213374U

Yes, please. I'd really like to see this point expanded upon, seeing how it's the entire rationale for this war. Talk show experts keep bringing up Srbrenica as a precedent but the only similarity is that NATO is running a no-fly zone over the country. No ethnic cleansing going on. Ostensibly no "genocide" outside of the speeches of the asinine and spineless Mr. Ban. All we know is that there's been an armed revolt of suspect origins and composition, which clearly doesn't have enough popular support to topple Qaddafi without massive external support. Well, we also know that Qaddafi wanted nothing to do with the Pentagon's pet project for the region, AFRICOM, and that he's no longer friends with the rest of the Arab League sellouts. But nevermind that. @WDeranged:

Oh, I thought that's exactly what you (and GD) meant with your previous remark about starting a country where religion is banned. And I still do, because otherwise the comment doesn't make any sense. The Soviets can be accused of many things, but you'll be hard pressed to find examples of extremism, especially the violent sort. Coincidentally, the Soviet Union had one of the best education systems ever. And I'm sorry but I can't accept that people will be extremists just the same with or without religious figures to direct them - there aren't many things in life that can claim sovereignty over men the way religion does. Without that, what would they be extremists of, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and go on McD's personnel killing sprees? Ethnic differences are often rooted in religious ones, though not always. Politics are always a source of friction but unfortunately it doesn't look like we can get rid of that just yet. Gorth summarized it well enough so I'll leave it at that. That's funny because the enlightened card is precisely the one played by religious people to dismiss those who don't swallow their mystical mumbo-jumbo. They have been "touched", graced with the gift of "faith", isn't that nice. Religion is anything but silly. It took several millenia and the invention of mass media to find a similarly effective control device to direct people. It's not really about what I believe, it's about looking at the record, and looking at the purpose. Religions, and the moral codes they push are meant to -or should- be deeply personal things, and I don't see anything wrong with that. So why the need for central figures to coordinate and unify the inner lives of people? Clearly, so the baser responses of the human psyche can be made to surface and harnessed. There's no other explanation for the need of an intermediary between me and "God". As an aside, you may not want to cite tradition to lend weight to your arguments too much - it can be used to support any number of nasty things, from slavery to the death penalty.

Um, but it does wonders against religious extremism. The reason why communist dictatorships ban religious practice is because they can't have religious ideas interfering with their ideological monopoly goals. Also, please stop suggesting a connection between a lack of organized religion and Bolshevik or Maoist atrocities. It's fallacious and annoying. No, I'll tell you what has worked best: diminishing their power and influence, and forcing them to acknowledge that they answer not only to God but also to civil magistrates. The very real threat of ending up in jail -or dead- if they attempt any stupid **** like burning down the competition's place is what keeps extremists of any cause in check.

No. Do some research. During the 50's, Cuba was one of the strongest economies in Latin America in terms of GDP and growth, and only ~30% of the workforce was dedicated to agriculture. Thanks to foreign -mainly American- investment, it was well on its way to becoming a rich, industrialized country. It was de facto integrated into the US economy. That all went to hell with Castro's revolution, and the following economic reorienting the country underwent to become a USSR satellite. For a time things were going dandy, at the tune of $5bn/yr in Soviet subsidies, but when the Soviet Bloc collapsed, so did the Cuban economy. There's no way to know if Cuba would have been a competitive economy if left to its own devices -though data from that period seems to indicate it would-, as it's always been part, de facto or de jure, of one empire or another. But it's preposterous -and ignorant- to chalk up Cuba's present state to a sort of "fundamental unproductivity" and make analyses based on that notion.

Yep, we're better at stealing and lying. Dog eat dog etc.

And everything is going according to plan, with the EU finally gearing up for a land intervention, to clean up the mess made by the Saudis, the US, and their European rector provinciae. Go democracy! Go human rights!

I knew lof had a soft spot for me, but I would have never suspected this!

But it does. Check your history if you believe otherwise. Religion has been used to great effect to get people up in arms just because the head of some church or another claimed that GOD demanded it. It's a bit more complex than that and it's related to how the ability to reason is diminished in environments where masses are inflamed -be it a religious act, a political rally or a military harangue before combat-, but organized religion *is* essentially a form of mind control. In the West wars were fought to curb its influence and bring it under control of the civil authorities... and with good reason. RE attack: apparently for these people, burning a book is more of an offense than killing a bunch of people with a Hellfire that goes off-course. I find it hard to believe, but if true, it shows to what degree some people are in denial in their belief that "surgical" application of military force can democratise Afghanistan.

I would too, but apparently Oby's ideas are not particularly uncommon among Russians. They really like their kleptocrats over there, it would seem. D:

1. It's not effective http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of...#The_UN_Charter You are missing the point. The Russian veto may not have prevented Franco-British action against Qaddafi, but it would have prevented a UNSC resolution that, to the uninformed, legalized this intervention. It would have shown that the Russians are unequivocally against this, and would have made it easier for them to claim the moral high ground. Abstention on the other hand is tantamount to nodding in complicity, which pretty much makes any criticism they make through RIA Novosti a joke. Not the funny sort, but the one that completely fails to achieve its intended purpose, due to being laden with hypocrisy. I'm thinking you would change your tune if your cousin was a midget with an inferiority complex, and he asked you to help him rob a few banks so he can repay the debts he owes to a few mob bosses, incurred when borrowing to pay for whores and booze. RE arms embargo: Resolution 1970 establishes an embargo against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, this is Qaddafi's Libya - it wouldn't be too illegal to sell weapons to the rebels, even before they win. At any rate, the destruction of hefty amounts of old weapons is always good news for those who make a profit from selling them.

What I don't understand is, if your loved dynamic duo are so worked up by Western imperialism... why didn't they use their veto power to prevent this in the first place? It's really cheap to give one's tacit support to something and then take potshots from the sidelines, don't you think oby? Funny that you keep harping on the French -not without reason- when it's in fact the Russians who stand to profit the most from ME instability. And let's be honest, it's high time somebody "retired" those old Mig-21s and T-72s! Markets for hot, shiny hardware like the Su-30 and T-90 are in need of expanding.

Suckerpunch. Heavy on the suck, lacking in punch. I've never walked away from a movie, and after tonight, I don't think I ever will. Also, Black Swan. Pretty good although YMMV if you are a ballet purist and anal about it.

I have to say, that doesn't look out of character for the man at all...

I've thought about this before. Population is a strategic resource, and well exploited resources equal wealth and prosperity. Of course, "exploitation" when applied to people has some rather dark overtones, but essentially economies are built by people to exploit people, and we seem to have no problem with that. Additional workers should be a welcome addition to any growing economy -and if an economy isn't growing, it has bigger problems than immigration anyway-, they bolster economic activity even if part of what they earn is sent away, they increase tax revenues for the state and perhaps most importantly, they can help reverse the worrisome tendency towards a geriatric society. The (early) US is the obvious example of immigrants adapting and working together for great results - but the US is also unique in that it's a country immigrants could feel they actually had helped build. But it may be that turning all -or even most- immigrants into well integrated and productive members of society is the social equivalent of turning lead into gold. Endless potential, yes, but ultimately impossible? I have serious doubts, especially considering how deeply ingrained is the dogma that there are no irreconcilable differences with regards to culture and customs, and the unshakable belief that multiculturalism is the way to go, even in the face of historical evidence pointing at precisely those issues as the chief reasons for internal tensions and conflict. Sadly, it is one of the many issues in which serious debate is prevented by the all-encompassing aegis of political correctness.

No one is perfect!

You keep saying this is Realpolitik but it's actually closer to Weltpolitik. Only it has a really cheap and amateurish feel about it. Further, we know that Western spec ops forces are already operating on Libyan soil and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that the rebels are also getting any kind of advice they may require, be it legal, financial or technical. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press...ges/tg1114.aspx Oh, ho! And it turns out the US had contingencies in place for the eventuality that oil assets changed hands, and so sanctions no longer apply! "I love it when a plan comes together"

Hurr durr! Too many big words and subordinate sentences tax your already markedly limited wits overmuch, so you'll once again just settle for telling us how wonderful the Kool-Aid is, huh? Well, I'd never have seen that coming! For the non-lobotomised: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqjk.htm

If, just once in a while you made the effort of taking a look at the broader world (that is, what exists outside of your ass) you'd perhaps come to the realization that things are nowhere near as beautiful as they are painted in whatever circle of dope-powered wankers you go to for your daily dose of groupthink. I'm sure you get a raging hard-on from from the supposed "popular triumphs" in Egypt and Tunisia, but we need to deal with the facts: without real political objectives, ideas or even organizational infrastructure beyond the minimum for removing the incumbent tyrant, there's very little actual chance of those people "elevating", and a very real threat of islamists taking over. Perhaps just one regime being replaced by another equally corrupt autocracy that will, if we're lucky, have the trappings of democracy - which apparently is enough for the domestic consumption of sponge brained buffoons such as yourself. Are you done patting yourself in the back for the success that was granting "freedom" to the Afghan? Good. Then you can get started on Libya. Heh. You really do believe that, don't you? If dignity factored in at all in this equation, the UN and this hodge-podge of "allies" would have done something about, oh, hey, the Palestinians decades ago. I could start counting humanitarian catastrophes past and present that go ignored, but that wouldn't accomplish anything - the leftist drone is immune to facts, and I know better than to waste my time in that fashion. The fact remains that expeditious military action is only undertaken when strategic resources are at stake, not the lives of people. Therefore, it's clearly that what triggers international action, it's that what counts for us, it's that and only that what drives this war, and the rationales given are just to make you think that "this time it's different". Oh, but wait. Too much logic there, I forgot: the leftist drone is also impervious to reason. You shouldn't use words whose meaning you don't understand, chump. I call it arbitraty application of the law because that's what it is. And such a blatant degree of arbitrariness does more harm than good to the credibility of an international legal framework. Justice is about fairness, but it's also about trust. These French-led antics show none of the former and certainly inspire the opposite of the latter. It is actually counter-productive to the rosy world you'd so desperately like to see. If you bothered reading, you'd realize that I'm not necessarily against intervention in Libya, but that would probably require more brainpower than what a dozen of you could muster on your brightest day. If I'm against anything is the hypocrisy of the reasons given and, as if that wasn't enough, the gleeful abandon with which allied command (?) oversteps their bounds -no-fly zone is now no-drive zone, which in fact means cutting a swath through Gaddafi's forces so the rebels can win the war- and manipulates facts so their acts conform to modern standards of political correctness. This is required in order to claim the moral high ground they so desperately need to keep approval rates at home from plummeting. In short -because I know you don't read well- I would prefer I wasn't lied to systematically. Hahaha, whatever. I guess you think of yourself as "third way" or some other stupid new age trend that makes you think you're cool ****. Hipsters are nothing new, champ, and the Christian elements of socialism are essential rather than a new addition. Grow up.

Right, because what was going on in Libya was comparable to what Saddam had been doing to his people or the war in Yugoslavia. So we escalate what was a rebellion being crushed -violently, granted- into a full-blown civil war with uncertain outcome. And then we conclude that this massive ****up can only be fixed by removing the inconvenient dictator from the picture. I'm trying really hard, but I don't see how the case for the JDAM-armed Red Cross could be any weaker. Of course, that won't stop the "we're doing it for the PEOPLE!" hand-waving. Oh, so it's a return to Napier's policy of building gallows next to funeral pyres, then? Whatever happened to non-interventionism, the idea that democracies don't start wars and the rule of law applied to international relations? Yep, I guess those aren't worth jack if they mean Sarko might lose an election. ****, at least Napier had a pair and didn't pretend. Neo-colonialists are just a bunch of MBA-toting pussies desperately trying to hold on to a hegemony they didn't earn and that they most certainly don't deserve. And we wonder why they "hate freedom". Hahaha, of course you don't. You are the perfect example of the hypocrite leftie I had in mind when I wrote "if you do it it's wrong, if we do it it's OK". The end justifies the means, whenever the end suits us. Arbitrary application of the law doesn't matter, if it's "for the greater good", as defined by the usual suspects. But trust us, this little violation is just a necessary step in our endless effort to build a world of streets paved with chocolate and happy days. Doesn't matter that our record is terrible at actually doing that; pay no mind to naysayers suggesting it's the same old interests behind it all. WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, are you assimilating Sarko's intent with that of an armed mugger's? If so, I wholeheartedly agree, but I honestly don't think Bush was really trying to save anyone's life when he launched the war on Iraq.* Seriously, the humanitarian excuse has been resting in pieces since it was made the coalition's official position that Qaddafi has to go; the fact that allied air forces are basically paving the way for the rebels' advance in clear violation of the provisions of resolution 1973 doesn't help either. *He probably did, what with Saddam being the accomplished stalinist he was, but I think of that as accessory.

And how does letting the world go down in flames around you make any more sense? You know better than to suggest a return to parochial 19th century political stances. No great powers have been built or sustained by practicing isolationism. And think about it, if the US give up their political and military supremacy, who do you think is going to step up to fill the power vacuum? I don't know about wiser, but you sure sound jaded. That said, Clinton is like a wart growing on top of a tumor. I feel for you. I don't know about the internal opinion climate in the US, but if it's anything like here, the dictator in question is immaterial - it's more along the lines of "if you do it it's wrong, if we do it it's OK". Same old double standards bull**** everywhere, it seems. Speaking of something else, I'd really like to know what's been promised to Erdogan to get him to agree to allow this to finally become a NATO operation, de jure. If Turkey is really going to have a veto power on airstrikes (and decides to use it), this could become a debacle even sooner than I expected. If not... maybe this time next year Turkey will be a full EU member?

Of course the rebels would get help wherever they can get it, and you'd be hard pressed to find more experienced irregulars than Iraq/Stan vets. If having AlQ fighters among them means they are basically a terrorist group, then I guess that Soviet involvement with the Republican side in the SCW means the government were a bunch of stalinists. A few of them might have been Joe admirers but by and large they weren't.

Call me naive, hell, call me an idealist, but I'm of the opinion that justice and fairnes are if not one and the same, inextricably linked. When you propose that justice applies only when it's convenient, you are proposing a double standard dictated by economic reasons. This is fundamentally unfair, and so what you are doing is no longer "justice"... it's something else. It is my opinion that you cannot have "some" justice - you either have justice or you don't. This is the crux of the disagreement and I'm happy to let it rest. And, again, it was not my intention to suggest that Russia or the PRC need to be next in line. You got fixated on the wrong part of the argument. I wish I could remember where I read it, but IIRC this isn't so. The main factor presently constraining further Chinese economic growth is, heh, their inability to acquire all the fossil fuels they need. The UN was conceived in the wake of WWII as an international forum, with lessons learned from the spectacular diplomacy failures that led to the war, in an attempt to prevent past mistakes to lead to a new world war that would most likely involve nuclear exchange. And the fact that we're here discussing this shows to what extent it was successful in that role.

I don't work. Other than that, I don't really disagree with you. Try finding a UN legal doctrine that supports launching a war for oil, though.