|
Come on Syria or Yemen, do something so I don't have to keep adding so many retards to my ignore list! Maybe we should close this thread and have a stickied thread that only Brown Moses and people who live in the region can post in? And to the crazy loving leftists, just shut the gently caress up already. You aren't winning any friends and I have a feeling a lot of people are just adding you to their ignore list.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Syria and Yemen... Those will explode and be bloody and I'm not entirely sure who will win (Probably Assad in Syria and the people and/or Islamists in Yemen, barring outside interference) What I'm really interested in right is the frozen conflicts of the Arab Spring. What of Bahrain, and Algeria? We just had some news from Jordan but apart from doctors being prosecuted in Bahrain I haven't heard anything lately from the other two countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:We've got people seriously claiming Libya is going to be worse off under a government that isn't run by a lunatic tyrant who stole more than $200 billion from them over the years. We are far beyond Poe's Law and any corollaries so at this point I am taking no chances. Well, considering how the last two times we deposed a set of lunatic tyrants we did accomplish somehow making the deposed nations worse off, it's really just hoping we reverse the trend at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Well, considering how the last two times we deposed a set of lunatic tyrants we did accomplish somehow making the deposed nations worse off, it's really just hoping we reverse the trend at this point. Because Libya is exactly the same as these two examples, right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Well, considering how the last two times we deposed a set of lunatic tyrants we did accomplish somehow making the deposed nations worse off, it's really just hoping we reverse the trend at this point. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
Why are we focusing so much on Ghaddafi, history and politics hasnt operated on the "great men theory" for like 30 years. Ghaddafi the figurehead might be gone, but the real worry is about the political apparatus left in place. Will it all be thrown out, both good and bad, or will it mostly stay in place. Pragmatically the prior regime did create a pretty strong Welfare system, and I hope the new Libyan government doesnt choose to remove it in an attempt to get rid of anything that might be "sort of" Ghaddafi. On the other end of the argument, I hope they dont keep two much of the old system, as it had massive corruption and if they keep the civil service in place then it's going to have alot of the problems Weimar Germany had, a disloyal civil service that doesn't really want to be part of the new government at all. Thats the real issue that the left should be having with the Libyan situation currently. Not whether some crazy despot was worse/better than the new regime. GodlessCommie posted:
Please don't lump the entirity of the far left into the same boat. Just because some idiots fall into the trap of hero worship and dont understand how to apply Marxist theory to a modern world, doesnt mean thats a problem leftists as a whole have, idiots will be idiots regardless of their political leaning. d3c0y2 fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Slobodan Milošević Right, silly me. The last -three- times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Right, silly me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Because Libya is exactly the same as these two examples, right. Just sayin', boss, we've accomplished the impossible twice before. Third time's the charm, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Even if the NTC turns out to be a terrible failure, it's hard to see how they could be worse than the previous regime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:The Balkans are not worse off now. Unless you think ethnic cleansing is super cool. The Balkin's however still has ALOT of problems. I wouldnt go as far to say they're worse of now, but they are still suffering from both deep seated and relatively modern issues that we have really failed to sort out. Still alot better than ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Slobodan Milošević Are 'we' the Serbian people now? Then who is the other one? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:The Balkans are not worse off now. Unless you think ethnic cleansing is super cool. The problem is that NATO kind of did think it was super cool--if the right people were doing it. NATO actually did have peacekeepers on the ground and they mostly stood by and watched as Kosovars expelled most of the Serbs from Kosovo. Then again, there aren't NATO troops in Libya to stop or allow reprisals anyway, so the comparison isn't terribly relevant. Also even Wesley Clark admitted that most of Milosevic's ethnic cleansing started as a response to the bombing campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Are 'we' the Serbian people now? Then who is the other one? eSports Chaebol posted:The problem is that NATO kind of did think it was super cool--if the right people were doing it. NATO actually did have peacekeepers on the ground and they mostly stood by and watched as Kosovars expelled most of the Serbs from Kosovo. Then again, there aren't NATO troops in Libya to stop or allow reprisals anyway, so the comparison isn't terribly relevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
d3c0y2 posted:Please don't lump the entirity of the far left into the same boat. Just because some idiots fall into the trap of hero worship and dont understand how to apply Marxist theory to a modern world, doesnt mean thats a problem leftists as a whole have, idiots will be idiots regardless of their political leaning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
I'm going to miss the bouncy onion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:What? Taking a principled stand against imperialism is misusing marxist theory now? I'd love to hear your 'marxist' theory about how a cabal of imperialist nations became a progressive force in this 'modern world'. And again, cut it out with the 'defending Gadaffi' strawman. Gadaffi was a radical nationalist whose regime, in the end, proved incapable of defending Libya against foreign aggression. Nobody's idealized him in this thread. The Cabal is imperialist, it probably could have been handled in a better way, but Ghaddafi was little more than a passive revolutionary, hell he's almost a classic example of Gramsci's term passive revolution. A party that uses revolutionary rhetoric and arguments to defend its status as it freely profits from a neoliberal system and does little for the common person. I'm an outside observer in this conflict, I recognise both the NATO as an imperialist aggression, but also Ghaddafi regime as little more than a passive revolutionary party abusing its left status to trick men and women and other leftists into swallowing its false claims, whilst it chooses to profit from International Oil Trade. And hell, Libya isn't a developed country, you can't rush Marxism, unless you ascribe to Leninism, I suppose. A world system has to go through enough Capitalist development before Socialism is even truly possible, let alone Communism. I'd rather see Libya enter its Capitalist stage under a relatively bloodless regime, rather than stay under a pretend national/socialist regime that exploits its resources to ensure its own existence and riches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Gadaffi was a radical nationalist whose regime, in the end, proved incapable of defending Libya against foreign aggression. While technically correct, this is so far past the point we may have witnessed a second moon landing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:<--- ahaha oh boy, opposing a NATO military intervention is extreme leftism now? In this instance, yes. There's no point at all in even having a UN and international relations if the world is not willing once in a while to stop a loving lunatic from massacring his own people. Countries have national sovereignty but it doesn't mean they get to do whatever the heck they want as long as they keep it in their own borders. The only problem with UN(I say UN because this is not NATO intervention, this is NATO and a few others carrying executing a United Nations resolution) intervention is it doesn't happen enough because the security council among other organs is broken as gently caress. *edit* It's not a principled stand against imperialism, it's an asinine "never changing my beliefs regardless of circumstances and facts" situation. Not to say our power structures in the US aren't guilty of enough abuses of their own, but if the government actually started using fighter jets to open indiscriminate fire on the streets of Chicago I'd hope to hell the world intervened. *double edit* Using the word imperialism in the Libya case cheapens the hell out of it as well Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:What? Taking a principled stand against imperialism is misusing marxist theory now? I'd love to hear your 'marxist' theory about how a cabal of imperialist nations became a progressive force in this 'modern world'. And again, cut it out with the 'defending Gadaffi' strawman. Gadaffi was a radical nationalist whose regime, in the end, proved incapable of defending Libya against foreign aggression. Nobody's idealized him in this thread. You are very much idealizing him if you think the best phrase to describe his actions in the past year is "defending Libya against foreign aggression".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
esquilax posted:You are very much idealizing him if you think the best phrase to describe his actions in the past year is "defending Libya against foreign aggression". I too believe that when dictators summarily execute, imprison, and torture their own citizens they are "defending their country against foreign aggression"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
d3c0y2 posted:And hell, Libya isn't a developed country, you can't rush Marxism, unless you ascribe to Leninism, I suppose. A world system has to go through enough Capitalist development before Socialism is even truly possible, let alone Communism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Countries have national sovereignty but it doesn't mean they get to do whatever the heck they want as long as they keep it in their own borders. Except most people and all nations agree with this nonsense. Kill a million of your own people, no problem, trip over a border and shoot a foreigner and suddenly it's time to go to war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:I too believe that when dictators summarily execute, imprison, and torture their own citizens they are "defending their country against foreign aggression"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:I too believe that when dictators summarily execute, imprison, and torture their own citizens they are "defending their country against foreign aggression"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Well, I meant more like defending the economic and political independence of the Libyan ruling class, which is pretty much the main purpose of nationalism in general, I think. The Libyan ruling class being Qaddafi and his cronies, who generally seem to have lost the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:In this instance, yes. There's no point at all in even having a UN and international relations if the world is not willing once in a while to stop a loving lunatic from massacring his own people. Countries have national sovereignty but it doesn't mean they get to do whatever the heck they want as long as they keep it in their own borders. It's not as simple as that, because the concept of national sovereignty is there primarily to protect countries from disruptive outside influence and to prevent conflicts from taking place in the first place because countries have to keep up huge armies just in case some asshat super power wants to intervene in their politics. Imagine if USA intervened in Mexico oh gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Bulky Brute posted:Oh christ you brought out the stalinist Two Stage theory. Well, that discussion is way beyond the scope of this thread. =\ Not exactly. More just a rejection of Trotsky's version of permanent revolution, rather I ascribe to a Engel's view that its near impossible to go straight from a peasant economy to a communist economy, but I dont apply it with the dogmatic religiousness that the two stage theory does. EDIT: Though I do agree with Troski's ideology of socialism being impossible in one country, therefore why I dont see how a socialist revolution in Libya would have been preferable, as its chances of being successful would have been so minute as to be unworthy. If this action integrates Libya into the world-system to more of an extent (Yes im referencing Wallerstien's World System Theory, I dont consider Marxism and World System theory to be mutually exclusive) then if socialism ever does arrive, it will arrive to Libya as it does the rest of the world, that'll be long after my Generation has gone however. d3c0y2 fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Incredulity to the mostly unsubstantiated claims of western media outlets that are known to have distorted and/or obscured the truth in the past should by no means be mistaken for defense/support/hero worship of Ghadafi. The fact that he was until very recently on better terms with the US and NATO indicates that he was less than perfect but posts like this:Golbez posted:"Gaddafi had 40 years and was bad, it's time to try something different of an unknown quality." I can live with that. Seem to indicate distaste with the original Libyan Revolution, which is ridiculous given the state of the country before it. Deposing a known puppet monarch of the west who was corrupt and vicious as the day is long is pretty close to universally appreciable unless you are an authoritarian misanthrope or explicitly support oppressive empires. If things were as bad as they are being touted as, they certainly weren't that bad for the entire 42 years, something happened along the way. A big problem I know I have is that support for the intervention seems to have been heavily galvanized by media coverage that has at least a couple times been demonstrated by neutral third parties to be fabricated, and largely unsubstantiated outside of those incidents. I don't think anyone would oppose the rebellion if it could be demonstrated to a reasonable degree that all or a substantial portion of the accusations aimed at the former government were factual. Press releases from government and corporate mouthpieces without further evidence do not cut it because of the aforementioned history, even very recent history, of very biased reporting and outright falsehoods. Reminder that this does not presuppose any benevolence or righteousness on the part of the accused. Now on a more lighthearted subject, how about a No-Fly Zone over Chiapas in support of the EZLN? Global Revolution keep it rolling! Over NYC and D.C after that, sic semper tyranis and all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Seem to indicate distaste with the original Libyan Revolution, which is ridiculous given the state of the country before it. Deposing a known puppet monarch of the west who was corrupt and vicious as the day is long is pretty close to universally appreciable unless you are an authoritarian misanthrope or explicitly support oppressive empires. If things were as bad as they are being touted as, they certainly weren't that bad for the entire 42 years, something happened along the way. Citation needed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I'm going to miss the bouncy onion. I'll miss being able to ask how his name is extremely accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:05
|
|
SoroScrew
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Now on a more lighthearted subject, how about a No-Fly Zone over Chiapas in support of the EZLN? I don't think even the EZLN takes itself that seriously anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:posts like this seem to indicate distaste with the original Libyan Revolution, which is ridiculous given the state of the country before it. I tend to have a dislike for any western puppet states (well, puppet states in general, I just dislike the western ones more because my government is involved in propping them up). Also, lol at this line from Wikipedia: "Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government's finances, resentment began to build over the increased concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of King Idris." The more things change, the more they stay the same? quote:If things were as bad as they are being touted as, they certainly weren't that bad for the entire 42 years, something happened along the way. quote:Now on a more lighthearted subject, how about a No-Fly Zone over Chiapas in support of the EZLN? Global Revolution keep it rolling! Over NYC and D.C after that, sic semper tyranis and all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Citation needed. Revisionism is awesome, hail to the king baby
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Seem to indicate distaste with the original Libyan Revolution, which is ridiculous given the state of the country before it. Deposing a known puppet monarch of the west who was corrupt and vicious as the day is long is pretty close to universally appreciable unless you are an authoritarian misanthrope or explicitly support oppressive empires. If things were as bad as they are being touted as, they certainly weren't that bad for the entire 42 years, something happened along the way. I just hope that the new Libyan authorities don't start that kind of shenanigans again. They really need to all work together to heal the wounds of not just this civil war but also the time of Gadaffi and before. I doubt anyone wants it to be like the US Civil War where you still have people talking about "The War of Northern Aggression".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Revisionism is awesome, hail to the king baby In plain English, you can't back up your claims and admit to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think it depends on where in the Libya you're talking about. From what I've heard, before the first revolution the eastern parts were favored over the western parts, and then Gadaffi took over and switched it around. So he might have improved the lot of the people in the west initially, but punished the east for their (perhaps only perceived) support of the pre-revolutionary regime. Yup he pretty much ran the divide and conquer game for the whole country even for the military. The eastern part was punished by getting fewer infrastructure investments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I just hope that the new Libyan authorities don't start that kind of shenanigans again. They really need to all work together to heal the wounds of not just this civil war but also the time of Gadaffi and before. I doubt anyone wants it to be like the US Civil War where you still have people talking about "The War of Northern Aggression". I have a feeling that, since the revolution was started by Benghazi but ultimately won with the blood and sweat of Nafusa and Misrata, that the two largest regions have been essentially united by this conflict.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I have a feeling that, since the revolution was started by Benghazi but ultimately won with the blood and sweat of Nafusa and Misrata, that the two largest regions have been essentially united by this conflict. Especially since it was a popular uprising everyone from doctors to truck drivers got involved and made for a lack of military training with shear determination/the personal element of knowing people who suffered because of Gaddafi's bloodthirsty retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Paradox Personified posted:I'll miss being able to ask how his name is extremely accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 22:32
|
|