When it comes to the flow of capital, and the ability to charge an interest for its use, those in lending mode are not particular about those to whom they loan, and morality is the last item on the agenda, if it is ever there at all. I suspect that if central bank ledgers were made transparent, pure evil would be exposed to the light of day.

Strange indeed, almost Kappertian. See the Wpost Spy Wizard David Ignatius new incarnation as regime liquidator.http://kappertisle.tumblr.com/

@Luc

Isn't "various assertions" a little open ended a characterization of Traveller's acknowledged failure to keep up on this one issue as a point of contention?

As far as 'obscure sources' I recommend the wikileak cables from Tripoli over the last several years, I have read thru most of them, somewhat ironic that the main author of those cables, Chris Stevens the former  #2 American official at the American embassy in Tripoli describes an on the ground reality in Libya remarkably similiar to what the GOL, Government of Libya does now, Stevens is now the US liaison to the rebels.  The US government and the French and British gov'ts worked hard to work WITH the Gaddafi regime over the last several years, the mixed signals and perfidy of those relations reflect much worse on the Western interventionist powers today than the GOL. 

I understand that you do not wish to get engaged in this thread so I will not get into a lengthy debate here over this issue, but I'm always at your disposal via email.

@ Antibureaucratic

1) It is "culturAL", not culturED, self-loathing, that I accused you of.   There is a difference but, obviously, you have not thought about it.

2) No, I do not apply that term to anyone who disagrees with me.  I only apply it to those who deserve it.  And I only employ the term when there is supporting evidence for it.   In your case I have clearly given two illustrative examples of your cultural self-loathing.  It is not my fault if you refuse to look at the evidence presented.

3) Besides the 4 reasons of Fincioen, I presented two additional arguments against intervention in Libya.  So, the core of my comment was opposition to Obama's action in Libya. Given that context, it is totally unclear what you are trying to say in the rest of your reaction.  

@ Capo

That's an excellent link to Mr Kern's article whose reasoning seems very plausable.

The answer to your question depends on the location.

- In Europe and America Kappert definitely would not stand alone,  postmodernism (in education and media) being what it is.

- Elsewhere in the world Kappert would pretty much stand alone for, over there, they do not tolerate such postmodernistic foolishness.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-are-pacifist-europeans-declaring-war-on-libya/?singlepage=true

Will Kappert stand alone?

Since Saturday, the high-tech-huns destroy Libya's infrastructure. Yesterday they bombed Tripolis harbour (you know, essential for the no-fly-zone). The UN mandate receives successive extensions. As usual in humanitarian air raids, civilians suffer most. Consequently there are no limits for the “international society's” aggression. It is not without irony that the F-UK-US leadership resembles a motley crew of bandits. The little French jester, famous for his good ties to Arab leaders, including Gadhafi, becomes tragicomically. The French will harvest the same fate as the Germans as, after provoking the post-Yugoslav massacres, an US intervention was needed to win the war for the West. The UN mandate states „excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory“ - well, we never heard the US troops in Iraq calling themselves 'occupying forces', so a ground intervention is not at all impossible.

http://kappertisle.tumblr.com/

As a pacifist I have a very negative opinion to any military action. But it is rather incomprehensible that a sovereign state like Bahrain calls outside military forces into the land to smash a rather small demonstration. Despite the protests, the Al Khalifa family does not look like it will be dethroned, all that with the tacit understanding of the US (Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, met with Bahrain's king Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa shortly before the GCC military stepped into Bahrain, pointing to possible US complicity and foreknowledge of the Gulf intervention).The demonstrations were peaceful and not driven by Sunni-Shia sectarianism, which was just a pretext for the regime to justify its control. Bahraini and Saudi forces attack the protesters (killing two and injuring many more) and burning their tents. Three other protesters were killed in the serious clashes in the Sitra Island area and elsewhere. And the Salmaniyya hospital complex was being surrounded by security troops, preventing ambulances from entering or leaving. Clearly the authorities have decided that force, not negotiation, will be their preferred strategy.
Meanwhile, in Egypt (remember the 'revolution'), the army returns to beat and torture at the antiquities museum (which in an indication of the reality of Egypt's situation, is still being used by security forces as a detention facility one month after the removal of Mubarak). Ban Ki-moon stepped by shortly, saying nothing.
In Yemen, another revolutionary hotspot, President Ali Abdullah Saleh pledges "constitutional transfer of power" and warns of "bloody war" if protesters reject offer.
At the same time, in Libya, the F-UK-US forces bomb anything what moves and is considered belonging to the Ghadafi military. Does this respect the UN-Resolution?

My Kingdom for a Camel!"

As an American I don't know what is more embarassing Hillary Clinton leading our nation into a war or to be allied with such a effeminate and twisted little creature like Cameron, and his French boyfriend.

Here's an excerpt from an article mentioning the dust up between British General Richards and the political hacks in Whitehall "commanding" the war. Particularly funny is how the Italians charcterize the command structure of Cameron and Sarkozy's Libyan Fiasco as anarchic. When the Italians can call the conduct of a military adventure 'anarchic' you know you're in trouble.

"Italian officials have described the current three-way command structure involving France, Britain and the United States and the resulting bombing campaign as 'anarchic'.

However, it was General Richards who caused consternation in Whitehall when he appeared before TV cameras yesterday to insist Gaddafi was not a target.

‘Absolutely not,’ he said. ‘It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further.’

Downing Street and Foreign Office officials were quick to dispute that – saying assassinating Gaddafi would be legal because it would preserve civilian lives in Libya.

Foreign Secretary William Hague had refused to rule out targeting Gaddafi, echoing comments made by Defence Secretary Liam Fox on Sunday.

The Government also came under fire from U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who described the calls for Gaddafi’s killing ‘unwise’. 

He warned that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.

‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,’ he said.  ‘I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.’

One senior government source said: ‘There has not been some major falling out, but General Richards did say the wrong thing.

‘He is right that regime change would be illegal, but there are obviously circumstances where it would be legal to target Gaddafi if his actions are harming civilians.

‘It would be so if, for example, we were taking out a compound because we knew he was inside and directing a campaign against his people.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368633/Libya-War-words-erupts-Army-chief-says-legal-right-kill-Gaddafi.html#ixzz1HKkQMWmB

Or as we all here in the South say, the Clinton Way.

Marcfrans,  you identify the most infuriating and disgusting aspect of this intervention from the point of view of probably a large number of Americans.  And then for the Commander-in-Chief to go off to holiday in Rio!!!

Fincioen gives 4 sensible reasons why Obama should have abstained from the Libya intervention.  There is a 5th and more important reason: the absence of support from the American public and the Congress for this action.  When Bush decided on removing Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, he had obtained prior authorization from Congress and opinion polls showed support in excess of 80% (which, of course, could not last). By contrast, today Obama doesn't even bother with Congress and opinion polls show 65% against.  

A 6th reason for abstaining from this presumed 'humanitarian' intervention should be that ingratitude (for this American effort and sacrifice) from the Arabs and from 'the World' is guaranteed. 

The sad truth is that Obama thinks that America's actions should not be governed by America's democratic institutions and polity, but rather by the venal geopolitical calculations that go on in the United Nations and its Security Council.  The even sadder truth is that both Obama and HClinton can give any credence to statements from the duplicitous Arab League and can have any belief in the 'determination' of the so-called European 'allies'.   Wait till Gadhafi stages his first show of bomb victims in a Tripoli hospital.....

@ Kapitein Andre

You raise many good points.  However, the fear for "a new round" of international terrorism is superfluous.   That terrorism never went away and will continue irrespective of Ghadafi's fate.  

@ Antibureaucratic

Your cultivated (cultural) self-loathing is as palpable as your concern for bomb victims is selective.   You clearly are more concerned about..."innocent Libyanis killed by your (US)bombs"....than about Libyans killed by any other bombs (be they from France, Britain or Ghadafi 'loyalists'/mercenaries or whoever) or Libyans tortured-to-death by 'Ghadafi's wrath' .   After all, you only deign to mention the former and not the latter two groups of 'victims'.  And what makes you so sure that these bomb victims were/are so "innocent"?    Moreover, your parroting of the ridiculous claim that the US government sent men and woman into Irak to search for "fortune" - even put in brackets - is truly pathetic!  Clearly, you are not capable of making sensible observations in the world around you, and are allowing cultivated BDR (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to interfere with your judgments on Libya today.

I saw a quote today in the AU newspapers. where USA is saying that they will not, REPEAT not, use any ground forces in order to protect the Libyan people, and that they want to stress that this is an international action and not their idea.  Thanks USA, on behalf of all innocent Libyanis killed by your bombs.  So you are prepared to send your men and women in to countries like Iraq in search of imaginary WMD (and fortune) but not in this case...  And now Moammar is playing the "Crusader" card - but the Libyan people are smart enough to see that this is no Christian Pogrom, I think!

1.  You will note that Resolution 1973 allows provides not only for the enforcement of a no-fly zone, but also air strikes on government or loyalist forces that are attacking civilians or civilian targets such as Benghazi, Tobruk, etc.  Given that the first act of foreign intervention was the destruction of 4 loyalist tanks by French aircraft, and that the loyalist offensive is relying almost entirely upon ground forces, this authorization for air strikes is much more important than grounding the Libyan Air Force

2.  Whether Gadhafi remains in power or conquers Benghazi is an issue for the tribes to decide.  The rebellion in Libya has thus far claimed relatively few, and engagements between rebel and loyalist forces have been little more than skirmishes involving several dozen combatants on each side

3.  Rebel forces never controlled Western Libya, and rebel forces melted away from Ras Lanuf and Brega in the face of the loyalist counter-offensive as quickly as the Libyan Army and paramilitaries had ceded control, when Sirte was a front-line city

4.  This march to folly has been orchestrated by the UK, France and Italy, because of their vital interests in Libya: opening Libya up to British business; ensuring that refugees from sub-Saharan Africa cannot cross through Libya to Europe; and securing access to Libyan oil and gas, respectively

5.  The US has more interest in ensuring stability in Bahrain, preventing a Shia uprising in Saudi Arabia and parrying Iranian intrigues in either, than in removing Gadhafi or assisting the rebels in Benghazi

6.  Libya has no civil society as such to succeed the current regime.  Nor do I think that the proponents of the no-fly zone and ceasfire enforcement understand how Libya is governed or how much power Gadhafi really holds

7.  Obama clearly believes that if he goes no farther than Bill Clinton did in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Sudan, he will differentiate himself from Bush.  Unfortunately, both Clinton and Bush (George W.) believed in humanitarian intervention

8.  Recently, the White House reported that it does not believe that loyalist forces have ceased fire, despite Tripoli announcing 2 cease-fires.  I wonder if this new “Coalition of the Willing”, will allow loyalist forces to attack purely military targets of the rebel forces?  Also, shouldn’t the coalition be destroying rebel military assets as well?  So far, I sense a half-baked regime change going on here, and if Gadhafi does not resign, we will see a new round of international terrorism

and now Qadaffi loyalists have the ground back. 

For the West, the ideal situation for the use of force is like in Afganistan, when the West kicked out the Communist-allied government, using indigenous troops and Western firepower.     However, in Libya, there is no equivalent to the Afganistan militias.       Rebel forces may become an effective ground army in, at best, months, which is probably wildly optomistic.   

So the West operates a no fly area, and throw missles at the government.    But in Clausewitzian terms, victory is in killing Qadaffi or forcing him to leave, attrition is not a strategy.   The West musters up their UN resolutions and press releases to hurl at Qadaffi like modern-day harpies, and to the same effect.  

Meanwhile ministers and businessmen whisper hints of deals to be done with the Libyan government and all their oil money, day after day.   The Arab "allies" will desert into neutrality at the first opportunity.   It will be like a bar tab as closing hour approaches, the last one standing will be caught holding the tab.