|
Geek Icon posted:
I would say the common people of the region are displaying a remarkable amount of solidarity. February is apparently official 'lets stop this retarded theology/monarchy/military dictatorship bullshit' month. I haven't been this hopeful about the future of the world in a very long time. (I'm also one of those damned conservatives. Love this thread full of stereotyping hatred.)
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Rotacixe posted:I see. It's racist to criticize cultural aspects of less developed countries. They are strong enough to defend their own beliefs. You don't have to do it for them. I personally think Quentin is getting his panties in a bunch over a not-so-important comment, but I think I should point out that the first link is about Iranians, who are Persian. Not Arab. Different ethnicities.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:That's an FN-303 Less-Lethal Launcher, made by the Belgian arms company, Fabrique Nationale. I'm almost ashamed to be a little relieved to find out that the Libyan crowd control are actually using non-lethal weapons in at least some cases:/ Space Monster fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Feb 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
The Libyan ambassador to the U.S. literally just called for the rest of the world to stop the massacre on AJE.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
RunningOnEmpty posted:This worries me. It seems to have taken much time and effort for them to charter two aircraft to pick up our stranded citizens. I'm beginning to wonder just how cash-strapped the UK really is. For example, just yesterday our prime minister was trying to convince Egypt to buy from our major armaments manufacturers, going as far as to travel with company representatives. It just seems, well, cheap and below our standing. Is this where the Big Society jobs are going to come from, selling guns to counties that have just through a major upheaval? That seems like a terrible idea anyway. "This country has just gone through a revolution and isn't exactly stable yet...LETS SELL THEM WEAPONS!"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2011 18:28
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:Well, the first involved a continent wide war in Europe, with millions dead. The second was crushed because lol human rights in 1848? The world is a lot different now, hopefully things will change. Well, I agree that the first really doesn't have anything to do with the current situation, but the second certainly does. The region this is all taking place in doesn't have the best human rights record (even compared with central Europe in the 1840s.) Look at Libya. Gaddafi don't give a poo poo 'bout no human rights. (No seriously, what's this about rights? I can't just slaughter my own citizens? Psshh.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
sweeptheleg posted:Would it be so wrong to just bomb the poo poo out of ghaddafiis next known location that fits into some kind of acceptable loss equation. Because going in, decapitating the government, and then saying "Hey guys, your welcome. Now clean up." is even worse then the alternative. The situation here is a bit different though because there is already an organized opposition faction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
New Division posted:The American far-right despises the French. And while Sarkozy may be a conservative by French political standards he's to the left of most American Democrats. <---American conservative who likes Sarkozy. Most of my conservative friends do as well. I've personally come to like him and Cameron quite a bit more since they've been chomping at the bit to do something in Libya while our own government has been very slow off the mark. (admittedly I'm not "far right")
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:This isn't going to be relatively quick. This entire action is going to prolong the civil war for months. A lot of people are going to die as a result of that. Hey guys, Gaddafi has an SA account!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:The one that drew in the soviets, coming to the aid of a democratically elected government because the US was funnelling cash and arms to the Mujahideen? obviously we couldn't just seat a puppet at the head of that, but here we are finishing the job and stabbing our "comrades" in the backs in the name of democracy. Also, the CIA created the AIDS virus to kill off black people and give the continent to the U.S. since we need its resources! And I think 9/11 was an inside job.... (don't tell anyone what I said and you're going to have to start wearing a tin-foil hat like me in order to stop the government from finding out that I told you the truth about them!)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
IRQ posted:What? Who thought this? What "rebel forces" are you even talking about in Afghanistan/Iraq? Your ignorance is showing, you might want to cover that up. Northern Alliance ring a bell? Ya know, the ones who did all of the actual invading for us?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
Holy Cheese posted:Not to mention all of the American armaments. We dropped bombs, pointed a few lasers, and supplied a few munitions for sure. They did most of the dying for us though, which is key.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:The Northern Alliance controlled less than 10% of the country. They were only getting by with Russian support before the US invasion. They did not have a provisional government set up or have the support of half the country. I don't agree with intervention, but you can't compare Iraq or Afghanistan to this situation, it is a lot different. The Northern Alliance had much more to start with than the revolution. Like tanks, artillery, and an army that wasn't made up almost entirely of undisciplined civilians thrust into combat without any training or experience. The Northern Alliance had been fighting the Taliban since the Soviets pulled out in the 80s, and at least they WERE holding out. If the west hadn't stepped in, the rebels would have been finished in a matter of days. It would be accurate to say that the effort to remove the Taliban during the U.S. intervention was spearheaded and fought by the Northern Alliance, with support from the U.S. and its allies. Without them, the situation would have been a logistical nightmare. Getting an army there to actually occupy the country would have been really difficult, and we were lucky to have a proxy there to take and hold ground for us. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Mar 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:Good news everyone, the intervention in Libya won't cost the US taxpayers a dime. That would be so metal. My only serious concern about this was how much money it was costing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
farraday posted:If you'll notice, the claim Qatar and the UAE are funding it comes from the Libyan State Media. I would suggest some skepticism of their reporting in this incident, although the part about ghost and Djinn fighting for Khaddafi was obviously true. My eyes skimmed over the source of the information. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Oh, you're a twat. At least I can ignore you without any worries now. It's a legitimate question. The NTC can say it has democratic values all it wants, but that proves nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:No, it's a stupid question. Obviously no one elected the NTC given the fact that there really hasn't been time to have a nation wide vote for who should be in the rebel government since they're kind of having a civil war. I never said that the NTC wasn't worth backing, just that their goals aren't something we can be sure of at this point. Even if the rebels win this situation could potentially stay ugly. I don't think it will, but at this point we really have no way of knowing. Also, relax. I'm not making an 'argument.' I support the Libyan rebels and the NTC because I hope that they are what they're claiming to be. It could easily turn out that they aren't. quote:We don't have to determine that the NTC is great. We only have to determine that it's better than Ghaddafi, in order to pick a side. This. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:Oh is that where the goalposts are today? That's weird since this was the one detail of this war where Obama was very clear. I am shocked at what politicians can say with a straight face. "Very specific goal" my rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
Narmi posted:This doesn't really have any effect on he actual decision though, right? The only things it proves is who has the most followers online willing to fill out a long survey. If you take a step back and look at the people you interact with on a daily basis, no matter how much you love them, you'll realize that most of them are stupid, ignorant, or both.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:I knooow right? I mean, blow up a few of them, don't do anything to really help, refuse to give them weapons, and bomb a few more of them, and all of a sudden they turn to big babies! I'm starting to think these savages don't even deserve the What...uh...what do you think would have happened if the West hadn't intervened?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:We didn't really intervene very well, we blew up some stuff (and a whole lot of civilians/rebels woops) and then refused to arm and aid the rebels because scary brown people, so it'd most likely go about the same. So Benghazi wouldn't have been sacked, and thousands of rebels and tens of thousands of civilians wouldn't have been butchered? Ok, just checking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Hey if you're going imperialist might as well go all the way. We already 'took a side' when we started dropping bombs, we just refuse to arm the rebels and actually help them because someone in a uniform said "Terrorists!" and we all poo poo ourselves. Indeed. How are we supposed to take their oil, unicorns, and collective virginity if we don't arm them first?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
ZetaReticuli49er posted:
We think you're an idiot. That you don't see that your father is clearly a part of the 'we' and kept you from being prosecuted is amusing. And yeah, I keep hearing the 'it's just tribes, the NTC isn't democratic' line....getting a bit tired. Would be nice if people would actually bother to learn something about the situation before telling others how it is. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 23, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 22:48
|
|
there is no 'we' 
|
Contraction mapping posted:Jesus loving Christ NATO, is this operation really so taxing that you can't spare the resources to tow a single goddamned boat with <100 people on it to Malta or Sicily or one of the half a dozen nearby places you have forces stationed? It's not like this is WW3 or anything, and the rebels probably aren't going to poo poo any bricks if you have some troops, vessels, and aircraft engaged in humanitarian efforts, which is ironically the whole reason for being engaged in this conflict in the first place. I can't believe I'm saying this, but given how the intervention has evolved I think this would be going a hell of a lot better if the US were still in command and doing most of the heavy lifting. I wonder how many people would be complaining if the US was. Talk about no-win.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:As someone who doesnt have the benefit of electing his officials I have a huge temptation to say something along the lines of "gently caress off you dont know what it's like to know every waking day that you can be dragged away killed and tortured without trial at any moment for speaking your mind because every third person you know is an informant and knowing that you'll have the same guy in office from when you're born right until you reach 50 without a glimmer of hope of voting him out of his chair. or be persecuted for campaigning for other people to have the right to have a lawyer around when they're being sentenced to a million lashes for questioning the mindset of the clerical judges who'd persecute a woman to 200 lashes for having the audacity of being raped, etc." This is basically the most awesome thing I've ever read.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2011 09:29
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Well, in many cases, some (though of course not all) of them are. And while those sorts of people might not be terribly popular in their own countries, they are the sorts of people whom we in America are most likely to hear about and are most likely to see held up as examples of legitimate alternatives to oppressive regimes. Nobody denies for example that Robert Mugabe is terrible dictator, but at least he doesn't support international sanctions on an already beleaguered Zimbabwe unlike the Democracy-Certified opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai. Yes. Anti-totalitarian government protesters in Iran, Belarus, and China are in favor of U.S. colonialism. Why else would they protest their clearly legitimate governments? It's obvious to them that they can't run their own countries and that they should depend upon our wise, tempered rule from afar.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Anti-totalitarian protestors hold a variety of different opinions, and even have different reasons to oppose their governments, because being against totalitarianism isn't much of a defining opinion in and of itself. What I'm saying is that those who have opinions most amenable to U.S. foreign policy interests are those portrayed the most favorably in the U.S. And given how U.S. foreign policy operates (i.e. not very nicely), those people generally don't have the best interest of their countrymen in mind as much as other protestors. So anyone that we here in the Evil West like are actually ogres who will destroy their countries. Excellent. It sounds to me like we should enforce regime change in the entire middle east, in order to put Muslim extremists and Stalin-style communists in charge!
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:And hell, even the Korean War wasn't so clear-cut. After all, things are pretty terrible in half the Korean peninsula today, and while it's mostly Kim Jong Il's fault, that doesn't mean the state of affairs today is the best possible outcome. I'm sorry we aren't good enough at war for you. You seem to be making an attempt at being reasonable, but your opinion of 'anyone who the U.S. views as good must be bad!' is just not. Our government doesn't have pure as the driven snow motives, but whose does? In the case of Libya, Obama was forced to move because public opinion was so in favor of, if not helping the rebels, then at least stopping Gaddafi from massacring half of the country in retribution for revolting. The rebels seem to be pro-democracy, which is kind of the best we can hope for. There's not really a way to be sure. If seeming to be pro-democracy is also pro-US, then I guess the rest of the world should revert back to absolute monarchies? (your avatar is hilarious btw, I'm assuming that's a reaction shot of him losing an army to spider mines?)
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They might have failed, but I bet diplomatic and even military attempts to settle the division of Korea other than staging a proxy war between the world's greatest powers on a tiny peninsula would have had a better outcome, even if it only meant for example that North Korea would still be a totalitarian state but at least one with much better living conditions for its people. North Korea invaded South Korea. The U.S. stepped in to prevent the ENTIRE peninsula from becoming a dystopian shithole. At some cost. It wasn't like the U.S. and the Soviet Union got together and said 'lets fight for dominance here!', the situation kind of happened and both players had to respond.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:The point is that in 1950, North Korea was no less of a dystopian shithole than South Korea. In fact the North has the larger share of natural resources. There was also a very good chance that Korea could have peacefully united without the U.S. working with the Soviets (and later against) to split it apart. I'm hardy saying the U.S. is entirely to blame for what happened, but I can say pretty definitively that the U.S. didn't give a gently caress about the welfare of the Korean people. I disagree. Basically what he said ^. I think you're wrong in assuming that the Northern government was willing to accept any option other than 'you join us, with us in charge.' That's probably why they invaded. Sometimes your opposition is just unreasonable. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 20:45 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:South Koreans very much want peaceful reunification, much more so than the U.S., even if not as much as since Sunshine was literally torpedoed. What on Earth are you talking about. Moon. Banana. Staircase. See? I can write words that have nothing to do with anything, too. He wasn't saying that they didn't. He was making the point that a negotiated unification in the '50s would have resulted in the same thing that a total surrender would now. The North Koreans then were not looking for constructive input on their form of government/economy. They wanted control of the peninsula. If unification had occurred then, when the North was much stronger then the South, then the whole peninsula would be a totalitarian shithole, and not just half. There's a lot of things you can blame on U.S. cold-war policy. I reeeaaaally don't think this is one of them though.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Except that without the outside pressures of American and Soviet influence, a unified Korea probably wouldn't have become a totalitarian state. It's still possible (probably even likely) there would have been a civil war, but at least it would have been Koreans determining their future. Preventing countrywide elections in Korea, and then later in Vietnam, because we were afraid the people might vote wrong, was not exactly democratic. This is the part I'm disputing. What makes you think this? The communist party, led by Kim Il Sung, was already the major political force in Korea. If the U.S. hadn't intervened, nothing would have stopped that party from taking control of NK and SK. They would probably have peacefully (well...brutally suppressing dissent with force is less violent then a full-scale war) unified the country, but it would all be a shithole instead of just half. Why do you think differently? Just to put this into perspective, Kim Il Sung has been dead for 16 years, but is still the official president of North Korea. They are crazy people. They were crazy people then. This hasn't changed. If you mean 'If the Soviet Union (and Karl Marx) had never existed, this party would not have ever come about, because nobody would know enough about communism to try to make it happen.' then alright. But that's still hardly fair. The U.S. reacted to what was already happening. They wanted to prevent the peninsula from being entirely communist. So they didn't support the group that turned NK, and wanted to turn SK, into a totalitarian shithole. How can you blame them for this? Space Monster fucked around with this message at 21:14 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:There's little doubt the Communists would have taken over, but I don't see how a cult like Juche could take hold in a unified Korea, especially one not under siege. Kim Il Sung would have had to make concessions to a functioning bureaucracy to stay in power instead of being able to rely on an insane personality cult accusing the U.S. being responsible for everything bad in Korea. It could have been a much more open society, just as the South transitioned away from authoritarianism. You are just wrong. Gaddafi didn't have to make concessions to anyone until NATO came in and started bombing. Kim Jung Il has his people under such a tight yolk that they're too beaten to make the attempt. The US and SK would probably try to re-unify Korea, but China won't let that happen without making a huge stink (and possibly going to war again). You are talking nonsense because you want to believe something. That's it. Only drat reason. A Korea united under NK rule would be a larger version of NK. Kim Il Sung could have suppressed any dissent as horribly as he wanted to because he had the backing of both the Soviet Union AND China. So if we had just let it happen, we would have had to stand back and watch that happen for half a century, or try to do something about it and cause world war 3 (we would not have done this). Don't be naive. Ok. If that's your fall-back position. Sure, we didn't have their best interests in mind. This is obvious to a child. Regardless, what we did was better than just sitting by and watching the horror unfold. Also, stop assuming the Soviet Union was a reasonable body. The Cold War would hardly have happened if THAT wasn't a huge totalitarian superpower. The U.S. did lots of bad things to get the image of 'evil superpower' that it has today, but it pales in comparison to the USSR. Blaming the U.S. for problems caused by the USSR is....unfair. Space Monster fucked around with this message at 21:27 on May 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I wasn't comparing Qaddafi to Kim Il Sung, somehow the conversation just got off on a tangent. Also saying that Kim had the Soviets' and China's backing is greatly oversimplifying things, like his deception of China to get them onboard with war, and then his later estrangement from the Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet split. What I'm saying is that American and Soviet imperialism and proxy wars should have been avoided altogether, and there certainly was a chance for this after WWII that was squandered. Also, the fact the Korea is near China and Russia rather than the U.S. means that there would have been much less of a threat to the Korean government than say to Cuba had not U.S. troops been in South Korea. Oh. Your one of those "The Cold War was just a big misunderstanding!" types. Think what you want then.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
I don't know about that. I would be happier if they didn't exist. Frankly, reading their posts and seeing them get slapped down does nothing for me. It's just a waste of time to read.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
GodlessCommie posted:That's why there's the ignore button. It makes this thread so much easier to read, especially when big things like Qaddafi being killed happens. Thanks for the reminder. I always seem to forget that ignore is an option here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:If the US was considering actually going to war with Syria, you might be onto something. Saying the US might be in a war with Syria is I think actually offensive to the people living in a war zone, whether it's Syrians or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. One of our destroyers/submarines lobbing some precision guided missiles and maybe some jets doing a few sorties does not constitute America being in a war. It will in no meaningful way affect Americans, either American service members or civilians. I wonder if the Syrians will see it that way. I'd imagine if a foreign naval vessel fired a few cruise missiles into US territory we'd be at war the second we found out who did it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Well depends on if you consider deterring chemical strikes against the Syrian people to improve their lots I think he was asking for an explanation of how a few cruise missiles would act as a serious deterrent to a brutal sociopath with nothing to lose.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Define "a few". Also, take out enough stockpiles/launchers and it's gonna be a lot harder to carry out any widescale attacks. If they could do that I'd be more in favor of a strike...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 19:48
|
|
short of killing him.
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Xandu posted:Good thing that's not what he said. Probably because he obviously meant that in the first place. What else could he have meant? Are you implying that he has been holding back diplomatically? quote:edit: You could also argue that it was a clear attempt at deterring the use of chemical weapons, which seems like a noble goal regardless of if he follows through. As opposed to a commitment to act which paints him into a corner politically? No, I think his red line statement was pretty stupid. I think he assumed that Assad is somehow in a less desperate situation or is less insane than Qaddafi was, and that was a very poor misread. Or else that he had more control over his forces than is actually the case. Regardless, as a powerful politician you have to know when your words will have to be translated into action, and he dropped the ball pretty hard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2013 01:59
|
|