213374U

It's not supposed to work, because the UN was never intended as the World Sheriff's Office -- it was meant to be a forum to give diplomacy a chance, to avert a very likely WWIII. NATO was formed as the military arm of the American containment policy. But you know that. However, with the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc, both organizations lost their raison d'

Do you feel that having a driver's license makes anyone a member of some elite?

1. Good for you. I hope you also approve of regulations to prevent the arbitrary application of a principle in the real world. There is no such thing atm. Of course, something like that is absurd and impossible. No chance of having an entity with the power to enforce law with a global scope and have it be itself subject to law in a manner that's enforceable.2. The reasons for the application of law and its conclusions are not to be considered jointly. Law and strategy are different fields with different spheres of application. That's why you have trials in absentia, for instance, and why you hold trials for people that are too old to go to jail. 3. Oh, wow. So the moral foundation of natural law is a fantasy, now? Interesting theory. I guess you are of the rare blend of positivists that don't even try to dispute the complete disconnection between law and morality in their thinking. Arguing that law should be what law can (and is) applied as is not only awfully convenient -and in this context more than a wee bit colonial, might I add- but also possibly a non-argument because of self-referencing. Law in any country where the rule of law is reasonably respected is an example of the universal character of justice*. The unavoidable shortcomings in any system designed and enforced by humans doesn't invalidate either the principle or the system nor, consequently, the example. *Within their jurisdictions. But we are discussing a global jurisdiction here, which is by definition unique - you ask for an example of something that doesn't exist in an attempt to use facticity to support your position. How things are and how they should be are different things. Either it's justice and it stems from the same moral roots as justice (adjectives are bad, m'kay), or it isn't justice and you should find another name for it. It can't be both.

I agree with everything (especially the hot women thing, time for me to get serious about those Russian lessons!), except the decaying part. Putin may be a quasi-fascist pedophile and an old skool KGB apparatchik, but there's little doubt that he's rebuilt the Russian economy. Just when I thought that you couldn't get any stupider, you go and prove me wrong. Stay strong, Krez. :salute:

@Grom: so it'll be a long time before Qaddafi (or whoever) re-establishes control over Libya. So... what? The likely retaliation will be maybe twenty years in the future. I didn't say things will be worse for the US immediately. But this is hardly working towards preserving this increasingly nebulous and all-encompassing "national security" concept, unless it doesn't mean what we're told it means. Maybe govt-contractor security would be a better term. Less punch, though. As for the comments on the US economy, I was rambling. No, a catastrophic economic collapse isn't likely, and even if it were, it doesn't guarantee anything, as the 1930's show. It's the rise of credible world title contenders that is a much more likely and realistic prospect. But yes, that's something for another thread. The ultimate proof for your argument may be that this war is neither particularly beneficial to any participant's economy nor, ostensibly, working. Or maybe it's not working because there's no real political will behind it, it will never be excessively profitable for anyone save the Russians, and your theory is just bunk. You've been defending the same thesis, insatisfactorily, over and over. When challenged about the dodgy application of humanitarian criteria to justify this war, you change topics and discuss it in terms of profit. When presented with the likelihood that economic and political factors and not (as opposed to and) humanitarian or legal reasons are behind it, you again simply suggest that some justice is better than none. However, justice is supposed to be universal and, by extension, free to those that can't afford it. In other news, Sarko wants nothing to do with the immigration wave caused partly by his antics in North Africa, and is willing to piss off his neighbors (and allies) to prevent any possible domestic political backlash that may result. He really cares about those Libyans and Tunisians, as long as they don't get too close to him.

This -and the rest of your argument- only makes sense if we tacitly accept the assumption that Qaddafi was, before the civil war, as active a terrorist sponsor as he used to be a few decades ago. That may or may not be true, but the airstrikes have almost certainly ensured he will (continue to) be in the future. I think even you will agree that the ability to come and go freely and act with state support -even if it's in a covert fashion- represents a qualitative difference for any would-be international terrorist seeking to establish a framework for operations. And with Egypt's state security apparatus being dismantled as we speak, things are only going to get easier for insurgents, guerrilla fighters and "terrorists" seeking to operate on or simply move through the region. Did you read that STRATFOR piece on Libyan arms depots being ransacked by god-knows-who, and the probable destinations for stolen hardware ranging from artillery explosives to MANPADS? Maybe you linked it here yourself, I don't really remember. 1. What ordinary people think doesn't matter. The development of the use of mass media into a science have ensured that, or rather, have ensured that ordinary people can be made to think whatever the interests that control the media want.2. If ordinary people really desired a "democratic" revolution and a change of the status quo in Libya, maybe the rebels wouldn't be losing so bad, mass defections would have occurred as has been the case in C

Okay, so do you introduce yourself like "Hi, I'm Walsingham, my hobbies include violent crime, dead infants and recidivism research", or do you keep that rather like a secret? I mean, go start a thread about cooking or something man.

That's got to be one really ****ty interstellar spacecraft if a radar can make it crash.

Quick as you are to suggest wishful thinking from others, this really stands out - especially in light of Qaddafi's history with terrorism. If you bomb someone's country -twice- and make every possible commitment -except for the one that matters- to make sure he's ousted, expecting him to just sit on his hands rebuilding infrastructure for the next decades is... not terribly realistic. Not that this is necessarily the scenario you were predicting. But maybe in fifteen years we'll get a repetition of the Afghan mujahideen-9/11 "chain", and then public opinion will be more receptive to the idea of a land intervention in Libya, for humanitarian reasons of course. That is assuming the US economy can afford it by then, which connects to the other point I was considering. By all accounts, the US economy is doing badly. And from a layman's perspective, it doesn't look like Barry is up to the task of turning it around. It's not wishful thinking either to imagine that dwindling economic power will translate into a loss of weight and influence in the international arena, in favor of players like Brazil and Russia, but mostly China. The fall of the USSR is still fresh in the memories of many people but that wasn't "normal", and that's not how great powers usually lose their status. The (western) Roman empire didn't fall overnight, either.

Yeah... but this is a discussion about religious extremism if at all, not Stalin. If you weren't suggesting a link, making veiled references to communist dictatorships makes no sense. Stalin was by all accounts a mass murderer and a political extremist, but he was also an anomaly as far as Soviet leaders go. There is no connection between extremism and organized religion in the Soviet Union, because political extremism was largely stifled after Stalin's death, and religion was banned there. What I'm saying is that this attempt to summarize the full 70 years of Soviet history as a reign of extremism by association with Stalin is pretty weak. No. I said politics are necessary as well as intrinsic, because they are a part of the social mechanisms by which anything larger than a family is run. I also said I'd love to hear any suggestions about a world without politics. You try to put this necessity at the same level as religion, but you completely fail to substantiate that argument, other than by appeal to the tried and failed argument of social inertia and tradition. You mean that there are no secular organizations running charities where you live? How is charity and social work a monopoly of religious organizations? Hey, madrasahs are both religious and educational institutions - therefore, organized religion is necessary to run the educational system, right?

facepalm.jpg I thought you weren't drawing connections between the absence of organized religion and Soviet crimes? I guess you can't help it, but you could at least man up and admit it, instead of being cute and then huffing and puffing when called on it. Yeah, Stalin was as extreme as it gets. The Soviets themselves acknowledged this, and that's why the was likely assassinated and his policies undone to a good degree before his corpse was cold. But it's convenient that you ignored the rest of my post, where I explain that we can't do away with the eternal source of problems that is politics. If you have an alternative, I'd love to hear it. While you're at it, why don't you explain what is the essential role that organized religion fills in running modern, secular countries?

And, http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone03242011.html Also, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12660329

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.