Posted on 03/24/2011 10:41:11 AM PDT by george76
An unintended but highly illuminating irony of the military intervention in Libya is that it has exposed the duplicity behind European pacifism.
Ever since taking office in 2004, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has worked overtime to craft his own public persona as a “convinced pacifist.” His first official act as pacifist-in-chief was, famously, to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. That decision was not only wildly popular with Spanish voters, but it also cemented Zapatero’s pacifist credentials on the world stage.
Zapatero has also been careful to appoint only pacifists as Spanish ministers of defense. Zapatero’s first defense minister, the controversial José Bono Martínez, proclaimed: “I am a minister of defense and I would rather be killed than to kill.”
...
Quite apart from the ongoing debate over whether the military intervention in Libya is wise or unwise, legitimate or illegitimate, or if it ultimately will succeed or fail, the European about-face on the use of military force has confirmed the sham that is post-modern European morality, where “cherished” principles are tossed to the wind whenever they are not convenient.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Why???
Oil
Pacifist = A coward who expects other people to protect him/her.
Pacifist (historical) = Slave.
Ya think?
Ping for later...
They want to live in a world in which Evil triumphs and good men do nothing. I do not say this as an argument in support of the action Libya -- because I think that action is actually not a good policy. But as a general philosophical position, pacifism is beneath contempt.
No such thing as a pacifist, only those who think we fight for the wrong side.
> the sham that is post-modern European morality
The words Europe & morality don’t belong in the same sentence together...
Because pacifists need oil too.
Pacificism has been defined as abdication in favor of those who are not pacifists.
Europe needs lybian oil.
Eurpoe can’t survive without it.
not unless they are willing to back the Greeks in expoiting the mediteranian oil reserves.
I think we should attack then and take Barcelona.
Maybe they figure they can do it without getting an owie!
The Germans have a very good word for this in which English there is no real equal in mood and feeling: Heuchelei.
The simple translation of hypocrisy doesn't do it justice. The nuance meaning is the use of false moral pretenses to justify action or inaction. It's a “fake” moral or ethical argument and the word really hits the meaning of what is happening spot on in a way that no English word does. Sometimes you just can't translate things quite right, or you require elaborate explanations to describe one single word.
Oil, yes.
Plus its finally an opponent they think they can best...collectively.
The only power they think they can defeat is madman Khadaffy and, besides, the Saudis want them to (which may be the deceding reason we are there.)
There are some ideas or behaviors that are ONLY possible when others do the dirty work or if you live in a fake and artificial world made possible through globalization, free trade, modern transportation, information technology. medical science etc.
Think about it, what would have happened to a “Vegan” in British Columbia 150 years ago?
How about that no good for nothing sloth, had he been part of a small family clan 20,000 years ago, would they have fed, housed, nursed him back to health when sick with a “social net?”
If you had no children even just 100 years ago, what would have this condemned you too? Would a public program have paid a retirement and provided for you?
My point is this. Many of these people that walk around and use words like “green, sustainable, regenerative, organic, natural, ecological, biodegradable, recyclable......” are in reality living fake lives in a plastic world. Pacaficm is one of those BS ideas.
IMO....
Early on there were talks with some high up in the Libyan leadership. These talks were headed by either the Brits or the French or both with the Italians on close proximity.
On the Libyan side was the youngest son, Saif I believe, is his name. He had the trust and the confidence based on several years of ongoing progress that included the turnover of the Libyan nucs and major actions to develop a North African financial center in Libya. He was also prominent in major development projects including the Great Man Made River Project.
The Americans were not involved. Obama and the State Department were peripheral. The business was that of Euro companies, not Americans.
Early on there was an article stating pretty much the above. I don’t have the link.
Something happened. The negotiations failed, collapsed, ended. By this time, it was no longer possible to return to the status quo. Various Libyans had committed and could not go back.
I suspect the old man reneged or decided it was not the course he wanted to follow. He gave the deal the finger and said go screw yourselves. Libya is mine. Saif had no choice. He went along.
The Euros are now determined to save their investments and went to the UN to get the permission. Obama reluctantly went along. His or the State Departments interest is not deserting the Brits.
Meanwhile, money talks. Even though bombs dropped and missiles flew, the money men can still salvage the situation. Bribes and treachery, shunned by Americans and forbidden by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, remain valuable tools in much of the rest of the world. I think money will rule the day and resolve the conflict
UN drill?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.