|
Brown Moses posted:Frankly the opinions of a bunch of tankies isn't something I factor into my writing. lmfao If that isn't something you factor into your writing, then why bother engaging in a conversation here about your writing with them to begin with?! That is, if you don't just label a tankie anyone that calls you out on this poo poo? In any case, the reason why I made my prev post was both this AND also you constantly saying: "How was I supposed to know?" about that ISIS sympathizer dude, instead of simply saying: "I regret giving that guy any exposure at all and need to look into how to avoid it in the future." As long as you keep repeating that first line, while also insisting on how you can do everything online nowadays, you will keep being used by people like him or by some editors in the NYT or wherever else where you don't actually meet a person face to face. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Jul 6, 2019 |
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:lmfao what specifically do you think the NYT editorial board was using him for If you believe, as many people do, that the NYTimes is a US state propaganda outlet, than my interpretation that Brown Moses piece was a clear criticism of calls for military escalation makes the most sense. This is because in hindsight it is now clear that Trump and his administration never had any intention of going to war. This is clear both in the actions of the US government and from the public statements of government officials. If we assume that the NYTimes gets its talking points from the State department, then it follows that they would be trying to promote messages that would discourage action. Looking at the text of his piece and the context in which it was published, the conclusion that it was published with the intention of drumming up war fever is just untenable. The dominant narratives were all clearly downplaying the case for war. There was a brief exception to this tendency immediately after the drone was downed and before Trump announced he had called off retaliatory strikes, but it is possible that was entirely a bluff from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
Editors can and will edit your story to the point of completely rewriting it if they feel like it and they will do it without notice. I imagine the thought in the editorial board meeting was that sentence was a bridge too far for their readership (or the publisher) so they cut it. It’s bullshit but it happens (unless you’re the kind of person that keeps lawyers on retainer or would otherwise raise holy hell effectively) There’s a reason reporters always skew more left than editors. The journalists might write the story but the editor decides what sees print. If Brown Moses wanted to he could publish the fact that sentence had been redacted on his blog or on his website and repost the unedited one there. If the Times gets pissed play dumb ‘I figured it was cut for space and websites don’t have that limitation.’ It is a risk of burning a bridge, but it would also show them you aren’t going to let them steamroll you just because they’re The New York Times and you’re just some glorified blogger.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:While their concerns were overwhelmingly baseless and inconsistent with actions and statements from the Trump administration Squalid posted:Nobody wants another Iraq War, absolutely nobody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 08:31
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Your a poli sci major arent you
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Except John Bolton, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mohammed ben Salman. Those three are ghoulish abominations, not people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
What Oracle said above is really good. Characterizing this thread as Tankies is really weird because while there are tankies that post here, the most regular posters are pretty loving hostile to unadulterated tankie poo poo getting posted here. There's a bit of a detente between the various ideological groups that turn up here wrt basically everyone agreeing that the last thing the middle east needs is more wars founded on bullshit, more warcrimes/crimes against humanity, and more American drone strikes. Like I criticized BM for the bit that AA quoted above and lol dude I can't stand tanky poo poo (but I'll still engage with them as long as they're engaging in good faith). Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Editors can and will edit your story to the point of completely rewriting it if they feel like it and they will do it without notice. I imagine the thought in the editorial board meeting was that sentence was a bridge too far for their readership (or the publisher) so they cut it. It’s bullshit but it happens (unless you’re the kind of person that keeps lawyers on retainer or would otherwise raise holy hell effectively) There’s a reason reporters always skew more left than editors. The journalists might write the story but the editor decides what sees print. This is really missing the forest for the trees. Nobody really gives a poo poo about the presence or absence of one sentence. Editorially it makes sense that it was cut because it just replicates the information in the references to Gulf of Tonkin: ie that the US has historically made false statements on these things. However because his critics have no coherent basis for attacking the substance of his work, they are instead grasping for some other excuse. Oh sure you directly attacked the basis of the Trump administration's justification for retaliation, but have you considered that you used the wrong TONE when doing so? The attacks were especially weird because I think its clear that just like his critics, Brown Moses was undermining the case for military conflict. However just because he refused to start raving about false flags or wildly speculate about Israeli involvement, it wasn't enough for a certain segment. They are emotionally primed to look for excuses to attack him, even if in this specific context it made no sense based on their rational objectives. As least some of that priming is as a result of the organized efforts of state actors. Herstory Begins Now posted:What Oracle said above is really good. Like this characterization of a one line throw away post is just bizarre. What are you even on about? Obviously, he didn't characterize the entire thread as tankie. Why are you personally taking offense? Are you sure that statement was really directed at you? I am going to suggest you have been primed to look for offense in anything Brown Moses writes, and it's making you act weirdly hostile right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
I'm not surprised to see Volkerball stanning for the Libyan intervention.Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Honestly, I can understand the argument for being anti-intervention because of the idea of a wider war killing more people. What I'll never understand is how the very idea of someone like Assad doesn't fill some people claiming to be left leaning with a simmering rage. Okay but do you not see the absurdity of this argument/handwringing getting trotted out when the dictator happens to step out of line with US interests but meanwhile the USA gives support to ~70% of the world's dictatorships? gently caress Assad. gently caress dictators. But, every time the US gets involved they just install their own dictators and/or let things go to utter poo poo like in Libya where there are open air slave markets. It has 0 moral or ethical high ground. Half these dictators were originally installed through a CIA backed coup to begin with. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Frankly the opinions of a bunch of tankies isn't something I factor into my writing. It's pretty fuckin' wild to say that "it's biased when the NYT editor removes all mention of US making up cassus bellis with regards to Iran" is a tankie position. Yeah guy I'm sure there's no active conspiracy to manufacture consent it's just kind of a by product of how all you liberal types function. Prime evidence here if you literally do not care that the paper removes all insinuation or mention of the concept that this might all be made up bullshit designed to start a war. Just to save on words and print space, I'm sure. The president is a liar and his administration is full of liars and therefore literally everything they say or demonstrate should be subject to the utmost scrutiny and treated as a lie until proven true. That's not how any of this Iran stuff is getting reported (in the USA, anyway). e: claiming 0 ideological motivation *is* ideological Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Half these dictators were originally installed through a CIA backed coup to begin with. And the other half (okay, that's a bit many but still since it's relevant atm and also one of the very provable ones - Iran) became dictatorships as a direct response to said CIA backed coups exploiting the poo poo out of their country. Seriously, in retrospect the #1 reason for why the Middle East is as hosed up as it is in the 21st century is the cumulative intervention of the USA. So as much as I get and agree with anger at Assad, who is one of the few dictators not backed by the US but no less brutal than those, if anyone gets to oust him then the US and its forces are absolutely the last ones that should do it. CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:It's pretty fuckin' wild to say that "it's biased when the NYT editor removes all mention of US making up cassus bellis with regards to Iran" is a tankie position. do you know what the Gulf of Tonkin incident was, and would you like to speculate as to why Brown Moses brought it up in the article? Also what do you think they were trying to manufacture consent about? Because clearly, it was not that the US needs to attack Iran, since the government didn't want to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:And the other half (okay, that's a bit many but still since it's relevant atm and also one of the few very provable ones - Iran) became dictatorships as a direct response to said CIA backed coups exploiting the poo poo out of their country. How the gently caress is Iran a dictatorship (in the liberal sense)? They're as much a democracy as any commonwealth nation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:It's pretty fuckin' wild to say that "it's biased when the NYT editor removes all mention of US making up cassus bellis with regards to Iran" is a tankie position. So the paper "removed all insinuation or mention of the concept that this might all be made up bullshit designed to start a war" by leaving in an entire paragraph about the Gulf of Tonkin? quote:That historical reference is telling. It was in citing the “Gulf of Tonkin incident” — the North Vietnamese were accused of attacking American destroyers in that gulf in 1964 — that President Lyndon B. Johnson persuaded the Congress to authorize greater American military involvement in Vietnam. Historians have concluded that the attack never happened and Johnson’s ploy is now seen as the quintessential false flag operation. That's the third paragraph of the article. What are you criticizing, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
3 sentences lol I want the paper to say "this is likely a total fabrication just like the last dozen times the US claimed Iran did something" instead of some mealy mouthed reference to Gulf of Tonkin which half the population has no clue about anyway.Squalid posted:Because clearly, it was not that the US needs to attack Iran, since the government didn't want to do that. I'm pretty sure they did it's just that Trump's administration is too incompetent to even pull off what America does best. Ongoing situation btw it's not like this geopolitical crisis is over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:How the gently caress is Iran a dictatorship (in the liberal sense)? They're as much a democracy as any commonwealth nation. Okay then, not even that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:do you know what the Gulf of Tonkin incident was, and would you like to speculate as to why Brown Moses brought it up in the article? Define 'the government'. Bolton and Pompeo do want to attack Iran, Trump doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
^ Trump wants to do whatever the gently caress he gets in his worm-ridden brain he wants to do in a moment when he throws a hissy fit. He can throw one, give the orders to 'alpha strike' or some dumb poo poo Iran and by the time he cools off, poo poo's already escalated into a fullblown war and it's too late to back out then. Then the propaganda machines rev up as to how it was all their fault anyway. But yea! I do wonder what Iran's gonna do in reply to one of their oil tankers getting seized. "Can't convince people you guys attack our tankers, huh? Well then, we sure as hell can convince them your tankers should be attacked!" And then when their response comes in it'll be time for Brown Moses to write another mealy-mouthed 'just the facts' article and this thread gets to go on for a few more pages of backseat editorializing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:3 sentences lol I want the paper to say "this is likely a total fabrication just like the last dozen times the US claimed Iran did something" instead of some mealy mouthed reference to Gulf of Tonkin which half the population has no clue about anyway. There's no evidence to suggest it was a total fabrication. When it comes to finding the truth and not just throwing around ideological principles in lieu of fact, it works both ways. Have you even read the article? Also "Middle East Thread: A mealy mouthed reference to Gulf of Tonkin" WhiskeyWhiskers posted:How the gently caress is Iran a dictatorship (in the liberal sense)? They're as much a democracy as any commonwealth nation. Any commonwealth nation over a hundred years ago. The Supreme Leader is not a ceremonial position in Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There's no evidence to suggest it was a total fabrication. When it comes to the truth and not just throwing around ideological principles in lieu of fact, it works both ways. The evidence is that the president and everyone in his administration are compulsive liars and what's more the USA has fabricated reasons to go to war repeatedly all over the globe and everyone knows it. When it comes to poo poo like this you either assume the US is lying and they need to prove it is real or otherwise you're a rube. It's 2019 already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Define 'the government'. Bolton and Pompeo do want to attack Iran, Trump says he doesn't. You either have to believe Trump is smart enough to understand the great difficulties the US would have invading Iran, or is not lying. Neither are exactly short odds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:The evidence is that the president and everyone in his administration are compulsive liars and what's more the USA has fabricated reasons to go to war repeatedly all over the globe and everyone knows it. But enough about Ghouta in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
nm
Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:But enough about Ghouta in 2013. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about Ghouta. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It doesn't change the fact that the US' record on foreign policy is one of constant deception and warmongering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
lol nvm
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yeah, and I'm not sure today is your day. Either way, it clearly was not a piece of some larger plot to start a war with Iran, as Trump outright downplayed both that attack, and the UAV that was shot down in the days that followed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, and I'm not sure today is your day. Either way, it clearly was not a piece of some larger plot to start a war with Iran, as Trump outright downplayed both that attack, and the UAV that was shot down in the days that followed. Yeah! But on the day that it did happen, he stated himself that he wanted immediate reprisals and was this close to authorizing them - which easily could've escalated poo poo into something he couldn't back out of anymore. Cripes, your memory is selective as gently caress and in this short a timespan too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, and I'm not sure today is your day. Either way, it clearly was not a piece of some larger plot to start a war with Iran, as Trump outright downplayed both that attack, and the UAV that was shot down in the days that followed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, and I'm not sure today is your day. Either way, it clearly was not a piece of some larger plot to start a war with Iran, as Trump outright downplayed both that attack, and the UAV that was shot down in the days that followed. It's just funny that you're always on the side of US intervention that's all. I only originally commented after seeing you argue in favor of Libya a page ago because hey we couldn't have known what would happen!* CrazyLoon posted:Yeah! But on the day that it did happen, he stated himself that he wanted immediate reprisals and was this close to authorizing them - which easily could've escalated poo poo into something he couldn't back out of anymore. Cripes, your memory is selective as gently caress and in this short a timespan too. *nevermind that this is the result of US intervention like 98% of the time we couldn't have known quote:Yes, destroying totalitarian fascist states by definition can create a chaotic state of affairs, as these regimes maintain control by preventing and destroying any opposition to them. That displacing fascism creates a vacuum of power is not an argument in favor of fascism. It is not a better state of affairs if the people in Libya committing these horrific human rights abuses were just left in power. Even in peacetime, they are the same scumbags that they are showing themselves to be now acting on behalf of the LNA. And even if they had won this round, oppression breeds resistance. Every generation we would be looking at this same conflict and this same dynamic playing out until the regime was overthrown. Totalitarian stability is the brittlest kind. Maybe we could've escaped this round with a few hundred deaths as Gaddafi mopped up dissent, but who's to say the next round would be so tame? Or the round after that? When it comes to dictatorship, it's best just to rip off the bandaid, as the longer it rules, the more it festers, and the uglier it looks when it collapses. The focus should be on moving forward and creating positive progress there, not on romanticizing their dictatorial past. Like dude the US is rapidly becoming a totalitarian fascist state and meanwhile it supports 70% of the world's dictatorships and also every time it sticks its dick in hundreds of thousands of people die and there is chaos for years or decades. Yeah let's just keep ripping off those bandaids though. Oh woops another arterial bleed-out who could have known... Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, and I'm not sure today is your day. Either way, it clearly was not a piece of some larger plot to start a war with Iran, as Trump outright downplayed both that attack, and the UAV that was shot down in the days that followed. You mean, stopping a big counter strike at the last minute while the planes were literally in the air? He was trying to pick a fight with Iran, and any “truth is in the middle”, “just the facts” take on the compulsively lying Trump administration helps them immensely. You grant then legitimacy by not outright saying “he is a liar. Full stop.” e: Any equivocation gives him cover. It’s literally how he got elected in the first place, because folks in the media spent ten paragraphs going “hmmm not sure, that was potentially deceitful” instead of Headline: “he’s a loving liar!”, nobody reads the correction four weeks later on page C9. lobotomy molo fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Yeah! But on the day that it did happen, he stated himself that he wanted immediate reprisals and was this close to authorizing them. Cripes, your memory is selective as gently caress and in this short a timespan too. A story was released by his administration that they were "cocked and loaded" and birds were in the air before Trump called them back, but later interviews revealed that nothing was mobilized and it didn't go down the way the "administration sources" said it did. It was all bluster to look stronk to the people who want to see that sort of thing, but nothing was ever going to happen. https://twitter.com/leloveluck/status/1142345535011119104
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:You mean, stopping a big counter strike at the last minute while the planes were literally in the air? That's the genius behind his bullshit. it's so offensive that the people who hate him are the absolute best at signal-boosting it no matter how many times it's proven to be total nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Like this characterization of a one line throw away post is just bizarre. What are you even on about? Obviously, he didn't characterize the entire thread as tankie. Why are you personally taking offense? Are you sure that statement was really directed at you? I am going to suggest you have been primed to look for offense in anything Brown Moses writes, and it's making you act weirdly hostile right now. I would absolutely love to know what you think has primed me, someone who appreciates and respects brown moses' work generally, to want to find offense in anything he writes. What the gently caress are you on about m8 Dude's response whenever he's been criticized in here is to yell about tankies and generalize dismissively rather than respond to criticism so idk how else to take his statements
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I usually try not to participate in these obnoxious excursions but this last one was so absurd. Notice people like Helsing, as much as they seem to hate BrownMoses, will never attack any specific research. Because they can't, they're smart enough to know that it's legitimately really good, that they have nothing with which to respond, and they hate that. It's funny to see you describe yourself as hesitant to jump into these meta-discussions when your post history contains plenty of examples of you doing this across multiple threads. As happy as I am to have a place of honour on your forums-enemies-excel-sheet I hope you can apply an iota of this scrutiny to your own behaviour, cause if you really think of yourself as someone who stays above the fray of these delightful shitflinging matches then you really need to take a look in the mirror. As far as your comments here on BM you're pretty obvious just shooting from the hip and beneath that blustery confidence there isn't a lot of substance. A couple posts before this one you proudly declared your total ignorance of and lack of interest in twitter. If that were actually true you presumably wouldn't be so confident here when you aggressively assert that networking and developing followers on twitter is completely immaterial to journalism or journalistic ethics. Twitter represents a dramatic shift in how journalists can relate to their colleagues, sources and audience. It introduces an unprecedented level of direct interaction and has profoundly changed the way media personalities and politicians promote themselves and craft their messages. This is especially relevant in the context of "open source journalism" which is so directly shaped by and oriented toward online media and discussions. Volkerball posted:They made that conclusion to beat Cameron over the head with it. It should be noted that these same sorts of people that line up with your ideology... [words]  This is stunningly disingenuous even by your low personal standards. It's a real marker of how empty your quiver is that it only took you two sentences before you were shadow boxing with a completely made up set of arguments.quote:In a situation like the one where Gaddafi was threatening to level Benghazi, you would downplay it and refuse to discuss any sort of countermeasure 100% of the time, even with only the vaguest of information about the subject, as a matter of principle. You'll do what you need to do with the facts to justify it afterwards, which is what you are doing now. At the time, Libyans overwhelmingly agreed with the move, because unlike you, they had to actually live with what the consequences of a continuation of the Gaddafi regime had the revolution failed, and they had a realistic idea of what that might look like based on their entire life experience. There's plenty to argue about as far as what happened in the aftermath, and how we could've avoided the decay in Libya's fledgling democracy, but "if only Gaddafi was still in power" is not a good point in any of those discussions. This post doesn't even feel real. It feels like something a rhetoric lecturer would put on a slide so that students could see fallacious and bad arguments in their purest platonic form. If you want to talk about being honest then grapple with what is in the report. You might want to argue that a genuinely principled pro-democracy and pro-Libyan people intervention would have been a good thing for the country. I say we'll never know because that never happened and was never going to happen. Instead - and again this is all spelled out very directly in the report - the initial justification of protecting civilians had within 24 hours been turned into a mandate for regime change, carried out largely at the insistence of the French who were extremely concerned that Gaddafi's financial designs for the African continent would diminsh French influence there. quote:You're the one insisting the best thing for Libya would've been a Gaddafi ruled state into perpetuity so don't try to act like I'm the one who thinks they're all a bunch of terrorists who needed a boot on their head. My point was that Gaddafi ruled over a fascist, unjust regime, and as the Arab Spring swept through the Middle East, Libyans were fed up with it, and were demanding something better. And they had hope they could achieve it. They had every right to act, and any decent human being should've sympathized with their plight based upon the decades of human rights abuses and the insanity that existed within his state that they were protesting against. Yes, destroying totalitarian fascist states by definition can create a chaotic state of affairs, as these regimes maintain control by preventing and destroying any opposition to them. That displacing fascism creates a vacuum of power is not an argument in favor of fascism. It is not a better state of affairs if the people in Libya committing these horrific human rights abuses were just left in power. Even in peacetime, they are the same scumbags that they are showing themselves to be now acting on behalf of the LNA. And even if they had won this round, oppression breeds resistance. Every generation we would be looking at this same conflict and this same dynamic playing out until the regime was overthrown. Totalitarian stability is the brittlest kind. Maybe we could've escaped this round with a few hundred deaths as Gaddafi mopped up dissent, but who's to say the next round would be so tame? Or the round after that? When it comes to dictatorship, it's best just to rip off the bandaid, as the longer it rules, the more it festers, and the uglier it looks when it collapses. The focus should be on moving forward and creating positive progress there, not on romanticizing their dictatorial past. The best option would have been for the west to use its vast wealth and cultural influence to aid the people of Libya, starting decades ago. The West should cease support for dictators and use its immense soft power and wealth to advance a genuinely pro-democratic and pro-human development agenda around the world. That's not what happened in Libya though, which is why the society collapsed. Unfortunately your "sympathy" toward people seems to be directly commensurate with how useful they are as props in whatever bombing campaign you're currently advocating for. The idea that maybe the west could use its immense wealth and power to find some slightly more creative, humane and effective ways to improve people's lives is clearly antithetical to you. You care more about your abstract notion of vengeance or justice than you do about the actual material outcome of your actions. It just doesn't matter that materially the vast majority of Libyans are worse off and less secure because that's all an abstraction in your mind and all that matters is whether Gaddafi was removed. Except that we actually do have a number of examples of former dictatorships gradually transitioning toward greater openness and freedom - typically in response to a mix of internal mobilization and soft power persuasion from abroad, plus cultural and economic interchange with freer societies. On the other hand failed states riven by rival gangs or militias do not tend to coalesce into function societies - they just fester and decay until people become so sick of the chaos that they end up accepting a new dictator who can promise stability. Your whole idea that a smoldering power vacuum with open air slave markets is somehow more conducive to democracy than a stable but repressive dictatorship is not supported by the actual historical record, nor by common sense. Helsing fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Define 'the government'. Bolton and Pompeo do want to attack Iran, Trump doesn't. I'll define who isn't the government: a nebulous coalition of Saudi and Israeli lobbyists. Moridin920 posted:The evidence is that the president and everyone in his administration are compulsive liars and what's more the USA has fabricated reasons to go to war repeatedly all over the globe and everyone knows it. See when you say things like this it confuses me as to why you are mad at Brown Moses. Because this post is literally the sparksnotes summary of his article. Herstory Begins Now posted:I would absolutely love to know what you think has primed me, someone who appreciates and respects brown moses' work generally, to want to find offense in anything he writes. What the gently caress are you on about m8 I mean I don't know about your specific feelings towards him, but I have to look at your weird nitpicking response within the wider context of how people are addressing him in this thread. Brown Moses has shown an amazing amount of patience responding to people in this thread over the years, repeatedly going back over his work, making clear arguments. There's a ton of people who don't care about that at all however, and will attack him regardless for any perceived slight. Look at how Moridin920 is in here getting insanely mad while he agrees with Brown Moses. It's not Brown Moses argument that he's mad about, its that he used the wrong tone, or emphasis, he wasn't strident enough in his criticism. There is no substantial argument. Or look at Helsing, who has dragged up some little nothing error from years ago and is trying to use it in some barely coherent argument about him having bad methods, or something. It's literally impossible to address these critics, because their goal is not to engage with him but to shout him down. So when I see you getting defense because maybe you could interpreted to be part of of the group he dismissed with a throwaway line, I see it as part of that larger climate of hostility. Helsing posted:It's funny to see you describe yourself as hesitant to jump into these meta-discussions when your post history contains plenty of examples of you doing this across multiple threads. As happy as I am to have a place of honour on your forums-enemies-excel-sheet I hope you can apply an iota of this scrutiny to your own behaviour, cause if you really think of yourself as someone who stays above the fray of these delightful shitflinging matches then you really need to take a look in the mirror. I am not confident in any assertions I make about twitter as all I know about it is what get's posted on this forum, which is the only social media i use. I have to rely on you or other people to explain to me how things like follow lists work, and what are acceptable standards. When making a list of twitter follows, what do you think are the standards that one guy working out of his couch should abide by? What situations does it apply in and what do we do about mistakes? These are questions I still don't understand but seem relevant to your criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
Your argument is that we should've called Gaddafi's bluff and bet the lives of people living in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya that he wouldn't actually commit mass human rights abuses, solely because you believe anything is better than western intervention. This was wrong in Syria, and all those IDP's who were killed in barrel bomb attacks due to the regimes monopoly of the air died totally preventable deaths, and you don't give a poo poo. You haven't factored that into your position at all. I think it's kinda gross to gamble with other peoples lives so you can sleep well at night knowing the US turned its back on people who were suffering, because that isn't all that matters. quote:If you want to talk about being honest then grapple with what is in the report. You might want to argue that a genuinely principled pro-democracy and pro-Libyan people intervention would have been a good thing for the country. I say we'll never know because that never happened and was never going to happen. Instead - and again this is all spelled out very directly in the report - the initial justification of protecting civilians had within 24 hours been turned into a mandate for regime change, carried out largely at the insistence of the French who were extremely concerned that Gaddafi's financial designs for the African continent would diminsh French influence there. What do you think your definition of a pro-democracy and pro-Libyan intervention would've looked like? State actors act on behalf of their interests. Pro-democracy intervention can only be achieved when the interests of the revolutionaries and the intervening states are pointed in the same direction, as it was in the case of Libya. France didn't intervene in the revolutionary war because they believed in what the revolutionaries were trying to do. They were trying to undermine the British. But the effect was the same, because the goals of France and the goals of the revolutionaries were in line with each other. The same was true of the intervention in Libya. Gaddafi was a piece of poo poo who needed to go for Libya to have the opportunity to become something better, and everyone involved in the fight agreed with that. quote:The best option would have been for the west to use its vast wealth and cultural influence to aid the people of Libya, starting decades ago. The West should cease support for dictators and use its immense soft power and wealth to advance a genuinely pro-democratic and pro-human development agenda around the world. That's not what happened in Libya though, which is why the society collapsed. Unfortunately your "sympathy" toward people seems to be directly commensurate with how useful they are as props in whatever bombing campaign you're currently advocating for. The idea that maybe the west could use its immense wealth and power to find some slightly more creative, humane and effective ways to improve people's lives is clearly antithetical to you. You care more about your abstract notion of vengeance or justice than you do about the actual material outcome of your actions. It just doesn't matter that materially the vast majority of Libyans are worse off and less secure because that's all an abstraction in your mind and all that matters is whether Gaddafi was removed. How does the US "using its vast wealth and cultural influence to aid the people of Libya" not equal support for a dictator in Gaddafi? Either you are directly aiding Gaddafi, or you are aiding his people and undermining him, in which case, you are still creating the conditions for the sort of uprising we saw in 2011. What then, do you turn your back on the people when they rise up? I have posted many, many times over the years about how pissed off I was that the US turned its back on Tripoli following the revolution. After the Benghazi consulate attack, and the widespread condemnation among the left for intervening in the first place, Obama basically cut all ties with the country, despite the widespread condemnation of the attacks by Libyan protesters, and the sympathy for the American victims that was displayed. There was a period of years where Libya fell into chaos after the revolution where the world sat back and watched it all unfold. If you want to find something to criticize regarding the lack of humane, peaceful promotion of a democratic agenda, it's in that period of time. Removing Gaddafi is the only positive of the entire story. quote:Except that we actually do have a number of examples of former dictatorships gradually transitioning toward greater openness and freedom - typically in response to a mix of internal mobilization and soft power persuasion from abroad, plus cultural and economic interchange with freer societies. On the other hand failed states riven by rival gangs or militias do not tend to coalesce into function societies - they just fester and decay until people become so sick of the chaos that they end up accepting a new dictator who can promise stability. Your whole idea that a smoldering power vacuum with open air slave markets is somehow more conducive to democracy than a stable but repressive dictatorship is not supported by the actual historical record, nor by common sense. Not in the Middle East. The only example you have is Tunisia and that's simply because Ben Ali didn't have the force to maintain power, and so he was pushed out of power relatively peacefully. The transition towards greater openness and freedom took place after he was gone, which was a pre-requisite for any sort of progress. That was not possible in Libya without fighting, because unlike Ben Ali, Gaddafi did have the force and the support to at the very least put up a hell of a fight, and he was not giving up an inch that he didn't have to. Gaddafi's military dictatorship would've continued indefinitely until it was overthrown by force. Were it not for the Tunisian dialogue quartet, Tunisia could've easily devolved into the sort of chaotic environment we see in Libya, and that is the key difference. It's what happened after the dictator fell, not that the dictator fell, that is the issue. Regardless, both situations are far, far, far better than Syria, where the dictator was left in power to kill his way to stability with the full force of a developed military, which is the state of affairs you wished upon Libya. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jul 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:lmfao Tankie in this case obviously meaning someone who doesnt want to send the tanks into a given country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Or look at Helsing, who has dragged up some little nothing error from years ago and is trying to use it in some barely coherent argument about him having bad methods, or something. quote:I am not confident in any assertions I make about twitter as all I know about it is what get's posted on this forum, which is the only social media i use. I'll have to revisit the substance of this disagreement when I've got more time but this entire discussion could probably be placed on a sounder footing if you stopped contradicting yourself like this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Weird how it's a few tankers getting pretty minor damage that's totally the CIA Mossad false flag attack that will certainly draw everyone into mega-war with Iran, and not the ballistic missiles regularly falling on Riyadh and airports in the KSA & UAE. Is it because the former dominated the news cycle for a bit? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:You either have to believe Trump is smart enough to understand the great difficulties the US would have invading Iran, or is not lying. Neither are exactly short odds. Why do we have to assume his known dislike of starting wars (which seems to have put Bolton in particular in serious hot water) is grounded in sensible, realistic logic and a sober assessment of the geopolitical situation? Noting that Trump shares an opinion with some reasonably intelligent, sane people does not make him intelligent or sane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2019 23:52
|
|