|
To be fair, Mr. Sunshine, most Americans DON'T know what socialism really is, or at least social democracy. We are right to be horrified by Stalinism and Maoism, but that shouldn't prevent us from embracing social and economic policies that are decidedly in everyone's interest.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
These lines on a map mean that everyone in it has to bootstrap themselves out of dictatorship. If someone from this different area helps them it means the first ones 'purity of revolt' is wasted and they might as well put their boss back in his golden palace and shoot themselves in the face.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Wow, just this morning I was thinking how lucky he was that the misrata brigade killed him quickly... On the other hand , this is the guy who ordered his militias to rob , rape and attack at random, then ordered that rape victims be prosecuted if they dared to complain about it, so im sure this is just karma. Is your source that article that said he gave all his guys viagra? lol http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/111024/gaddafi-sodomized-video-gaddafi-sodomy Pueidist fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
Well you guys don't really see the other sides perspective, which is why I think all of your agreements are flawed. How would you feel about a Cuban or Chinese-backed uprising of Communists in the United States? There are communists in the states, they do get repressed horrifically for their political beliefs, even shot and killed. COINTELPRO ring a bell? Are they not afforded the same protections as Libyans? That's even ignoring the fact that plenty of people have been shot and killed by the police and the army for unionizing in the United States, which isn't even an attempted overthrow of the government. I mean christ, they bombed Americans from the air for trying to unionize mines for god's sake. When you look at this whole situation from a more nuanced position, you can realize that NATO supported the Libyan revolution and not, for example, Bahrain's because those countries had a chance to influence future oil contracts further in their favour. And I'm not being, the war's about the oil! or anything. I'm saying, while NATO justified this to those people in their countries as a humanitarian escapade, the very reason that they supported it, support which I'll add was entirely the cause of the successful uprising, is that powerful people in those countries saw a chance to gain. That's it. The Nazi's and Japanese had plenty of puppet dictators that their military might installed, which enjoyed some support amongst a portion the population. The current president is a U.S based economics professor! Can't you see how that might be a problem by looking at the current economic situation of the U.S? The entire history of Neoliberalism since Reagan has seen the destruction of the middle class, the enormous increase in the power of the very rich, and the destruction of unions and pro-union thinking. Free trade has seen countries reduced the point of bankruptcy as they take on expensive loans that include conditions that prevent protection of native industry, which can't really compete with multinational corporations. Your arguments tend to fail because of one thing. History.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:Well you guys don't really see the other sides perspective, which is why I think all of your agreements are flawed. History! The first refuge of ideologues looking for a way to shut down opposition through hand waving comparison. On Tarhouni I'm going to repost something Nomenklatura did in D&D just because it shut down this idiotic argument there. Nomenklatura posted:Also, I'm watching that Ali Tarhouni video right now, and as I write this he's going to bat for Glass-Steagel, and pointing out its revocation as THE key cause of the crisis. Link to the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2061671057391029705 But yeah HISTORY proves you're right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Didn't Libya ask NATO to intervene?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:Didn't Libya ask NATO to intervene? No you see, that was just the western backed puppet "revolution" *handwave* EDIT: That video... Ali Tarhouni for Treasury Secretary/Fed Chairman/President! Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:Didn't Libya ask NATO to intervene? Not just Libya (I assume you meant the then-rebels). The Arab League and the UN specifically requested it. As far as I know the international community has not requested intervention in any other country. Those asking why NATO has not intervened in Syria should also be asking why the Arab League has not requested NATO to intervene.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
According to AJE Al-Nahda says they've got over 30% of the vote in Tunisia and are "not far from 40%." So they're powerful but not in the absolute majority and the three parties fighting for second place are all either center-left or socialist secular parties so I would say that fears of an Islamist takeover are going to be proven unfounded. Not to mention the fact that Al-Nahda is a moderate Islamist party and is likely to wind up looking more like the Christian Democrats in various European countries than the wild eyed terrorists the term "Islamist" tends to conjure up in the minds of paranoid racist Westerners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
stereobreadsticks posted:According to AJE Al-Nahda says they've got over 30% of the vote in Tunisia and are "not far from 40%." So they're powerful but not in the absolute majority and the three parties fighting for second place are all either center-left or socialist secular parties so I would say that fears of an Islamist takeover are going to be proven unfounded. Not to mention the fact that Al-Nahda is a moderate Islamist party and is likely to wind up looking more like the Christian Democrats in various European countries than the wild eyed terrorists the term "Islamist" tends to conjure up in the minds of paranoid racist Westerners. From what I've gattered, Al-Nahda is getting 60 seats in parliament, out of 217. The PDP did worst than expected (Maya Jribi, who was pretty high up, lost her seat), but everyone is saying the results are fair and they concede to them. And yeah, from what I've seen, all the parties, even the Islamic one, are trying to model themselves on the European spectrum, so a "right-leaning" party would probably pretty liberal. For anyone interested, here's a list of all the different (major) political parties: A map of the political landscape Key Parties Facts and figures about Tunisia Also, the Tunisian elections live blog from has results posted as they come in. Narmi fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:No you see, that was just the western backed puppet "revolution" *handwave* 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
farraday posted:History! The first refuge of ideologues looking for a way to shut down opposition through hand waving comparison. I can't really see how you can deny history as not being relevant. Words don't mean as much actions, and for all the words of American governments supporting democracy, the majority of their actions during the Cold War and even since don't really support this. I can name plenty of Cold War socialists that weren't autocratic in their rule, but unfortunately, they tend to be the same people that were assassinated by CIA backed indiduals or coups. Allende and Sankara come to mind. The Occupy Movement is coming out of people starting to realize that what they are being told about capitalism doesn't match the reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:Haha, I'll believe it when his actions match his words. I seem to recall an American president who said all sorts of the right things before he was elected. Yes, because a university lecture in 2008 was part of his campaign to become prime minister of Libya in 2011. This is logic. The problem with history as your justification is it neatly removes any need to ground your ideology with the actual situation in the country under discussion. Everything will go as it has before and there's no need to even consider events as they exist, only as they have existed. It's always the same as it ever was and nothing ever changes. What a load of crap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Pueidist posted:Is your source that article that said he gave all his guys viagra? lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_al-Obeidi The fact that he was in the process of doing it in Misrata, had done it in Zawiyah and was gearing up to do it in Bhengazi was a major factor in the UN deciding to get up off its rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:01
|
|
A Tunisian friend posted this on facebook which I thought was pretty funny in light of the intellectual divisions in Tunisian society. Blue is "The Progressive Secular Tunisian Republic" and red is "Nahdhastan". Green is "The People's Hashemi Hamidi Republic" which is a reference to Muhammad al-Hashimi al-Hamdi, a Tunisian political writer. az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:Didn't Libya ask NATO to intervene?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Libya, the entire country, asked for NATO? Which group of Libyans did? What are their interests? Have you looked into the political and social composition of the Libyan rebels? Just how rebellious are they?? Ok. In that case, what percentage of the population needs to ask for NATO for you to think it is ok?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
11b1p posted:Ok. In that case, what percentage of the population needs to ask for NATO for you to think it is ok? Well first you see they need to organize a referendum. Lobbying for/against the intervention will occur for approximately 2 months. Then the results are tallied and if 51% of the eligible voting population agree, intervention is allowed. If less than the 51% of the full electorate participate the election is re-held after a awareness campaign is conducted. All with anti-aircraft guns being fired at civilians you see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
11b1p posted:Ok. In that case, what percentage of the population needs to ask for NATO for you to think it is ok? One (1) City of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand (650,000) Or More that is about to get bulldozed. So, really, to counter Bulky Brute's assertion of China or Cuba helping Communists: You forgot to include "And the US government is about to torch the city of El Paso, Texas, to do so." In that case, I might be a little accepting of outside interference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
11b1p posted:Ok. In that case, what percentage of the population needs to ask for NATO for you to think it is ok?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Let's just say the Libyan rebels are being led by, to use the topical term, their 1%, not their 99%. And the government was being led by the .001%. The rebels still have the bigger number.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Let's just say the Libyan rebels are being led by, to use the topical term, their 1%, not their 99%. Can we have a source on this? This assertion was made back in D&D repeatedly and it always boiled down to "WE JUST KNOW THAT NEOLIBERALS ARE PULLING THE STRINGS OKAY!" Can you offer conclusive, non-biased proof that "Libya's 1%" are responsible for the revolution?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Let's just say the Libyan rebels are being led by, to use the topical term, their 1%, not their 99%. Well 99% leaders and 1% followers doesn't sound very organized. Really, your just throwing out assumptions and injecting your personal opinions on this from what I read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
I don't know if you people have noticed yet, but this whole argument is silly and neither side will be swayed by anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:I don't know if you people have noticed yet, but this whole argument is silly and neither side will be swayed by anything. It's true, but all the same it's hard not to marvel at leftists going all "BOOTSTRAPS!" on human rights issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
farraday posted:Yes, because a university lecture in 2008 was part of his campaign to become prime minister of Libya in 2011. In light of all of these facts, I am reasonably perturbed by a revolution that was heavily backed by these powers as not having the greatest chance for the Libyan people to have a good chance of improving their situation. Qatar's early support resulting in new oil contracts further increases my unease. Where do you get your beliefs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:It's true, but all the same it's hard not to marvel at leftists going all "BOOTSTRAPS!" on human rights issues. Frankly, neither side is very close to reality judging by the comments so far. But then I don't know if those are supposed to represent anyone's opinions or if you guys are just trolling each other...
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
The fundamental question is: Are you unhappy there was any intervention, or just that NATO did it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:What? Ignoring history is incredibly stupid. You can look at parallels between their situation and others to make an informed guess as to what will happen in the future. That's all I'm doing. What are you doing to get to your opinion? Taking a look at the situation and....believing everything that one side says? I am grounding it on the basis of situation in the country. There are wikileaks that shows that Gaddaffi was planning on, or at least was threatening to, kick out those foreign oil companies that were not giving a large enough portion of the profits to the government. Thus, I note that there may be an impetus from those foreign companies to attempt regime change. I note that NATO was set up by the capitalist countries following WW2 to protect from Communist aggression, and a great deal of it's striking power comes from the United States and Great Britain, two countries that have a great history of supporting unpopular regimes that support their pro-business agenda. Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were both heavily supported by the US, up till and even during the revolutions that overthrew them. As well, the US showed, during Vietnam for example, a willingness to support coups against leaders that they formerly supported that no longer suit their purposes. A->B therefore Q. Go back to claiming the "president" of Libya is a neoliberal shill for the US. At least it's based on facts on the ground instead of creating meta narratives that prove your ideological preconceptions. farraday fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Oct 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
farraday posted:A->B therefore Q.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:What the gently caress? You're not even trying to argue. I'm not saying that A->B = Q? I'm saying that I analyzed history which is everything that has ever happened in the past, and looking at parallels. I'm making an educated guess, which is all anyone can do in this situation. Where are you getting your conclusions? I hope that he isn't a neoliberal shill, of course, but I just don't see it as being too likely. I don't have ideological preconceptions, I have an ideology that is justified by actions. You maybe able to ignore facts that you don't like, but I don't. Thank you for analyzing all of history and telling us how the Pinochet coup is controlling for what will happen in Libya 30 odd years later. It is really quite something to meet a historian of your caliber who can't even begin to conceive that ideology may, in fact, have some influence on how they perceive the historical parallels, both in choice of parallel and what they mean. It's really quite something to meet a historian who can't understand that a narrative is as much a highlight of specific facts and rejection of others and who instead pretends they represent everything that has ever happened as a wholistic and objective reality. Where did you get your degree by the way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Hey Gaddafi could you stop bombing us for a few minutes here? We're trying to come to a freshman-sociology approved consensus here about what we should do about you bombing and raping us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:A Tunisian friend posted this on facebook which I thought was pretty funny in light of the intellectual divisions in Tunisian society. Blue is "The Progressive Secular Tunisian Republic" and red is "Nahdhastan". Green is "The People's Hashemi Hamidi Republic" which is a reference to Muhammad al-Hashimi al-Hamdi, a Tunisian political writer. So, this is the Tunisian version of the Jesusland map?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Man, what's up with Libyans and forced sodomy? I thought it was just a Gadafhi thing but nope, the rebels are nuts about it too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Man, what's up with Libyans and forced sodomy? I thought it was just a Gadafhi thing but nope, the rebels are nuts about it too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
Well it is the worst possible thing to do in a lot of cultures, but most people wouldn't loving DO it. Everyone is better off without Gadafhi, but these guys seem to be working overtime to cede the moral highground, don't they? Isn't his body still in a meat freezer for public display?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
I'm also kind of sick of people posting things along the lines of "NATO's not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, its self-interest." No poo poo. Why can't you accept that sometimes the right thing and the expedient thing are the same thing and that "What's best for NATO" and "What's best for Libya" happened, in this case, to align? I'm not asking for much, but the Manichean moral views of the far left would put any Christian fundimentalist to shame. The utter refusal to accept moral ambiguity and shades of gray is pretty stunning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:I'm also kind of sick of people posting things along the lines of "NATO's not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, its self-interest." No poo poo. Why can't you accept that sometimes the right thing and the expedient thing are the same thing and that "What's best for NATO" and "What's best for Libya" happened, in this case, to align?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Simply, because they didn't. Some people have actual political principles that won't be swayed by the liberal war cheerleading over the 'humanitarian' destruction and pillage of Libya. The only person who has pillaged Libya so far is that one dead guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Simply, because they didn't. Some people have actual political principles that won't be swayed by the liberal war cheerleading over the 'humanitarian' destruction and pillage of Libya. The only person here who has described the NATO bombing as "humanitarian" is you, sarcastically of course, but think about that for a moment. You're trying to paint, for some reason, us as claiming that bombs and destruction can be humanitarian. No one here has said that. Because of this, I must assume you have no interest in an honest discussion, unless otherwise indicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:19
|
|