Libya

[Walsingham]

Rebels take Ras Lanuf

 

If they can actually pull this off, and IF they don't turn out to be corrupted by Jihadi Fried Chicken then it's an intoxicating prospect, and I may have to apologise to the various airforces and navies.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Walsingham

[Guard Dog]

Don't know where to start, really. Pax Americana has been a fact of life since 1945. You have full spectrum dominance, African commands, European commands and Asian commands, you have the largest global military budget and enough nukes to destroy the universe. Twice. There isn't a single square foot of this planet you can't surveil, bomb or put boots on the ground. Every single international organisation concerning Western defence is predicated on American approval and strategic direction. You've spent ten years (not unreasonably) stirring up some of the most unpredictable hotspots on earth in order to avenge an attack on your sovereign territory, and you've resorted to extra-judicial measures to achieve it. It's been a helluva ride.

 

As a result you've had the world more or less they way you wanted it for for almost seventy years, believe it or not. You've had your ups (Ike, Reagan, LBJ) and your downs (Carter, Nixon, Bubba) but all things being equal I don't think you've done a bad job so far. So that's a tick in the 'Least Worst World Superpower' box. And what's really, really clever about the Pax Americana (and I say this as an admirer) is how you've dressed it up as something not even remotely imperialistic - your cultural and economic hegemony trumps the military and diplomatic ones in most folk's minds. Let's say burgers and Levis 501s versus the USS Nimitz and the NSA.

 

You know there's a but, right? But ,the quid pro quo, old bean, is that you have put yourselves in a position where it is your freaking business. The Colin Powell doctrine (You broke it, you fix it) can be applied to all sorts of cause and effect. Iraq stirred up the pot and the Gaddafi rapprochment with the West (hey, at least he's our bastard) made him bold. Now he needs putting back in his box.

 

To an outsider, the American duality where one minute you want to play Team America with a glint in your eye, the next an isolationist good ol' boy who simply wants to sit on his porch and watch the sun goes down is truly baffling.

 

Just re-quoting my previous comments to gftd1's sentiments on US isolationism for Di's and Guard Dog's delectation.

 

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube!

 

I missed this post before, very well put! Like I said, the days when American self sufficiency and neutrality were the ideal are long gone. As much as I could wish for a renaissance as you said we cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. Military power hase been used and misused in equal measure since the end of the cold war made it realtively consequence free. I do think it is all together appropriate to intervene when country A attacks country B (1991 Gulf War for example), Civil Wars/Revolutions however are another matter all together. It is one thing to support one side or the other politically or logistically through clandestine means but this is not the case in Libya. We have for good or ill actively thrown in with the rebels the moment we began air stikes on Libyan ground troops. Plus for all of Obama's protestations that we'll be out in days and no ground troops are coming why are the 2nd Marines and 82nd Airborne now on full alert and packed for deployment? If Gaddafi is replaced with a theocratic government or a government controlled by an organization like the Al-Queda or the Muslim Brotherhood does anyone here seriously believe the world would be better off. A military dictator can be expected to act in his own best interests most of the time, not so with some radical religious leader. I would not sacrifice one drop of American blood or one penny of American treasure to settle an internal struggle of a country in which there are no "good guys" just two choices of evils. Apparently in this, as in so many other things these days in the USA, I am in the minority.

[Walsingham]

In fairnes, GD, I think that it would be wiser to accept that the good guys and bad guys often change day by day. I mean, acoldly realistic assessment of Great Britain would paint us as a rather unreliable ally - and the reverse if you don't mind my saying so. yet we muddle along quite nicely more or less by pretending that we are best chums.

[Walsingham]

Unrelated to my previous comment, I was thinking what a shame it is that my grandad is dead. He could have been flown in, with a chally 2 and some other old desert rats. maybe not 100% effective, but he'd have enjoyed himself.

[Guard Dog]

In fairnes, GD, I think that it would be wiser to accept that the good guys and bad guys often change day by day.

 

There is an old saying, "Friends come and go, enemies accumulate".

 

But seriously, the UK and the US have a common set of values, shared history and culture to a point. Our governments are similar enough that our ends on the world stage often complement each other. The same is true with most of Europe, even Russia & China at times. But nothing could be farther from the truth when discussing the regimes and muslim theocracies of the middle east. Their viewpoint, politics, religion, ambitions on the world stage and ends are so different from ours as to be nearly alien. They might as well be a different species. There are some exceptions, Turkey has managed to integrate the muslim faith into a modern nation, although their loyalty to thier western partners has yet to be seriously tested. Iraq, if it is succesful may become a second example. But for the most part history has taught us that in the middle east, the friend you help today will be the enemy you fight tomorrow.

[Calax]

GD, that's not just the Islamic nations that are like that. India, and everything east of there have a significantly different set of values and a wildly different culture, In a similar way to the Muslim nations. Japan isn't that different anymore after forced modernization and political change post-Meji restoration and post-ww2, and china followed a different track. But most of those eastern asia cultures are still as radically different than ours as the Muslim culture, they just don't have the extremely powerful church to connect their ideologies.

[Gorth]

But most of those eastern asia cultures are still as radically different than ours as the Muslim culture, they just don't have the extremely powerful church to connect their ideologies.

You won't say that when heavily armed Zen Buddhist guerillas starts the next insurgency somewhere...

[213374U]

I'd suggest that the difference is intent. I have a friend who cuts strangers open almost every day. They are frequently hospitalised. She's a doctor.

 

To use an expression I heard this morning, 'putting warheads on foreheads' can be for good or bad. It's not double standards, it's just not moral relativism.

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.

[Calax]

But most of those eastern asia cultures are still as radically different than ours as the Muslim culture, they just don't have the extremely powerful church to connect their ideologies.

You won't say that when heavily armed Zen Buddhist guerillas starts the next insurgency somewhere...

Zen Buddhists vs military Junta, vs commies.

[Walsingham]

I'd suggest that the difference is intent. I have a friend who cuts strangers open almost every day. They are frequently hospitalised. She's a doctor.

 

To use an expression I heard this morning, 'putting warheads on foreheads' can be for good or bad. It's not double standards, it's just not moral relativism.

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.

 

On the contrary, the humanitarian intent of the UN resolution is nonsense WITHOUT regime change. That's my own analysis and those of articles I've been reading but I must apologise since I didn't bookmark them. By which I am talking in terms of common sense rather than legal prestidigitation - which I have solid and unshakeable contempt for.

[Humodour]

So Wals, you still disagree with me?

[Walsingham]

So Wals, you still disagree with me?

 

I can't remember. Would you mind restating your point?

[Humodour]

Everyone's going to be in favour of a no fly zone until we accidentally - and inevitably - hit some residential civilian target.

 

I utterly fail to see why we should risk pilots taking part in an action which will be abandoned long before it does any good just so Independent readers can ignore the fundamental contradictions in their worldview.

 

That was kind of my point. My analysis is that the rebels are losing because they are fundamentally and inescapably disorganised. A no-fly zone at best reduces the 'war' to 2 dimensions, and the rebels still can't pass muster.

 

The head of the Arab League, who supported the idea of a no-fly zone, has criticised the severity of the bombardment.

 

His comments are significant because the Arab League's backing for the plan was a key factor in getting UN Security Council backing for the resolution authorising the move.

 

"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.

 

Said this would happen, in response to Krez earlier. Never seriously expected this so soon.

 

All that anyone seems to want is enough military action so we can say we're being tough, irrespective of the fact it won't do the rebels any bloody good.

 

All I'm saying is have a little faith. The critics have fallen silent, Qatar and Turkey and the UAE are still on side. Even Egypt is arming the rebels via their shared border.

 

The no-fly zone was, and still is, a fundamentally good idea. The pro-democracy rebels were beaten back to Benghazi because they were out-gunned and out-armoured as much as it was because they were disorganised. The no-fly zone was exactly what was needed to tip the balance back in their favour. And because of our help they've retaken half of Libya so far.

 

I do not give one **** right now about the hypocrisy of the UN, or the fact that we'll do this but probably won't give a damn about Syria or Yemen or Bahrain. It sucks, but maybe in the future we'll live in a world with more balls to do what is right because the world took a gamble with Libya and it paid off in the end. One step at a time. One dictator at a time.

[Walsingham]

Well, I certainly agree with you about the need for a little more courage in our convictions. I think perhaps our disagreement was practical rather than theoretical. My objection was that there would be an outcry after inevitable bombing casualties (however low), and the rebels would fail to deliver success on the ground.

 

Obviously as of today we seem to have stayed the course with the bombing, and the rebels seem to be making progress. However, if the British Army and the Italians went yo-yoing back and forth across that area during WW2 I'm not being unfair if I'm skeptical about the ability of the rebels to continue making gains. Not now they've moved towards Sirte which we're told is a ghaddafi loyalist area.

 

Ghaddafi's forces have taken a thorough spanking from airpower so far. But don't expect them to continue doing so, especially not in built up areas which our rules of engagement preclude us hitting. Also ask yourself what the rebels have demonstrated in terms of mobility and the application of firepower, both of which are strongly linked to logistic and tactical organisation.

[obyknven]

A RAND document reviews the U.S. oil policy in the mid-East and associated regions. It points out (p. 60) that President Carter enunciated this policy on January 23, 1980 in his State of the Union Address:

 

 

Edited March 28, 2011 by obyknven

[213374U]

On the contrary, the humanitarian intent of the UN resolution is nonsense WITHOUT regime change.

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.

 

 

Well, I certainly agree with you about the need for a little more courage in our convictions.

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".

 

 

I do not give one **** right now about the hypocrisy of the UN, or the fact that we'll do this but probably won't give a damn about Syria or Yemen or Bahrain.

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

Edited March 28, 2011 by 213374U

[Humodour]

I do not give one **** right now about the hypocrisy of the UN, or the fact that we'll do this but probably won't give a damn about Syria or Yemen or Bahrain.

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.

 

Clown, please step back from your bitter view of me for a moment and understand what I am saying: in my ideal world, we (as a collective world) would have the conviction do what's right not only in Libya, but wherever it's appropriate to do so, regardless of our or anybody else's strategic interests.

 

This is not my ideal world. It gets closer and closer to it every day of my life. But right now, I must resign to reality that Egypt and Tunisia are on the road to liberty but for the citizens of Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc that human ideal must remain out of their grasp for a while yet. But Libya... the country is at a crossroads. It could be allowed to slip back into totalitarian obscurity, or it could be allowed to permanently elevate itself. It is plain as day that without the world's help, totalitarianism will triumph. It is also plain as day that with just a modicum of support from the outside world, millions of people can be given the freedom to shape their own lives as they rightfully deserve.

 

I am merely taking a moment to reflect upon the beauty of the fact that, for once, the world has largely moved as one to uphold the dignity of a people not just with words but with action. Even though the alternative would have been far more politically expedient for almost all parties involved. This is no Iraq, and it's no Afghanistan. It is a turning point in the history of the UN and a long-term win for human rights. Even if the UN inevitably regresses to its bickering, selfish ways, we at least now have a glimpse of how it would work in a more ideal world, and can strive towards that.

 

You call it "arbitrary application of the law" - would you actually prefer we did nothing in Libya because we're doing nothing elsewhere in the world, just because it's more logically consistent? What a pathetically nihilistic attitude.

 

Oh, and I'm no leftie. I'm no rightie. Your pigeon-holing is loathsomely boorish.

[213374U]

This is not my ideal world. It gets closer and closer to it every day of my life. But right now, I must resign to reality that Egypt and Tunisia are on the road to liberty but for the citizens of Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc that human ideal must remain out of their grasp for a while yet. But Libya... the country is at a crossroads. It could be allowed to slip back into totalitarian obscurity, or it could be allowed to permanently elevate itself. It is plain as day that without the world's help, totalitarianism will triumph. It is also plain as day that with just a modicum of support from the outside world, millions of people can be given the freedom to shape their own lives as they rightfully deserve.

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.

 

 

I am merely taking a moment to reflect upon the beauty of the fact that, for once, the world has largely moved as one to uphold the dignity of a people not just with words but with action. Even though the alternative would have been far more politically expedient for almost all parties involved. This is no Iraq, and it's no Afghanistan. It is a turning point in the history of the UN and a long-term win for human rights. Even if the UN inevitably regresses to its bickering, selfish ways, we at least now have a glimpse of how it would work in a more ideal world, and can strive towards that.

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 call it "arbitrary application of the law" - would you actually prefer we did nothing in Libya because we're doing nothing elsewhere in the world, just because it's more logically consistent? What a pathetically nihilistic attitude.

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.

 

 

Oh, and I'm no leftie. I'm no rightie. Your pigeon-holing is loathsomely boorish.

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. Edited March 28, 2011 by 213374U

[pmp10]

Whatever happened to non-interventionism, the idea that democracies don't start wars and the rule of law applied to international relations?

They were never true?

The wishful thinking of select few doesn

[Walsingham]

Apologies to all for lack of response. But there's too much meat in here to just cough back something off the cuff. And the mixing of that metaphor shoudl tell you all you need to know about how hard I've been working the leetle grey cells today.

 

As an aside, Qatar appear to have agreed to act as broker for the Libyan rebels' oil.

 

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/03/28...rude-liberated/

[Zoraptor]

It is a turning point in the history of the UN

Oh yes, the UN has now formalised that its charter ain't worth the paper it is written on. It's not a good precedent that has been set, it is a terrible one. It is not just the west, self-satisifed, bloated and slowly percolating in its own stewed sense of superiority that can use this precedent, thusly:

 

Russia v Georgia

 

It's grossly hypocritical for the same set of players who decried the Russian 'invasion' of Georgia (done in response to Georgians attacking rebels and mandated peacekeepers and their well documented use of, wait for it, Grad missiles, aircraft and tanks on residential areas in Tskinvali) to be spouting off about the Moral Clarity of intervening in Libya. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Who is deserving of freedom has everything to do with who the west's friends and enemies are, nothing to do with morality. Why do Kosovars deserve freedom but Abkhazians don't? Because Georgia is a friend of the west. Why is the quality of Libyan freedom so much greater than that of Bahraini (picked because it is tiny both geographically and in population, and has a large US presence there already, not because they are particularly egregious) freedom. One is an enemy, the other a friend. It is as far from codifying a great moral advance for the UN as it is possible to be, all it has done is clarify that pretty much anything up to and including the UN's own rules can be ignored so long as it is us, not them, doing the ignoring.

[Monte Carlo]

Realpolitik, Old Chap. I can't believe anybody can get so hot under the collar about it. Metternich would have approved of the UN for it's opacity and hopelessness in the face of reality.

 

J-DAM the Colonel, stabilise the place, get that oil flowing and then start tickling the next Middle Eastern domino, Bahrain or Syria or Iran. They're all gonna fall, baby, they're all gonna fall!

 

Which way is the question.

[Humodour]

This is not my ideal world. It gets closer and closer to it every day of my life. But right now, I must resign to reality that Egypt and Tunisia are on the road to liberty but for the citizens of Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc that human ideal must remain out of their grasp for a while yet. But Libya... the country is at a crossroads. It could be allowed to slip back into totalitarian obscurity, or it could be allowed to permanently elevate itself. It is plain as day that without the world's help, totalitarianism will triumph. It is also plain as day that with just a modicum of support from the outside world, millions of people can be given the freedom to shape their own lives as they rightfully deserve.

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.

 

 

I am merely taking a moment to reflect upon the beauty of the fact that, for once, the world has largely moved as one to uphold the dignity of a people not just with words but with action. Even though the alternative would have been far more politically expedient for almost all parties involved. This is no Iraq, and it's no Afghanistan. It is a turning point in the history of the UN and a long-term win for human rights. Even if the UN inevitably regresses to its bickering, selfish ways, we at least now have a glimpse of how it would work in a more ideal world, and can strive towards that.

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 call it "arbitrary application of the law" - would you actually prefer we did nothing in Libya because we're doing nothing elsewhere in the world, just because it's more logically consistent? What a pathetically nihilistic attitude.

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.

 

 

Oh, and I'm no leftie. I'm no rightie. Your pigeon-holing is loathsomely boorish.

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.

 

Oh shut up you silly little fool. You can sit in your armchair all you want ranting about how sage you are and how everything is going wrong, but meanwhile actual history is unfolding before you and will inevitably do far more to show you up than my words can.

[Humodour]

The Egyptian parliamentary election will be held this September:

 

CAIRO

[Zoraptor]

Realpolitik, Old Chap. I can't believe anybody can get so hot under the collar about it. Metternich would have approved of the UN for it's opacity and hopelessness in the face of reality.

Metternich is an odd chap to refer to, Machiavelli would fit a whole lot better as he almost certainly would approve.

 

Metternich spent almost his entire career trying to make sure a balance of power was maintained and that, effectively, nothing changed. He was also just a touch reactionary. I rather suspect he'd regard this latest adventure much the same as he regarded Napoleon's imperial adventures.