I do not believe Ann is suggesting that the people of Libya don't have a 'right' to political expression.
Please note that while the Limeys, the Krauts, and who knows who all else have been and gone, The Zero is just getting around to sending somebody to protect our people.
Gabriel Hanna said...
According to the UN Gaddafi has legitimacy. Libya until very recently was on the Human Rights Council, there are humanitarian awards given in his name, etc. Human Rights Watch complains more about Israel in a year than tey have ever complained about Gaddafi in his entire career.
Why wouldn't Obama think Gaddafi is legitimate? He's got plenty of company in thinking that.
The UN says he has legitimacy because cutthroat dictators make up 90% of their membership. The Zero thinks he's legit, like all our trolls, because he's anti-American.
PS Dealing with him for the last 40 years because he was the only game in town does not confer legitimacy. I know this is a difficult concept for the mental midgets on the Left, but that's the way the world spins sometimes.
Ann, do you think that only a democratic government has legitimacy? Where would you get such an idea?
There were elections in Venezuela On dec the 6th 2010. His party got 48% of votes. Opposition-52%. Thanks t Gerrymandering he has 98 representatives. The opposition 67. Judged jailed three of them ( the can not be arrested after proclamation but the packed Supreme Court allowed it)
37 persons are in jail for been oppositions to Chavez.
A judge was jailed because he ordered it. She has cancer, she was examined by a doctor ( in her private parts)after a delay of a month in the presence of a dozen national guards( all men). She is now in house arrest.Why? She fred a banker who was jailed because he was Chavez´s daughter lover. He , cowardly, ran to the USA the same day he was fred.
The man who saw Chavez cry like the coward he has been ever, is in jail. The other two witness that handed him underwear to change his tainted one after the coup ,are in the USA
@C4
"You give new meaning to political debate, Don't Tread. Or should I say, "Don't Spread"?"
Whatever turns your crank, Ritmo.
Don't make me wield my Helen Thomas avatar.
Why would Obama think that?
Given Obama's lack of intellectual curiosity, it is a good bet he didn't know who Gaddafi was before a few weeks ago.
Well Reagan it's hard to take you serious when you call yourself "Reagan" but troll these threads from the Left.
Yes the sentence about Drudge and what Reuters did is near jibberish because of what Reuters did- which was to delete a quote from a Libyan freedom fighter (-if we're allowed to use that term)-because it didn't fit Reuter's agenda.
Basically the only reason you *care* about the Libyans is because CNN is showing it to you. Now because CNN feels a bit guilty about making money off that; CNN goes through the motions of acting like they care. Also because it has happened during Obama's tenure you "feel" it would be "right" to do something.
But somewhere down in the pit of your Lefty hypocritical soul you know that the Libyans got snookered by all of the CNN *caring* and this makes you feel just a bit queasy when you watch it-
Libyans chant CNN!-while reporter refers to himself as feeling like an American soldier marching into Paris
Again you don't give a damn unless your puppet masters CNN tell you to-and the only reason they "pretend" to *care* is because they 've been profiting by showing you the violence.
The circle of hypocrites is complete.
600 hundreds politician have been disabled to be elected by the chief of the equivalent of Gao. Everyone on the opposition, not a single government official for Chavez party.
He ordered the army to fire on disarmed people , but they refused. that is what is know as the coup of 2002. He gave the same kaddafi ´s order but it was disobeyed
Qadaffi was the recognized leader of Libya, Don't Spread. I know you feel your patriotism threatened by the reality of life around the world, but that's a fact. What should have been done, deny his representation of Libya at the U.N. all this time? Were there any other individuals or parties with enough support to lead that country?
I know these are minor questions to you, annoyances in your tea-infused mind, disturbing the tea leaves that you read daily, but for anyone who actually leads a powerful country, and not just a movement of pajama-wearing, "think-tank"-operating, armchair diplomats, seeking to lead their revolution with all the experience that years of Dungeons and Dragons, basement video-gaming, and comic book conventions has given them, such things must be taken seriously.
Shortly after he took over and all his opponents fled.
Oh man that's rich!
Castro's opponents "fled"
They fled!
You ignorants never cease to amaze.
Bravo, bozo.
Bravo.
I think the tendency is to think "legitimate" implies "Western": a state that a) upholds the rule of law; b) is democratic; and c) is based on a market economy. But even a brutal tyranny can be legitimate if the people accept it.
So you're saying that "legitimate" equals "strong enough to stay in power". But I don't think Obama that's what Obama meant. Do you think he would have ever viewed Pinochet as legitimate? Or the apartheid South African regime?
I take it that Don't Tread speaks for the other pajamas-media junkies when expressing the offense he feels over anyone proposing that a non-Jeffersonian democrat such as Qadaffi was EVER the recognized leader of Libya.
I think what the Libyan people were most ashamed by, when Qadaffi took over all those years ago, was his betrayal of the long-standing English enlightenment political traditions of such Barbary States as Libya.
WTF is wrong with you gussied-up weirdos? Can't you just take a little bit of reality every now and then? Will your brain explode?
When was Castro legitimized?
After JFK's Bay of Pigs disaster, a CIA holdover operation from Ike's admin, when Castro agreed to return Cuban prisoners in exchange for food and medicine ...
and after The Cuban Missile Crisis when America agreed to not invade Cuba, if Cuba removed the nuclear weapons and agreed not to accept nuclear weapons in the future.
Again, as has been already mentioned ad nauseam here and elsewhere for the past 30/40 years: America often kowtows to dictators ie Marcos, The Shah, Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Qaddafi etc. depending on our foreign policy/nation security at the time.
We now return you to AA's supporters sayin' Obama is the devil incarnate, anti-christ, satan ~ hyperbole notwithstanding. ;)
carry on
Jesus Christ, Maguro. It was a simple, non-controversial, effective statement. Do we really have to make a debate out of the difference between normative and positive declarations with every freaking foreign policy statement? Do you guys need to review the distinction?
Obama supposedly majored in political science at Columbia. I infer that he's using the word "legitimacy" in the standard political science context.
But even a brutal tyranny can be legitimate if the people accept it.
Define "accept".
Tyrants rule through fear and injury.
If Gadhafi manages to hold on to power, will he once again be "legitimate in the eyes of his people"?
So, this whole post and thread boils down to whether Qadaffi was the legitimate leader of Libya versus whether he should have been, IN AN IDEAL WORLD the legitimate leader of Libya.
Perhaps if I drank more Kool-Aid flavored tea I'd do a better job confusing my "is"es with my "should be"s.
@C4
"What should have been done, deny his representation of Libya at the U.N. all this time? "
The U.N. is not legitimate, so your question is moot. The U.N. is a debating society whose aim is to extract $$ from the United States.
"Were there any other individuals or parties with enough support to lead that country? "
I doubt it, they may have been 'known' for a little while, but likely assumed room temperature with the help of Godawfully not long after.
C4, are you an ass-kissing dick-smoking dictator lover?
Reagan said...
[...]The U.S. is working through the U.N. to form a consensus to pressure Q to leave.[...]
Ghee how are they going to do that-by finally voting Libya off the UN Human Right's Council?
I'm sure Kadafi is gutted.
"lost legitimacy" is a ridiculous reason to give for why Qaddafi should now step down.
Because his people are finally daring to die in the streets to overthrow him, he must step down for the good of the country.
As if Qaddafi cares about the good of the country.
He is a tyrant. He does not care about legitimacy, his people, or the good of the country. That's *why* he's killing people in the streets.
@C4
"I take it that Don't Tread speaks for the other pajamas-media junkies when expressing the offense he feels over anyone proposing that a non-Jeffersonian democrat such as Qadaffi was EVER the recognized leader of Libya. "
(laughing)
Cite the post where I said all of that.
You are the annoying guy in the room, cracking jokes that only he himself laughs at.
The Zero strikes again.
The U.N. is not legitimate
The U.N. is a creation of the U.S., as a result of our overwhelming victory in WWII - therefore it is not only legitimate as a structure for global governance, but of U.S. history and the American hegemony that put us at the head of it. You may hate that fact, but as an outgrowth of the greatest and most destructive war in history, its legitimacy goes beyond perception. It is the best way we have of avoiding the apocalyptic third world war that your evangelistic flunkies dream of and jerk yourselves off to.
C4, are you an ass-kissing dick-smoking dictator lover?
No. But I attempt to debate ass-kissing dick-smoking dictators such as yourself, which means I accept your legitimacy as much as I accept Qadaffi's: As a cold, hard reality, and not as an endorsement of your illegitimate claim to anything admirable among the human species.
Define "accept".
Tyrants rule through fear and injury.
Does the legitimacy of government depend on how it rules? No.
You're driving along at a bit over the speed limit when you see flashing lights in your rear view mirror. You pull over to the side of the road because:
1. You recognize that your democratic government has passed laws for the benefit of all, and has sent out this emissary to remind you of the necessity of conforming your conduct to them, or
2. You're scared of what might happen if you don't.
"Note the implicit statement that the dictator once had legitimacy. Why would Obama think that?"
Anne starts with the somewhat insular notion (for her) - that only democratically elected governments may have legitimacy.
Meaning, I guess, that most of mankind in it's history, most of it's laws came from illegitimate governments.
And in America's recent history, all those "illegitimate" nations we diplomatically recognized, respected the laws of, and even treated as allies.
The U.N. is not legitimate
The U.N. is a creation of the U.S., as a result of our overwhelming victory in WWII - therefore it is not only legitimate as a structure for global governance, but as a representation of U.S. history and the American hegemony that put us at the head of it. You may hate that fact, but as an outgrowth of the greatest and most destructive war in history, its legitimacy goes beyond perception. It is the best way we have of avoiding the apocalyptic third world war that your evangelistic flunkies dream of and jerk yourselves off to.
C4, are you an ass-kissing dick-smoking dictator lover?
No. But I attempt to debate ass-kissing dick-smoking dictators such as yourself, which means I accept your legitimacy as much as I accept Qadaffi's: As a cold, hard reality, and not as an endorsement of your illegitimate claim to anything admirable among the human species.
So, this whole post and thread boils down to whether Qadaffi was the legitimate leader of Libya versus whether he should have been, IN AN IDEAL WORLD the legitimate leader of Libya.
No, it boils down to Bambi's (perhaps Freudian) slip in implying that Gaddafi once was a legitimate leader. It's about Bambi. The Zero. Our leader. "Leader."
wv: irkers (indeed)
Does the legitimacy of government depend on how it rules? No.
I asked about the "acceptance" of the people.
You are driving down the street at night and you see flashing lights in your rearview mirror. You pull over and it is the special police who believe you might have said something bad about a political leader.
They take your oldest son, rape your daughter, and tell you you've been warned.
Did you accept this as legitimate if you don't say something bad about the ruler again?
@C4
"The U.N. is a creation of the U.S., as a result of our overwhelming victory in WWII - therefore it is not only legitimate as a structure for global governance, but of U.S. history and the American hegemony that put us at the head of it. You may hate that fact, but as an outgrowth of the greatest and most destructive war in history, its legitimacy goes beyond perception."
The US also created the Department of Education and other successful ventures but I won't expand on that.
"C4, are you an ass-kissing dick-smoking dictator lover?
No. But I attempt to debate ass-kissing dick-smoking dictators such as yourself, which means I accept your legitimacy as much as I accept Qadaffi's: As a cold, hard reality, and not as an endorsement of your illegitimate claim to anything admirable among the human species."
Ouch. You really know how to dish it out. Glad I was able to lend you a fragment of my rant that you so creatively used against me. Absolutely brilliant.
and not as an endorsement of your illegitimate claim to anything admirable among the human species.
fls may say that's a tad over the top ;) but I applaud your accuracy lol
With how many Libyans alive from 1971 onward have you discussed the supposed legitimacy versus illegitimacy of Qadaffi's reign, Peano?
1?
0.5?
Did you discuss it with yourself in your head or with the pajamas-media pundit writing about the topic while you looked at pictures of Libya, despite having no experience with or personal knowledge of any of the people of the place - on either the pundit's part or your own?
Obama supposedly majored in political science at Columbia. I infer that he's using the word "legitimacy" in the standard political science context.
My inference is different. Obama views international politics through a left-wing, anti-colonial prism. Therefore, a "legitimate" Third World leader is someone who effectively (or at least publicly) opposes the hegemonic, imperialistic ambitions of the west in general and the US in particular.
Qaddafi fit that bill, therefore he had legitimacy in Obama's eyes. Sort of an Arab version of Che or Fidel.
Unfortunately, he went a bit overboard with the whole "unleashing his-mercenaries on the civilian population" thing, so he squandered that legitimacy.
As garage might say, sadz.
shiloh said...
When was Castro legitimized?
After JFK's Bay of Pigs disaster, a CIA holdover operation from Ike's admin, when Castro agreed to return Cuban prisoners in exchange for food and medicine ...
and after The Cuban Missile Crisis when America agreed to not invade Cuba, if Cuba removed the nuclear weapons and agreed not to accept nuclear weapons in the future.
Hmm...
I do believe that was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics what did that; they had something to do with Fidel's survival back then.
shiloh's drivel is getting as irrelevant as the old PB&J's. Looks like he'll have to create a new account.
Absolutely brilliant.
I try, I try ;-)
Anyways, thanks for seeing beyond the personal sting and into the artistry of the quip. But to be generous in return, and as for the Dept of Ed versus the U.N., though, don't you see any difference between the former and what the U.S. was doing with the mandate of its post-WWII victory in designing the U.N.? Any at all?
It's not perfect, it could stand to have alternatives, but do you think that diplomacy and the security of America would have been better served in the years following 1945 without it? Is it possible that it served any purpose at all, even if transient or only partially effective?
@C4
"...of Libya, despite having no experience with or personal knowledge of any of the people of the place"
Do tell, oh great one...from where do YOU draw your omniscience?
Please, resist the urge to throw your pigeon droppings and try to provide a legitimate (!) answer. Here's your chance.
I think Obama's saying it just because it's something to say. He doesn't want to look like he is passing any judgement on Qaddafi. He would prefer to not have to get very involved at all.
So it's all about Qaddafi doing what's right for his people, as if the Big Q cares. And saying he "must" step down as if he must.
I take it that Don't Tread speaks for the other pajamas-media junkies when expressing the offense he feels over anyone proposing that a non-Jeffersonian democrat such as Qadaffi was EVER the recognized leader of Libya.
I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm already on record from early in the thread as saying that Qaddafi was legitimized after his military coup overthrew the monarchy and his new socialist government was recognized very quickly by most countries, including the United States.
@C4
"But to be generous in return, and as for the Dept of Ed versus the U.N., though, don't you see any difference between the former and what the U.S. was doing with the mandate of its post-WWII victory in designing the U.N.? Any at all?
Of course, I just don't see them as successes.
It's not perfect, it could stand to have alternatives, but do you think that diplomacy and the security of America would have been better served in the years following 1945 without it? Is it possible that it served any purpose at all, even if transient or only partially effective?"
How would you, I, or anyone else know what it would have been like without the UN? I do know that the current state of the UN is not what was envisioned when it was created.
edutcher, give "us" a kiss!
Like Meade, as long as you continue to pay attention to all my posts, eh.
btw, if there were no libs at AA, it would just be one never ending winger circle jerk :::zzzz:::
solo estoy diciendo
It's ok, Shaaark. I'm basically taking up the point against arguing for a normative (idealized) definition of legitimacy, versus the actual definition that most people with any shred of knowledge of global politics actually go by. And that seems to be the point of the post, in any event.
Yeah, pretty strange.
But what I was wondering the night of the UN meeting when the Libyan deputy blah blah there spoke so passionately and articulately against Ghadaffi.
What I was wondering was, what the hell had he been doing before then??
How would you, I, or anyone else know what it would have been like without the UN?
Through argumentation, reason and an understanding of history.
Oh I don't know...
Maybe because in May 2006 the Bush Administration removed Libya from the "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list that it had been on since 1979 and restored full diplomatic relations with them?
"We are taking these actions in recognition of Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism," said a statement from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
She also referred to "the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the United States and other members of the international community in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001."
There's also this, thanks to good ole' President Bush and our corrupt Congress:
On August 4, 2008 President Bush signed into law the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, which Congress had passed on July 31. The act provided for the restoration of Libya’s sovereign, diplomatic, and official immunities before U.S. courts if the Secretary of State certified that the United States Government had received sufficient funds to resolve outstanding terrorism-related death and physical injury claims against Libya. Subsequently, both sides signed a comprehensive claims settlement agreement on August 14. On October 31, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice certified to Congress that the United States had received $1.5 billion pursuant to the U.S.-Libya Claims Settlement Agreement. These funds were sufficient to provide the required compensation to victims of terrorism under the Libyan Claims Resolution Act. Concurrently, President Bush issued an executive order to implement the claims settlement agreement.
And so America and Libya became best of friends! Now BP could go ahead with its oil deals, knowing that the Bush Administration and its British counterpart were a-okay with Team Qadhafi.
Hay lapa no ya, Solo!
It's ok, Shaaark. I'm basically taking up the point against arguing for a normative (idealized) definition of legitimacy, versus the actual definition that most people with any shred of knowledge of global politics actually go by. And that seems to be the point of the post, in any event.
Fair enough.
Plus, I keep hearing that all cultures have validity, and to impose our own western ideals upon them is a form of genocide, so...
I knew the danger of forgetting history was omnipresent here, Julius. But thanks for reminding us of just how bad it is. Apparently even 2006 is too far back in the memory banks to be searched for some.
Pretty remarkable that it's only five years later, and no one caught onto remembering the importance of that little factoid.
Plus, I keep hearing that all cultures have validity, and to impose our own western ideals upon them is a form of genocide, so...
All cultures have a purpose; but it's not clear that all cultures are equally capable of changing in a way that allows people to merge their ideals with them.
But of course, even the possibility for that potential to change, can change.
Nothing's set in stone, even if it comes down to the way chicken teriyaki is prepared today versus the way it was prepared a hundred years ago.
Cultures are supposed to change, and they must allow for change if any ideal, including freedom, is to be realized within them. That is why conservatives never realize the incredible folly they make when trying to see culture as such a closed, fixed phenomenon - much less one that they can control.
"All cultures have a purpose ..."
Nothing about Obama's donors at Goldman Sachs and how they're propping up Quaddafi, eh?
Just this random shit?
You really have nothing to add to this, dude.
Since I wasn't responding to anything stated by the caveman known as "Ut", and since he had nothing to say about the question posed to me by "I'm a Shaaaaaaark", to which my comment was a response, his comment has no purpose either, much less any legitimacy.
You raise interesting discussion points, C4, but then you throw that little bit at the end, about attempting to "control cultures".
I remember when I moved out here to the Left Coast. Being NDN, it was great. No one gave a crap, lots of gatherings and an embracing of the culture - not my exact culture since I'm not coastal salish - but still at least native cultures were respected, embraced (and in some manners stolen and perverted, but that's beside the point) by all the proggie leftist types out here.
Then the Makah decided to use their treaty rights to regain the culture they were losing and hunt a whale or two.
That whole "cultural acceptance" stuff went the way of the Dodo Bird quicker'n shit, let me tell you. It got ugly. Real ugly.
Anyway, blah blah blah. My point is, trying to "control" and "change" cultures is not solely the domain of the Right.
You twits are boring the living shit out of me.
I do not know why Obama imagines Qaddafi was ever legitimate. I suppose because he's been the head of state for as long as we've been alive.
With how many Libyans alive from 1971 onward have you discussed the supposed legitimacy versus illegitimacy of Qadaffi's reign, Peano?
Stop the political science presses! We have a new theory of legitimacy: The Discussion Theory.
wv: focke (as in "focke that theory")
Uh, because Obama is not legitimate either, so to him anyone is legitimate?
You know, he's not a natural born Citizen (his father was never a US Citizen, and imparted him with British Citizenship at birth).
You twits are boring the living shit out of me.
yada yada yada
Indeed!
@julius
"On August 4, 2008 President Bush signed into law the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, which Congress had passed on July 31. The act provided for the restoration of Libya’s sovereign, diplomatic, and official immunities before U.S. courts if the Secretary of State certified that the United States Government had received sufficient funds to resolve outstanding terrorism-related death and physical injury claims against Libya."
Oh, I don't know...
Was that the Nancy Pelosi-led house?
Unholster your weapon before you fire.
@C4
"Through argumentation, reason and an understanding of history."
Bullshit. You mean if I want your opinion, I'll give it to you, isn't that how you roll, Ritmo?
wv - mintatti
Peano adds to the "discussion" here by declaring that discussions among Libyans describing their acceptance or rejection of Qaddafi's reign play no role in determining whether he was or was not the legitimate leader of that country.
Only what Peano and other non-Libyans have to say matters. And don't refer to this thread as a "discussion". Surely it is not. It has to do with the legitimacy of the Libyan leader, and politics, so it is not a discussion.
@Don't Tread-
Was that the Nancy Pelosi-led house?
Oh yes it was! And Nancy Pelosi can suck my balls teabagger-style for all the corrupt and incompetent things she's done.
Why would Obama think that?
I wonder how much Obama really thinks as opposed to just spouting rhetoric. He's certainly not dealing with much effectively. After pushing through hugely unpopular programs his first two year with the help of Democratic majorities in both houses, he's had trouble accomplishing anything because now he has to think. He's pretty much been a massive failure on foreign affairs from the start.
Jimmy Carter's really happy. He's no longer the worst president in history.
You mean if I want your opinion, I'll give it to you, isn't that how you roll, Ritmo?
This was incoherent. How did you decide that you were responsible for my opinions?
As for the 6:05 comment that you reject, are you saying you have no factual basis for objecting to it?
Note the implicit statement that the dictator once had legitimacy. Why would Obama think that?
He is not as smart as you thought he was when you voted for him.
Or he believes what he said.
Take your pick.
shiloh said...
edutcher, give "us" a kiss!
No, I don't need any diseases.
Like Meade, as long as you continue to pay attention to all my posts, eh.
All??? He has delusions of adequacy. I just refute the more obvious lies.
And leave the rest to everyone else.
btw, if there were no libs at AA, it would just be one never ending winger circle jerk:::zzzz:::
He has that over at Kos before he comes here.
Don't let the door hit you...
@C4
"You mean if I want your opinion, I'll give it to you, isn't that how you roll, Ritmo?
This was incoherent. How did you decide that you were responsible for my opinions? "
My statement that may or may not have benefited from an additional comma is clear:
RITMO: If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.
DT: Isn't that how you roll?
edutcher throws me a kiss ...
Actually haven't posted at kos in about a year, although I do surf regularly. And you can look at their daily polls to know liberals disagree all the time and are never of one thought, part of their charm ~ the many kos Rep trolls notwithstanding. Not much fun being a winger troll at kos.
One surely remembers Hillary's PUMA's before the 2008 election and how they said Obama had absolutely no chance of winning OH, PA, FL. Fond memories as yes Virginia, cheney/bush did the impossible lol ie unite the Democratic Party.
xoxox
This guy has been in power since I was a kid - innocent in the ways of the world. My impression then was that he was a psychotic nutcase. My impression is still the same. It's amazing the people have accepted his boot on their neck for this long.
How is it that you could give me my opinion? Is it possible for me to give you your opinion?
I would think the person giving the opinion is the one who came up with it, the person to whom that opinion belongs. I didn't realize that other people "give" us our own opinions. Strange.
You're confusing me, Lewis Carrol.
IMO, it's a necessary fiction because we have been dealing with him for decades as though he were a legitimate ruler.
This is the closest to the right answer, in that it was a necessary fiction. However, as someone else stated, the we have only been dealing with Gadaffi as a "legitimate ruler" for a period of years, not decades.
Those who lived through Reagan era know that president saw him as anything but legitimate, calling him a "mad dog." I remember reading opinion pieces suggesting Reagan was building up Gadaffi as a threat to distract the country from the economic problems his early administration.
I remember, too, the Lockerbie bombing in the early '90's - a work colleague of mine was on the plane. There was no legitimacy given to Gadaffi at that time by Bush the father.
Things changed substantially only after the Iraq war. Seeing what the US was doing post 9/11 to Saddam, Gadaffi decided it was time to make a deal. He would drop his WMD aspirations and reimburse the Lockerbie families in return for some guarantees from the US - some legitimacy - if you will.
We and the Libyan people should be extremely grateful this deal was struck. Those weapons and raw materials were removed and play no part in the uprising or in Gadaffi's response.
In return, Obama maintains the "necessary fiction" that Gadaffi was legitimate in the administration's eyes. If Obama were to say Gadaffi never had any legitimacy, that would undermine the deal Bush 43 struck, and our hopes of enticing future dictators into such deals would be seriously undermined.
Unfortunately for Obama, that correct decision underscores his reputation on the right for weakness in the face of brutality.
Ritzy, it's fairly obvious that he was referring to your habit of "restating" your opponent's position into an inferior strawman and then attacking it.
As you are now, ironically.
And congratulations, by the way, for once again agreeing completely with the psychotic antisemite Cedarford.
And now: Re-shun. I'll not bandy comments with someone who's admitting to arguing in bad faith. Eat your own little balls of poop, Ritzy.
I've never argued in bad faith. I don't need to. I have had my fun with downgrading the tone and quality of my arguments to a level as indecent as those posed by the rest of the gang here, however.
If someone doesn't like how their positions are understood, they could do a better job explaining them. And the conclusions that logically result from them.
Thanks for the straw man of telling me that I have endorsed anything Cedarford says. According to your definition of the term, I think that qualifies.
Obama maintains the "necessary fiction" that Gadaffi was legitimate in the administration's eyes.
But what Obama really said was, "You've seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people."
How can anyone read "legitimacy with his people" as "legitimate in the administration's eyes"?
Here's how 2002 Obama described the less-tyrannical Saudis and Egyptians:
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
Here's what he said about Saddam Hussein:
Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
Do you think 2002 Obama would have said Qadaffi was considered legitimate in the eyes of his people?
But if you mean there's too much special interest money in politics -- with Citizens United the Supreme Court pretty much gave the Koch Brothers free rein.
Here is a list of top donors over the last few decades, covering the 140 biggest donors
A few things to note:
1. 60% of the donations ($1.3 billion) went to Democrats.
2. The top ten donors gave 82% of their money to Democrats.
3. The top 20 gave 75% of their money to Democrats.
4. The top 50 gave 67% of their money to Democrats.
5. Overall, the top 140 donors listed here gave 60% of their money to Democrats. As you can tell from the above numbers -- the smaller the donor, the more likely they were to favor Republicans.
6. The poor, oppressed teachers unions (#8 and #13 on the list) gave 13 times as much money to Democrats as Koch Industries did to Republicans.
7. Koch Industries clocks in at #84. Their monetary influence on Republicans is equivalent to that of postal workers on Democrats.
I'm fairly certain I read this thread correctly. And I'm fairly certain that many of the Leftists on this comment thread argued for the legitimacy of a terrorist, a thug, a murderer and a generally shitty individual: Moammar Qaddafi.
When did the Useful Idiot Left become so open about their support of murderous dictators? Didn't they used to hide it? Wasn't Walter Duranty's whole point concealing the death and destruction caused by his political brethren?
Clarifying moments are useful indeed.
It is truly a clarifying moment to observe so many members of the Useful Idiot Left support a murderous dictator like Qaddafi by supposing he had "legitimacy".
Either words no longer mean what they have meant, or some of the UIL has gone 'round the bend.
I'm fairly certain that inane conservative generalities is a major constant at this blog.
and so it goes ...
"...lost legitimacy with his people" means the people once thought he was legit. Seems like an accurate assessment to me.
Obviously, given the crushing regulations and overwhelming socialism that Pres. Obama has promoted, your friends the Koch Bros. have managed to "earn" and keep billions.
Um... Koch Industries was founded around 35 years before Barack Obama was born.
C4/Ritmo: I've never argued in bad faith.
Shameless liar.
Ritmo Brasileiro said: "It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy. Getting you shit-eaters to complain about the taste after opening your mouths wide and saying "Ahhhh..." to every bad idea under the sun is very satisfying, I must admit." - 10/16/10 10:28 AM
You're just a waste of time.
I knew the danger of forgetting history was omnipresent here
Ritmo hasn’t forgotten history as much as he’s completely ignorant of it. Is the UN legitimate? Well I suppose so in much the same way that Arthur Anderson was a legitimate CPA firm right up to the point they were cooking the books for Enron.
It wasn’t the UN that prevented a WW3 apocalypse but rather a nuke deterrent from the US, Britain and France. Since the formation of the UN, there have been countless small and large scale conflicts and genocides, none of which were prevented or ended through UN action. US led airpower through NATO ended Serbian attempts at genocide while UN peacekeepers stood by while 6000 Bosnians were herded off to their deaths. Those same UN ‘peacekeepers’ bugged out of Rwanada to make butchering 800,000 Tutsis an easier task. Kofi Annan insisted a study be done in Darfur to see if
So maybe Ritmo can illustrate something positive that the UN has done in its 60+ year existence (other than providing a prime location for foreign diplomats to carouse and dine).
Legitimacy to rule is an awfully complex concept; in one sense any governmental order that unethically obtained power is illegitimate vis-a-vis the usurped power. On another level though, unless a government's actions are substantially abusive (however we define it), the law still has moral force in itself.
Gaddhafi is an easy case, in that he usurped power from a somewhat inept but not very unjust Monarchy, and has since oppressed Libyans to a grave degree as well as being, for lengthy periods, a criminal actor in the international sphere.
And Fen is a belligerent weirdo who is obsessed with me.
Fen: Will you need help getting over your man-crush?
Post a Comment