Nigel Farage on Libya – Russia Today 2011

This guy makes a lot of sense.

Don’t get me wrong – I am more of a hawk than a dove, but what we are doing in Libya makes absolutely no sense.

If we were outraged over the atrocities against civilians, how come the civilians in Darfur (or any other of a hellish places) did not matter?

How come Khadaffi’s atrocities did not make us his enemies until he had had a ‘falling out’ (to put it mildly) with the French President?

And why exactly is it that we are helping the ‘rebels’ who are – even according to the government sanctioned experts – controlled by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?!?!?

This is insanity!  And that is even before we look at the specifics of the action itself – going in without clearly defining what the ‘end result’ we desire is….

OK, it sounds patronizing, but in this case, it is well earned:  if you fail to plan, you plan to fail!

Now, my question to you is this:

How do we get Mr. Nigel Farage to run for Prime Minister of Canada?!?!?

10 Responses to “Nigel Farage on Libya – Russia Today 2011”

  1. CodeSlinger Says:


    These people are not stupid.

    They are not funding and arming Jihadist Muslims by mistake.

    Have you looked at the price of oil lately?

    There is, however, a deeper issue: if we don’t get in bed with these guys, the Chinese will.

    And the consequences of that would be much, much worse than expensive oil.

    Xan says:

    The ‘rebels’ did turn out several hundred ‘Chinese workers’ into the desert, with no supplies, documents or money…

  2. CodeSlinger Says:


    Oh they did, did they?

    Those Al Qaeda guys are really handy to have around, aren’t they?

    They keep the price of oil up, the people scared, and the Chicoms away.

    Who would have thought?

    Xanthippa says:

    Yes, they did – in the early days of the revolt.

    The modern Chinese colonization of Africa has made the old European colonization look downright warm and cuddly….

  3. Steynerism 442st « Free Canuckistan! Says:

    […] Nigel Farage on Libya – Russia Today 2011 […]

  4. JR Says:

    Farage makes sense on Libya. And anyone who opposes EU membership has his head screwed on right.
    And as for his running for PM of Canada – I know you’re not really serious, but still, Iggy has spent about as much of his adult life in the UK as Farage. And we could do with a competent libertarian running for federal office.

    Xanthippa says:


  5. Derek Says:

    I do support Western military action against Gaddafi’s regime.

    What happens to international law when it is not enforced? It disappears. What happens when dictators are allowed to act out of line, without action taken against them? It sends a message that other dictators can do the same without being punished as well.

    Xanthippa says:

    Weeeeell, there is a bit more to it than that.

    (By the way – I thought you were anti-interventionist, in principle?)

    See, the problem with Khaddaffi/Gaddafi is that he was worse before – but because he was playing nice with the ‘Big Boys’ and selling them oil and paying them kickbacks, nobody cared and let him oppress the Libyans all he wanted.

    Then he blackmailed EU – and again, because he was playing ball with oil, nobody even mentioned any kind of a military action.

    It wasn’t until AFTER France and UK thought the rebels would win and made a deal with them – stabbing Khaddaffi in the back in the process – AND then Khaddaffi began to look like he would defeat the rebels – it wasn’t until THEN that France and UK began screeching that we need to militarily defeat Khaddaffi!

    For the good of the Libyan children, you know!

    We KNOW that the rebels fighting Khaddaffi – the very people we are aiding – are well organized and funded by the Muslim Brotherhood. I mean, long before the intervention, there were reports that the rebels had had one of their fighter jets shot down. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know of many civilians who would just happen to have fighter jets, or of any civilian-based dissidents who would have the ability and resources to do the maintenance on a fighter jet necessary to keep it flying….even if it were just one!

    So, let’s not kid ourselves – we are not in Libya to help oppressed citizens throw off the yoke of an oppressive dictator. We are in Libya because we have burned the bridges with Khaddaffi and so we are knowingly replacing one oppressive dictatorship with another, even more oppressive dictatorship in the faint and foolish hope that they will remember our help and sell their oil to us rather than to the Russians or the Chinese.

    To that end – did you notice that it was only the Chinese and Russian oil interests that got blown up by the ‘rebel forces’?!?!?

    As to the whole ‘helping oppressed people’ thing….

    IF we really were interested in that, we would have been in Sudan a decade ago!

    A friend of mine – way back then – was part of the team of international experts attempting to bring all the players in Sudan together in order to draft a constitution for the country in order to prevent the type of slaughter that ensued. When the talks/negotiations finally failed, these experts warned anybody and everybody who would listen that Sudan was going to turn into a bloodbath. They implored the UN to put peacekeepers there – because at that point, there was still some tentative peace to keep!

    When the genocides started in Darfur, they screamed for the international community to do something. Nobody cared!


    Because it was ‘just civilians getting massacred’!!!

    France, in particular, was against any intervention in the Sudan (from what I heard – don’t know if this is reflected in the public record).

    What happened there – and IS STILL HAPPENING – is government forces, exterminating whole tribes, committing horrible crimes, raping, murdering, selling into slavery…. And we are STILL doing NOTHING!

    Sudan is MUCH worse than Libya – and has been for a long time. I cannot justify any ‘good faith’ in the action in Libya while Sudan (and other places on par with it) are ignored!

    • Derek Says:

      I never stated that the West has a moral obligation to help everyone who is suffering everywhere. There’s only a limited amount of assistance the United States can give because it is in wartime.

      I supported the short operation of bombing Gaddafi’s tanks to send a message to other dictators around the world and to protect the protestors. I will not, however, support an expensive bloody long-term commitment by the West to overthrow him.

      I ultimately believe that if subversion is to happen, anywhere in the world, the West should not bear the lion’s share of the work, and should give assistance, but only if rebels can largely win on their own. That is why I support airstrikes against Libyan tanks now that protestors have a chance of winning rather than before.

      If Al Qaeda exists in the rebels, it is in a trace amount. There is no evidence that Al Qaeda presence among the rebels is anything more than an outlier.

      I agree Sudan has been in much worse condition for years, but it is too heavy of a cost for the west to get involved.

      Xan says:

      You say: “I agree Sudan has been in much worse condition for years, but it is too heavy of a cost for the west to get involved.”

      So, we have a moral imperative to stop atrocities only if it is not too inconvenient?

      Either we have a moral obligation to help suffering civilians, or we do not.

      As for Libya’s rebels – I did no say Al Qaeda, I said Muslim Brotherhood was in control!!! The links between MB and the rebels in Libya are undeniable and strong – even the US government spokespeople are admitting this. And between the two of them, MB is a much greater danger than Al Qaeda.

      • Derek Says:

        Morals are purely subjective. I never said the United States had any moral imperative or obligation. But to you, is it either sacrifice ourselves as much as possible to help suffering people in other countries or do not give them a dime?

        The airstrikes were not a humanitarian mission. We certainly do not have a moral obligation to help the Libyans, though I personally prefer bombing Gaddafi’s army.

        Xan says:

        I have no love for Khadaffi.

        However, I think our action now is, at best, hypocritical. More like suicidal.

  6. CodeSlinger Says:


    The whole concept of international law is an abomination that has no legitimate existence in a free world.

    You ask “what happens when dictators are allowed to act out of line…”

    And I ask, allowed by whom?

    There is no law without a lawgiver, and more importantly,

    there is no law before the sword.

    The introduction of international law is part of the Fabian route to global governance. Just as federal law destroyed the sovereignty of the states, international law is destroying the sovereignty of nations.

    Such a law can only be enforced by a global military-industrial complex, big enough that no nation can stand against it. Such an entity will have, de facto, absolute power. But

    absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    So if you care at all about your own freedom or anybody else’s, you must resist the creeping rot that is globalization with every fibre of your being.

    • Calculus Says:

      I’m going to chime in with my own two cents on global governance.

      Imagine the case of global governance being fully implemented. The ultimate monopoly will have been formed. Too bad if you don’t like it as there will be absolutely nowhere else to go–no exits, no escape.

      Whose laws, whose philosophies will it be founded upon? The West’s? Islam’s? China’s? All too often I think people naively assume that it will be the best of the West. Expect it to be done by those who have sought power, who have power, and who seek power. To those, what good is power if not to be used?

      Even if magically it was the most benign and enlightened form of government one could imagine, for how long would it stay that way? When you are at the top, the only other way is down.

      Xan says:

      Welcome back! Good to see your comment!

      And – absolutely right!

  7. CodeSlinger Says:


    “Subjective morality” is a contradiction in terms.

    Something is subjective when it is a matter of opinion, but no one has the right to impose his opinion on anyone else.

    A moral principle is one that applies to everyone, and therefore can only be based on considerations which are valid for everyone.

    A principle of such universality cannot be subjective.

    On the contrary, it must follow directly from the inherent nature, needs and capacities of human beings, from the physical configuration and causal structure of the real world, and from the fundamental symmetry which reflects the moral equality of all individuals.

    True morality, therefore, is objective.

    It does not vary from place to place, or from time to time, or from person to person. Nor is it a matter of opinion, expediency or convenience.

    What’s right and wrong for you and me, here and now, is the same as what was right and wrong for a neolithic hunter-gatherer in his tribal cave 50,000 years ago.

    Whatever is less universal than that is not a moral principle at all, it’s a just a convention.

    And nothing has caused more suffering and bloodshed than treating mere conventions as though they were morals…

    except treating morals as though they were mere conventions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: