To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.
How many who voted for Obama (or at least against John McCain) would expect their vote would elect a President who would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan with a special forces operation, murder an American citizen without due process, and enter into armed conflict with Libya without the consultation of Congress and eventually assassinate a sitting head of state?
I still very much admire his propaganda ability. His campaign was amazingly successful. Yes, Bush being Bush helped a lot, but still. The disconnect (even among the intellectual liberals who rabidly supported him) between the perception of who Obama is and who he really is, is amazing (even after all this time).
Nobody denies that it is easy to lead and brainwash ignorant masses with fears of 'terrorism', 'communism' & 'homosexuals' but one has to admire the ability to brainwash relatively liberal and intelligent people. Looking back at Obama I will mostly remember him winning the AdAge 'Marketing Campaign Of The Year' award.
http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market...
He put Apple, Zappos & Nike to shame.
And then him getting the Nobel Peace prize. That was just the cherry on top.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/flashback-2008-mc...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/qaddafis-deat...
/sarcasm
Not likely.
I would rather Qaddafi had been brought to trial and punished accordingly.
No punishment, just history...
Everything a bliss.
Having him testify in Den Hague could have provided very interesting insights on how corrupt the so called "democratic" governments really are.
"Grief about Gaddafi" "He lives on in the hearts of his friends"
I'm still not convinced that the Middle East is civilized... which is why I'm an isolationist.
I'm not very reassured by this quote from the transitional government spokesperson: “We were serious about giving him a fair trial. It seems God has some other wish."
Having been born and raised in the middle east (Egypt), I can assure you that by many definitions of 'civilized' we fare really well compared to the US.
True, there isn't separation of religion and state, and that leads to much 'uncivilized' behavior, and a wacky sense of law.
On the other hands, we don't have nearly the same rates of murder, rape, theft that we have here in the States. And we don't put one out of every 300 people in prison.
Our elderly mostly die surrounded by family and friends in their homes, and very very very few people sleep on the streets.
Our health care system is much poorer, and much more primitive than the US system, but nobody gets turned away because of 'pre-existing' conditions or lack of funds.
In most of the Country, if you stop someone and ask for directions, they'll invite you to their home for a meal and be serious about it. Even though they make less than a .50 cents a day.
So yeah, maybe broaden your idea of what 'civilized' looks like and you won't need to isolate so much.
p.s. We cook a yummy Egyptian dinner once a month for friends, ping me and come over next Monday for civilized discourse over foul and falafel
Because if not, then yes I'd say you compare quite well to the U.S.
If that kind of violence makes you doubt the civility of a people, you might want to add every other country in the world onto your list of "uncivilized places", and yes, including the USA.
> "My definition of "civilization" is a society "ruled by law" and something approaching a "democracy"."
The same "rule of law" that permits the USA to assassinate one of its own citizens without due process, only executive order? The same "rule of law" that permits it to covertly fund and equip rebel forces in democratic countries simply because their leadership dare oppose US national interests? (Chile is the most salient example of this, but far from the only one)
It seems your definition of "civilization" is less concerned with how much unjust blood is spilled, but rather how visible and public said blood is. This seems like a poor definition.
Also, politicians pandering to various religious communities happens all the time in America. Let's not pretend it is different because the people are brown and the word "God" is pronounced differently.
Shame on you.
Trying to equate "religious pandering" in the US to the various REAL theocracies and military juntas that inhabit the Mideast is "shame"ful.
I'm pretty sure he was determined to fight to the bitter end. Which he did.
The issue isn't that anyone sympathizes with Gadaffi, but that it calls into question the solidarity and stability of the rebel government. Until now, Libyans have been united by their hatred of Gadaffi but we haven't seen whether the government can pull Libya together in a post-Gadaffi nation or really what kind of government or society will emerge. This execution was an action by Libyans with guns against the express will of the nominal government (which wanted to try him first.) It's a bad omen.
Comparing Iraq, a messy invasion that drug on for a decade and cost hundreds of billions, to Libya, a tactical exercise that lasted a few months and cost only a billion plus, might not be a fair comparison, but there is no question that remote reconnaissance, targeting, and attack capabilities have improved dramatically since 2001. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-stealth-drone...
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
