In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11561
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
robdverity 03/24/2011 05:04 PM Report
wwatcher - right on. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia (or whatever grandiose title is in vogue) is close to being a bigger rogue than Ghaddafi (Bahrain). But you can bet your last idiological oil-dollar that he will not be upbraided in any manner - but more than likely rationalized and supported as a world hero instead.
Hypocrisy supplants all else in the good ole USA; well except for venality and the whoredom we call democracy, but in reality is more a plutocracy for sale to the highest bidder. Usually big banks and MI oligarches.
worldwatcher 03/23/2011 03:12 PM Report
I think that what should be pointed out the most and *EXPOSED* is the *usual* U.S. _*HYPOCRISY*_: which claims to stand for democracy (as always the U.S. cover story) while constantly installing and/or propping up dictators in the Arab and non-Western world -- and then claiming that *Arab societies/cultures* are *"opposed"* to democracy. So, obviously, by any comparisons, the U.S. doesn't care about democracy -- just as it doesn't care about Islamic fundamentalism, as long as they are the *U.S. government's* Islamic fundamentalists -- like in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or when the Taliban was virtually created by and on the *U.S.'s* side (as even popularized by the Hollywood movie "Rambo III").
The U.S.-UK-French coalition claims to be protecting civilian life and peaceful protesters in Libya, but they don't protect it in Gaza or Lebanon when Israel massacres thousands (either killed, maimed or wounded); the coalition doesn't protect civilian life and peaceful protesters in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia (in fact, the U.S. *supports* brutality there); the U.S. doesn't demand democracy by its *allied* dictatorial, Arab, Islamic *fundamentalist* regimes, most prominently in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both where women have far less rights than under Saddam! The U.S. doesn't care about "terrorism", as long as the people (like the anti-Iranian terrorists or, before, the Contras) are the *U.S.'s* terrorists. The U.S., it has been shown, doesn't even care about torture, as long as the *U.S.* or *Israel* are doing/supporting torture.
Qaddafi was not an anti-imperialist (at least not any longer, altho now he's posing as one): he *worked* with the imperialists -- he kissed and made up with them: he was their boy in Libya. While I am still forming my opinions and conclusions, I mostly see this as A(nother) international _'FALLING OUT AMONG CROOKS AND THUGS'_ (the US/UK and their 3rd world dictators, like, before with Saddam) -- there are no good guys between them all. Qaddafi, like Saddam, put *himself* in that situation -- otherwise he would have the support of most of his people when it came to outside military attacks. Qaddafi was the *first* to bring in foreign military support.
So, for the moment, I am provisionally and tactically open to whomever prevents the most civilians/protesters from being massacred, while waiting to listen and re-listen to Davey's shows again on this topic. Qaddafi did and said he was going to *massacre* his own people/protesters, even when they were *peaceful* protesters -- the same people who don't even want to see US/UK (/French/Italian) boots on the ground: they saw what happened in Iraq. But, if the U.S. carelessly starts massacring civilians in Libya (as the U.S. has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or before that in Panama, Vietnam, during the Korean war, and in so many other countries) we should be equally condemning of that also.
So, Qaddafi left *himself* politically open to -- eventually -- whatever excuses the US/UK/French/etc. coalition (THE *OTHER* CROOKS) want to use to militarily attack and turn on him -- when he was no longer useful to them (just like Noreiga, in Panama, and Saddam, who got *set-up* in Kuwait and the Gulf-Iraq War). FIRST, Qaddafi needs to *go* -- and, SECOND, the pro-democracy forces need to make sure that the U.S. doesn't install, impose, help in, or prop up *another* dictator -- because we all know that the last thing the U.S./Europe/Israel want in the Arab/Muslim world is a true democracy. (The U.S. govt barely "wants/supports" a true democracy here at home!: it seems like *corporatism*, a form of oligarchy, dominates U.S. domestic policy and even our elections.)
JohnGelles 03/22/2011 11:20 PM Report
Engel:
"I’m not sure how much the international community has the will for an offensive war that the rebels want -- to topple Gadhafi."
And how much will do we have?
Lindsey Graham and I have all the will in the world. But the President must have the will. And he ought to raise our level of spending an investment to leave no doubt that we will have full employment here -- and full modernization of
our best military weapons systems for the types of challenges we have.
Russia may not want an immediate American victory. But Gates took care of that today. He explained the facts of the matter. America is not Russia's enemy. Let us keep it that way.
robdverity 03/22/2011 04:48 PM Report
From last REM sentence: "...we have the a set of the stupidest or most mendacious intelligence services and world leaders imaginable."
Obama falling flat yet again. Disappointing jackass. Incredible!
REMant 03/22/2011 10:52 AM Report
No one else thinks it is possible to square Obama's desire to get rid of the Libyan regime and the Security council resolution. The Arab League isn't to keen on it, nor Putin, who likened it to the Crusades, nor the Norwegians who turned their planes around in mid-air, nor Germany which refuses to participate. Meanwhile the Israelis flew their own air strikes on Hamas in the Gaza strip knowing they wouldn't either get publicity, or be upbraided for it.
I heard Engel say this on his network earlier yesterday, and the BBC say the same. It is exactly what I've thought about the rebels all along. Unfortunately, I think they have already got the approval of "the coalition" to do just this.
The following comment was written on the Jadaliyya website (http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/907/solidarity-and-intervention-in-libya) Sunday in response to a piece making many of the same points I have been making, and which I heard repeated in many quarters yesterday. The article is also on the Al Jazeera website:
"I have to say, this article is the first reasonable attempt to discuss available options and mistakes already made by international community in Libyan conflict, that I found so far. I left Libya two weeks ago and my view of the conflict differs much from all what I see in mainstream media. The 'popular uprising' is rather tribal one and overwhelming support for rebel fighters is not so obvious anywhere else than in Cyrenaica and, of course, in EU and USA. This conflict does not at all resembles changes in Tunisia and Egypt. Moreover, the French 'bust-them-all' version of no-fly zone, will make it very difficult to reconcile two sides of the conflict long after Ghadaffi is gone, as the rebel fighters will from now on, have a label of traitors who legitimized Western air raids over Libya. The justification of the international intervention in Libya and supporting at the same time other dictators in the Middle-East is beyond comprehension unless you step into shoes of Western consumer/voter who follows evolution of the fuel price at its local gas station. I keep my fingers crossed for all Libyans, regardless which side they sympathize with. Jarek"
If what he says is true, which it has always seemed to me must be because of the geographical split involved, we have the a set of the stupidest or most mendacious intelligence services and world leaders imaginable.