Libya -"you break it, you own it"

[malaise]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/24/libya-disaster-shames-western-interventionists
<snip>
It's called the pottery store rule: "you break it, you own it". But it doesn't just apply to pots and mugs, but to nations. In the build-up to the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, it was invoked by Colin Powell, then US secretary of state. "You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people," he reportedly told George W Bush. "You will own all their hopes, aspirations and problems." But while many of these military interventions have left nations shattered, western governments have resembled the customer who walks away whistling, hoping no one has noticed the mess left behind. Our media have been all too complicit in allowing them to leave the scene.

Libya is a striking example. The UN-authorised air campaign in 2011 is often lauded as a shining example of successful foreign intervention. Sure, the initial mandate – which was simply to protect civilians – was exceeded by nations who had only recently been selling arms to Muammar Gaddafi, and the bombing evolved into regime-change despite Russia's protests. But with a murderous thug ejected from power, who could object?

Today's Libya is overrun by militias and faces a deteriorating human rights situation, mounting chaos that is infecting other countries, growing internal splits, and even the threat of civil war. Only occasionally does this growing crisis creep into the headlines: like when an oil tanker is seized by rebellious militia; or when a British oil worker is shot dead while having a picnic; or when the country's prime minister is kidnapped.

According to Amnesty International, the "mounting curbs on freedom of expression are threatening the rights Libyans sought to gain". A repressive Gaddafi-era law has been amended to criminalise any insults to officials or the general national congress (the interim parliament). One journalist, Amara al-Khattabi, was put on trial for alleging corruption among judges. Satellite television stations deemed critical of the authorities have been banned, one station has been attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, and journalists have been assassinated.

[reddread]

1. why are there posters on DU who ALWAYS advocate for these atrocities?

without the slightest deviation?
whatever could that mean?

[n2doc]

2. Their Icon said it was the right thing to do

I'm sure they still feel that way, but if you try to argue with them you are a Teafirepublicanhater….

[reddread]

3. or worse

Libertarian Snowdenfan

[Scootaloo]

4. Well, because there are DU'ers who are right-wing shitheads

They tend to be the ones who stomp around the loudest about what absolutely loyal Democrats they are, it seems. Look for those who bash liberals the most, employ bushbot rhetoric - accusations of supporting "the terrorists / putin / snowden /chavez / the boogeyman," griping about party "disloyalty," taking any criticism of any elected official as a personal affront - and just for good measure, run a search on their name paired with words like "Zimmerman," "black," "Muslim" or "feminist."

Apply the proper filters and the posters who are awful fucking trolls will stand out like beacons in the night.

[reddread]

5. i think so

I guess there is nothing as vile to me as a conservative pretending to be a Democrat.
Absolute slime. Give me an honest, ignorant Republican voter.
Let the corporatist Third World Way Empire Commandos start their own party.
There should be no room for deceivers and warmongers here.
none.
they should enter at their own risk, and there should be consequences.

[malaise]

6. Not all folks who post here are DUers

We all know that. On the other hand in every country of the world the political elite defend the status quo.

[Jefferson23]

7. K&R

[TomClash]

8. Mail it to . . .

. . . DU's head cheerleader for the bombing of Libya. We all know who he is. Putin is next on his enemies' list.