rickyp wrote:Until then, you may have an imperfect regime that has recently undone a despot of 35 years.
If you seek perfection in governnace, please find me an example of a jurisdiction which hasn't some failings... Until then, its important that the new Libyan govenrment understand that they are to be judged for their behaviours and that having endured Ghaddaffi for 35 years doesn't mean they now have the right to act as he did, with impunity.
But still, to suggest any kind of equivalence is silly.

I am not seeking perfect. However, I think a government that starts off my killing thousands and locking up people in their homes is not off to a good start and will only get worse. After all past is prologue. Therefore suggesting equivalency is not silly. After all wasn't I the one that said the military in Egypt wouldn't give up power as easily as you argued it would? What are we seeing now?

Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote:Until then, you may have an imperfect regime that has recently undone a despot of 35 years.
If you seek perfection in governnace, please find me an example of a jurisdiction which hasn't some failings... Until then, its important that the new Libyan govenrment understand that they are to be judged for their behaviours and that having endured Ghaddaffi for 35 years doesn't mean they now have the right to act as he did, with impunity.
But still, to suggest any kind of equivalence is silly.

I am not seeking perfect. However, I think a government that starts off my killing thousands and locking up people in their homes is not off to a good start and will only get worse. After all past is prologue. Therefore suggesting equivalency is not silly. After all wasn't I the one that said the military in Egypt wouldn't give up power as easily as you argued it would? What are we seeing now?

What's your source for killing thousands (presumably you mean innocents?). there have definitely been human rights violations, but I haven't seen reports that it is of that scale.

By the way, the same dilemma exists for both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in all 3 cases I can easily argue that the imperfection that follows is vastly superior to the H-ll on earth that preceded.

NA:

You are electing parties. You can vote for a Republican or a Democrat. They cooperate to ensure this reality. You don't get to be the presidential candidate of either party without being a proven functionary of those parties.

I just wanted to make two points. The first is that on most levels the R's and D's don't cooperate, and the electorate is extremely frustrated at that particular point.

The second is that my hope for Obama was that he could rise above the parties and Congress. He came in much more popular than Reid, Pelosi and their ilk. In his first few months in office, he could have ended earmarks (as he promised), gone through the budget line by line (as he promised), and taken the best ideas of both sides (as he promised). Instead he delegated his moral authority to Pelosi and Reid for the budget, the stimulus, and the health care legislation. Had he risen above their partisanship and beholdenness to special interests, he could have been a great president. It's something that only the President can do in the US system. Oh well.

geojanes wrote:

danivon wrote:George takes the time to do more, and for that he deserves some respect, not you telling him he's 'twisted'.

More than anything I love the awesome power of crowds. Humbling really. It's like going out to watch a really big storm move in.

It is quite something, is it not? Large rock concerts, sports crowds at a vital game, protest marches... I've been to all of those as a participant and as an observer, and it is quite something to see a large number of people with a single purpose.

And what motivates them is interesting, isn't it? Why do people get together in such a way?

Doctor Fate wrote:I guess crowds are all fun and games--until the tear gas and truncheons appear.

Well, perhaps the problem is with those who wield the tear gas and truncheons if that happens? It tends not to be the crowds who have such weaponry to hand. Of course, good policing can serve to reduce tension.

Ray Jay wrote:What's your source for killing thousands (presumably you mean innocents?). there have definitely been human rights violations, but I haven't seen reports that it is of that scale.

Well, I read an AP article in my local paper on Sunday. Unfortunately, this morning was recyclable pick up so it already went out. However, I was able to find this article online this morning that basically says the same thing. From the article;

Thousands of people, including women and children, are being illegally detained by rebel militias in Libya, according to a report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Many of the prisoners are suffering torture and systematic mistreatment while being held in private jails outside the control of the country's new government.

The document, seen by The Independent, states that while political prisoners being held by the Gaddafi regime have been released, their places have been taken by up to 7,000 new “enemies of the state”, "disappeared" in a dysfunctional system, with no recourse to the law.

Ray Jay wrote:By the way, the same dilemma exists for both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in all 3 cases I can easily argue that the imperfection that follows is vastly superior to the H-ll on earth that preceded.

Sure you can but then again you aren't there and it isn't affecting you. However, I think we can agree those 7,000 Libyans and their families may disagree with you.

Hmmm. So they are being detained, rather than having been killed, and the prisons are not under government control. Not quite as billed, Russell.

The Libyan government does need to do a lot to bring about order, and if they don't or they adopt the same methods as the Gadaffy regime, then you can claim equivalence. In the meantime, it's not going to become a liberal democracy overnight.

Egypt is interesting, with effectively three competing factions: Army; Muslim Brotherhood; Liberal protesters. That they are holeding these elections is progress. That protests continue show that people are unhappy with the pace and depth of reform, but also why we should not throw in the towel.

(edit to fix typos)

danivon wrote:Hmmm. So they are being detained, rather than having been killed, and the prisons are not under government control. Not quite as billed, Russell.

No doubt an honest mistake. I think this is how the human brain works. Even after less than a day we slightly alter information that we take in, often adding confirmation bias in the process. And so much of our legal system is based on witnesses when all of us are infallible. (I've embedded a joke in here; let's see who spots it first.)

Only the Pope is infallible (and then only when in the right chair)!

ray

the way, the same dilemma exists for both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in all 3 cases I can easily argue that the imperfection that follows is vastly superior to the H-ll on earth that preceded.

And would you say that the cost to the US was similar? Or that the results in iraq, the creation of a stolid ally for Iran, as intended? Or that the Afghanistani is a paragon of liberal virtues with a solid future with no particular US investment required to stabilize the economy or the political situation?

As Chris Hitchens said; the US has ended up on the right side of the Arab Spring without particularly great investment. And yet they complain.
Egypt looks to be unravelling towards one of two conclusions. Either the army devolves power as Turkey has. And perhaps like Turkey develops as an emerging economic power.
Or the Army attempts to cling to power and the political mechanisms are corrupted in the same way as Pakistan, where the only institution that really matters in is the army. But Pakistan is also an economic cripple with few prospects.
I think the Egyptian army is devolving power. They've certainly made both the noises and moves that suggest they are hastening rather than slowing their exit from hands on government.
This may take a couple of years to play out completely. In the course of the history of Egypt it will seem like it happened over night. But, historic changes are never simple and never really happen over night. Be patient.

rickyp wrote:ray

the way, the same dilemma exists for both Iraq and Afghanistan. However, in all 3 cases I can easily argue that the imperfection that follows is vastly superior to the H-ll on earth that preceded.

And would you say that the cost to the US was similar? Or that the results in iraq, the creation of a stolid ally for Iran, as intended? Or that the Afghanistani is a paragon of liberal virtues with a solid future with no particular US investment required to stabilize the economy or the political situation?

Ricky, I've talked about this plenty enough. If you are not smart enough to understand my positions by now, why should I repeat them again?

Ricky, I've talked about this plenty enough. If you are not smart enough to understand my positions by now, why should I repeat them again?

You raised the outcome in the two nations as compared to the outcome in Libya.
You're suggesting a certain equivalence at least in outcome. . And you don't like having to defend your position? Then don't make the claim.

Ricky, I think he was talking about the quality of life, including level of repression, for the inhabitants. Not the effect / cost as far as the USA is concerned.

Also, he was not claiming 'paragon' status for any of the three. Just that they are less hellish than before.

At least that's how I read it.

I may not agree with Ray Jay on what he said, but I would at least want to be clear on that rather than going off at a tangent just to score a 'gotcha'.

Doctor Fate wrote:I guess crowds are all fun and games--until the tear gas and truncheons appear.

Or worse:

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I guess crowds are all fun and games--until the tear gas and truncheons appear.

Or worse:

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

I can still hear Neil Young singing it.

The bigger point is there is something about a mob that is unpredictable. Kent State notwithstanding, people in crowds sometimes do things they would never do apart from the "safety" and anonymity of being part of a mob. We are likely to see OWS folks do things that, in the cold light of day, I don't think they would as individuals.

On another front, I know the Boston mayor has chosen to simply overlook the illegality of the OWS protest. It is being held on public ground where no camping is permitted. OWS is not even paying the fees others have to pay to hold public events. At last count, it was costing taxpayers $2M. That's Boston alone. Liberals argue two things: 1) that's the price of free speech; 2) the Tea Party cost money too. As to #1, why should lawbreakers be subsidized? As for #2, my guess is the TP gatherings have cost less than 1% of the OWS movement, so it really is a matter of scale.

Now, the Tea Party is (allegedly) being retaliated against for having the temerity to demand equal treatment under the law.

A Tea Party chapter in Virginia is alleging that it was audited by the City of Richmond after it complained that the local Occupy movement was receiving special treatment by the mayor.

The Richmond Tea Party said the city charged it $10,000 to hold three rallies in Kanawha Plaza -- where Occupiers have been allowed to reside at no charge.

Now the Tea Partiers are crying foul and demanding their money back. But shortly after complaining to the city, the Tea Party group said it received notice of the tax audit.

“As the Occupy mob sprang up, the City of Richmond allowed them the use of the park at no charge. Mayor Dwight Jones of Richmond is a liberal Democrat, who even visited the Occupy Mob, encouraging them,” the group said in a statement released Monday. “In one of the most outrageous political double standards, the city of Richmond, Va., is now demanding an audit of the Richmond Tea Party."

I'm sure my liberal friends at Redscape will join the chorus of outrage.

danivon wrote:Hmmm. So they are being detained, rather than having been killed, and the prisons are not under government control. Not quite as billed, Russell

I guess I was assuming a certain level of governmental acquiescence that may or may not be happening. Also, I kind of think mentions of torture and being "disappeared" implied death but again I could be wrong.