|
MrQwerty posted:I fixed it for you because you forgot the main offender of veto abuse The overwhelming majority of American veto abuse that is of any concern is/was the constant defense of Israel and South Africa. The United States is by no means the main offender, Russia and China have us beat many times over when it comes to vetoing in favor of utterly evil policies. 400,000 Darfurians might still be alive were it not for China and the veto, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a kneejerk tendency to assume the United States is the main villain simply because we're the most powerful. "USA = EVIL EMPIRE" is a simplistic equation to a much more complicated world, and leaving other players out of this does a disservice to struggles for global justice.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Gaddafi is threatening to stop co-operating with the EU over illegal immigration if they don't stop encouraging the protesters, ie criticising Libya for murdering protesters. Gaddafi is like a villain from a Stephen King novel. He has a wicked sense of humor, isn't completely in touch with reality, and doesn't always take himself seriously, but when poo poo comes to shove he's downright loving evil.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:Gaddafi is commiting genocide, though. This would be more akin to the NATO intervention in Bosnia, than some gently caress up like Iraq or Afghanistan. There's a reason we didn't even intervene in Darfur. No matter how well-intentioned, American foreign intervention that involves anything military is tainted. The only time the US could intervene militarily is if a genocide were breaking out between two different sub-Saharan factions (except Somalia).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
Sivias posted:What if Israel offered some sort of large humanitarian aid assistance? That would be seen as a sign of good faith and a step towards unity? Israel actually did that in regards to Albania and Bosnia. They even went out of their way to make sure that the UN didn't accidentally drop pork during food drops. Israel's benevolent actions didn't help their image in the rest of the Muslim world, but Albanians love Israel now..
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
I wonder if more Muslims (or Muslim media) will direct their anger at Russia and China in the aftermath of this. Muslim anger at the United States and Israel is justified, but completely out of proportion when compared to the oppressive policies and foreign meddling of Russia and China.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
Regardless of the veracity of "African mercenaries," I would not be surprised at all if many sub-Saharan Africans are rooting for them. I spent time in West Africa, and I was shocked at how many times I heard "We should follow Israel's example" from the locals, even from Muslims. I even heard a Nigerian Muslim say "I hope Bush bombs them all!" Many black Africans were rooting for Israel during the assault on Gaza in the same way freed slaves might root for General Sherman. White Europeans and Arabs are hated there, and they are hated for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Once Gaddafi is gone, I wonder what the effect will be on Iran. The Green movement was an incredibly brave and and righteous cause, but the Libyan uprising makes the Green movement look tame by comparison. The Libyans will have demonstrated that even brutal crackdowns aren't always sufficient to stop an uprising. The Iranian youth might be forced to ask themselves how much they really want freedom, and just how much they are willing to risk. On a related note, back in 2009, a few days before Ahmadinejad's "fake but accurate" election that inspired the original Iranian uprising, a friend of mine in Iran sent me a video with her name attached to a pro-democracy message and requested that I upload it. A few days ago I received a message from someone in Iran saying that "she discovered her name in an internet search next to the video, and that she was really scared for her life because she didn't make the video but shared the same exact name of someone who did." She requested I change the name, which I immediately did. I tried to contact this person, but her channel was deleted. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
cioxx posted:I'm sorry. The Conservatives are right. Abolish UN. Reforming the UN would be something both sides could agree on. Mali, Comoros, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey (except Kurdistan), Indonesia, Malaysia, and Mauritania (sort of) are Muslim countries where protests are an accepted part of the process and not a dangerous novelty. Protests in Iraq post-Saddam are nothing new - there have been larger protests in the past and the government's response never gave anyone reason to want to risk everything to bring the regime down. Iraq is a flawed, unstable country, but it is still a democracy where the government is an accurate representation of what the people voted for, and protests actually make a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Ham posted:About yesterday's events: Egyptian Military is apologizing for an unintended use of force The Egyptian military is reminding me of the Portuguese military during the Carnation Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution This is a Good Thing. It's rare that a military coup and a military-run transition is actually benevolent and genuinely dedicated to democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:The first article comes off as conspiracy drivel to me, and not really connected to what's going on in the Middle East. Every time there's a revolution or protest of any type, anywhere, aging Leftists like Pilger try to shoehorn in their bullshit ideology about neo-liberalism and IMF KKKapitalism. It's kind of like a herpes infection in that it's not dangerous but it's annoying as gently caress and will never ever go away. I was at the anti-Mubarak protest in NYC and I was not surprised at all to find that there were aging Leftist blowhards there handing out flyers attempting to shoehorn in the Egyptian uprising with their stupid ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Not related to Libya, but definitely related to the broader struggle that's happening across the Arab world. You don't need to understand Arabic to appreciate this video or understand how brilliant it is. It's a female Arab comedian's skit involving gender roles reversed in traditional Arab society: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=181965415169312
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
spikenigma posted:I have a horrible sinking feeling. What are the chances of Ghaddafi 'winning' this and remaining in power? Zero. It's not a matter of "if", but "when" he falls and how much damage he does to Libya's future in the process. If the OIC, the UN, and Libyan rebels request outside military assistance, then i see no problem taking sides this civil war. We took sides against the Serbs and in favor of Kosovo, and the knee-jerk anti-interventionists looked really stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
Narmi posted:There's arguments that instituting a NFZ would make the situation worse by given Gaddafi legitimacy, causing civilian casualties, breeding resentment due to outside interference. Also, the fighters we have now are a hell of a lot more advanced than the ones we had during Kosovo or the enforcement of Iraq's no-fly zone. I really don't see an F-22 being shot down anywhere, whether over Benghazi or Tripoli.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Did they beat Gaddafi's record? I don't think so. Gaddafi's record in terms of what?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Holy poo poo. Pakistan liking us is key to easy supply routes to eastern Afghanistan. The Pakistani public's opinion on the United States is about as important as the Tea Party's opinion on Obama. Both groups are completely divorced from reality and nothing short of God himself descending from the heavens and schooling them will change their minds. Pakistan's civilian government is sane, and it's only their opinion that really matters when it comes to the War in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Narmi posted:
The West is in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. There are always going to be plenty of stupid fanatics who will spin everything you do, no matter how noble or benevolent, as somehow imperialist and therefore wrong. And if you sit back and heed their advice, you are an accomplice to an atrocity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
Even in the unlikely event that the crackdowns succeed, they will be victories in the same way that the French were victorious over the FLN, or the Japanese were victorious over Pearl Harbor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:I'm just pissed off that people are being murdered pointlessly and probably the best chance that will exist in decades to vastly improve the lives of the people of the Middle East and deal a deathblow to Islamic extremism is being pissed away by fat greedy aristocratic fucks who don't want to share their toys and Western leaders who are too chickenshit to say anything about it. Western Leftists and Islamic nationalists bear a large degree of culpability for the West's dragging its feet on this. When any foreign policy action that the West does, no matter how benevolent or unquestionably right, is immediately labeled "IMPERIALIST" by the usual suspects over and over again, it becomes understandable that the West would find it safer to just sit back and let evil continue. West saves Muslims from genocide in Kosovo? IMPERIALIST! West feeds a starving African nation and attempts to take out a genocidal warlord? IMPERIALIST! West overthrows the Taliban? IMPERIALIST! Want to intervene in the Darfur genocide? IMPERIALIST! In Europe, the "IMPERIALIST! IMPERIALIST!" crowd actually has enough political power to hamstring any NATO country that isn't America.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Um, yeah no. Notice how the Libyans and Liberals basically all around the West are asking for intervention now? It's the Conservatives dragging their feet because there's no way to make money by helping others. Liberals and Leftists are not the same.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
When this is all over, the narrative will have to be "freedom fighting rebels secure victory from the jaws of defeat against deranged tyrant". Obviously a no-fly zone is needed, and the US airforce should only be a Deus Ex Machina when it is least likely to be noticed. Otherwise, the narrative will be "freedom fighting rebels saved from defeat by American interference". Narratives are pretty drat effective in that part of the world. During the Suez Crisis, the gods themselves (the US and the USSR) descended below, pulled a Deus Ex Machina, and drove out the Israelis, the British, and the French. Nasser took all the credit, and pan-Arabism was given a tremendous boost. If this wave of democracy is to continue or be strengthened, the gods themselves (namely, us), must engineer it so that the rebels win the day, inch by bloody inch, and hit the ground running. EDIT: Another possibility would be the Egyptian calvary coming to the rescue, but I think that's a long shot. big fat retard fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Why would the US want to selflessly promote a new Nasser rather than itself as savior of democracy? Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, what's optimal for the United States has been optimal for the oppressed masses of the world. If this were the Cold War, then the beard-stroking, realpolitik obsessed United States you're describing would still exist and still be seeing the conflict from that framework. The United States of today is not the same United States of 1989. A lot of people still see the United States as this "imperialist Capitalist superpower" that only acts in its self interest and in the interests of global corporations. This false perception of the United States will not go away easily, because it's hard for people to let go. I'm not arguing from an assumption of how the United States used to be - as you're doing. I'm arguing from the realization that United States has been moving in the direction of "benign Superpower" for quite some time now (though we still haven't moved fast enough, and some of the baggage and bureaucratic stupidity from the realpolitik era still lingers). Since 1989, it has always been in America's interest that democracy take hold in the Middle East, even if it meant Islamists came to power. Since the Iraq War, the United States is well aware that it is in our interest if democracy is perceived as being an organic process instead of the byproduct of an invasion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 16:18
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The US is terrified of the possibility of Islamists coming to power. Democracy promotion in Palestine was a big deal until the day Hamas won an election. The Muslim Brotherhood kept its head down in the Egyptian uprising because it knew the US would be much more likely to back Mubarak if it was seen as the alternative. Saudi Arabia seems to be allowed a free hand in Bahrain to suppress the Shia. The US still cares very much about protecting its geopolitical interests in the Middle East; Libya may turn out to be a special case because humanitarian objectives happen to coincide with the removal of an unfriendly regime this time, and it seems likely that this can be done without troops on the ground. In 2005, Bush twisted Mubarak's arm to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to run (as independents). he also was adamant that Hamas take part in Palestinian Elections. He also met with Turkey's AK party. The problem is that he got "cold feet" (as The Economist put it), and stopped listening to the State Department. Since 1989, the United States drove a genocidal aggressor out of an independent country (Kuwait), fed a starving African nation and tried to remove a genocidal dictator, stopped two genocides against Muslims in the Balkans. Since 2000, the United States has supported an independent Palestine, overthrew the Taliban (which the majority of Afghans still support), removed a genocidal dictator that made Gaddafi look like a saint (the goal of the Iraq War was spreading democracy, but Bush lied because WMD was an easier sell), has taken steps to remove itself from reliance on Saudi Arabia and oil (without the consequences of pulling out too fast and causing a global meltdown). Like I said, we haven't moved fast enough, and we still find ourselves lapsing. But since 1989, the United States has become an entirely different creature with entirely different motives. That we haven't moved fast enough, or have occasionally slid backwards, is still a problem. These are fair criticisms of American foreign policy. But you have to approach it from where the United States actually is, not go around looking for examples to relive the old days of what the United States used to be. In ten years, it should be pretty obvious where the United States stands as a country. These things take time, and every imperfection or relapse, every instance of cold feet, will be jumped on by those who want to believe that nothing has changed, that we are still the same superpower that Zinn and Chomsky wrote about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:^^^^^ Ahahaha the US and Iran working together... and Israel. We did for Afghanistan (well, not Israel) And seriously, cheers for a UN that actually does what it's supposed to do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
cioxx posted:I'm sorry, but the far-left in America should never again attempt to speak about foreign affairs. Most of these people are just as bad as teabaggers. Aside from a tiny handful of idiots, the United States does not have a left. The only thing that Leftists are good for in this country is helping center-left Democratic candidates get elected. Aside from that, the American Left is a useless joke. This is something that we should be grateful for. I am far more concerned about Teabaggers than Leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Shitpost Gaze posted:
I'm guessing they implied "Vote for us or you go to Hell"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:You just said Bush had clear goals in the Middle East without any sense of irony. Amazing. Bush did, but he misled the public about them (although he was pretty blunt in speeches he gave to West Point and other less public avenues).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
Lareous posted:I'd rather be ambiguous than be clearly wrong, to be honest. It's not really a matter of right or wrong, it's just the reality of foreign policy. With the exception of Jimmy Carter, just about every foreign intervention that the United States has taken part in since Truman left office has been publicly ambiguous for both domestic political reasons and the insanely complex politics of the international world. Even the most simplistic and straightforward (and thoroughly justified) military actions will undoubtedly go against the interests of some great power or against the narratives of many people. I think Jimmy Carter's honesty was almost a cautionary fable to other presidents about being unambiguous about foreign policy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Deep Hurting posted:What, you mean the lies? The first two were bullshit, the last one was true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Competition posted:Obama is a monumental failure, he got into office waving the progressive flag and has yet to do anything that wouldn't seem out of character for a McCain presidency. If you were paying attention, Obama repeatedly said on his campaign that he viewed Afghanistan as a war of necessity and vowed to concentrate his efforts there. Granted, sending more troops to Afghanistan and ramping up the drone program is actually a very progressive policy. I don't think people who oppose the war in Afghanistan or the drone program for moral reasons can really call themselves "progressive", they are just a different flavor of jingoist reactionary. There are pragmatic arguments to be made against Afghanistan, the drone war, and the current intervention in Libya, but anyone opposed to these conflicts on moral or ideological grounds cannot be said to be a progressive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
Competition posted:1. My comments are in regards to the whole of his presidency, thinking you've found a weakspot via Afghanistan is a bizarre response. His tax cuts deal, UHC, Pakistan, Iraq, dragging feet on DODA, and every wasted second the democrats had both houses and the presidency where he did nothing, He is a neo-con who has yet to show this left wing label his supporters and the tea party seem to think apply to him. You think that Obama failing to live up to your standards somehow makes him a neocon, and you honestly believe that Obama pretended to be a Leftist? I have to wonder who the "loving madman" really is. And Christopher Hitchens had a really great point to make about the anti-war crowd being reactionary jingoists (and why the war in Afghanistan is a truly progressive war): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS374kobqbE big fat retard fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Mar 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
I love how even after Xandu posted that article on "imperialism" and the "trajectory of history," you still have posters here confirming everything the article implied about dogmatism. I made a fair and sourced point regarding the isolationist jingoism of the left and the progressiveness of the war in Afghanistan (and by extension the current conflict in Libya), and instead I get called a troll and my post is dismissed because "hurr Hitchens brown people". I remember reading a tweet from the Libyan resistance saying that those who oppose international intervention because of "imperialism" are basically hypocrites and imperialists of a different flavor. This thread continues to prove the Libyan resistance right. Whatever the outcome of this conflict, the "hurr imperialist brown people neoliberal racist" crowd is going to come out of this looking really loving stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Ballz posted:That is in my opinion, a great and logical analysis of the West's intervention. But once again, reading the comments to it will kill many brain cells. Take the logic of the article further, and you begin to see that the narrative is increasingly in favor of both the West and the Arab street. If the rebels emerge victorious, we'll have another Muslim country that that really really likes us (Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo are also Muslim countries that are quite fond of the United States, for similar reasons).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
Jut posted:He's far from on his last legs, and the rebels don't stand a chance at forcing him out. They are outnumbered, out gunned and lack experience to finish the job. Neither side is going to be able to make long term progress using their military. The rebels rejecting any deal on the table is going to hurt them and their cause more than CQ. One strategy is to simply wait the bastard out. Gaddafi can't function forever in a vacuum.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Samantha Power is a goddamned Saint, and her work on genocide, in addition to her arm twisting in this matter, should be grounds for a Nobel Peace Prize.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
Mr Teatime posted:This is a kind of silly what if question on my part, but had we never invaded iraq is it the kind of country that would also be rising up like this against saddam? Looking at the aftermath of the invasion, hindsight tells us that there would probably be a really nasty civil war, and Saddam's crackdown would be much, much worse than Assad's. Think the Lebanese Civil War on steroids, with one of the main power players being a guy who makes Gaddafi look like a pacifist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Jut posted:sounds good, but from the bottom of that article Call me crazy, but I am 100% certain the United States would abstain, and 30% sure that we might even vote in favor of a Palestinian state. And there are plenty of ways to punish Israel without resorting to the security council. The GA recognizing Palestine might just be the final push that the majority of sane Israelis need to get their hands dirty and take care of the settlements.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
Jut posted:I really don't think so, given the amount of lesser resolutions that have been vetoed by the US on I/P. This is a completely different situation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2011 15:03
|
|
|
Jut posted:How so? An abstention - or veto in favor of - an independent Palestine is a completely different creature under completely unique circumstances. All the other vetoes were perceived to be in America's interest. An abstention - or vote for - a Palestinian state would be in our favor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
I've heard rumors that Iranian forces are helping Syria massacre protestors.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:and what of the people who can't make ends meet and are quietly starving to death? You put words into his mouth, trying to shoehorn your rotting carcass of an ideology into his own stated aspirations while trying to hijack the ideals of others - verdant, blossoming ideals that are just tasting their first breath of fruition, fought for by people who back up words with action after action, bloody sacrifice after bloody sacrifice. You are the internet personification of every piece of human garbage that thought "my ideology trumps the will of the people". You'd make fine company with the likes of Henry Kissinger, Vladimir Lenin, Qaddafi, and every other cold-blooded bastard who preferred the purity of their dogmatic ideology - and the addictive power that comes with it - over human dignity. You are a loving parasite. Your ideology is dead and the aroma stinks, and yet like flies hovering over a stinking pile of poo poo, you continue to make your pathetic buzzing noises and get in the way everyone else's vision. You are a nihilist who prefers to piss into a hurricane and hope that it hits something, simply out of spite. May the Arab Spring be the death knell for every piece of poo poo like you.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2011 16:28
|
|