213374U

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.

Good for you. However a rise in oil prices following the closure of Libyan wells would affect the US, whether you get your oil from there or not, especially as Japan's needs are expected to increase in the future. The 2008 economic crisis caused a serious loss of purchasing power in developed countries and the last thing we (you) need now that things are starting to look up is a >$150 oil barrel. And that's without getting into the possible catalyst effect that international intervention in Libya can have in other unstable oil-producing countries. Sorry but no. Taking sides in the civil wars of other countries is not only against one of the founding principles of the UN (Charter art. 2.7), it's also something very likely to backfire, immediately or down the road. Further, in this particular case, the rebels are just about defeated and all the allied strikes have achieved is prevent government forces from dealing the coup de grace. How do you figure we help them "seek freedom"? Frankly, if there's anything specious here it's your high-calorie analogies, old boy. See how many people you can convince that the full weight of the law should only fall on the weak - and only when the judges stand to benefit directly from dispensing punishment. It's not about "at once" either - rather, it's about "at all".

Thanks. So if the only military actions we are willing to undertake -outside self-defense- are those which "aid our economy" or have a decent chance of us coming out ahead in other respects, then that is the deciding factor, and not humanitarian concerns - pretty much the way societies have been acting since the invention of the spear. Only they didn't have nukes back then and therefore didn't need to sit down and get the rest of the big boys' approval to get started. Humanitarian concerns don't weigh on policy makers' consciences any more than they did on Augustus'. I loved the "sacrifices most people would not vote for" bit, as well. Delicious. I take it that you walk your way everywhere, warm yourself in winter with the power of your own self-sufficiency alone and the computer you wrote that from is made from wood, then?

When is force justified, you say? Well, according to the UN, it's justified whenever the UN Security Council says it is. That's one nice little corrupt loophole we got ourselves there, don't you think? "Achievable", yes. This is a key consideration. I'd go further and say "profitable", in terms of money, resources, strategic concerns etc. You don't go to war suspecting it may wreck your economy unless it's a war of annihilation. However, judgements of that sort are apparently only accurate in retrospect, and I guess the perfect example of this is in fact the as of yet unknown end result of the war in Afghanistan. The alternative, you ask? Beats me. But I'm not running for office.

Mind, I wasn't suggesting that we target the PRC next. It was just a reduction to the absurd of what you said were the reasons for the strikes. Those, along with the sham that is "international law" are so much bunk. It's always about the money, and if Libya wasn't where it is, the poor (un)armed Libyan rebels would burn for all we care, as have the Somali, the Uyghur or the ****ing Congolese. Humanitarian bull**** and the international legality window dressing are just tools at the opinion manufacturer's disposal to hit the part of the masses' psyche that is still governed by the judeo-christian ethos that defines Western culture. Democracy, **** yeah!

Well, if you are going to base your argument on the ability and willingness of countries to target US citizens in the past and completely going to ignore present geopolitical realities, then I hope that, for the sake of coherence, your follow-up will be an endorsement of airstrikes against the PRC and Russia. Because, before the attacks begun, Libya was even less of a threat to the US than Iraq in 2003.

Because, clearly, the Libyan state is in a position to threaten US national security. The power to declare war is a prerogative exclusive to Congress. Arguably, the Prez could act to prevent something like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, but authorizing airstrikes on Libya, even if it's to protect Libyan (as opposed to American) civilians is hardly the same. Maybe simply the whole concept of DOW is obsolete but that doesn't change the fact that simply deferring to the decision of an international forum -largely an instrument of the powerful anyway- doesn't give a President, PM or whatever powers above and beyond what's ordinarily invested on him. You know that you and I see eye to eye more often than not, but... really? edit: me suck at engrish. D:

Yes, with a strange dash of Lord of Flies methinks. Possibly. But ad hominems are ever so convenient. I'm very curious to see how this is going to turn out. If as Zor suggests a mass defection and/or the killing of Qaddafi are achieved, the regime change part of this business may be completed. However, the West's record on the subject of foreign political reconfiguration is rather unimpressive, and at any rate it rests mostly on the tacit, ever-present threat of literally awesome military force being brought to bear on them should things deviate too much from the plans laid out for (read: imposed on) them. We are already seeing the ability of the American military to project power being questioned, and the not-so-good economic juncture certainly won't help. And that is an optimistic prediction. If, on the other hand, foreign military intervention galvanizes Qaddafi's supporters and/or we fail to kill him quickly, things could get much uglier as the opportunistic leaders of this coalition start to feel the political heat derived from their failure to achieve their objectives in a timely fashion, and their already battered popularities take another hammering with elections around the corner. I'm specifically looking at Sarko, and to a lesser extent Obama. I have trouble imagining where this would go, but one thing is certain: we won't like footing the bill for their foolhardy grab for glory. In any case, I think the deployment of a sizable land force is unavoidable now and somebody will have to get around to it at some point. Unless we're happy with Libya becoming the next Somalia, but given its location in Europe's backyard and the energy thing, I very much doubt that. The undisputed winner in the game so far and for the foreseeable future is clearly Putin. If only because his rivals are so astonishingly incompetent and weak.

Are they? And here I thought that the idea of beating a country into submission by airpower alone was rendered obsolete in, like, 1944. That only worked in Yugoslavia after the Dayton Agreement, only here the scene and actors make something like that unlikely to happen. And even in that case a massive land-based peacekeeping force still had to be deployed to ensure compliance. So, who's going to cough up the troops to fight Qaddafi's loyalists in their own turf, after the US have declared that they have no intention of getting involved in another land war for the time being? The Europeans? Hahaha... that'll be the day.

Funny how the Arabs asked for it, the Europeans enacted it, and the US ended up doing the heavy lifting anyway. And now that the no-fly zone is a reality... what is next? Do they really expect Qaddafi to quit simply by grounding his air force?

Unfortunately, for the Japanese there isn't much choice with regards to nuclear power. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110314-ja...ian-gulf-energy ^ While the piece's interpretation of Japan's WWII economic factors is... not what I'm used to reading, it's essentially right in that Japan's huge industrial economy is extremely sensitive to changes in the availability of oil. Nuclear power mitigates this dependency, somewhat. Perhaps if the power plants hadn't been so close to the littoral, the tsunami would have been a non-issue and damage less catastrophic, but the bottom line is that Japan really does need her nuclear plants.

Nice turnabout by Inter, but I don't think the knockout result really reflects what went on on the field. Eto'o was probably the most defining player, and he's pretty deadly when he and Sneijder are online, but I was generally more impressed by Robben's usual speed and technique. The referee was pretty much spot-on too which seems to be something worth remarking on these days. All in all, a much more interesting match to watch than Barcelona v Arsenal.

Fortunately, I am a native Spanish speaker, and there are some inexactitudes in what you posted. - Draws are in fact secret, and carried out under the supervision of a notary. If there was any evidence that clubs have access to this it would be a major scandal and would possibly land a bunch of people in jail. - It's not 2 games per day that are tested, it's 2 games per league "working day". Much as the Premier League, Spanish League working days have games distributed between saturday and sunday, and the system has one game from each day be tested. - Players aren't warned, only coaches and team delegates. Players are notified after the game is over. - Exclusive urine testing is standard practice in the French, German and English football leagues. No, it's only so if we accept suspicions and innuendo as proof. Odds of actually being caught are low indeed, but the system is not designed to be easy to sidestep as you suggest. Yes, but in those cases, there were actual trials in which they were acquitted. There is no such thing for what you (and some media outlets) are doing which is basically fling poo and make baseless accusations. There is no way of fixing that because there was never any actual evidence to discuss - not that this little fact matters much to some people. It doesn't look like Madrid is actually doing anything - all there is is what some sports radio journalist says he understood, and now he's backing down. No official statement from Real from what I've gathered. At any rate, I don't see how asking for better refs and more stringent doping controls would be hypocritical, unless they have been proven in the past to be guilty of these conducts. If they ask for that, it's hypocritical. If they don't, they are taking advantage of a system that's easy to game. What would be an acceptable way for them to proceed then?