|
Randler posted:
Also it shows exactly how racist Europeans are to the rest of the world.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 13:23
|
|
IT'S HAPPENING 
)
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
Randler posted:
Again with the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It seems a bit extreme don't you think?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Collectivization was Trotsky's idea. He actually wanted to implement it immediately, where Stalin waited. Dekulakization was also Trotsky's idea. The invisible famine Stalin induced in the cities to bring women into the workforce? Also exactly in line with Trotsky's planned policies. It was more than simply "Trotsky's idea" though especially since the actual mechanics of how it was implied came afterwards. My emphasis is on the "crash" nature of it, and how disorganized the entire process actually was for most of the first Five Year Plan. Trotsky would have probably still killed plenty of Kulaks but I don't see it the whole process evolving in the same manner especially since Trotsky favored more of a Leninist style of running the party. quote:The Finnish Winter War was fought to secure the security of Leningrad and the northern USSR. Stalin attempting to put in a puppet government is something a lot of Bolsheviks would probably have done, especially internationalists like Trotsky. The issue is how much of a colossal gently caress up the war was though, the Soviets should have won it easily but there was absolutely no military leadership. If anything Trotsky had a pretty good grasp of strategy and logistics. quote:The purges, I think, are less on Stalin's personal paranoia and more on the basic issue that a substantial part of the Red Army's officer corps were politically suspicious at a time when it was apparent the USSR would be facing invasions shortly. Particular targets like Tukhachevsky or Rokossovsky can be attributed to Stalin's personal desires, probably, but don't forget that none of the Politburo ever objected. Almost all the denunciations later came from people on the lower rungs of power. There wasn't any real chance of a coup or resistance from the army despite paranoia on Stalin's part, and ultimately the purge cost the Soviet Union quite a bit in Finland and in 41. Ultimately, I don't think Trotsky or the "left opposition" would have been that different in the broad policy outline, but ultimately more competent at it and I don't think even they would have been nearly as paranoid as Stalin. There still would been plenty of bloodshed by them, but ultimately probably on a different scale compared to what happened. However more to the point, Russia was going to have a dictatorship, and needed heavy industrialization which would only lead to a certain route of development that was authoritarian and heavily reliant on state intervention. Nevertheless, Trotsky was still a brutal prick but probably more competent than Stalin. ---------------------------------------- As far as Libya it certainly had gone a different route, especially if the no-fly zone was actually a defensive maneuver not an offensive one and/or the West had actually had been interested in establishing some long term stability there. In the end, it was left a failed state with barely any functioning economy (at least this point) and a growing ISIS insurgency. Ultimately, it doesn't look like history is going to be very kind about the entire affair, especially not after Libya runs out of the rest of its currency reserves and has to beg for foreign aid. To be clear, things in Libya are likely to get considerably worse. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Libya is almost certainly going to undergo several more years of war between the various factions in the country while its wealthiest and best educated citizens flee abroad. I'm not sure how the conflict ends after the UN's recent peace efforts ended up being pretty much DOA. Technically, Libya has no legitimate government now, it's reverted to terra nullius.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
New Division posted:Libya is almost certainly going to undergo several more years of war between the various factions in the country while its wealthiest and best educated citizens flee abroad. I'm not sure how the conflict ends after the UN's recent peace efforts ended up being pretty much DOA. Technically, Libya has no legitimate government now, it's reverted to terra nullius. Well I guess you could say it has no recognized government, but I do think the Tobruk government can still draw from Libyan accounts. That said, oil output is down to 350,000 barrels a day, and with oil prices already so low, Libya really has no export economy to speak of but is also heavily reliant on imports for nearly everything. Libya has one of the largest trade deficits in the world and the largest budget deficit (quite literally 50%) in 2014 and it has gotten even worse this year. There are plenty of countries trying to win the race for "the world's most hosed economy" but LIbya is putting a heck of a fight. At a certain point, the Tobruk government may try to hand on with printing for a year or so but at that point the chaos is only going to grow. Eventually there is going to be a mass exodus also as others have said, and the Libyan factions collectively won't have the ability really slow the amount of refugees. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
I think we need to know more about the early USSR before calling it though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well I guess you could say it has no recognized government, but I do think the Tobruk government can still draw from Libyan accounts. That said, oil output is down to 350,000 barrels a day, and with oil prices already so low, Libya really has no export economy to speak of but is also heavily reliant on imports for nearly everything. Libya has one of the largest trade deficits in the world and the largest budget deficit (quite literally 50%) in 2014 and it has gotten even worse this year. There are plenty of countries trying to win the race for "the world's most hosed economy" but LIbya is putting a heck of a fight. I think both of the self-declared governments are actually still drawing from the Libya accounts. Most of what's left of the bureaucracy is still based in Tripoli, which is still under the GNC's control, and the head bureaucrats seem to have tried to keep both sides pleased. Also, foreign oil buyers still seem to be going through the Tripoli based National Oil Corporation, something the HoR has tried and failed to prevent. With that said, both governments are rapidly heading towards being unable to pay all of the militias they've put on their payrolls. Wouldn't be surprised to see Haftar make a move for open political power in the near future. He's already basically in control of Thinni, the PM for the Tobruk government. Thinni's found himself stopped at gunpoint from travelling at several points by Haftar's men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think we need to know more about the early USSR before calling it though. Stalin comes up at some point in every thread in D&D, the Cold War only took a breather during the 1990s. New Division posted:I think both of the self-declared governments are actually still drawing from the Libya accounts. Most of what's left of the bureaucracy is still based in Tripoli, which is still under the GNC's control, and the head bureaucrats seem to have tried to keep both sides pleased. Also, foreign oil buyers still seem to be going through the Tripoli based National Oil Corporation, something the HoR has tried and failed to prevent. With that said, both governments are rapidly heading towards being unable to pay all of the militias they've put on their payrolls. Of course the problem is when you eventually have no accounts to draw from, and that the NOC simply isn't generating income (it barely is at this point) to run much of a government. Egypt may eventually back Haftar and give him a stipend (via loans from the gulf) to keep his military running, but eventually the bureaucracy and the Dinar is going to fall apart. Also, the rivalry factions will ever more desperate for income to keep their militas/troops paid and supplied. Haftar may go for a full military dictatorship but having a fig leaf of a legislature opens up more possibly for foreign aid. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Of course, one major difference between Sisi and Haftar, should Haftar make a move for power, would be that Sisi actually controls his country (except for the Sinai, arguably). Haftar can't control much more than the Eastern Coast of Libya without a major infusion of cash, men and equipment. Haftar is getting some equipment from Egypt and the UAE, and is probably getting some cash too, but he still lacks the manpower to impose his will on the country. New Division fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Haftar is not handsome enough to govern all of Libya. In fact, there's something profound in the fact that all Middle Eastern and North African leaders are currently old or ugly men. You need that suave guapo action (Saddam, Gaddafi) or at least some kind of charisma (Hafez al-Assad) to be a real dictator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
New Division posted:Of course, one major difference between Sisi and Haftar, should Haftar make a move for power, would be that Sisi actually controls his country (except for the Sinai, arguably). Haftar can't control much more than the Eastern Coast of Libya without a major infusion of cash, men and equipment. Another issue is that ISIS is making considerable gains in Eastern Libya, and if anything Haftar would considerable support in order just to maintain the status quo. Also, for the Gulf states, Egypt itself is going to be the priority and Haftar has to make do with what trickles down to him. Also there is Yemen and Syria pulling resources and attention as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Tezzor, do you have a point of view on the subject?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Haftar is not handsome enough to govern all of Libya. In fact, there's something profound in the fact that all Middle Eastern and North African leaders are currently old or ugly men. You need that suave guapo action (Saddam, Gaddafi) or at least some kind of charisma (Hafez al-Assad) to be a real dictator.  The future leader of the Arab Republic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
My favorite war is the 30 years war (1618-1648)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Mine is the war on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:My favorite war is the 30 years war (1618-1648) General Wallenstein was a pretty cool guy imho. gently caress you Walter Devereux.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
My favorite war is the class war
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
War on christmas, is that the one Tezzor?Tezzor posted:citations in original That is a compelling point of view you've shared, Tezzor. Cannot say that you'll find me in either agreement nor disagreement. Cartouche fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Oct 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
I think the War of Conquest, aka the French and Indian War, aka The 7-Year War is super interesting and overlooked. It's darker and ediger sequel, the war of 1812, which ended with the last great hope of the natives crushed beyond recovery, is also interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
quote:And it indicts those who bought and hawked the humanitarian case — a group that includes scores of prominent liberals and leftists. Consistent with their collective quiet on Libya since 2011, liberal-left pundits and media outlets have mostly ignored the recent news except to object to the Right’s attacks on Clinton. Didn't know d&d was so famous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
lol "hawked the humanitarian cause" by saying that the West shouldn't look the other way when a Rwanda style massacre is pending
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Should have made Libya the 51st state imo. An emergency airlift of big-breasted cheerleaders, lovely beer, and TV evangelists to build mega-mosques that preach Allah wants you to be filthy rich would have fixed everything right up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Looking forward to the humanitarian liberal state department support for the overthrow of Israeli occupation and the Sauds. They care so deeply about massacres and human rights after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
D&D is really loving up if its favorite war isn't the class war
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 07:39
|
|
Fojar38 posted:lol "hawked the humanitarian cause" by saying that the West shouldn't look the other way when a Rwanda style massacre is pending This is one of the most retarded things anyone has ever said about Libya or Rwanda.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
War on guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is one of the most retarded things anyone has ever said about Libya or Rwanda. Tell me more about how a city should have been sacrificed to an army led by a man referring to the city's inhabitants as rats and cockroaches because Muslim countries are scary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 08:43
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Tell me more about how a city should have been sacrificed to an army led by a man referring to the city's inhabitants as rats and cockroaches because Muslim countries are scary. Didn't say that. Why don't you insist that there was no genocide in Rwanda, just massacres, Fojar? I mean, it's not funny, but it is in line with your demonstrable brainpower.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Didn't say that. Why don't you insist that there was no genocide in Rwanda, just massacres, Fojar? I mean, it's not funny, but it is in line with your demonstrable brainpower. Oh okay, I'm glad that you didn't miss your chance to point out that massacres are technically different from genocides. The thread is richer for that revelation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 09:07
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Oh okay, I'm glad that you didn't miss your chance to point out that massacres are technically different from genocides. The thread is richer for that revelation. It actually makes you a monstrous person to degrade genocides in this fashion. Katýn, Auschwitz, what's the difference?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Oh Gaddafi was only going to commit city-wide massacres, well that's okay then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Didn't say that. Why don't you insist that there was no genocide in Rwanda, just massacres, Fojar? I mean, it's not funny, but it is in line with your demonstrable brainpower. Does intervention for only immediate moral concerns make sense if the costs of such actions are difficult to predict and may produce more damage for little reward? I think we may have an exaggerated view of what the US is really capable doing with interventions, and how much real long-lasting effect they have. We come into countries that have complex ethnic or religious histories, structural governmental flaws and deep states that extend beyond single dictators, and believe that our actions make a serious dent in solving these problems with a few airstrikes? That one dead dictator really makes any difference? We like to feel good about removing dictators, about stopping horrible atrocities, but I feel that we really only act reactively and we have a bad habit of treating only the most obvious, egregious threats while ignoring the underlying, more implicit structural problems that allow these threats to occur, usually letting them resurface as soon as the bombs and troops leave. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:Intervening in Rwanda also helped lead to the 1st and 2nd Congo Wars, which either directly or indirectly lead to the death of millions of people. Did it now? Exactly which part of the intervention in Rwanda led to the Congo Wars? No keep going, you were just about to say the proper response to genocide was to let it finish to cut down on future conflict. farraday fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
farraday posted:Did it now? Exactly which part of the intervention in Rwanda led to the Congo Wars? I'm not saying that it was wrong to intervene in Rwanda, but intervention also lead to unforeseen consequences that resulted in massive loss of life. This is a common theme in our interventions, well-intentioned or not. My main point is that I wonder if our modern foreign policy is too short-sighted and results in great expenditure of life and resources with little long-term benefit. E: We like to focus on big headline issues like the dictator or terrorist organization that is in vogue this decade but we don't focus on issues that may have more long-term effects like women's education, employment, corruption, or infrastructure. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:The Rwandan Patriotic Front taking control of Rwanda with US support, the exodus of Hutus (many of them with blood on their hands from the genocide) to nearby Zaire, and the ensuing conflict between the RPF and Zaire refugees that helped lead to the Banyamulenge Rebellion and the formation of the AFDL. What US support? Please feel free to link examples. I mean it would be pretty incredible of you to claim diplomatic support led to their victory and you've cited the US penchant for airstrikes, so may we assume you have a source citing US airstrikes in support of the RPF? So again, you wonder if the long term consequences of stopping genocide are worth it. farraday fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
farraday posted:So again, you wonder if the long term consequences of stopping genocide are worth it. We only come when a problem has become too obvious to ignore, and then we do little to prevent the next one from happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:No, more that we don't stop to ask who will replace the government after the genocide is over, or what will happen to all the displaced people. Or why a genocide happened in the first place. So to go back:you said: quote:Intervening in Rwanda also helped lead to the 1st and 2nd Congo Wars, which either directly or indirectly lead to the death of millions of people. So you've just defined how we intervened, which involves no action whatsoever on our part. So if we replace the word with how you defined it. quote:Not acting in Rwanda also helped lead to the 1st and 2nd Congo Wars, which either directly or indirectly lead to the deaths of million of people. It's amazing how that happened because you've defined intervention in your mind to include actions that are the complete opposite of intervention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
farraday posted:So again, you wonder if the long term consequences of stopping genocide are worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
LookingGodIntheEye posted:No, more that we don't stop to ask who will replace the government after the genocide is over, or what will happen to all the displaced people. Or why a genocide happened in the first place. Granted, the question always what happens to the "loser" in a change of government, and traditionally the US doesn't brook compromises. If anything Iraq is the case example of this, specifically de-baathification. farraday posted:What US support? Please feel free to link examples. I mean it would be pretty incredible of you to claim diplomatic support led to their victory and you've cited the US penchant for airstrikes, so may we assume you have a source citing US airstrikes in support of the RPF? Here is an interesting excerpt from the Human Rights Watch Report: https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno15-8-03.htm. It is worth reading in its entirety. More exactly, the issue isn't technically intervening in the genocide, but after the RPF went on the offensive, the US continued to support it during the revenge killings and during the Congo Wars. quote:Faced with full and horrifying information about a genocide where the moral and legal imperative to act was overwhelming, major actors at the U.N. and in various national governments had failed to intervene. Burdened with the guilt of this failure, they confronted a more complex situation when Gersony revealed the apparent extent of RPF killings. Granted, RPF killings were in the range of tens of thousands not the hundreds of the genocide itself. However, two years later the RPF would be a key component of the First then Second Congo Wars. Total causalities from both wars are estimated in the the low millions. Also yeah this has nothing to do with Libya really, but eh gently caress it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:War on guns. Don't trigger me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 14:05
|
|