Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

some 30,000 protesters marched through Benghazi calling for an end to the armed groups and a return to the rule of law. There has been a wave of hostility towards the militias since US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others Americans died in last week's attack on the Benghazi consulate.

"I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform," said university student Omar Mohammed, who took part in the takeover of the Ansar al-Sharia compound.

Many Libyans have expressed outrage at the attack on the US consulate.

Libya's interim government has since come under renewed and intense pressure to rein in well-armed extremist militia groups and force them to disband.

Friday's march was the largest seen in Benghazi - considered the heartland of Libya's uprising - since Col Gaddafi was deposed.

stone wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

some 30,000 protesters marched through Benghazi calling for an end to the armed groups and a return to the rule of law. There has been a wave of hostility towards the militias since US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others Americans died in last week's attack on the Benghazi consulate.

"I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform," said university student Omar Mohammed, who took part in the takeover of the Ansar al-Sharia compound.

Many Libyans have expressed outrage at the attack on the US consulate.

Libya's interim government has since come under renewed and intense pressure to rein in well-armed extremist militia groups and force them to disband.

Friday's march was the largest seen in Benghazi - considered the heartland of Libya's uprising - since Col Gaddafi was deposed.

Very encouraging.  As Bush would say, "Democracy is on the march!"

The silent majority finally speak up. As I was commenting in other thread to Reub, the portrayal of radical
Islam is grossly exaggerated and it is used to drum up fear among the American people to serve the evil intentions of those in power...especially those who make lots of money in the business of building things that kill people. A scared and confused group of people is easily manipulated and certain shows on faux news would make nazi propaganda meister Goebbels proud....ever watched documentary "outfoxed"? That media station (more than its liberal competitors) knows what theyre doing as is more adept at doing it.

Now, if we go in and start carpet bombing Libya and invade them, this public sentiment would probably riightfully turn against us. We need to stay the hell out of other countries internal politics.

So then, do you think that the good guys won?

What about in Egypt? Pakistan? Yemen? Tunisia? Syria? Iran? Afghanistan? Are the good guys winning?

What does this have to do with the fact that Obama is the one who interfered in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt (not so in Iran and Syria) and let the terrorists run loose there?

And that he did not adequately protect our ambassador on 9/11 in Benghazi and then repeatedly lied about it to the public?

So then, do you think that the good guys won?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

I'm not condoning terrorism Reub, I'm merely criticizing this good/bad overly simplistic dichotomy that you apply to the world we live in. I wish the world were a simple place with easy answers like "all we have to do is kill all the bad guys". Unfortunately, this just doesn't represent reality.

TennPaGa wrote:

Reub wrote:
And that he did not adequately protect our ambassador on 9/11 in Benghazi and then repeatedly lied about it to the public?

Perhaps he'll follow the G.W. Bush precedent: No one will lose his job and the key officials in the failure and aftermath will receive Presidential Medals of Freedom.

The only way to reduce these incidents is to reduce the size of the U.S. footprint in these foreign countries.  They are sovereign states and they deserve to be left alone to handle their own domestic problems.  The U.S. has shown that no matter how well-intentioned it is, unintended consequences (and the blowback that comes later) make these missions mostly an expensive waste of time and goodwill.

I've always thought that political stability was a better goal most of the time than democracy, especially in societies where the whole concept of democracy is foreign.  Democracy is something that comes when a society is ready for it.  It's not something that a superpower can impose.

This is my major beef with Libertarians. Isolationism is not the answer.

Simonjester wrote: isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy and economic ties, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.

i suspect the vast majority of libertarians support non-interventionism, not isolationism

TennPaGa wrote:

Reub wrote: This is my major beef with Libertarians. Isolationism is not the answer.

I'm not a libertarian, but you confuse non-interventionism with isolationism.

There is nothing isolationist about letting a country resolve its domestic disputes on its own.

I think that we were justified in invading Afghanistan looking for Osama bin Laden.  When we found him next door 10 years later that is when we should have brought our troops home and declared "Mission Accomplished".

MediumTex wrote: I think that we were justified in invading Afghanistan looking for Osama bin Laden.  When we found him next door 10 years later that is when we should have brought our troops home and declared "Mission Accomplished".

Isn't that a dangerous and sloppy line of thinking?  Laden wasn't responsible for the actual WTC attacks, just an organization of financial or ideaological support at best.  It seems when it comes to responding to initiatory coercion, the NeoCons are quite willing to violate rational principles just to make an example out of a patsy or idol, innoncence or guilt be damned.  Where have I heard that story many times before???

So, it seems to me that Afghanistan & Iraq were just an excuse for the NeoCons to engage in their adolescent, nation-building fantasies.  Perhaps the origin of the NeoCons is the same primordial source as the AIPAC?  The time frame of their arising certainly seems to concide together right after the formation of Israel.

I find the sheer hubris NeoCons have for supporting like-minded democracies at expense of lesser people suffering under non-democratic tyranny as really bigoted.  They are so blind to the consequences of their actions in making the world even more unsafe and unstable.