|
shotgunbadger posted:If you favor 'spreading democracy' you are a neo-con, that's one of their core platforms. I, too, have my very own definition of neo-conservatism which can be expressed in terms of a single dimension of foreign policy.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
Well Jesus Christ, if you're going to generalize to that degree, neoliberal means "spread freedom and free market", so why are we even bothering with grouping attributes into these loose labels, anyway? It's all about what you believe w/r/t capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:41
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Well that's the main way but no the general concept of 'democracy is the best and everyone should have it because we say so' is the platform, they just feel it's acceptable to kick the door in and shoot everything to spread it if you feel you have to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:If you favor 'spreading democracy' you are a neo-con, that's one of their core platforms. Oh poo poo, that means because I supported the Egyptian people's right not to have their elections stolen by Mubarak I must be a neo-con!   You just proved my point. "Spreading democracy" is such a vague expression it covers a helluva lot more bases than just Neo-conservatism. Neo-Conservative covers a quite specific set of beliefs about foreign policy. Believing that people should have the right to self-determination does not a neo-con make. Unless you want to imply all the Libyan and Yemeni and Syrian and Tunisian and Egyptian demonstrators are all secret Neo-Con agents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Competition posted:A statement without refute due to a two year period where one single progressive policy can't be found yet dozens of continued neo-con policies can be cited in half a minute. I was asking about your usage of the word, 'neo-con.' It's a wierd one and I see it in the oddest of places. What's your experience with it, or am I not being specific enough this time? Ahh, see, this page: this is what I was thinking of- Everyone has a different definition of it, and I know I'm giving myself away but I had no clue it stood for 'conservative' since I usually hear it spewed by angry Republicans. This confused me to no end. It's so loving hard to disambiguate, I hate politics. Did anyone get an update on that supposed event in Zawiyah, or was every male above sixteen years of age not dragged out of his house and slaughtered? I'm pretty sure it's failed the test of time, yes? Paradox Personified fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:45
|
|
SoroScrew
|
I love how even after Xandu posted that article on "imperialism" and the "trajectory of history," you still have posters here confirming everything the article implied about dogmatism. I made a fair and sourced point regarding the isolationist jingoism of the left and the progressiveness of the war in Afghanistan (and by extension the current conflict in Libya), and instead I get called a troll and my post is dismissed because "hurr Hitchens brown people". I remember reading a tweet from the Libyan resistance saying that those who oppose international intervention because of "imperialism" are basically hypocrites and imperialists of a different flavor. This thread continues to prove the Libyan resistance right. Whatever the outcome of this conflict, the "hurr imperialist brown people neoliberal racist" crowd is going to come out of this looking really loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:So we have to wait for Syria to combust into a full civil war before we mess with it? I seriously want to know the barometer for when we can and can't bomb the crap out of protests. When were we bombing protests?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
More on Misrata. Twitter reports so feel free to wait for confirmationquote:alihashem: REBEL SPOKESMAN: WESTERN COALITION HAS TOLD REBELS WILL SECURE SAFE PASSAGE FOR AID SHIPS FROM MALTA TO MISRATA #feb17 #libya It sounds like the situation in Misrata is turning up Milhouse. In other news quote:robcrilly rebels will not be parading prisoners in front of media again - had massive bollocking (my phrase) from Human Rights Watch #libya Yeah HWR gets so pissy about that Geneva thingy. farraday fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Competition posted:A statement without refute due to a two year period where one single progressive policy can't be found yet dozens of continued neo-con policies can be cited in half a minute. Hi name one thing where Obama is to the right of Bush on anything. A single thing. How about something where Bush is to the left of Obama? Remember to compare things relative to the STATE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, not some idealogical conceptual perfection A policy change that is still on the 'right wing' side of the issue, but a net move towards 'left' is still a good change! You can say he's ineffectual, or not as whatever as you'd like, but seriously use your brain
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
quote:they killed 30 government snipers in Misrata and managed to reach the center of the town
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:51
|
|
|
Paradox Personified posted:Is this something specific to the locals of Al Arabiya, or did our rebels all of a sudden get much more skilled and tactical? More defectors maybe, assisting in the push efforts? This is the town of Misrata in western Libya which Ghaddafi's forces have been attacking for weeks. The rebels were still in the town and when many of the tanks received precision guided bombs on their turrets the rebels are claiming they've advanced back into the center and killed many of the "snipers" who have been frequently reported on rooftops firing at civilians. I have snipers in quotations because I believe the usage here is less about marksmanship and more evocative of the helplessness of their targets in comparison. Al_Arabyia is not a town, it's a news organization that the twitter account belongs to, let me edit that to be clearer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
Reposting for people just joining us: Live blogs March 24th BBC AJE LibyaFeb17.com Guardian cioxx posted:Here's a curated list of Twitter personalities I'm working on. Some of them from Brown Moses suggestions throughout the thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
Competition posted:Stop this poo poo, people were claiming potential proxy civil war for Iraq which had ten times to potential than Syria does and that didn't happen. The "fracture" problem is that the Assad family and the regime elites are all Alawites, who rule over the Sunnis. It's a minority-rule situation, in some ways similar to what's going on in Bahrain. Libya: Interesting piece from the Aviation Week blog about the continuing SAM threat in Libya. Apparently Qaddafi got his hands on some fairly advanced man-portable missiles. quote:The Russian-made SA-24 Grinch can shoot down coalition aircraft effectively at altitudes up to about 11,000 ft. That would not affect most combat patrols, which are being flown above 20,000 ft., but once humanitarian relief, refuge, medical evacuation and other low-altitude missions begin, they could be lethal... Nearly lost in the excitement about the destroyed Libyan aircraft was the news was the news that the French struck deep into Libya in the past day, near Sebha. I'd say it's likely that they hit the fixed air-defense sites identified by Sean O'Connor here. For those interested, his rundown of fixed-site Libyan SAMs (or ex-SAMs by now) is here. JIR499 fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
Paradox Personified posted:Is this something specific to the locals of Al Arabiya, or did our rebels all of a sudden get much more skilled and tactical? More defectors maybe, assisting in the push efforts? The rebels knew where the snipers were, but couldn't get to them because the sniper nests were protected by armor. Once the armor was withdrawn or destroyed, the rebels could approach via their own vehicles or own armor, take the buildings, and toss the snipers off headfirst off the roof. ...because this is how I'd envision it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Competition posted:Stop this poo poo, people were claiming potential proxy civil war for Iraq which had ten times to potential than Syria does and that didn't happen. I also find it funny that you're saying that there wasn't elements of foreign manipulation in the Iraq war. Iran had a hand in there once the dust cleared, and while you're not going to go send armed troops to contest the world's largest military, you sure as hell can help provide monetary and material aid to a large and angry Shiite majority in a destabilized nation. Hmm, as if they were go-betweens or maybe, you know, proxies. Eh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:You think that Obama failing to live up to your standards somehow makes him a neocon, and you honestly believe that Obama pretended to be a Leftist? I have to wonder who the "loving madman" really is. quote:And Christopher Hitchens had a really great point to make about the anti-war crowd being reactionary jingoists (and why the war in Afghanistan is a truly progressive war): The war in Afghanistan could be argued to be progressive if it's goal was to stop radicalised Islam and to push progressive policies, it however has not been. 1. The Taliban were initially told they could stay in power should they hand over Bin Laden (how progressive) 2. Karzai's fraudulent election where he cheated his way into office happened under Obama's watch, we lost all mandate for being there once that happened (and is the moment I stopped being in favour of the Afghan war to being opposed) is not progressive in the slightest. 3. The endless list of atrocities carried out by US troops over there that are systematically covered up and which the Obama administration has done nothing to combat them. 4. We're now propping up an illegitimate president while combating a Taliban which is now a completely different beast to the one we started fighting ten years ago (whereas before we were fighting a wahhabist group that had seized power it has now transformed into a resistance group made up of civilians who joined to expel the foreign forces in their country, they share a name and not much else). 5. The presence of western troops in Afghanistan is a major reason for radicalisation. It is not a progressive war, it's goals are not progressive and it is not being carried out in a progressive way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The rebels knew where the snipers were, but couldn't get to them because the sniper nests were protected by armor. Once the armor was withdrawn or destroyed, the rebels could approach via their own vehicles or own armor, take the buildings, and toss the snipers off headfirst off the roof. Yeah I just don't get the sniper's continued use. Mindless killing that won't take/retain any ground now that the troops/armor are retreated. Killing grandma on a porch won't stop the revolt. Hanging around in a city of thousands completely looking for your head on a plate doesn't sound attractive either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
It's funny that it took so long for me to lose faith in Michael Moore/Ralph Nader/Dennis Kucinich and see them as the loving attentionwhoring assholes who have no connection to the common people that they are. All it took was the slaughter of thousands of Libyans. At least I lost faith in Hugo Chavez ages ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Ah yea, Christopher 'bomb the scary brown people because of their faith' Hitchens, let's look to him for progressive philosophy. Hmm Hitchens supports military intervention in situations you don't. Must be a racist bigot. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:It's funny that it took so long for me to lose faith in Michael Moore/Ralph Nader/Dennis Kucinich and see them as the loving attentionwhoring assholes who have no connection to the common people that they are. All it took was the slaughter of thousands of Libyans. At least I lost faith in Hugo Chavez ages ago. Saying things I agree with: noble warriors Using those same things against a guy I like: loving ATTENTION WHORES or do you believe since this those people (who have nothing to do with eachother) had a dramatic policy shift you can no longer support? edit: can we please not call them 'our' rebels, that's kinda exactly what the problem with this whole bullshit twitter 'revolution' mantra is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:It's funny that it took so long for me to lose faith in Michael Moore/Ralph Nader/Dennis Kucinich and see them as the loving attentionwhoring assholes who have no connection to the common people that they are. All it took was the slaughter of thousands of Libyans. At least I lost faith in Hugo Chavez ages ago. That is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
bich posted:Hi name one thing where Obama is to the right of Bush on anything. A single thing. How about something where Bush is to the left of Obama? Remember to compare things relative to the STATE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, not some idealogical conceptual perfection Where did I claim he was to the right of Bush? I claimed that he inherited right wing policies from Bush and has continued to implement (if not expand) them while not actually doing anything that could be considered progressive when he had as good a chance as any to do so. kw0134 posted:Why would the civil war, if there is one (I was speculating, by the way, that's what it means to qualify stuff with the word "if") necessarily split along ethnic lines and not, say, the demands of a restive population demanding more rights and less poverty against a repressive government and its backers? You know, like in half the nations where this has happened already? quote:I also find it funny that you're saying that there wasn't elements of foreign manipulation in the Iraq war. Iran had a hand in there once the dust cleared, and while you're not going to go send armed troops to contest the world's largest military, you sure as hell can help provide monetary and material aid to a large and angry Shiite majority in a destabilized nation. Hmm, as if they were go-betweens or maybe, you know, proxies. Eh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Saying things I agree with: noble warriors Though yes, I support people who have political positions I agree with. INSANE I KNOW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Yeah I just don't get the sniper's continued use. Mindless killing that won't take/retain any ground now that the troops/armor are retreated. Killing grandma on a porch won't stop the revolt. Hanging around in a city of thousands completely looking for your head on a plate doesn't sound attractive either. Terrorizing a population so they won't go out into the street is a pretty effective tactic. People run for cover at the sound of a gunshot, and when you see the guy next to you fall, you stay under cover. It makes holding a mass protest harder (if the people were incline to do so, but they seem past the point of protesting once the tanks rolled in) because no one wants to be the next one shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Saying things I agree with: noble warriors To be fair some of them are attention whores, but not supporting the war is not in and of itself proof of that. Moore is clearly an attention whore, Nader probably so in my judgment. I'll leave Kucinich out of it. Actually the thought that comes to my mind is Jeannette Rankin who voted against war with Japan in 1941. I disagree with her, I know to the roots of my soul she was wrong, and yet I have to admire her willingness to stand on principle. At some point you have to say "Here I stand I can do no other." Anyways, possible breakthrough on NATO question? BBC: quote:1815: Turkey's foreign minister is being quoted as saying Nato will take command of the Libya operation, AP reports. More on this as we get it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
farraday posted:Actually the thought that comes to my mind is Jeannette Rankin who voted against war with Japan in 1941. I disagree with her, I know to the roots of my soul she was wrong, and yet I have to admire her willingness to stand on principle. quote:I'm not sure whereabouts "constancy in the face of utterly differing circumstances or new information," gets championed. Different situations have different facts and contexts and repercussions and moral basis to begin with, and ought to be treated with a new examination each time. To grab this and try and hoist it in the air screaming about pacifism-at-all-costs is about as retarded as you can get, from a moral as well as a PR standpoint. It's not even intelligent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Is that really admirable though? Someone else put it well: It is absolutely admirable, it just isn't necessarily correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Is that really admirable though? I don't think it is. I admire people who look at context and evolve and adapt their political views. Someone else put it well: It isn't dumb, you just disagree, and you're painting people who disagree with you as dumb. This isn't a coming out thread for the movement for WAR OR PEACE. This is a thread to follow events, please keep it that way, and I mean everybody who's posted their asanine opinion the last few pages, making GBS threads up the thread. I've made the same mistake in this thread as well, but it doesn't help anybody, and it shits up the thread, let's not veer in that direction. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Is that really admirable though? I don't think it is. I admire people who look at context and evolve and adapt their political views. Someone else put it well: So then what's your baseline, civilians being killed? We'll have to go to war in a lot of places (and somehow go to war against ourselves too, in Afghanistan and Iraq!). Death is always a tragedy, especially when the underclass are being stomped by the autocrats, but we simply can't play the world's police, we can't run in every place there is wrong and fix things (by bombing apparently).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:It isn't dumb, you just disagree, and you're painting people who disagree with you as dumb. I thought we could debate about the current events as well, not just discuss the base facts of the news and how many missiles are hitting where. I'll stop anymore discussion like this if we're taking things too off-topic or it's not the right place for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:So we have to wait for Syria to combust into a full civil war before we mess with it? I seriously want to know the barometer for when we can and can't bomb the crap out of protests. What do you think the answer is? Sit down, think about it, and try to figure out why we would consider intervening in Libya but not other countries, keeping in mind the limits to our power, political limits, the limits of what can be achieved through various intervention approaches, and their potential downsides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
farraday posted:To be fair some of them are attention whores, but not supporting the war is not in and of itself proof of that. Moore is clearly an attention whore, Nader probably so in my judgment. I'll leave Kucinich out of it. Kucinich's olive pit sandwich lawsuit seemed to be a bit of attention whoring. While hopefully progress is made, what are the odds that the NATO control will end up with endless bickering and ineffectual (or worse, bad) military decision making.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Uhhhh, this isn't an Obama thing. I don't even really like Obama. It's a "mass genocide of thousands of Libyans" thing. I could care less about Obama. Hey could we put a definition of "genocide" in the OP or something? It doesn't just mean a mass slaughter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Yeah, but he's not publicly hawkish about Libya, which is what we're talking about. Everyone knows he's a Republican plant. LOL please stop saying this and everybody please stop voting for demopublicans because they are to a man anathema.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
LITERALLY MAD IRL posted:Hey could we put a definition of "genocide" in the OP or something? It doesn't just mean a mass slaughter. But hey, I'll just say- Uhhhh, this isn't an Obama thing. I don't even really like Obama. It's a "mass slaughter of thousands of Libyans" thing. I could care less about Obama. Though yes, I support people who have political positions I agree with. INSANE I KNOW. THERE WE GO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:Kucinich's olive pit sandwich lawsuit seemed to be a bit of attention whoring. Less likely, in my view, with NATO control than with a planning committee made up of the participating countries. Even if they'd print a mission statement in easy to understand Western. I'd put a caveat to that though, Turkey has publicly talked about NATO conducting the blockade, as opposed to the no fly zones/air strikes. It could just be referring to that part of the operation and not the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
It really sounds like the government has lost complete control of Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:29
|
|
|
piss posted:It really sounds like the government has lost complete control of Benghazi. ... Yes. Yes it does. More from Turkey via BBC quote:1830: More on that statement from Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu: He has told TRT television that Turkey's demands had been met and Nato will take command of the Libya military operation. Nato needs the approval of all its members and Turkey had set conditions. So far there is no independent confirmation of the statement. This may be explored during Vice Adm. Bill Gortney's press briefing at 2100 GMT. farraday fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
Competition posted:No, Obama not instituting a single progressive policy and continuing and expanding neo-con ones makes him a neo-con. I made this point in the Wisconsin protest thread, but I think it needs repeating here. Obama is not some magical negro out of a loving Stephen King book that will right every loving wrong or usher in a Utopian progressive society with free UHC, no Guantanamo, Iraq of Afghanistan wars. Think about for one fraction of a second how long conservatives had to work to get to where they are now... where every liberal idea today are just things conservatives were talking about only a few years ago. 30 loving years it took for the right to push us every so gently over the years to where we are now... but since our magical negro progressive didn't fix everything in 2 years he's somehow just as bad as the conservatives? gently caress you, you loving quitter. Maybe after 30 years of continuously pushing for progressive ideals with your vote, no matter how far they are from your fantasy ideal and then having nothing to show for it and you can talk about how ineffectual progressives are in this country, but 30 loving months means you never has the stomach to do any hard work to actually move the country to where you want it, you just wanted to show up and have everything handed to you, you loving child. There, I feel better now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
piss posted:It really sounds like the government has lost complete control of Benghazi. Based off what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 19:35
|
|