|
Tezzor posted:It's funny how warmongering liberals literally cannot understand opposition to their ceaseless incompetent stumbling around the world murdering anyone nearby a person they think might not like us, except that what those of us in opposition to so-called Liberal Humanitarian War really hate isn't the unending counterproductive blood-drenched idiocy of their catastrophically failed policy, or the hypocrisy, lack of consequences and goldfish-memory self-righteousness of its advocates. No, the opposition is just contrarian, and if we weren't rampaging around the world like a vastly stupid, but also vaguely malevolent, swelling corpse-golem, those drat guys who claim to dislike aggressive war would be complaining about that. It comes down to the fact that internet leftists are very tolerant of murderous dictators as long as they praise Socialism enough and cries enough about imperialism.
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 23, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So Tezzor in your opinion what action(s), if any, should have been taken when Ghaddafi was marching on Benghazi promising a massacre? It doesn't really matter, if the US haven't intervened, Tezzor would right now being screaming about how the US is evil and stands aside when genocide occurs because Qaddafi came into compliance with global neoliberalism's oil needs. The thing that actually matters is that as far as Tezzor is concerned the US overthrew another Socialist regime and thus consigns it even more into the dustbin of history, it makes a lot more sense when you realize a certain segment of the left never stopped fighting the cold war, and has the mentality of everyone who calls himself a Socialist and is anti-US are the good guys.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Antwan3K posted:Not true at all. The invasions of Afghanistan and definitely Iraq have been as heavily criticized and their leaders where closer to fascism (Baath or Taliban) than anything left-wing. That's because the US actually has shitloads of troops in those places for a decade and thus give reason to why people are complaining, that's not true of Libya.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I guess the anti-war movement against Iraq was all a dream then? I'm not sure what your point is, Iraq had a substantial larger anti-war movement from the onset than Libya because it required the commitment of substantial ground troops on far less justifiable grounds. To put it another way if there was a general uprising against Saddam in 2003 like there was in 1991 and the US/UK/France bombed Saddam to make sure he doesn't win and conduct another round of slaughtering Shiites and Kurds I don't think there would have being a very large anti-war movement. quote:Yeah dude, it took five years before a substantial insurgency arose in Iraq or Afghanistan. You're acting as retarded as Tezzor right now, both of you concluding that methodology doesn't matter in foreign intervention. I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, also a substantial insurgency existed in Iraq by mid 2004 at the latest, hence why you had Fallujah
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:On the contrary, Realpolitik is always ideological in nature. Which is a problematic statement when states with wildly differing ideologies share the same set of realpolitik interests
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Sounds like they don't actually differ in ideologies after all. They usually do as far as domestic policy is concerned, just not in foreign affairs
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, it isn't. What, do you think that a "different ideology" renders thought processes entirely inexplicable? That's either stupid or the start of a process to justify terrorist violence. I have no idea what you are trying to say or how you came to this conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 23, 2024 17:52 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Like "realists" not only failed to predict the collapse of the USSR, they still struggle to explain it in a way that remotely matches up with what the people involved thought and said. That's because the USSR collapsed due to domestic reasons and realism don't claim to make prediction on domestic politics of a country, only their foreign objectives quote:No he's right, nations don't exist in mutually unintelligible ideological bubbles and realpolitik is an ideology that attempts to flatten states into unitary actors and systematically justify certain narrow points of view while ignoring and marginalizing others. It is essentially an ideology of "great game" nationalists that is ideologically blind to most domestic and epistemic factors. They might choose to pile some poo poo on top of realpolitik like humanitarianism on the US's part or Comintern on the Soviet's, but those things are always secondary and are probably part of their realpolitik strategy anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 00:31
|
|