Brontoforumus Archive
Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: Bongo Bill on May 19, 2008, 03:47:13 PM
-
Well, we've still got our boys off in Iraq (among other, less controversial places). Things are still happening there, and before much longer it's going to be turning into an election-time issue. So I'm a bit curious what people have to say about it. Even if they've said it before.
So, um, tell me? I mean, I'd appreciate it if this didn't turn into a flame war, so that people feel comfortable speaking frankly about it. (I mean, I don't. I'd get yelled at.)
-
You have no idea how lucky you are to have a military commander as intelligent and proactive as the 4-star there right now.
There are some interesting tales from the past that are emerging, and a lot of lessons learned, especially on the subject of why "prior planning and preparation prevents piss poor performance", but it would be a sin to leave Iraq off in the state that it is now, despite the fact that it was illegal to go in there in the first place.
Iraq is going to be an issue, almost as much with what you will see happen to the polar icecaps this summer. Things are already heating up and the Iraqi government is seeing both the cracks in the Sadrist militia, as well as why a Shia militia in a multi ethnic society is a very bad thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbollah).
While the military in Iraq is an absolute clusterfuck, I am more than sure they are much more efficient by the soldier already than say, the islamic republics to the east or west. They're going to suck hardcore for another two years, gradually getting better, an improvement from not doing anything at all last year, and they will gradually continue to improve so long as the weak links in the chain of command get rooted out after every offensive like we are seeing right now, and that the Iraqi Government holds stable.
They are not too strong a government right now, but more and more are they willing to increase their sovereignty and the signs of normal life in places like Baghdad and Basra are slowly returning.
Things are much better than the summer of 2006, and while they are not as optimistic as 2007 when small tribal militias rooted out Al Queda for dissatisfaction for not acting in the interests of Iraq, let alone acting the function of a proper municipality, That's because the focus is on the Iraqi government to be serious about exerting their own rule - By law.
I find it almost funny as I think about it more: Staying in Iraq until it is stable enough to rule itself "is a punishment fitting of the crime of invading there" in the first place, and it fits considering that your nation is too frakking isolationist to own up to your own crimes in international law through mechanisms such as the ICJ. I also believe in the "If you leave, the terrorists will follow you home" bit, as leaving an unstable and overrun Iraq will give violent NGOs a fabulous base to train in the exact same fashion that the Ruskies gave Al Queda an opportunity to nurture in Afghanistan by invading, then pulling out. The best part is, unlike Russia, your country has proven itself well to be a "target-rich" environment.
Also, while your at it you might want to invest in several more logistics teams for the US military to a separate command in the spirit of the US corps of engineers. This is most likely a purely awesome idea twofold: 1st, it gives organizations such as DHS and USAID new mechanisms for deploying aid and longterm sustainment in the event of local disasters, longterm deployments, or staging grounds for NGOs and PRTs in foreign nations. Also, you've done well in proving that the private sector is indeed much more expensive than "socialized" operations abroad.
-
You have no idea how lucky you are to have a military commander as intelligent and proactive as the 4-star there right now.
Well, I have an idea, but.
-
I don't doubt Petraeus's skill or qualifications, but I don't trust a word Bush or McCain says because they lied through their teeth to get us there. Iraq has proven a breeding ground for terrorists, and every day we stay there it serves as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Muslims see the invasion as an assault on the Muslim world, and I'm not sure they're wrong.
That's why the "they'll follow us home" argument doesn't hold water. We're in far more danger now than we were before we invaded, and the longer we stay the more enemies we'll have. Even in the unlikely case that we managed to stamp out al Qaeda in Iraq (which, bear in mind, DID NOT EXIST until we went in), we'd still be facing a whole new generation of terrorists throughout the Middle East.
The Iraqi government needs to learn to take care of itself, and it's not going to do that as long as it has to rely on foreigners to hold its hand. I find SCD's "having to stay until it's fixed is fair punishment" line patently offensive as the people being punished are the soldiers, not the neocons.
It's lose-lose at this point. What's going to happen, best-case, is that Iraq becomes another Iran, a nation with a democratically-elected Shi'ite government that hates us. And that's going to happen whether we keep our troops there to continue getting killed or not.
As for what this nation thinks? Polls tend to show that it depends on how the question is asked. Most Americans support timetables but oppose immediate pullout. Most oppose leaving before the Iraqi government and military are capable of supporting themselves, but most also oppose staying any longer than the next two years.
How that affects the election is hard to say. The war is incredibly unpopular, and McCain has tied himself to it inextricably. I don't think he's going to be able to convince a plurality of swing voters that he's the better choice on those grounds, and I think if he wins it will be because the Democratic Party fucks up. Again.
As for what THAT nation thinks? Iraq wants us the fuck out. The people want us out, and the Parliament wants us out. The Executive Branch is flouting the will of the Legislative Branch, which should hardly come as a surprise from a puppet of Bush. Our leadership is sending something of a mixed message in saying we need to give control over to the Iraqi government and then refusing to leave when it tells us to.
In summary, we need to get the hell out. Obviously we can't pull out immediately. But I want to see a timetable for withdrawal by this time next year.
-
Fine, fine. Bush lied and that's where we are now.
The problem with Iraq now is that, on an international level, we're obligated to restore Iraq to at minimum a more stable state than it was in under Saddam.
Many worldwide would agree that Iraq is not as stable now as it was under Saddam.
-
(http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/gywo.winninglosing.gif)
You could send American companies to try to pump money into the economy, but that would feel like a cultural invasion.
Maybe invest in local Iraqi businesses?
-
In summary, we need to get the hell out. Obviously we can't pull out immediately. But I want to see a timetable for withdrawal by this time next year.
Ahh, so this is where we are five years later. We're setting timetables on the setting of timetables.
The problem now, which was the problem in 2003, is that we don't have a clear definition of our goals yet (still). When Bush descended from the Heavens on his splendid silver airship and declared our Mission to be Accomplished*, the unwashed masses gathered together and cried in unison, "What Mission did we Accomplish, o President?" And then he sort of turned red in the face and climbed back into his plane, flying away hastily and flipping off the American people on the way past.
Now, usually, just to have an answer to this question, people will usually say that our goal is "a stable government in Iraq." This sounds good but when you sit down to write a mission plan out of it you realize it still doesn't tell you a damn thing. What constitutes a "stable government", and how the fornicate is America going to force one on the Sand People? The only blueprint we can be expected to work off of is our own government, which isn't really all that stable; it manages not to collapse entirely by jading its people to the point to where we don't even react to scandal and corruption (Daily Show had a pretty neat segment once, depicting a foreign riot erupting over their PM lying about something, shown side-by-side with a typical American's reaction to the same sort of news, i.e. he casually eats some pizza and tries to change the channel).
If we were to honestly attempt the same in Iraq, then we need to first eradicate any sense of culture and pride from the natives, and then replace it with an atmosphere of moral apathy and crass capitalism. In other words, the only way to rehabilitate Iraq is to force it to experience the 80s.
This sets our timetable for withdrawal at a disappointing whole decade, but on the bright side our soldiers will have access to all the women with big hair and headbands they could want.
* I will never forgive George Walker Bush for turning such a succint and useful victory statement into a common joke. It's a minor irritation if you happen to like designing games in which there are missions to accomplish complete.
-
You'd think the soldiers would take better care of their interpreters. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer)
Many worldwide would agree that Iraq is not as stable now as it was under Saddam.
Many worldwide agree that the earth is flat. Cite some evidence here.
-
Many worldwide agree that the earth is flat. Cite some evidence here.
:wuv:
-
You'd think the soldiers would take better care of their interpreters. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer)
Dated, I urge you to notice, March 2007.
-
...This may be a silly question, but... What's your point?
-
Meaning, it was written before this whole "Surge" thing I hear so much about. It seemed like it'd be an important consideration, when asserting something is representative of the present that took place prior to a comprehensive change in policy.
-
It's a good article which did reflect the mood a year back. The events of 2006 did make be believe that the US was completely frakked.
Thad -- Good points on your end, although I disagree on two. My statement on punishment, as unapologetic as I will be, should be downright offensive as opposed to "patiently". I thank you for your respectful tone on the issue nonetheless. I only hope that criminal charges get pressed against the original perpetrators, the policy makers as opposed to the executors, and the friends who profit extraordinarily from things such as school-building, catering and laundry services. Those "mercenaries" must be brought to account.
The second is your lose on both cases account. While I know you understand and respect my reasons to the point where it bears no repeating, the way the political borders within Iraq are drawn up do not make it easy to see a shia absolute majority in the assembly. At best, the Iraqi government will have to deal with coalition parties. At worst.. Well my country seems to function with a minority parliament and we can't seem to do anything with competence :facepalm:
Afghanistan on the other hand doesn't seem so well from my perspective, but then again my country has one of the highest death ratios in the operational theatre, excluding the natives. Looking forward to the extra USMC reinforcements in Kandahar :wuv:
-
but then again my country has one of the highest death ratios in the operational theatre, excluding the natives.
I think we can mostly attribute that to the fact that we've combined sticking ourselves in harms way with an appalling lack of equipment to back that up. On the bright side, I'd like to think we're doing more good than countries hiding out in the safer provinces with their fingers in their ears.
-
Meaning, it was written before this whole "Surge" thing I hear so much about. It seemed like it'd be an important consideration, when asserting something is representative of the present that took place prior to a comprehensive change in policy.
The problem with the surge is that it's temporary. We can't sustain current troop levels indefinitely.
It also bears noting that, in addition to the surge, much of the decrease in sectarian conflict can be chalked up to brutal militia rule and increased sectarian separation.
That's another, albeit less likely at this point, possible outcome of the war: Iraq being split into three nations by sect.
My statement on punishment, as unapologetic as I will be, should be downright offensive as opposed to "patiently".
"Patently", actually. No "i".
I thank you for your respectful tone on the issue nonetheless.
Dissenting opinions are welcome here. Thank you for sharing yours in a thoughtful manner.
I only hope that criminal charges get pressed against the original perpetrators, the policy makers as opposed to the executors,
If there were justice in this country, Bush and Cheney would already be impeached. They'll never face justice for their crimes, and the harshest punishment Bush will ever receive is watching how history judges his actions.
As for "executors", of course it depends on executors of what. Obviously the ones committing war crimes should be held accountable, but of course we're talking about the average soldier here.
and the friends who profit extraordinarily from things such as school-building, catering and laundry services. Those "mercenaries" must be brought to account.
We're more likely to see them punished than the Bush Administration, at least. The Iraqi government's response to Blackwater a few months back is probably the strongest example of them standing up to the US since taking power.
The second is your lose on both cases account. While I know you understand and respect my reasons to the point where it bears no repeating, the way the political borders within Iraq are drawn up do not make it easy to see a shia absolute majority in the assembly. At best, the Iraqi government will have to deal with coalition parties.
Well, a majority of the population is Shi'ite, and a massive plurality of the parliament is the Shi'ite United Iraqi Alliance. On the whole, the population is a lot friendlier to Iran than to the US.
For all the Bush Administration loves to talk about spreading democracy, it's less than crazy about democratically-elected governments that don't agree with us. Iran is honestly the most stable democracy in the region, and that's why I say that it's the best case that Iraq can aspire to. (Tangentially, there's also the administration recently getting into a tizzy about Jimmy Carter speaking to Hamas, the democratically-elected ruling party in Palestine.)
At worst.. Well my country seems to function with a minority parliament and we can't seem to do anything with competence :facepalm:
Oh, I think that's far from the worst-case. :nyoro~n: A two-party system isn't exactly ideal either; ours got us into this mess.
Afghanistan on the other hand doesn't seem so well from my perspective, but then again my country has one of the highest death ratios in the operational theatre, excluding the natives. Looking forward to the extra USMC reinforcements in Kandahar :wuv:
The Forgotten War is one more reason I think we need to start pulling the hell out of Iraq. We abandoned the real fight, and the Afghans, the Iraqis, our troops, your troops, and our safety have all suffered for it.
-
At worst.. Well my country seems to function with a minority parliament and we can't seem to do anything with competence :facepalm:
Oh, I think that's far from the worst-case. :nyoro~n: A two-party system isn't exactly ideal either; ours got us into this mess.
You misspelled "Bush and friends."
-
Bush and friends are in office because Al Gore ran a poor enough campaign in 2000 that Bush ran close enough to steal the election. Al Gore ran a poor campaign because he spent it trying to make himself look like he was only slightly to the left of Bush, and he did that because that's what you DO in a two-party system. If two people are playing a game of "pick a number", the first person picks 5 and the second picks 6. (Tangentially, if the first person picks 10, the second picks 9, which gets into how the Republicans have managed to shift the "center" to the right.)
I don't know what would have happened in 2000 if, say, Nader, Buchanan, and Browne had all been viable candidates. Maybe Bush STILL would have ended up in the White House. But if we'd had a more diverse party system in Congress, we would have seen better opposition to the war.
And so, steering this post back on-topic, it bears repeating that the Democrats did not do enough to prevent this war from happening. They didn't HAVE to -- the GOP is the party of war hawks; in a lesser-evil system the anti-war vote goes to the Democrats no matter WHAT a shitty record they have, because their record is better than the Republicans'.
I saw a Rolling Stone article some months back titled The Chicken Doves (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves) which posits that Reid and Pelosi never had any intention of ending the war and have been deliberately ineffective for the past two years just so they could spend this election season saying "See? See? Our hands are tied! We need a supermajority! Vote in more Democrats!" Frankly that interpretation is too cynical even for me; I tend toward Hanlon's Razor in situations like this. But I have to admit it would explain a hell of a lot.
Any way you slice it, "effective" is not a word anyone would use to describe our current two-party Congress.
-
The Iraqi government's response to Blackwater a few months back is probably the strongest example of them standing up to the US since taking power.
I got this sudden surge of hope when you mentioned the Iraqi government growing a spine and talking back to us, and I think I see now what the endpoint of this war is going to be. Our troops will leave Iraq when their people manage to organize themselves enough to force us out. That is literally our goal. It's a student-overtakes-master sort of thing.
This is obviously a silly idea for a lot of reasons, but I think it's the endpoint that some people are shooting for, and anything that ends the conflict is fine by me. Write up a timetable for that. I want our asses kicked by 2010.
-
Taking into account who is bankrolling this little Iraqi excursion, I'm inclined to pull the troops out today. As I was last year. And the year before that. And the year before that. Annnnnnd the year before that.
Any way you slice it, "effective" is not a word anyone would use to describe our current two-party Congress.
A big meme I heard during the 2006 elections was "Vote in Democrats, gridlock is good for the country."
-
...But we ALREADY had a do-nothing Congress.
-
Both sides are incompetent, but there's only one we expect anything good to come out of.
-
I think the problem is that people look at it in terms of sides, rather than people. It's not a fucking football game. The more we treat it like one, the more we'll find that it is one.
-
Of course. And that's the nature of a two-party system.
I would argue (and a certain President Washington (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#20) would agree) that it's the nature of a party system in general, but I still believe that more parties would be better.
-
I think the problem is that people look at it in terms of sides, rather than people. It's not a fucking football game. The more we treat it like one, the more we'll find that it is one.
It is one.
-
Is it President Republican, or President Bush?
-
The difference only matters if his party starts disagreeing with him.
-
Standard bullets not powerful enough to fight Iraqis. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_re_us/army_chief_bullets)
Soldiers in Iraq are now claiming that they have to first collect at least two M powerups before they can damage the stage bosses.
-
Armor-piercing rounds don't work, because they're not wearing armor! We need cloth-piercing rounds!
-
Fine, fine. Bush lied and that's where we are now.
The problem with Iraq now is that, on an international level, we're obligated to restore Iraq to at minimum a more stable state than it was in under Saddam.
Many worldwide would agree that Iraq is not as stable now as it was under Saddam.
Saddam kept Iraq stable by rolling tanks down city blocks and demolishing apartment buildings every time someone found 30 decapitated bodies in an alleyway somewhere. Look at Baghdad; it's basically split in half between two ethnic groups that hate each other. It's not like this is a new development and a bunch of Sunnis and Shiites decided to shack up in new digs in the middle of a warzone. The truth is, after a few years of getting used to it, the two sides have figured out that America is one thing that Saddam was not; accountable to the international community. The fact that we're not barbarians is the very reason that we'll never be able to stabilize the region. Iraq either needs brutal force, religious guidance, or one of the factions to be utterly obliterated. As long as we're in the region, I think the most likely thing to occur is option #3. I don't exactly expect the islamic ghandi to come into power anytime soon, so option #2 is, realistically speaking, completely out. Option #1 is unacceptable. We're America. We're getting enough heat for what we're doing in the region without dragging religious leaders into the streets and publically executing them.
-
I don't exactly expect the islamic ghandi to come into power anytime soon
NOBODY EXPECTS THE ISLAMIC GANDHI!
(http://kazz.rooms.cwal.net/gandhiquisition.JPG)
-
how would a passive jihad work
insurgents just going limp in the way of american soldiers
"OH GOD WE CAN'T MOVE THESE TRUCKS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE LIMP IRAQIS, WARS OVER GUYS"
-
WaPo: Key Iraqi Leaders Deliver Setbacks to U.S. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061302019.html)
The Bush administration's Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.
Yeah, it turns out getting us the hell out of Iraq is an election issue there, too.
-
So, I know this has been asked about a billion times over the past four years, but if nobody in Iraq wants us there, why are we there?
-
Obviously so we can secure a supply of cheap oil so that gas prices don't suddenly jump up 80% in a year.
-
Lawl! That worked out.
My biggest fear is that, this time next year, we'll be yearning for the gas to go back down to four bucks a gallon. (I understand that California already is.)
-
I would kill you for four bucks a gallon.
-
Gas here is a billion dollars a gallon.
Let's crack open Alaska.
-
Oh, it'll crack open on its own soon enough if we keep driving.
-
(http://earthfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/jed_clampett.jpg)
-
If we could just make cars that ran on blood, we'd be set.
-
Of course, of course.
-
Gas here is a billion dollars a gallon.
Let's crack open Alaska.
Realistically speaking it's still too expensive to drill oil in Alaska. The cold makes the oil too thick, so they need special drilling tools that heat the oil with steam before extraction. The result is that it costs more than twice as much to extract the oil which means we're spending more money than if we just bought it from the saudis, in all likeliness.
Now, the california and florida coasts, on the other hand...
-
Oh goody, more fun on the way. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080627.wpakistan28/BNStory/Front/home)
-
Gas here is a billion dollars a gallon.
Let's crack open Alaska.
Realistically speaking it's still too expensive to drill oil in Alaska. The cold makes the oil too thick, so they need special drilling tools that heat the oil with steam before extraction. The result is that it costs more than twice as much to extract the oil which means we're spending more money than if we just bought it from the saudis, in all likeliness.
Now, the california and florida coasts, on the other hand...
an addendum to this; I read an article the other day. Apparently the american oil industry has apparently not yet tapped 90% of the waters they ALREADY have access to, because 'off shore drilling takes a lot of work'. Bawwwwwww.
-
Hey, I call bullshit! You guys were supposed to stop this crap after that naked guy refused to eat any soup!
You'd think the natives of SWAT Valley would be more able to defend themselves.
-
an addendum to this; I read an article the other day. Apparently the american oil industry has apparently not yet tapped 90% of the waters they ALREADY have access to, because 'off shore drilling takes a lot of work'. Bawwwwwww.
And a lot of money. And it's pretty much a crapshoot.
If they could with reasonable certainty get oil, they'd drill.
-
That's the bullshit point though, they can find out if oil is there, but they're not. They refuse to even do the explorations to see if the oil is there in the first place.
If they had genuinely done the work and said after the fact, 'welp, sorry guys, no oil there', I'd understand. but at this point the oil industry is just bawwwing because they might take a hit to their profit margin. I don't have a lot of pity for the people responsible for me having to spend ten bucks in gas just to go see my inlaws on the other side of town.
-
Do you honestly think that if oil is expensive to drill that gas will be cheap to purchase?
-
No, not at all.
I don't think we should be signing off more free land to the oil industry when they haven't used the land they already have.
The gas prices note was simply that I don't have pity for the people gouging for gas right now and their bullshit complaints about profit margins.
-
Hey guys this is probably news to you again by now. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080627.wpakistan28/BNStory/Front/home)
-
That's the bullshit point though, they can find out if oil is there, but they're not.
Well, they kind of already found out. That's pretty much why they leased those waters in the first place, actually.
My father was a geo-physicist during the 80's / early 90's, whose job it was to project where oil could be found. He himself told me, as much as they knew, there were still a lot of gaps. Now, obviously, things have changed, his job is now done much more efficiently by computers, blah blah blah whatever.
However, since it takes something like 3-5 years to actually just set up an off-shore oil well (not to mention that construction typically occurs 3-4 years after acquisition of the lease), how old do you think some of those leases are? Also, do you think oil companies only bid on the high-probability oil fields? Do you think they just let the low probability oil fields pass them by?
-
So...? We should just give them all the land they want and then not make them use it because it might be inconvenient for them?
-
I miss the good old days of terrorism, when educated young men blew themselves up in the name of an ideology they believed in. (http://www.aswataliraq.info/look/english/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrArticle=85015&NrIssue=2&NrSection=4)
When asked about the main reasons that have driven those women to become suicide bombers, Bajlan explained that 3 percent of those attacks were conducted by women who have lost close male relatives- a son or a husband- during security operations launched by Iraqi forces or Multi-National Force (MNF) personnel.
"But the majority of them, almost 97 percent, were forced to commit suicide bombings. Most of them were drugged and taken to the scene to carry out the operations," Bajlan noted.
-
If there's any upside to this, it's that you can tell your children that drugs will make them explode. And you won't be kidding.
-
This is what happens when you actually carry out so many suicide attacks that you entirely deplete the 'retarded brooding intellectual student' population.
-
So I guess a "poor human resources" crack goes here.
And the fists collide with my face here.
-
They've an excellent dental plan. And Lisa does need braces...
-
They've an excellent dental plan. And Lisa does need braces...
:ohshi~:
-
That's the bullshit point though, they can find out if oil is there, but they're not.
Well, they kind of already found out. That's pretty much why they leased those waters in the first place, actually.
My father was a geo-physicist during the 80's / early 90's, whose job it was to project where oil could be found. He himself told me, as much as they knew, there were still a lot of gaps. Now, obviously, things have changed, his job is now done much more efficiently by computers, blah blah blah whatever.
However, since it takes something like 3-5 years to actually just set up an off-shore oil well (not to mention that construction typically occurs 3-4 years after acquisition of the lease), how old do you think some of those leases are? Also, do you think oil companies only bid on the high-probability oil fields? Do you think they just let the low probability oil fields pass them by?
About Three-forths of the leased land is not currently producing. (and probably hasn't even had any exploratory shit done)
Plus the oil companies pay bullshit low fees on the leases. (2 to 3 dollars an acre)
-
A guy says the war is over. (http://michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1690:success-in-iraq&catid=34:dispatches&Itemid=55)
-
Well, that's good news.
I heard the recession only exists within our minds, too!
-
America is a nation of whiners
Whining makes you explode just like an IED does
-
Clearly the troops are not supporting the troops.
-
A valid point concerning all that "The Surge did the trick!" self-congratulation. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080805.wcomment0805/BNStory/specialComment/home)
-
Worked in the planning office of Kofi Annan?
The same office which couldn't do anything about any war that happened in the last several years and only major "accomplishment" involving blue berets was Haiti?
The Balkans missions were successful because when implimented by NATO, they had a pretty damn high foreign troop per capita ratio. Surge-Iraq still is woefully short of those numbers.
Such numbers as used in the Balkans were specifically used to prevent incidents and casualties so as not to hit the news in such a way that Iraq did.
The surge allowed for more troops to be on the ground in the hotspot, and when every set of boots is a source of HUMINT, the information web of the area of operations becomes a lot less tangled.
This is important as not only does it prevent incidents through action, but lack of incidents make for ideal environments for conflict resolution through dialogue. The population segregation of 06 was not complete by any means, nor is it now. Potential for further events in those areas does exist, although logistical conditions are less favorable now that there are several more Iraqi boots on the ground - ones who have gotten rid of the balaclava.
-
Also fair.
-
Isn't it common sense in guerilla warfare to simply hang back and chill when the enemy floods yon occupied cities with extra troops? The Surge just struck me as an incredibly lame "well, what the fuck else can we do?"
-
Here's the difference: When you flood all the cities and the guerrillas stop blowing things up, your presence will be perceived as deterring, rather than promoting, explosions. The surge's significance is less in quelling the guerrillas and more in all the many things that can be done during a period of greatly diminished guerrilla activity.
-
So you're saying they can fix all those niggling "no clean water in Baghdad" issues without the insurgents around?
Researching, and... ah. Well, ha. I guess maybe they could have. (http://news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/NEWS07/808020337)
EDIT: Article's slightly misleading - they start off with an event that happened a couple years ago as if it happened three days ago.
-
Here's the difference: When you flood all the cities and the guerrillas stop blowing things up, your presence will be perceived as deterring, rather than promoting, explosions.
Perceived by whom?
The surge's significance is less in quelling the guerrillas and more in all the many things that can be done during a period of greatly diminished guerrilla activity.
Notice your use of "can be" rather than "will be" or "have been".
-
First: by anybody. Everybody. Perception is everything in this war.
Second: I meant exactly that, though I didn't intend it as a criticism or endorsement of policy, strategy, or the success of any particular tactic. It is simply a fact that fewer explosions leads to different opportunities. Not all of them are easy, desirable, or sane, but they do include in particular the opportunity to engage in the more constructive aspects of occupation.
-
First: by anybody. Everybody. Perception is everything in this war.
No, it isn't, and that's the attitude that got us in this mess in the first place.
Fuck perception. At some point somebody's going to have to start acknowledging reality. The American public perceived that Saddam had WMD's and ties to al Qaeda, and that's how we got where we are. It doesn't matter whether the public PERCEIVES that the surge is working, what matters is whether it actually IS. And as IM and Brent's links point out, there's a pretty good argument to the contrary.
Now, I'll grant that if a majority of Iraqis think the American presence is responsible for the decline in violence, then that in and of itself could be an example of the surge "working" -- hearts and minds and all of that. That's the reason for my question, "Perceived by whom?"; it's the Iraqis', not the Americans', perception that is important here.
But I see little evidence that that's the majority opinion in Iraq. I think the majority opinion in Iraq -- and, frankly, the reality of the situation -- is that our presence is RESPONSIBLE for the violence.
McCain recently attributed the success of the Anbar Awakening to the surge, and was rapped on the knuckles for it because the Anbar Awakening began months prior. Worse yet, he talked about how the surge had helped protect Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi -- if so, it did a pretty poor job, as he was assassinated. (Lots of sources on this, but for now I'll go with Juan Cole on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/93081/forget_the_surge_--_violence_is_down_in_iraq_because_ethnic_cleansing_was_brutally_effective/).)
These mistakes of McCain's are not simple gaffes. On the subject of the war -- the thing he's building his campaign around -- he either has no idea what he's talking about, or he's lying.
Second: I meant exactly that, though I didn't intend it as a criticism or endorsement of policy, strategy, or the success of any particular tactic. It is simply a fact that fewer explosions leads to different opportunities. Not all of them are easy, desirable, or sane, but they do include in particular the opportunity to engage in the more constructive aspects of occupation.
Opportunities are great, but results are the bottom line. The purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi government and military breathing room to get their shit together -- and you'll recall that we stopped hearing the slogan "We'll stand down as they stand up" about the point we found out how many squads in the Iraqi army were ready for duty.
As for the government, it's divided sharply on sectarian lines, and its greatest accomplishment is to tell us it wants us out.
-
So, okay.
Ron Suskind has a book coming out that alleges the White House asked the CIA to forge a document supporting an Iraq/al Qaeda link. (Numerous sources on this; I'll go with Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/145626.asp?from=blog_last3) for the link.) His sources, Rob Richer and John Maguire, are denying it, but Suskind says he has them on tape.
The noise machine is, of course, calling this a partisan witch-hunt, which is just :disapprove:. I don't understand how we reached a point where something like starting an intractable war based on lies can be treated as a partisan issue. Lord knows if we ever had a Democratic President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson) who did that, I for one wouldn't be defending him.
But since that's what it's become, that's one more reason we need Obama in the White House come January -- McCain will just continue stonewalling any attempt at Congressional investigations, and while I fear that Obama will have Ford's "let's just get past this" mentality, I also think he'll support Conyers in his investigations.
Jonathan Schwarz over at TMW (http://www.thismodernworld.com/) has been covering the story pretty well.
-
Back to the "Good War", it would appear that the US military contractors are just as good at not killing our soldiers accidentally as the US military
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKOj1Xi0Eh_CxxAES038wZSr5crg
:facepalm:
-
Lord knows if we ever had a Democratic President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson) who did that, I for one wouldn't be defending him.
While his foreign policy was utter crap and completely undefendable, his domestic policy was quite good. Civil rights, and education and all that good stuff.
-
Lord knows if we ever had a Democratic President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson) who did that, I for one wouldn't be defending him.
While his foreign policy was utter crap and completely undefendable, his domestic policy was quite good. Civil rights, and education and all that good stuff.
I... I think Thad knows that, and was just referring to the decision to invade Vietnam as indefensible, not his entire presidency.
-
Thank you, Det.
-
I wasn't meaning to argue, I was just saying. It does seem that most unfairly ignore that stuff though. Like a few textbooks I read. :facepalm:
-
up here, we just focus on the fact that he yelled at our prime minister :sadpanda:
THE GUY WON A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, WHY WOULD YOU YELL AT HIM
-
That's okay. Trudeau got revenge on Nixon for us. Multiple times.
-
Isn't it common sense in guerilla warfare to simply hang back and chill when the enemy floods yon occupied cities with extra troops? The Surge just struck me as an incredibly lame "well, what the fuck else can we do?"
True. The only counter to that is to have the streets patrolled by a strong, competent military and police force comprising of the loacals.
This is what is happening more and more.
Also, It appears that the Iraqis want to see the US phased out (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7577127.stm)
If that goes as planned, it would be an honorable way to leave.
-
If you consider it honorable to veto a bill containing timetables and then turn around and support them a year and a half later, then yeah, there's nothing more honorable than using human lives for election-year leverage.
-
I was going to say "Name me a President who hasn't" but I figured that would be overly pessimistic and it would be fairly trivial to do.
On the other hand, I couldn't think of one off the top of my head.
So just out of curiosity...
Name me a President who hasn't.
-
Ray Bolger.
-
Ray Bolger is looking out for Ray Bolger.
-
If you don't want people jumping on your rhetoric, don't use it.
-
Yeah, how silly of me. I forgot the "all politicians are crooks" response excused everything ever done by everyone.
-
It means being that manner of hypocrite comes part and parcel with the job. Our boy on the BLU team has proven himself fully capable of it on a number of occasions now.
If you're angry that he vetoed timetables, say that. If you're angry that he turned an about-face on it for the sake of popularity, I say again, in all seriousness this time, find me somebody who wouldn't. And then tell me what office he holds.
(And if you're just angry that SCD is :attn:, well, can't help you there.)
-
It means being that manner of hypocrite comes part and parcel with the job. Our boy on the BLU team has proven himself fully capable of it on a number of occasions now.
All of which, as I already pointed out, is an irrelevant straw man.
If you're angry that he vetoed timetables, say that.
Wha...?
I HAVE said that. Probably dozens of times. In fact I just said it just now, in the post you're currently criticizing.
If you're angry that he turned an about-face on it for the sake of popularity, I say again, in all seriousness this time, find me somebody who wouldn't. And then tell me what office he holds.
Feingold was the sole dissenting vote on PATRIOT. Kucinich made unpopular decisions as mayor of Cleveland that are so respected in hindsight that he made Congressman. Even Lieberman, irredeemable little pissant that he is, has made it abundantly clear he won't back down on the war even when it hurts him politically. Ted Kennedy came out of the hospital after having a brain tumor operated on to participate in a close vote, and I'll tell you right now that HE'S not worried about whether he'll get reelected.
Of course, three of those four have run for President and not even gotten the nomination. So maybe you could rephrase your point to say that people like that don't win national elections.
All of which is still an irrelevant straw man. I don't like that Bush commuted Libby's sentence. I also don't like that Clinton pardoned Symington. That's not a fucking contradiction in terms. The fact that every politician is an asshole doesn't mean I can't point out when one's being an extra special super asshole.
(And if you're just angry that SCD is :attn:, well, can't help you there.)
Well yeah, he referred to this as "honorable". Which is of course a euphemism for "face-saving". Bush and McCain don't deserve to save face. They're as good as mass-murderers in my book, and the fact that Hillary Clinton is too doesn't fucking excuse it.
In Clinton's case, her inconsistency on the war was a, if not the, factor that cost her the nomination. And if McCain benefits on November 4 for switching his stance to what Obama's has been for the past four years, well, something something stupidity of the American people.
-
In Clinton's case, her inconsistency on the war was a, if not the, factor that cost her the nomination.
I think the fact that she is Medusa, Queen of the Gorgons did not help.
-
If by that you mean "lots of people hate her for no rational reason", then yes, that's true.
I've always thought there were plenty of rational reasons not to like her.
-
Of course, three of those four have run for President and not even gotten the nomination. So maybe you could rephrase your point to say that people like that don't win national elections.
Name me a President who hasn't.
Sorry about the confusion, I'll try and be less specific next time.
(And before you open your damn pie hole, yes, you did answer my second question, but go figure out who turned that into "all politicians are crooks" in the first place. Then look up the definition of "strawman" one more time. Then reread that post and try and figure out if it was meant to be some sort of ineffective, waffling attack, or a snarky remark that turned into another futile attempt to open dialogue that you had to shoot down.)
-
I don't know what the hell you're actually asking, or what you want me to say that I haven't already. "Name me a President who hasn't" isn't a deft rhetorical tactic, it's completely fucking beside the point. "Every President does it" is not equivalent to "It's honorable", no matter how literally you parse my sarcasm.
But all right, since you're demanding an answer to your irrelevant question and insisting that this will somehow open up dialogue: Carter's handling of the Iranian hostage crisis was a key contributor to his defeat in 1980 -- but every hostage came home safely.
You want to tell me with a straight face that that's equivalent to starting a war based on lies and then stonewalling attempts to end it until the last possible moment -- which also just happened to be right before an election -- then be my guest; I imagine that will make for an interesting thread.
It just doesn't have much to do with this one.
-
Never really said it did. I know I'm sarcastic a lot, but "just out of curiosity" really does mean what it says on the tin.
Totally good answer, though; I was hoping you'd have dug up something like that in the first place, instead of bitching about a broad topic being derailed. I'm gonna go play TF2 now, irritated but satisfied.
-
Then Brentai set fire to me, so I came back here.
o/` It's the circle of liiiiife o/`
-
Well hell, if it was just a random musing all along, I'm sure we could start a list.
The John Adams miniseries made a point that he basically sacrificed reelection by refusing to join France's war against England. Though that's not exactly recent history.
-
So okay, here's one for those few of you in the "the surge is working!" crowd. Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1953066020080919):
Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.
The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.
Emphasis mine.
-
Er, sorry That I missed that multiple weeks ago. I'll throw a picture of why on the photo thread for measure..
When I said honourable, I meant honorable in the sense that the Iraqis are dictating the terms of America's departure. Given the overall clusterfuck and destroyer of economies home and abroad that war has become, it makes me perpetually optimistic of that place.
-
Has this been brought up, already? AAAAAAAHHHHH :fukit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYxTzDFofZQ
-
That is fear mongering.
Bad fear mongering.
Deploying to Active Status is a 'army' term and not a Government term and only does a few things:
-Places all soldiers on Notice to Move
-Gives reason to increase training tempo.
However, in a state of emergency only can the national guard "deploy" in actual real-world terms. This is why during Katrina, while there was NG units on the ground, there were Canadian Navy Assets on the ground before the US army could do anything. (I hear the sailors brag about that every time katrina came up at a pub for the last few years)
Now, chances are you might see army elements in the event of emergency doing support tasks such as construction or laying out command infastructure, however in an immediate state of emergency, it will be only NG boots carrying out actual patrols or Law enforcement duties -
-Unless it is approved by all houses/martial law. Then the checks are out the window
-
Okay. I'm not very good with politics or detailed points on foreign conflicts. Can somebody help tell me if the separation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghan.saudi.talks/index.html) is a good thing or something to be worried over?
-
It's pretty much what it looks like -- a lot less than ideal, but an improvement. Of course, the US striking enemy-of-my-enemy alliances in Afghanistan is what got us into this mess in the first damn place.
-
I missed this article on Saturday. Maybe this helped lead to the article above? Apaprently the US Military claims to have taken down a mastermind of Al-Qaeda (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/04/iraq.main/index.html).
-
On purpose this time?
-
T Thad: NATO went into Afghanistan to deny Al Queda the use of Afghanistan as a recruiting pool and a overt training facility by the government's blessing. To any military commander, the first principle of war is "selection and maintenance of the aim".
T Madmax: Expect those negotiations to run until 2010 before some fruit is produced. Until then, we're fucked - but not hopeless.
-
An interesting rundown on airport security, and the uselessness thereof. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200811/airport-security)
Best little op-ed piece I've seen on this in a while.
-
An excellent read; thanks.
-
Should I bother turning that into swiss cheese, or can we just agree that diverting all the funding from the Transportation Security Administration because MacGyver can pass a checkpoint (but never mentioned if he boarded) is one step too far?
-
On another occasion, at LaGuardia, in New York, the transportation-security officer in charge of my secondary screening emptied my carry-on bag of nearly everything it contained, including a yellow, three-foot-by-four-foot Hezbollah flag, purchased at a Hezbollah gift shop in south Lebanon. The flag features, as its charming main image, an upraised fist clutching an AK-47 automatic rifle. Atop the rifle is a line of Arabic writing that reads Then surely the party of God are they who will be triumphant. The officer took the flag and spread it out on the inspection table. She finished her inspection, gave me back my flag, and told me I could go.
MacGyver indeed.
-
Withdrawl Agreement with terms very favourable to
Iraqis common sense. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/27/iraq-us-foreign-policy)
Can anyone confirm this? I can't seem to find hide nor hair of this on other sites and this is one hell of a bombshell if true.
The justice of Bush trying to steal Obama's thunder by trying to out-Obama-img him instead of waiting to be hit by the post inauguration train is just too delicious.
-
Interesting photos (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1863348,00.html) of how things are going over in Iraq now. I rather like the guy selling womens products.
-
An interesting rundown on airport security, and the uselessness thereof. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200811/airport-security)
Best little op-ed piece I've seen on this in a while.
Is he actually bragging that he smuggled toothpaste into a plane? Wake me up when he uses that Beer Belly to get nitroglycerin through.
-
British pulling out mid-next year. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hbZikm3XcaWGmusIaxb-WEHmZ2DQ)
-
Thank god. I was starting to chafe.
-
(http://brontoforum.us/Themes/default/images/post/who.gif) (http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/driftycity/jamesbond.gif) (http://brontoforum.us/Themes/default/images/post/bean.gif)
-
Turning away from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and up north to the ongoing war between Cat and Mouse, vermin around the world are cheering as a handful of blessed whiskered martyrs have successfully burnt down a cat shelter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7792475.stm).
-
Seems as good a place as any, I suppose.
Israel apparently blows away a U.N. relief convoy headed for Gaza (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009181119551714.html).
I can understand concerns about car bombs and whatnot, but aren't those kinds of convoys painted up with everything short of a sign reading "WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS, PLEASE DON'T SHOOT"?
-
That is... not going to end very well at all.
-
It will end just as Israel wished for it to end.
U.N. Suspends Aid Deliveries to Gaza Strip (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010800842.html?hpid=topnews)
according to United Nations Relief and Works Agency spokesman Chris Gunness. He said three U.N. workers have been killed by Israeli fire so far and that aid will not resume until "the Israeli army can guarantee the safety and security of U.N. personnel."
Israel doesn't want aid to come in for the victims. They want a killing field.
-
I don't know if I'm qualified to employ the g-word in this case, but yeah, it does come to mind. The abominable irony of it...
-
Israel apparently blows away a U.N. relief convoy headed for Gaza (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009181119551714.html).
I can understand concerns about car bombs and whatnot, but aren't those kinds of convoys painted up with everything short of a sign reading "WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS, PLEASE DON'T SHOOT"?
I wonder why so many people have negative opinions of Israel? :shrug:
I recall that a US F-15 once bombed a BBC truck, injuring one journalist and killing at least one more. It may have been a friendly fire incident (it's hard to distinguish a BBC vehicle from an insurgent vehicle at that height and I don't know if the BBC carries IFF), but it certainly doesn't look good when they do this so straightforwardly and with minor repercussions.
-
As a 1st-world nation player, no one kills more blue berets than Israel. There's always one or two every conflict, and UNIFIL even got the occasional bomb during the lull of fighting in 05.
That's all I have to say.
Also, one other thing to add - Ukrainian Peacekeepers stole a lot of crap from the UN while on duty including vehicles. They were part of UNIFIL. As a consequence, there were plenty of news reports showing aerial footage of white vans in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere with rocket crews hopping out. That was also while I was there in 05. I hear similar stories now, except the ukranians are no longer welcome to participate.
-
It will end just as Israel wished for it to end.
U.N. Suspends Aid Deliveries to Gaza Strip (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010800842.html?hpid=topnews)
according to United Nations Relief and Works Agency spokesman Chris Gunness. He said three U.N. workers have been killed by Israeli fire so far and that aid will not resume until "the Israeli army can guarantee the safety and security of U.N. personnel."
Israel doesn't want aid to come in for the victims. They want a killing field.
They don't know what they want as a collective nation. I've never seen a democratic nation so divided into extremist and liberal camps in my life - America included.
-
Speaking of ambulances and rockets, there's this interesting report:
http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
-
Israel says "Fuck you" to UN resolution demanding a ceasefire. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090109/D95JK0UO0.html)
So ... this is where we invade Israel for flouting UN resolutions, right?
-
We?
-
Israel invades during the end of a presidency that will let Israel do whatever the fuck Israel wants to do and has enough time to wrap up before we get a presidency that hopes it doesn't have to ask Israel to calm down. :perfect:
-
So, what, we're doing a wave of lame-duck massacres?
-
Taking sides on conflicts like this is a difficult thing to do. One side makes no attempt to differentiate between military and civillian targets, while the other one can't, either through internal incompetence (Through attacks on static UN installations) or actions of the enemy (useage of stolen UN/NGO equipment as platforms for rocket attacks). As far as Israel goes, their "sledgehammer to a mosquito" tactics cannot avoid civilian casualties when the enemy lives and fights among them - not that they have much alternative.
So far, the lopsided media coverage has been god awful, just as much as the 2006 war against Lebanon. While the IDF is not helping by barring anyone from entering the Gaza Strip, certain outlets seem to be just guzzling back the word of Hamas - morale-rousing hyperbole and all. That's not to say that the "self-defense" statement is wearing thin either..
The timing itself has little to do with the presidential election. It was based around the ceasefire. The timing of the end of the ceasefire is something else, but it was planned long before the election.
Anyways, I have nothing new to say since 06, but the BBC has an interesting article on the language of Hamas Propaganda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7815630.stm).
Well worth a read.
Also, if the majority of Americans wants to punish Israel, they can just draw down the military aid. You'd be surprised how much of your taxpayers money gets wasted over there.
-
Israel says "Fuck you" to UN resolution demanding a ceasefire. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090109/D95JK0UO0.html)
So ... this is where we invade Israel for flouting UN resolutions, right?
I'm going to assume you left these parts out on accident. :mystery:
Israel and Hamas were not parties to the council vote and it is now up to them to stop the fighting. But a Hamas spokesman said the Islamic militant group "is not interested" in the cease-fire because it was not consulted and the resolution did not meet its minimum demands.
Hamas has said it won't accept any agreement that does not include the full opening Gaza's blockaded border crossings. Israel is unlikely to agree to that demand, as it would allow Hamas to strengthen its hold on the territory which it violently seized in June 2007.
Anywho, I'm personally waiting for the resolution condemning Israel and the U.S. vetoing it. That hasn't happened in a while.
-
Also, if the majority of Americans wants to punish Israel, they can just draw down the military aid. You'd be surprised how much of your taxpayers money gets wasted over there.
This is true!
Ynet - Israel still top recipient of foreign aid (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3362402,00.htmll)
Israel, long since the US' top recipient of foreign aid, will receive USD 2.4 billion. Since 1979 and the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Israel has annually received up to USD 3 billion in aid.
As part of with an initiative by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the civilian aid has been steadily decreased over the course of the past 10 years, going from USD 1.2 million to being completely cancelled this year. At the same time military aid to Israel has increased from USD 1.8 billion to USD 2.4 billion.
Although the U.S. gets most of the money back:
FAS - CRS Report for Congress (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf)
Recent U.S. Military Sales to Israel. Israel uses almost 75% of its FMF funds to purchase U.S. defense equipment.
-
We?
The coalition of the willing? :8D:
Taking sides on conflicts like this is a difficult thing to do. One side makes no attempt to differentiate between military and civillian targets, while the other one can't, either through internal incompetence (Through attacks on static UN installations) or actions of the enemy (useage of stolen UN/NGO equipment as platforms for rocket attacks). As far as Israel goes, their "sledgehammer to a mosquito" tactics cannot avoid civilian casualties when the enemy lives and fights among them - not that they have much alternative.
So far, the lopsided media coverage has been god awful, just as much as the 2006 war against Lebanon. While the IDF is not helping by barring anyone from entering the Gaza Strip, certain outlets seem to be just guzzling back the word of Hamas - morale-rousing hyperbole and all. That's not to say that the "self-defense" statement is wearing thin either..
The timing itself has little to do with the presidential election. It was based around the ceasefire. The timing of the end of the ceasefire is something else, but it was planned long before the election.
Anyways, I have nothing new to say since 06, but the BBC has an interesting article on the language of Hamas Propaganda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7815630.stm).
Well worth a read.
Also, if the majority of Americans wants to punish Israel, they can just draw down the military aid. You'd be surprised how much of your taxpayers money gets wasted over there.
I think that the withdrawl of aid may be the 'fairest' thing to do. Or, more accurately, it's almost like a real-world version of the oft-made comment to just build a giant dome over the middle east and come back in 100 years.
-
Also relevant: A quick reminder of just what the greatest trolls in the world are up to. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090109.wcoessay0110/BNStory/specialComment/home)
That giant concrete dome looks better and better every day.
-
Persians send sattelite into orbit. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090203.wiran0203/BNStory/International/home)
It's funny to note that the last time I bumped this thread, it was also about IRAN TROLLS WERLD.... AGAIN.
-
Meanwhile, North Korea was in the news again, and nobody even blinked.
-
LOL good - because if I recall, they pretty much just randomly started shouting "LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
-
...how is that different from what you're going on about?
-
Come to think of it, "LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" basically summarises all my posts on this board.
-
Guild's, too.
-
OHSNAPINTOASLIMJIM
-
Obama sets firm withdrawal timetable for Iraq: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_iraq_31)
President Barack Obama consigned the Iraq war to history Friday, declaring he will end combat operations within 18 months... "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,"...
... Obama will leave the bulk of troops in place this year, contrary to hopes of Democratic leaders for a speedier pullout.
And after combat forces withdraw, 35,000 to 50,000 will stay behind for an additional year and half of support and counterterrorism duties...
Obama's promise to pull home the last of the U.S. troops by the end of 2011 is in accord with a deal that Iraqis signed with former President George W. Bush.
:tldr: Christmas 2011, with major draw downs before the 2010 midterms.
Think Progress with troop reactions. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/27/lejuene-soldiers-obama-iraq/)
By election day 2012, the Afghanistan War will have become a longer conflict than our involvement in World War 1, World War 2, and Korea. Combined.
-
On that day, I will watch Rambo III and laugh.
:wuv: And laugh. And laugh. And laugh.
-
By election day 2012, the Afghanistan War will have become a longer conflict than our involvement in World War 1, World War 2, and Korea. Combined.
There is one milestone yet. There is another war fought by the US in the last century whose absence from that list is... interesting.
A war that might be said to compare more accurately even... well... more accurately than WWI, WWII, or Korea anyway.
-
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/MSX_Campbell.png) We already had our Vietnam! Now you're going to have yours!
And laugh. And laugh. And laugh. And laugh. And laugh. Oooooh boooooy.
-
Already had it back when we were a British Colony.
It was called the Boer War.
-
Didn't you guys win that one, though?
-
We had to invent the Concentration Camp to do it. And then put THE ENTIRETY OF SOUTHERN AFRICA into one.
So, uh, YEAH ANYWAY.
P.S. Any soldier from the British Commonwealth during the last 150 years should damn well know what he's getting into when he decides is 'volunteered' to take a trip to sunny Afghanistan. No other people on earth - not even the Russians - have less of an excuse to pretend they don't know what happens to visitors (uninvited and invited) to the Afghan plateau.
-
Just Finished the Gambit by Thomas E Ricks, who had a lot of access into the military side of the house.
Did a fantastic job of summarizing all the camps of the war:
-The fall of Rumsfeld, Pace, Fallon and the peacetime school of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
-The council of Colonels and the few who went around the Chain of Command to get the Executive Branch on board to the idea that the people on the ground were fucking up Iraq in all aspects
-The badass acedemic Petraeus, and the unlikely people he surrounded himself with including the biggest skeptics of the Iraq war, and even individuals such as Emma Sky, who was a consultant and adamantly anti-war.
- How the US anti-war movement cornered itself into obscurity
- Why the situation is not as hot as people may believe
- Other lessons applied, and how they turned around the short-term security situation into something where the soldiers could walk around and "chitchat"
Worth a strong read. If it wasn't for the fact that the western leaderships have the stomach for doing things the long way, the book makes it seem like the first successful counterinsurgency against an Islamic nation in sometime.
-
so scd, i herd u lik mudkips
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/21/710750/-Canadian-to-Fox:-Go-Eff-Yourselves
-
I LUUUUUUUUUUV mudkips (http://www.antiauthoritarian.net/NLN/photo-gallery/2007_best_of_nln/thumbnail/2007_fuck_fox.jpg)
..And do does our gov (http://www.timescolonist.com/news/host+mocks+Canadian+army/1418851/story.html)
-
Actually, on the subject of satire our national treasure Rick Mercer has three rules:
1) Tell the truth
2) Don't be a bully
3) Don't be an asshole
Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090323.wfoxmercer0323/BNStory/National
Word has it that Fox has apologized, but I wouldn't mind seeing it out in the open.
-
Being a bully may not be satire, but being an asshole certainly is.
-
Riding horses... red uniforms...
What are they using for their source on this, Dudley Doright? Last time I checked, the CF rides Leopard C2 tanks and wears CADPAT uniforms...
-
Well, at least they didn't cuss while they said it. That's how you know Fox is a legitimate and valid cornerstone of professional journalism.
-
Word has it that Fox has apologized, but I wouldn't mind seeing it out in the open.
Here you go! (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090323.wfoxapology0323/BNStory/International/home)
:itsmagic:
-
In fairness to the guy, he is A) sort of doing a Colbert thing and B) is probably not informed enough of actual news events to realize how horrible his timing is.
-
It's on Fox. How is anyone supposed to tell if they're being ignorant douchebags or if they're just pretending to be ignorant douchebags?
-
Just a small reminder that Canadians can be just as retarded and petty. (http://beatonna.livejournal.com/89166.html)
Only nobody involved in this one had the balls to say it on a TV channel watched by millions.
-
If it weren't out in front of a damn strip mall I could believe that it's some deeper symbol of the futility of war in its representation of Canadian toys pointlessly killing American toys. But it's out in front of a damn strip mall. So it's probably just supposed to be a Canadian guy pwning an American dude.
We do that shit all the time, so it's not like I can even bother to be offended by it.
-
Word has it that Fox has apologized, but I wouldn't mind seeing it out in the open.
Here you go! (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090323.wfoxapology0323/BNStory/International/home)
:itsmagic:
Whoops, I stand corrected. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090323.wfoxapology0323/BNStory/International/home) Looks like spineless is the order of the day!
In an only semi-related comment, I think that the most lasting effect of the Afghan war on the Canadian public will be the general impression of petty ingratitude and ignorant derision from our neighbours to the south. No matter how right or wrong it may be, that's the image that's being graven into our collective thoughts.
It's a shame, because I'm not sure there's any real way for the US government to counteract the endless stream of small but painful incidents that have been continuing for years now. And the damage it does is incalcuable. The next time we're asked to help out, the answer may well be a very flat 'no', regardless of the validity of the request (for the record, I think we were right in our decisions to sign on to Afghanistan but to stay away from Iraq).
-
...the general impression of petty ingratitude and ignorant derision from our neighbours to the south. No matter how right or wrong it may be, that's the image that's being graven into our collective thoughts.
You guys are dumb and you should feel dumb! ...hey, where are you going?
-
The next time we're asked to help out, the answer may well be a very flat 'no', regardless of the validity of the request (for the record, I think we were right in our decisions to sign on to Afghanistan but to stay away from Iraq).
Well, Afghanistan was obligated by NATO. I mean Canada can technically not send military aid and support in other ways, but that's less "Sorry, America, not this time" :shrug: and more of a :fuckyou:. I doubt Canada-U.S. relations will ever get that bad.
-
The next time we're asked to help out, the answer may well be a very flat 'no', regardless of the validity of the request (for the record, I think we were right in our decisions to sign on to Afghanistan but to stay away from Iraq).
Well, Afghanistan was obligated by NATO. I mean Canada can technically not send military aid and support in other ways, but that's less "Sorry, America, not this time" :shrug: and more of a :fuckyou:. I doubt Canada-U.S. relations will ever get that bad.
:orly:
-
The future of NATO has been riding, in a major part on this clown's shoulder's for the last eight years (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090426.wafghan27/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)
:facepalm:
-
On Iraq, I've been using the Anbar Uprising as something of a model of Counterinsurgency done.. Not right, but as good as a non-Islamic occupier could get.
But recently, there has been a spike in violence in some of the Sunni districts in which the awakening-affiliated parties hold the required wasta to have order.
And now there have been some recent arrests on old charges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8031867.stm) which mostly predate the awakening. Apart from the BBC, it also seems to have slid under the western media radar.
I'm interested in seeing where this is going to lead as it is an indicator.
-
Soldier has killed at least four of his fellow soldiers. (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-11-voa21.cfm)
Oh riiiiight. We have guys over there going fucking nuts. Forgot about that! Sorry!
-
On the Afghan and US military front, the more I hear from your Secretary of Defense, the more I realize he's a scary guy. Doesn't like to talk much, unlike Rumsfeld, and his words tend to have a powerful effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uf_gKrFXN8&feature=player_embedded
I suspect this has something to do with allowing excessive reliance on fixed-wing aircraft munitions to resolve minor tactical situations.
-
And yet at the same time, he has that little waver in his voice that suggests he's going to break and hide under the table at any moment.
-
When the hell did you guys actually decide to use tactics and intelligence and appropriate levels of force and stuff to fight wars instead of playing the comedic Blundering Evil Empire role? It's almost like you want to win or something.
-
Things haven't been the same since Skeletor left office, nyeh.
-
I'm kinda miffed at our Secretary of Defense. But I'm sure everyone's already aware of the reason, and it has nothing to do with any war.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLXWZMbpxLo
Jon Stewart is certainly not going out of business anytime soon.
-
No!! They got EOD-157! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090521/sc_livescience/realsoldierslovetheirrobotbrethren)
Singer recounted another EOD soldier who ran 164 feet under machine gun fire to retrieve a robot that had been knocked out of action. And several teams have given their robots promotions, Purple Heart awards for being wounded in combat, and even a military funeral(!?).
I'm... that's kind of touching, even if those guys are a little touched in the head.
-
Pretty much every "humans and machines fight side-by-side" sci-fi book has assumed this would happen. It's not that much different from thinking of your tank or airplane as some kind of steed.
Assigning feelings to inanimate objects is something we've done pretty much since we could even conceive of "inanimate objects".
-
"One scientist said he was trying to build the Hunter-Killer drone from 'Terminator,'" Singer told LiveScience.
You uh... you know what Terminator is actually about, right?
-
Yeah, I'm more interested in a Hunter-Killer from Star Wars.
-
No!! They got EOD-157! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090521/sc_livescience/realsoldierslovetheirrobotbrethren)
Singer recounted another EOD soldier who ran 164 feet under machine gun fire to retrieve a robot that had been knocked out of action. And several teams have given their robots promotions, Purple Heart awards for being wounded in combat, and even a military funeral(!?).
I'm... that's kind of touching, even if those guys are a little touched in the head.
EOD guys are generally pretty nuts, yeah.
-
I guess they're just trained to go ballistic whenever something somewhere blows up.
-
Assigning feelings to inanimate objects is something we've done pretty much since we could even conceive of "inanimate objects".
I've slept with my issued rifle in the field before..
...What?
-
:wat:
How much grease do you have to use for that?
-
:oic:
y'know, that would be an ill-oppurtuned to have a negligent discharge, or misfire..
Ow
-
Oh I got your negligent discharge, right here!
-
y'know, that would be an ill-oppurtuned to have a negligent discharge, or misfire..
That's why you use protection.
-
Did the terrorists just attack a Starbucks? (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54O3A220090525)
-
They failed to simultaneously destroy a piece of corporate art though.
-
Rings too strongly of Fight Club bullshit, to me.
-
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Cannot believe I missed your post.
-
What appears an Islamic social victory against the Taliban in Pakistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8085680.stm).
How a combination of Taliban social and military blunders, free speech, and Paki military action may have won back the Swat Valley in Pakistan, as opposed to re-occupied it.
An Economist opinion piece on what Pakistan needs to do to de-radicalize their nation (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13740191)
-
I'm just glad they've had even this much success so far, because that's already more than could have been hoped for at the outset.
-
If we want to win Afghanistan and keep Pakistan under a democratic government with independent judiciary, the Pakis must take the NWFP.
-
If we want to win Afghanistan and keep Pakistan under a democratic government with independent judiciary, the Pakis must take the NWFP.
I would hope that kind of goes without saying. But then I suppose for most folks it doesn't.
-
Suicide Calvary! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8089535.stm)
Bonus Round: Pro-Western March 14 Bloc's election campaign. (http://www.thebigmoney.com/slideshow/lebanons-wild-political-advertising)
Hilarious.
-
Pakistan seyz "it's on like Donkey Kong"! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8090706.stm)
Quite a busy week in the Taliban war front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N9OhBqAMbU
Meanwhile on the other side of the Durand Line,
Some snippets (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-boy-throws-a-stone-and-gen-vance-teaches-a-lesson-in-counterinsurgency/article1169895/)show us that we aren't doing so hot on the counterinsurgency front (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hR-bACxbZDuVf2I9Ey_zEaLE3XNg) despite the numbers flowing in with the massive american reinforcements in the south.
-
After five days of putting Waziristan on notice, the Paki government finally gives the military its orders and objectives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8099833.stm)
:pimp: :approve: :dance: :8D: :glee: :goodnews: :nyah: :lol: :richiam: :justasplanned:
I suspect Bin Laden might have to find some new real estate. Quick
:perfect:
-
Meanwhile, Iran is doing a fine job of bomb bomb bombing itself.
-
Shootout in Kandahar kills several Afghan officials. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/top-officials-killed-in-kandahar/article1200349/)
Who the hell needs the Taliban? We're doing just fine all on our own!
This is a serious blow, make no mistake.
-
Wait, US troops have pulled out of Baghdad? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090629/ts_nm/us_iraq) Like, in significant quantities/completely? Hurray?
Shootout in Kandahar kills several Afghan officials. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/top-officials-killed-in-kandahar/article1200349/)
So some rogue unit decided to paste some of their leaders? 'cause, y'know, things aren't dire enough there already?
:perfect::endit:
-
From the sounds of it, they wanted to bust one of their buddies out of jail it and all went horribly wrong.
For all we know this mess was preciptated by one idiot's drunken night out/itchy trigger finger/big fat mouth/etc. Damage is still done though.
-
"Oops, we forgot about this place's inevitable rapid descent into anarchy." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6611826.ece) :nyoro~n:
-
Oh, quit being so pessimistic... (http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13938350&source=features_box4)
-
I'm not too sure how many people know what exactly goes on in Southern Afghanistan. Back in 05, when people had to pick what provinces to take while the U-wals went and focused on Iraq, the UK took Helmand and the Canucks took Kandahar, which are arguably the worst provinces with only a fraction of infanteers that the yanks held. This year however, the yanks have been reinforcing the two provinces under the NATO Aegis in numbers which overwhelm the current presence in terms of fighting capacity and rotary wing combat aircraft.
Now, the Yanks are doing a sweep of Helmand. Expect to hear more from the BBC on that one.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/12/military.smoking.ban/index.html
This is such a fucking stupid idea, even with a 5-10 year rollout timeframe. I don't smoke, I think smoking is stupid, but a great way to demoralize a bunch of people and encourage them not to renew their contracts is telling them they can't smoke on base or when deployed.
-
The study does not consider relaxing abilities, or the fact that it makes it easier to stay awake but instead short term tactical implications of having an orange light, which is why professionals smoke in a different fashion than the rest of you freaks.
Wavell and other great generals always tell their subordinate officers to not make rules and laws which would not be followed less you wish to create complete disregard to the chain of command. Such a law would have such an effect.
-
We've already got the "don't be gay, OR hide it from your superior officer" one. This just puts the rest of the military on even ground I think.
-
The Pentagon seems really dead-set on keeping fags out of the Military these days.
-
As much as I support people not smoking, I can't see this being welcomed by... well, anyone in the military.
What's next? Ban gambling? ...oh, wait... (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/casino-gambling/moscow_now_dealing_with_underground_gambling_after_casino_ban_53502.html) Okay, bad example. It'd be like banning porn? ...wait, dammit... (http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/44052)
Anyway, good luck with that one, dudes. Here's to hoping you don't get a cigarette butt in your next meal!
-
Speaking from a Navy standpoint, smoke-free, at least on an aircraft carrier, is completely and utterly absurd and impossible. No way in hell would that work.
-
The only thing I have to add is that I do recall the Canadian Military lost their tax-free smokes back in the early 90's.
Of course, that's not a ban, but (correct me if I'm wrong SCD), the Canadian forces have been paying market rate for years now. No clue if that's induced a slight lessing of the disparity in smoking rates between the civilian and military population. Of course in Canada, the baseline civilian smoking rate is about 17.5%, not 20%, but that's close enough that talking about the difference isn't much more than hairsplitting.
-
You are correct. The only places where liquor and tobacco taxes are exempt are in theatre for good reason, although alcohol is not allowed in Afghanistan as there is not even a diplomatic advantage to drinking in that sandbox.
the CF does promote quitting smoking and assisting in any way possible, however it is common place training to be told to have cigarettes as a diplomatic advantage in the theatre - such as when you need to negotiate yourself through a illegitimate road check without going through a contact in case of peace support ops.
I am also known myself on occasion to break out some cubans when I know that my detachment will not be sleeping much for the next few days. It helps.
-
What better way is there to torpedo your own legitimacy? Recruit kids! Whether they want to or not! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan) I've probably said it before, but that saying about fanatics redoubling their efforts while losing sight of their ideals comes to mind.
And while I'm at it, I heard about this on the radio (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106976713&ps=cprs) yesterday. The good news is that they're realizing bomb-sniffing dogs in Iraq are awesome! The bad news is that the natives have their knickers in a bunch because dogs are filthy and taboo or something. I thought warfare was a pretty filthy endeavor too, but then again I'm just some dumb civy, so what do I know?
-
I think the Taliban supporters are the sort of guys who think that convincing children not to blow themselves up is akin to teaching them to smoke and feel up hookers.
-
I think the Taliban supporters are the sort of guys who think that convincing children not to blow themselves up is akin to teaching them to smoke and feel up hookers.
I know, but I mean these guys are supposed to be trying take over the world or something, right? Like converting the world to Islam and destroying anyone who opposes them? If that's their game, I don't think openly trafficking heroine, training child soldiers, and blowing up civilians is the best strategy. Most of that stuff was haraam in the Koran's rules of jihad anyway, last I checked.
-
:shrug: I guess it's really a matter of interpretation?
That's kind of an ironic thing to say, because I've heard that a large part of the fundamentalist movement has been fueled by clever and learned folks no longer studying the books and providing well reasoned exegeses. Then again, this was secondhand from a professor of religious study. So this is one of the few points on religion and its place in the world that I won't take his word on.
-
Brentai: You just made me spit out precious rum, you handsome devil.
Yoji, you're thinking of AQ who want to re-install the throne of the caliph of Sunni Islam and destroy anyone (or convert) who wish to block their goals.
The Taliban are a loose association of tribes that once ruled afghan lands. They're looking at spreading, but currently their goals are to take out Pakistan and the current administration of Afghanistan in order to destroy the Durand Line and create a nation based on the influence of Pashtun culture who are so tribal and backwards that they are pretty weak to their wahabbi islamic influence.
Also, the only people who pretend that war is a clean neat thing are those who need meat to their grinders, or those who don't understand it.
-
Selling drugs to infidels is acceptable as their addiction and money both further your jihad. They did it pre-invasion too, as I recall.
The Koran makes the acceptability of this kind of "total war" very explicit, really. What with the references to terrorizing non-believers and whatnot.
Although Taliban is a bit vague at the moment since it includes various nationalists and not necessarily religious rebel types, what with them being the main organized resistance at the moment. Or so documentaries tell me.
Because clearly allying yourself with religious whackos is an excellent long term strategy, but I digress.
-
Napolitano has come out in favor of all the old Bush policy of "See Anything Say Everything", and in this course has helped contribute to the war on photographers that has been slowly bubbling since 9/11
Homeland Security Secretary: Report Suspicious Photographers (http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/07/homeland-security-secretary-report-suspicious-photographers.html)
One of the things that we ask people to do is when they see something unusual, if they see, for example, somebody continually taking photographs of a piece of critical infrastructure that doesn't seem to make any sense, or a package left unattended on a bus platform, to report that to local law enforcement so it can be followed up on.
Man, why would a photographer be taking a picture of a "critical infrastructure". It must be for no reason that doesn't many "any sense". You know what, fuck her.
-
:thad: DAMMIT, JANET!!!
-
My dad got in trouble some years ago for this kind of thing. He used to photograph and track freight trains, which naturally brought him to the fringes of depots and such. This was fine and dandy until some cop got on his case, thinking he was a terrorist or whatever. To be fair, this was months after the WTC attacks, and my dad has long hair and skin darkened a bit from constant exposure to the sun, but otherwise is about as white as you can get. Nevermind he was with his like-minded buddy who could be confused for Luigi if you dressed him right.
Now that I think of it, I think that might've contributed to him dropping that hobby.
So yeah, report photographers of critical infrastructure to the nearest Civil Protection Officer for immediate Amputation. They are an Anticitizen in all likelihood, with no possibility of working as a surveyor or weird hobbyist.
Be wise. Be safe. Be aware.
-
The first American to die in a Gulf War finally found. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gulf_war_missing_pilot)
He's in good company now.
-
Actually, the "suspicious photography" thing isn't without merit if you have a little sense. The other day I had the good fortune to be given a tour of Louis Sullivan's Guaranty Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudential_%28Guaranty%29_Building_%28Buffalo,_New_York%29) by somebody who's worked there for many years, and he had an interesting anecdote - several years back, he'd been giving the same tour to another architecture fan who'd been taking photos of the building (which was at the time partially in use by some federal agency). Said fan was of Middle Eastern origin, and acted very suspiciously, but for reals suspicious - he became pale and started staring at the ground when they entered the building and he saw the notice that all exits were videotaped, did some other thing that I forget, and most suspiciously of all, said he'd been in Chicago before he had come to Buffalo, but couldn't remember what other buildings he'd seen. Now, if you know anything about Louis Sullivan, you'd know that's about the most suspicious thing somebody could possibly say - that's like if somebody said they had eaten at a restraunt run by one of the Iron Chefs, but couldn't remember what they ate. Or were at E3 but couldn't remember any games they saw.
There's suspicious behavior, and then there's suspicious behavior.
-
Ha ha you're right we should totally lock up all the middle-eastern people with cameras. Bravo.
-
Only if they can't remember which buildings they've seen.
-
Is there a CQB hand signal for "I want to claw my eyes out over the idiocy and vulgarity of Blackwater's behavior and continued involvement in any conflict zone that boggles the mind (http://wonkette.com/410864/contractors-guarding-us-embassy-in-kabul-love-to-drink-vodka-out-of-each-others-anuses)?"
-
#
Sharkey says at 1:24 pm, September 2nd, 2009
- Reply
This is making me hungry. Is it lunchtime yet?
:OoO:
-
Seriously, this stuff will always happen in war zones, doubly so when you're dealing with SA, Scottish, Rhodesian or other old mercs. People get that bored, when they're stuck on guard duties for that long.
Actually come to think it I've seen worst from polish conscripts..
and of course there's "Man-Love-Thursdays" in Kandahar province.
War is a different culture than what your sensitive eyes are used to. Trying to get into that realm usually ends up in one form or another type of scat-related tmfi when people are idle.
To Quote Wellington, "Ours is the scum of the earth". Little has changed for the dedicated ones.
-
I've always wondered just how many swaths of bizarre human history have been lost forever simply because everyone involved agreed not to talk about it and then stuck by that decision.
-
A lot.
This is why cameras are forbidden in most military drinking establishments, although this is not an official rule - more of a self-policing gig.
Two things:
1) Hooray for the Germans and their piecemeal commitment. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6825321.ece) There are operations where rampant alcoholism comes in handy (the former yugoslavia) and other places where it is just plain dumb. This was the later.
2) on 9/11, 2009 CNN fucked up royally on the Coast Guard Exercise and they refuse to apologize (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5304154.shtml).
Two things: The main, and traditional role of media in society is to inform the masses with a clear, precise and true picture of events to allow them to make rational choices based off of the information handed to them. After reading a certain science fiction novel (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=503.msg107917#msg107917) set in the near future, shit like this makes the author sound prophetic.
Second: Competent reserve commanders will always engage in exercises and maneuvers in areas located to where their assistance could very well possibly be required for possible emergency situations. Usually up north of the 49th, the media will publish a note or advertisement informing the community that this will be happening so that people know.
I do not know if that was the case, and I'm not going to guess.
However, in terms of training, having people at the right place and the right time while conducting exercises is superb. The guys on the ground are on a heightened state of vigillance and are not fooling around, plus if shit falls, "hey look, we're already here just give us the word there, commander-in-chief and we'll do what we can to assist".
Forget these organizations and tree-hugging stoners that think it isn't sensible to be doing maneuvres - they hid the ammo, it was just radio chatter and puttering around in boats! There were no explosions or shots fired... Just boats playing cowboys and indians in the water!
++President for not taking any of this shit.
-
1) My God, how low have the Germans fallen. To see it all come to this... I have no doubt that there's a table full of crotchety old Bavarians wishing for the days of the Wehrmacht-Heer. Or at least the resurrection of Frederick II.
-
Biden proposes saving Afghanistan from becoming another Vietnam....
...By turning it into a Somalia (http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/23/strategy-shift-for-afghanistan)
For fuck sakes Biden, we've been over this... Your goddamned best of the nation has been over this: YOU CANNOT WIN COUNTERINSURGENCIES BY SIMPLE ASSATINATION. For that matter, you cannot destroy allies of the insurgents by those means either....
Do you realize you just went through it in Iraq? Do you realize how they found windows of peace and real democracy in 08, as opposed to what you see now?!?
Do you even bother listening to your Brains (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/mullen_petraeus_send_letters_t.html)? You know... The people who might know something about this sort of thing?
As someone who's lost friends to Afghanistan in support of the US, I take this proposal by Biden, as a major insult.
-
Wait... did you link the wrong article? Because nothing in that first article mentions anything specific in the way of strategy changes at all, let alone invoking the spectre of assassination squads or Somalia.
-
Ah fubar, I think I did the wrong link.
This would be it right here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/obama-considers-strategy-shift-afghan-war/)
Biden intends to coax Obama, not for the first time, into scaling back US presence and targeting and killing AQA leaders and members such as Clinton had the forces intentionally go out and arrest criminal leaders as in Black Hawk Down.
By turning it into a Somalia, I mean attempting to make some trained forces, fucking off when they realize that without proper mentoring, they really can't make a proper police force (such as they failed to make a decent police force in Iraq) - I mean the ANP is the most rotten of the lot, right down to man love thursdays.
I really hope that Petraeus and the commander in Afg get their way.
-
I don't think anybody listens to Joe Biden though. Even Obama seems to have only brought him on for his perceived expertise in foreign policy matters.
-
Ah fubar, I think I did the wrong link.
This would be it right here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/obama-considers-strategy-shift-afghan-war/)
Biden intends to coax Obama, not for the first time, into scaling back US presence and targeting and killing AQA leaders and members such as Clinton had the forces intentionally go out and arrest criminal leaders as in Black Hawk Down.
By turning it into a Somalia, I mean attempting to make some trained forces, fucking off when they realize that without proper mentoring, they really can't make a proper police force (such as they failed to make a decent police force in Iraq) - I mean the ANP is the most rotten of the lot, right down to man love thursdays.
I really hope that Petraeus and the commander in Afg get their way.
Heh. Everybody always wants to believe that targeted assassinations work because the Israelis work so hard to pretend it does the trick for them that even their allies swallow that line.
-
Ugh, if Karzai gets through this election scott-free despite what might be stuffing of up to 10% of the ballots, you're looking at an illegitimate gov. Not much change from what they have there now, but the religious fundamentalists are really starting to look like a good choice on the ground compared to the boy-raping police forces (ANP)
even if there's a run-off, it will be hard to get things running before the winter snow comes and elections become much much harder to get the vote across.
Wait and see, but legitimate governments win counter-insurgencies. Not foreign militaries. If Dr Abdullah Abdullah wins this one, we might yet have a snowballs chance in hell.
Otherwise, expect to see a snowball's chance in lava.
-
According to Dante, the centre of hell is actually ice.
-
You know, about eight years ago, a cynical old Discordian gamer friend of mine* flatly assessed that the NATO invasion of Afghanistan would end in precisely the way the Soviet invasion had. Along with every other invasion of Afghanistan for the previous 2000 years. I thought perhaps this time might be different, but I also wouldn't dismiss his view out of hand as it was certainly plausible.
Here we are eight years later. I have the exact same opinion and he probably does too.
*You have no idea how much fun this guy was.
-
I don't really agree with simplistic assessments. There should be no question that Soviet Afghanistan and today's Afghanistan are two very different bags of feces. The chips that were laid down in Soviet Afghanistan included active hi-tech assistance to the enemy from the CIA, mass executions at local Communist Party headquarters, not to mention the massive numbers of soldats from the Soviet Union.
Buge got my joke. To quote the current general in reporting to his political masters, "Numbers alone cannot win Afghanistan, but lack of numbers will most certainly lose it".
He has it right, and understands that NATO lacks the backbone for a long counterinsurgency. And even the key NATO players have long worn out their joints. Peacetime Canada never really could assemble the numbers, and the UK will never be the military power it once was up until the end of Argentina.
If this is an eulogy, NATO and the States both messed it up in the get-go, both politically in choosing the wrong people at the wrong time (not that after Masoud's death by a suicide car bombing a week before 9-11, there were many clear-cut leaders to choose from). They won the initial invasion not with shock and awe, but with CIA, special operations, and donkeys with truckloads of weapons, ammunition, and US dollars, but didn't expect to fight a counter-insurgency that would linger on with fighters bred in Pakistan, and experts and funding from Saudi Arabia.. We liberated the country from tyranny.. they have freedom! If we make their lives better, what more could they want?
Turns out some food, good government and security from Tribal warlords fit that bill...
The ruskies also had to worry about Paki and local fighters, but US interests and expertise doing the pushing, both through knowledge and money. The Ruskies also didn't have the fiscal assistance from China through investing in mining sites as they are now.. At least there's a couple of towns in Central Afghanistan that can benefit from salaried workers. Also having Iran next door was beneficial to the western province. The lucky bastards got trade, doctors and electricity from the mix. The government of that day in Iran I imagine would have other things on their minds...
However, back to the shortcomings, I digress:
I've been hearing increased debate in some circles also blaming not only Bush Jr for failing to "Select and Maintain the aim" (this folks, by the way, is the first principle of war) in getting distracted through the invasion of Iraq, but also, rather controversy, Bush Snr for liberating Kuwait, another middle-eastern non-democratic state.
After Iraq took out Kuwait, they had the means to take out Saudi Arabia. Oil prices may have gone up, but one of the most evil (imho) states currently running in humanity would have been taken out by a moderately less-evil dictator. Oil would have spiked in the initial onset, but Hussein did have a hold on the oil better than we have it now in Iraq.
Think of Gadaffi in Libya invading Mugabe's Zimbabwe.
Al-Q would most likely have blown up the twin towers, but they probably would not be as advanced right now, where they have Internally-implanted suicide bombs that can go through metal detectors (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8276016.stm).
I bet you all feel safer going through those airport metal detectors already!
Back on track, the game isn't over just yet. Iraq was going through Genocide when Petraeus took it from the brink with many US soldier's lives. Lets see what McChrystal has to offer. You won't find a better man for that job anywhere.
-
Er, I think you actually overcomplicated my oversimplification.
When I said that an old friend of mine flatly assessed that the NATO invasion of Afghanistan would end in precisely the way the Soviet invasion had. Along with every other invasion of Afghanistan for the previous 2000 years.
he just meant "failure", not that it would necessarily duplicate the exact patterns. I mean, I didn't think that Alexander the Great, The Mongol Khans, Timur the Lame, or the Soviets used any of the same tactics either, so I thought that went without saying, but I guess not?
I was merely musing that a lot of time and money have been spent without anyone being any surer of what will ultimately happen. No more, no less.
:nyoro~n:
-
Fair enough. Turns out I love the sound of my own print anyways.
Plus I wanted to see if I could make you react with the "blame GB Snr" theory.
-
Nah, if you want to go for the "Blame an individual" route, it's more fun to blame Charlie Wilson, or perhaps more properly Mike Vickers.
(No I haven't seen that movie).
-
Alexander the Great, The Mongol Khans, Timur the Lame
Since we're nitpicking, didn't these guys succeed? From what I can tell Afghanistan was conquered by one of them and then passed to their descendants (Alexander->Seleucids->Mauryans) or reconquered and generally treated like a trading card. The creation of a real, independent Afghan state seems to be a mere ~300 years ago.
At any rate.
The ruskies also had to worry about Paki and local fighters, but US interests and expertise doing the pushing, both through knowledge and money.
I'd be careful with that diminutive. :whoops:
Anyway, I found your analysis a bit odd in the lack of mentioning Pakistan. I was under the impression that dealing with the totally-not-failed state and making sure it doesn't collapse (i.e. having them do some of "our" counterinsurgency to give their government legitimacy) was a big problem. In short, I was under the impression they were basically the same theater of operations, if an extremely delicate part.
-
Alexander the Great, The Mongol Khans, Timur the Lame
Since we're nitpicking, didn't these guys succeed? From what I can tell Afghanistan was conquered by one of them and then passed to their descendants (Alexander->Seleucids->Mauryans) or reconquered and generally treated like a trading card. The creation of a real, independent Afghan state seems to be a mere ~300 years ago.
At any rate.
The ruskies also had to worry about Paki and local fighters, but US interests and expertise doing the pushing, both through knowledge and money.
I'd be careful with that diminutive. :whoops:
Anyway, I found your analysis a bit odd in the lack of mentioning Pakistan. I was under the impression that dealing with the totally-not-failed state and making sure it doesn't collapse (i.e. having them do some of "our" counterinsurgency to give their government legitimacy) was a big problem. In short, I was under the impression they were basically the same theater of operations, if an extremely delicate part.
Well, those conquerors of the past had little to no real presence in the territory, they just kind of rolled through, fought once or twice, ran up the flag and left. You're right about the tradingcard things, it was something typically thrown around on paper, with no noticable impact on the inhabitants. Though the Afghans did actually throw out a Greek army/administration after a number of years had passed (disclosure: It's been a long time since I read that particular history, so I hope I'm not misremembering).
So it's more of me being glib about how traditionally ornery the residents of the Afghan Plateau are and how for most of its history, tkaing it has barely even been worth the effort of getting there, never mind staying.
***
Side comment: It's interesting that for most of the world's history, the difficulty for most folks was in not being isolated. During all those centuries, Afghanistan had little that anyone could possibly want, which, combined with a climate and people charitably described as 'inhospitable', kept them free.
Now that the long arm of the modern state can reach almost anywhere, Afghanistan has found itself the target of massive, globe-spanning forces. Why? because the Afghans now possesses something of almost priceless rarity: isolation.
-
Transportation: No argument there. Pakistan, and their lack of cooperation from the get go, except in lip service under Mushy was annoying.
I believe I didn't mention that in my rant as I thought on a subconscious level that the Durand line being an issue for security from natural Pashtun movement was akin to "we have to breathe oxygen to survive".
According to the Washington Post, things are not much better (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803751.html).
Thanks for catching me on that one. Man, can someone ever write a couple thesis on that campaign.
Also IM: Counterpoint to Isolation: Bhutan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan).
We want Afghanistan to be self-governing in a representative fashion to keep out internationally-perilous thugs. They want it because it was their training ground against the ruskies. The ruskies wanted it to (I assume, Tpt correct me if I'm wrong here) make headway towards Pakistan and India. Before that, white people could care less about the joint, and the brits just didn't want to be reminded...
-
Editorial in today's Ottawa Citizen (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/abandoned+democracy/2067117/story.html)
Will also add that in LGen (Ret'd) Dallaire's Memoir on the 1994 Genocide, he also notes the incompetence and piss poor management of the civilian head envoy to his area and his cronyism with the RGF (the side that turned out to have a major role in the hackings)
Would you americans be so kind as to start a new UN based on nations that actually try to follow the UN charter? Not even NATO's cool for that anymore...
-
The UN has always been too far away from any citizen-based participation to have anything to do with real democracy. It just wears that as a cloak.
It's okay, it serves (has served?) it's real purposes just fine: It's a forum for the world's major powers to bicker, moan, or conspire without anyone really paying attention or caring, and once upon a time, it was a useful excuse for them to not lob missiles of various kinds at one another (note that I'm not saying the UN actually prevented that, it just gave everyone a couple of extra excuses they could use to avoid that).
Basically it was never the neutral body it was sold as, but as long as the goals were moderate and all the players involved had a stake in maintaining that pretense of operating under an umbrella of neutrality, then it was doing some good.
The real problem is that they started believing their own press releases. It all went to hell after that (International Court Of Justice?! LOL!~).
-
Again, points are well made.
US Executive branch will put off choice until the Afghan government can prove that it is a partner in the Counterinsurgency (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8313423.stm)
While this indecision is going to cause shit on the ground in the short-term, it does put the onus of the decision on the Host Nation government. Whoever made the choice is either, or a student of Petraeus at the time he made his manual.
-
I'm sure most of you guys have seen this at some point, but just in case: Unmarried army major shoots up Fort Hood in Texas (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/army-psychiatrist-held-in-shooting-that-killed-13-at-fort-hood/article1352688/).
And he's a Muslim of middle eastern descent. Oh dear.
-
Forget Muslim, he's a psychiatrist! Just what was the us army thinking letting his sort even touch a weapon?
On a darker note, I don't think he'll have to worry about paying any debt to society for much longer. The court martial should be an interesting, albiet short affair stacked with generals from the "shoot him" school of thought.
-
Forget Muslim, he's a psychiatrist! Just what was the us army thinking letting his sort even touch a weapon?
On a darker note, I don't think he'll have to worry about paying any debt to society for much longer. The court martial should be an interesting, albiet short affair stacked with generals from the "shoot him" school of thought.
At first glance he fits the classic profile. Loner, unable to find a woman, turns to religion out which gradually becomes warped by a possible underlying mental illness (psychiatrist with undiagnosed mental illness goes on a rampage... the blackest of ironies there, folks).
What just makes this brutal is that if the reports of him being vehemently against serving in a combat zone even though he has a non-combat role are true, that his response would be to kill folks who were a hairsbreadth away from being placed directly in the line of fire anyway. God help those poor bastards*. I understand that mental illness can lead to incredibly convoluted and bizarre trains of thought that only pass as logic to their creator - God only knows what went through this fellow's head - but I can't entirely blame any of the generals involved for having a gut reaction like that than I can blame him for doing what he did.
That said, if they were to follow through with such thoughts, that would be very ugly. There's a damn important distinction between having a bloody-minded reaction and following through on it. That statement they released about how he's not dead... that had an edge to it. There was a rather terrifying relish in the way they said he 'wasn't going anywhere'.
I don't know what'll happen. This guy's got counts of Murder, Treason In Wartime, and possibly even Armed Insurrection against him. Barring a full mental evaluation that labels him out-and-out insane, he's about as deep in the shitter as you can get.
*As if getting shot wasn't enough, they won't even be recognised as having been in combat unless a fair-minded general chooses to make an exception. That means the even though they were about to sent to hell, no combat pay if wounded, and no combat pensions for widows or orphans. Christ.
:tldr: version: It's an ugly, horrible, awful situation for everyone involved. About as bad as these kind of shootings can get. I only pray that nobody forgets the infantrymen and women in the process.
-
Can't see insurrection, but there never has been a clearer cut example of treason in a world where it is only a tool misused by dictators to silence political opposition.
-
Any one of those is enough to get executed, and I don't recall if insanity is an out for soldiers or non-coms.
-
The man is an officer of the US army, and a senior officer to boot.
He should be hanged at dawn given the tonic if found guilty by treason. *
If it was a non-com, I would say something along the lines of life and dishonorable discharge, but officer caste is a different culture within society where loyalty to the constitution, service and soldiers must be followed with nothing less than zeal in any professional military.
The example must be carried on.
*Correction, all military executions are now by injection, source (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/r190_55.pdf)
-
I can't actually tell how facetious you're being there (a little? a whole lot?).
I too admit that like C-Chan I was wondering how the legal situation stacks up in this case and to what degree insanity defenses and the like exist in the US military legal code. I've often been surprised at both how similar and how different the US military's legal code can be from civvy legislation.
Can any of our US vets answer that one? I mean I know most of you were navy or air force, but at least one was regular army IIRC and I... think the code is the same for all three branches of service? Or is that wrong?
I mean, hell, I couldn't even tell you how this would be treated in the Canadian system (SCD that's your cue).
In other news, reports are trickling in that the guy may have actually yelled "Allahu Akbar!" just before he started. :facepalm:
-
Can't see insurrection, but there never has been a clearer cut example of treason in a world where it is only a tool misused by dictators to silence political opposition.
Care to explain how this was a "clear cut" case of levying war against the US, or providing aid and comfort to its enemies? Seems like a pretty basic "crazy guy goes crazy".
-
It honestly sounds like they'd rather reopen Gitmo just to put him in it than kill them.
I'm putting the ultimate responsibility of those soldiers getting their due on the media. The main thing keeping the brass honest here would be fear of a media shitstorm, and denying pensions to the victims' families should definitely cause one of those. If they think they can cut that corner, the press is clearly not doing its fucking job.
Also their responsibility on how the whole Muslim thing comes out, since you can either view the whole thing as "lol, you guys are all suicide bombers" or as "well he was catching a mountain of bullshit for being Muslim already, and now they wanted to send him somewhere where the resentment runs fresh and deep and a lot of things happen that never get talked about. So, you know, he went crazy." I suppose that the first explanation is much shorter is the reason it will inevitably get used.
-
We don't do death in Canada, as is the law. I believe it is section 46 of the criminal code that has a universal definition of "treason" and "high treason" for all people in Canada, including military.
High treason is life, 25 years and is defined by either taking a pot shot at the queen in peacetime, or regular old treason, just in wartime.
Treason gets you a punishment not exceeding 14 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if the power of punishment for high treason changed during an actual wartime, which you would notice if we were at.
TA: You're right. Thanks, I was looking at the wrong definition. Probably from a really welfare dictionary.
-
Oh yeah! I forgot that Canada is one of the only countries in the world (if not the only one) that actually still has separate and valid distinctions between Treason and High Treason (the distinction being one's peacetime, the other's in wartime).
What about the mental illness? How do Canadian military tribunals account for that? I seem to recall a couple of bad cases in the past couple of years where that came up, but those were things only involving 1-2 victims and wasn't on the same pattern as a mass shooting.
-
Further interestingness: Heroic civilian cop took town Maj. Hasan in spite of being wounded herself. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/officer-credited-for-stopping-rampage/article1353894/)
Well, there's your TV movie-of-the-week right there.
-
I'm ex-army, but I just don't remember if insanity pleas worked for capital crimes. The UCMJ is pretty similar to civilian law in a lot of cases, but at the same time can be very old fashioned and harsh.
-
The UCMJ is pretty similar to civilian law in a lot of cases, but at the same time can be very old fashioned and harsh.
Yeah. that's what I'd gathered anytime something came up that invoked it, which is precisely why I'm wondering what will happen in this case because this guy is pretty clearly not all there.
-
C-Chan's got it right, but I don't really think there's much in the way of insanity defense in the UCMJ. You'd have to look in the JAG Manual for that. Most of the UCMJ is maximum allowable punishment for particular crimes.
The entire text of the UCMJ. (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm)
-
Further interestingness: Heroic civilian cop took town Maj. Hasan in spite of being wounded herself. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/officer-credited-for-stopping-rampage/article1353894/)
Well, there's your TV movie-of-the-week right there.
the fun part is that she wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat
-
The UCMJ is pretty similar to civilian law in a lot of cases, but at the same time can be very old fashioned and harsh.
Yeah. that's what I'd gathered anytime something came up that invoked it, which is precisely why I'm wondering what will happen in this case because this guy is pretty clearly not all there.
You have to be pretty crazy to go on a homicidal shooting spree, but what difference does it make? You seem intent on making the "he's definitely insane" distinction, Mongrel, so I'm wondering how you think that applies in this case, if you think it does.
-
The UCMJ is pretty similar to civilian law in a lot of cases, but at the same time can be very old fashioned and harsh.
Yeah. that's what I'd gathered anytime something came up that invoked it, which is precisely why I'm wondering what will happen in this case because this guy is pretty clearly not all there.
You have to be pretty crazy to go on a homicidal shooting spree, but what difference does it make? You seem intent on making the "he's definitely insane" distinction, Mongrel, so I'm wondering how you think that applies in this case, if you think it does.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
I'm taking the premise that we can all generally agree that this man is not mentally competent*. In civilian courts, this can lead to a variety of outcomes. Because this man is a high-ranking officer in the US military, those avenues will likely be closed to him.
I was (and am) genuinely curious as to what will happen. As SCD pointed out, the response will almost certainly be some variation of "hang him from the yardarm", if not more gruesome. While serving in the military is serious business (in the true sense) and some very harsh justice may soon be meted out, a man that far gone won't really be in a position to appreciate it all that much.
Perhaps they'll kill him, perhaps not. It's a wash anyway. He's permanently lost to the rest of the species and there's a dozen dead soldiers that won't be coming back no matter whether we take the high road or the low. A damned pointless tragedy either way.
*If you disagree, then we can debate that. But that's not where I was going.
-
I mean, hell, I couldn't even tell you how this would be treated in the Canadian system (SCD that's your cue).
Honestly I haven't seen a precedent out here, although we tend to be a bit more liberal. I would say 2 years less a day in Club Ed, a really notorious prison, than the other 23-life elsewhere where he might have a chance to go on parole considering it was a one-shot affair.
That's just guessing however. We tend really only to throw the book at repeat offenders, and I don't believe it could be the military's problem after the two years less a day, even if they wanted to make him their problem.
But really this is a lawyer question. I do not have sufficient background to give anything more than that educated guess.
--
As far as my gut feeling goes, Senior officer in Texas. A secular-conservative culture in a bible-belt conservative land. According to some sites, some noncoms are in line for the juice for less.
-
* 850a. ART. 50a. DEFENSE OF LACK OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
(a) It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a sever mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
(b) The accused has the burden of proving the defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence.
It's not quite as broad of a defense as is available in criminal trials, but it's definitely there.
-
Further interestingness: Heroic civilian cop took town Maj. Hasan in spite of being wounded herself. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/officer-credited-for-stopping-rampage/article1353894/)
Well, there's your TV movie-of-the-week right there.
the fun part is that she wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat
Actually, female soldiers serve in combat all the time. They're simply not allowed to hold combat MOSes.
-
This is true, although it's kinda funky what with the ladies in the Marines, who are all unofficially infantry regardless of MOS.
-
I'm sorry, but if you don't explain what that acronym means I'm going to think you're talking about transistors.
Before anyone complains: I read MOS as Metal-Oxide Semiconductor. It's the technology that builds chips in modern computers.
-
"Military Occupation Specialties"
-
So, take an idiot with power.
Take some CIA bunglery, to which one can assend on.
Create a socialist revolution, only to have key industries flop and have reduced access to goods.
Keep spotlight on US, which is slightly increasing US presence to knock out criminal and rebel elements in Columbia (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/world/americas/23colombia.html). Kindly decline to mention that you are supporting rebel elements with hardware and intelligence support.
See flop go so far as to create power outages in a gas and oil-exporting nation with the 4th largest river.
So your popularity dip below 45% for the first time.
Oh fuck. What do you do?
Well good news, over the years your preparations in gaining 150k new russian rifles, creating a 20k+ strong paramilitary force and acquiring the latest in Russian Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft hardware leaves you in a pretty good spot for mountain and jungle warfare.
High time for a short victorious war (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1110/1224258479545.html)
I could go on about this in many directions, but if they did, in fact send 15k troops (That's about as much as personnel in the Canadian armed forces, and 150/8 times the escalation against the "us imperialist move of aggression) then I wouldn't be surprised if under these conditions he would engage.
-
Oh boy, woooo.
Equipment aside, I wouldn't give too much for Chavez's chances. Wow, what an idiot.
Anyway, if they do start shooting, that will be a hell of a brouhaha.
-
Another theroy is that they may have noticed how ineffectuve SecState Clinton was in Israel the other week when she was tricked by isreali officials so horribly, that even abu mazen gave up.
Between that and just how busy one of the few adults, Robert Gates is, I believe that Chavez is banking on his ape-like sounds would convince USA to abandon columbia, especially considerig the new deal where the modest non combat arm troop increase was involved, there was also the caveat that us forces would not engage in combat missions.
-
Another theroy is that they may have noticed how ineffectuve SecState Clinton was in Israel the other week when she was tricked by isreali officials so horribly, that even abu mazen gave up.
Between that and just how busy one of the few adults, Robert Gates is, I believe that Chavez is banking on his ape-like sounds would convince USA to abandon columbia, especially considerig the new deal where the modest non combat arm troop increase was involved, there was also the caveat that us forces would not engage in combat missions.
Well, I'm pretty sure the US doesn't want to actively get into a war in Columbia... but there have been more than enough other places they didn't want to get into a war in either. It's harder to say what will happen here though, because a straight-up invasion by Venezuela would actually be a pretty damn clear case of a foreign aggressor making moves against a sovereign US ally - as opposed to an insurgency or similar.
On the subject of sensiblity, I'd say we're really starting to see more of it from the traditional South American powerhouses, most especially Brazil, and Chile. I think while in the past those more distant neighbours might have been inclined look the other way in this kind of fight, that for the first time ever it's worth asking what some of the larger latin nations might do to cool things down. Or at least help broker a ceasefire if things do come to blows (i.e. if no one can get Chavez to come down off his soapbox).
On the subject of idiot children... what's this about Hilary Clinton allowing herself to be fooled by the Israelis? The most recent story I can find is her calling for an end to all Israeli settlement in a story dated a week ago (which really isn't anything new).
-
Problem is that with prior experience, Israel is a land of diplomats and the careful selection of the english language.
From the Economist article "Is Israel too strong for Barak Obama?"
Mr Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, made matters worse by actually praising Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for promising merely to “restrain” Israel’s building rather than stop it altogether, as he was first asked to do. Previously Mrs Clinton had insisted that stop meant stop. There should be no “organic growth” of existing settlements and no exceptions for projects under way. Nor did she specifically exempt East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as their future capital but which many Israelis see as theirs alone. And she had earlier castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian houses in the city’s eastern part. Now, in Israel on October 31st, she changed her tune, seeming to acquiesce in Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to meet those earlier American demands and congratulating the prime minister on his “unprecedented” offer to build at a slower rate than before.
Mr Netanyahu’s case is that being “prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements” is indeed a concession. No new settlements would be started, no extra Palestinian land appropriated for expansion. But some 3,000 housing units already commissioned must, he said, be completed. Building must go on in East Jerusalem, he has repeatedly said, as it cannot be part of a Palestinian state.
Mrs Clinton later awkwardly backpedalled, assuring the Palestinians that she still considered all settlements “illegitimate”, while pleading with them to resume talks. That seems unlikely. A storm of abuse raged in the Palestinian and Arab press. Mr Obama, it was widely deduced, had caved in after his own ratings in Israel had slumped, according to some Israeli polls, to as low as 4%. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Fatah party who presides over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, expressed extreme disappointment—and continued to insist that talks could not resume until there was a full building freeze.
No one else noticed. Not even Fox, although if they got their head out of their ass, there just happens to be a gold mine of good (albiet secular) issues to talk about.
-
Yeah, that's a lot of HURRDURR right there.
In spte of all that, I'm actually more hopeful on the MidEast thing than I have been in some time. See, no real peace was ever going to come to pass without both sides agreeing to something and abiding by that agreement.
Now, back when pretty much the whole western world and a good portion of Asia was lined up behind Israel, they were largely free to impose whatever they wanted with little in the way of reprisal. Now people are becoming more aware of the conditions the Palstinians live under and what they've lost (however vague and uneducated that awareness is right now). The ridiculous giant wall also acts a blatant symbol of past human stupiditiesthat are being tragically repeated by Israel.
It's happening excruciatingly slowly, but it's happening nonetheless. Combined with the demographics of Palestine and Israel, some form of reparation is inevitable*.
*Unless the extremists completely take over in Israel, in which case all bets are off and OH GOD, COVER!
-
They're not in charge in the knesset, but currently ears on the ground as well as some articles indicate that illegal settlements in the WB are on the rise, and the ultra-conservatives are armed and nasty.
They usually don't make the media - lack of media freedom in the occupied territories does that.
They are still a major point of contention and the army appears to be reluctant to pull them away (a wise move as they don't enforce all laws, although that does make for a back hole)
I digress, the value of life for an Israeli is much higher than the surrounding Arabs. The Arabs can lose 20 wars and carry on as if it was and still sit back and press play like nothing ever happened (the dead can come).
The Israelis don't have that luxury, and have nukes. Right now my hopes are more glum than ever, of course that's only because I'm doing a paper for next week on the Israel Syria bit. These things happen.
-
On Iraq,
A prominent anti-war activist gets her due, after years of toil at the side of Petraeus and Odinero by someone in the US media. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/world/middleeast/21emmasky.html)
-
Nice to see.
I would find it more frightening that after all that's happened in the past 40 years, that the US military seemed to find itself in the same boxed-in echo chamber that prevents even the most basic understanding of the local view... but, bizarrely enough, they seem to have taken the lesson to heart this time - not just from the likes of Sky, but from quite a few people.
That new adaptability and sensibility has easily been the most surprising thing about the Iraq war. It's almost like they want to do their job right and win or something!
-
If you're ever curious about how the thing got turned around, there's a book out there called 'the gambit'. Got it myself in 08, and have ranted about it before. Guy's previous book was pretty much "Iraq war is lie, Iraq war is stupid, US troops and Iraqis fucked no matter what now". This one still believes that in the end, the Iraqis are fucked, but makes Petraeus and Odinero shine.
-
On Obama's speech:
Despite the republicans cheering this move (including Mr Rove), and the Democrats in an alkward position to support the commander in chief's correct choice in making the deployment, some Pakistani newspapers see the writting on the wall: Link 1 (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\03\story_3-12-2009_pg3_1) [url = http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=211295]Link 2[/url].
I just hope Obama can remain coy with his narrative. 35k (incl 5k additional nato tps) is a good tool for the generals to carry out the job they've been tasked with. I don't see him pulling all of them out before re-election, however.
-
I would agree that I don't think Obama is just going to pull everyone out for the sake of re-election. He's not that type (we hope). But the military file is by far his weakest portfolio and the one for which he no doubt relies most on others for advice.
You'd think that social justice and nation building would be right up the alley of someone with his background, but while added troops ARE sorely needed, this strategy seems to be an attempt to both copy Bush's success with The Surge and to try and keep everyone happy - and we all know how well the latter usually works.
-
The correct decision is to leave. This war in Afghanistan has been going on for decades, and we're arrogant to think that we're different from any other empire that tried to conquer the fucking place. We're just another foot note in Afghan history.
And don't feed the social justice or nation building line. That ain't our job. Don't be foolish enough to believe that we invaded another country for their benefit.
-
I'm not foolish enough to think Obama was responsible for the invasion, no.
A couple of points.
a) The problem with "we should just leave" is not even some nebulous nonsense about responsibility for cleaning up a mess, it's the fact that this is the one time the right-wing nuts have a measure of truth in their words: that letting the place slide back into the hands of Mullah Omar and his extremist-friends-of-the-moment would be a colossally bad idea.
The most obvious negative possibility is for something REALLY BAD to happen to Pakistan ten or fifteen years down the line - or even sooner.
b) All the usual lines about Afghanistan being the graveyard of empires is because the place is, frankly, a wasteland - none of those Empires have ever had a reason to stay or invest in the population, so they've never done so. Eventually they're always left to their own devices. The problem is that we can't do that this time and expect them to just self-immolate as normal and leave everyone else alone - that ship sailed years ago.
c) On the surface, leaving is the correct decision. Now that everything's been good and fucked up, reforming the jezail bullet crowd would cost an obscene amount of money.
It's a big goddamn mess and it will cost a lot of money and time to fix. Iraq at least had a nominal history of civil government of some kind, money and resources of it's own, and neighbours who could fend for themselves if we'd abandoned them outright. This is much uglier.
But it will assuredly cost more money and time and lives to not fix it. I suppose there is the argument that states that it's better that it cost Afghan, Pakistani, Persian and possibly Indian lives, than American ones. I don't agree with that argument, but it's still technically a justifiable one for the Bismarcks among us. And while I don't agree that abandoning Aghanistan will automatically mean more 9/11's, there's no guarantee that a pullout won't cost American lives in future anyway.
-
Some good news for a change: ArmorGroup North America has been fuckin' fired (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/armorgroup-axed-kabul-embassy-contract)
There's still the question of why it took so long, but it's still pretty :dance:
-
Karl Eide's choice not to renew his contract as the UN chief in Afghanistan should be seen as a sign/portent (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6954026.ece) in the larger scale of things. Expect a paragraph or two in any upcoming analysis books of the conflict.
Also to tack on to Yoji's speel, expect to see these guys (http://www.dyn-intl.com/) take the helm. Currently on the guard and logistics side of the house, they have been filling slots that were once allocated to Blackwater.
-
It's a little old, but Wonkette just now noticed this (http://wonkette.com/412712/this-is-an-official-air-force-commercial) so, by extension, I just now noticed this.
And I thought Guns of the Patriots was just joking!
-
What the hell? Does the Air Force want me, personally, to join? Because either I'm the target audience of the commercial, or their advertising needs an overhaul.
They have a holo-projector, they have snappy black uniforms, and they have people stating obvious things. I swear to god, all they need is little berets and laser-missiles and six-legged cats, and they've got the entire fanbase of Honor Harrington enlisting.
-
Needs more white beret.
That's a good advertisement, although problem being is that even the sat-dust from that blown Chinese sat out there is nasty enough to give much more than a papercut to ouryour sats.
Still, I wouldn't be surprised if AI took over sat repositioning functions.
-
What the hell? Does the Air Force want me, personally, to join? Because either I'm the target audience of the commercial, or their advertising needs an overhaul.
They have a holo-projector,
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3723/biddingbv6.jpg)
they have snappy black uniforms,
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/0/0e/Deathstar_gunner.jpg)
and they have people stating obvious things.
(http://www.starwarsccg.org/cards/hoth/ds/targetthemaingenerator.gif)
I swear to god, all they need is little berets and laser-missiles and six-legged cats, and they've got the entire fanbase of Honor Harrington enlisting.
Wrong fandom dewd
-
I just pictured Cheney's disembodied building-sized glowing head barking at a gaggle of tourneyfags hunched over their consoles
T H E F U T U R E
-
(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m244/SWCCGPIMP/SWCCG_Sate_Pestage_small.jpg)
-
It turns out that Christmas miracles do not work for Al Qaeda, just against. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8430612.stm)
-
It turns out that Christmas miracles do not work for Al Qaeda, just against. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8430612.stm)
New Air Travel rules in place thanks to the above. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/strict-new-rules-in-place-for-us-bound-air-travellers/article1412420/)
If these stick, we have basically finally reached the point where air travel is so uncomfortable and onerous that people are going to travel by air to the US only out of unavoidable necessity (note that in this context I still think that "No other way to get there for my vacation" counts as 'necessity' for most folks, so it's not like I'm predicting the demise of the airline industry, though it's scertainly going to take a hit).
And I already thought air travel to the US was intolerable. To the point where I have been taking the bus to Buffalo and boarding domestic flights (this is also cheaper, so...).
One sacrificial idiot, one plane ticket and a couple of hundered dollars for planning and materials to make the US bleed green and angry. Who says Al Qaeda isn't winning after all?
-
At the presidential level, Obama is seeming to do the right thing. "Lets find out how a known man was able to board a plane bound for the US". No speeches, no big words. Just figure out what happened quickly and quietly and ensure it doesn't happen again.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8431732.stm)
As far as these measures go, I'm calling it a temporary gig based on the principle of war "economy of effort". Multiple attacks would create more confusion than a single. I wouldn't expect this regimen to last long.
-
Relevant cartoon. (http://www.someguywithawebsite.com/cartoons/2006/2006_08_14.html)
Yeah, I'm on the "adding more security precautions isn't really going to help us more effectively enforce the ones we've already got" bus, but you guys knew that.
I have to throw out my jelly to fly back from Hawaii, but a couple of random assholes can just walk in and have dinner with the President.
-
DHS Chief: We fucked up, we're looking into how we can fix the system (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/28/napolitano-acknowledges-security-failed-allowing-terror-suspect-plane).
Quick and honest.
-
Books and magazines now banned from US-bound flights. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/publishers-dumbfounded-by-airplane-book-ban/article1420232/)
:hurr:
-
... what the fuck, Canada? Don't make the TSA look reasonable and sane.
-
I'd be outraged if I didn't work on the in-flight entertainment system used by 80% of the world's airlines. :itsmagic:
-
On the Saudi Peninsula Theatre, Al Shabab in Somalia has succeeded in running out the last major food program, the WFP BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8441179.stm). Sadly in 06 when the islamists took over most of Somalia, they did it right and by right, much better than the shortsighted do-gooders at the UN could ever pull off.
I recall reading a work of a Gonzo Journalist by the name of PJ O'Rourke in a book "all the troubles in the world" how the world ended up sending (to this day) plenty of food to a nation which has the means to produce plenty of food (fertile land), where aid agencies piled into fortresses, came out once in awhile to distribute raw foodstuffs, which they eventually turned over to armed thugs as it was too dangerous for them to do it personally anymore, leading to what I interpreted a nation of armed beggars.
The "lads" (literal interpretation of Al Shabab) agree, and last time the Islamists (last group again) took over, they got the airport and the seaport up and running within a year of taking Mogadishu. Of course, their rule was through an iron fist, and what lead to their downfall was they pissed off Ethiopia, and in turn the Yanks.
This would spread AQ's influence from Yemen/Saudi Arabia (the mountainous rural areas) to Somalia again. On the bright side, the six-figure-earning heads of the WFP can now save some serious coin on operations and save some food for disaster-related food shortages as opposed to government(or lack thereof) induced famine.
-
False alarm or quick redaction (you decide): books once again a-ok (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/books-permitted-on-us-bound-planes/article1421470/).
-
More a "on the bus off the bus" caused by lack of clarity of orders from the top. I see this type of action a lot.
-
Yeah, that was my immediate reading of the situation: you can't possibly list every single item that is allowed on a plane. The list was intended as partial but also to include obvious items; one very obvious item was foolishly omitted and someone assumed all which is not explicitly enumerated was banned. (Of course, knowing the general competence of airport security officials, they themselves could easily make that error in logic; saying "Security officials are allowed to exercise their own judgement" is pretty much a joke since these are people who confiscate things like GI Joe-size toy guns. It is not a job that typically attracts people with great critical reasoning skills.)
Tangentially, this precise issue was central in the debate about whether the US Constitution should have a Bill of Rights: proponents said that we needed to list basic freedoms on paper so the government wouldn't deny them; critics said that the government would interpret anything not on the list as okay to deny. As compromise we got the Ninth Amendment, which states that just because something isn't explicitly granted in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.
Of course, that's pretty damn vague and frequently ignored. (I remember a few years back Limbaugh arguing that "there's no right to privacy explicitly enumerated in the Constitution," conveniently omitting the fact that the Constitution DOES say, using those exact words, that that doesn't mean there's no such right.) But it's still a pretty great amendment.
-
Thanks for that tidbit :wat:. I'll read more on the 9th when I can
-
Of course, that's pretty damn vague and frequently ignored. (I remember a few years back Limbaugh arguing that "there's no right to privacy explicitly enumerated in the Constitution," conveniently omitting the fact that the Constitution DOES say, using those exact words, that that doesn't mean there's no such right.) But it's still a pretty great amendment.
There is a certain amount of cruel irony now in conservatives twisting the 9th and 10th to actually DENY there is a right to health care, though.
-
Military care packages, for Women. (http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/uso-ships-frilly-care-packs-to-female-troops-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/1061694)
I think addressing the high incidence of sexual assault in the military would be a better use of Nancy Pelosi's time. And provide more peace of mind than this month's Cosmo.
-
Oh yeah, to all the ladies getting these boxes of makeup and lady speed stick: don't get knocked up or they'll clap you in irons. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/21/iraq.us.soldiers.pregnancy/)
-
Same goes for single moms who can't deploy due to lack of childcare. (http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_13785127)
-
If only there were some way to stop people from not wanting to sign up.
-
A competent USA public servant of war speaks on Iran. (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/09/petraeus.iran/index.html#cnnSTCText)
-
I think any western military action, and possibly even any Israeli military action would be a grave mistake at this juncture. The current regime is becoming more unstable, though perhaps not on a daily basis.
For the Theocracy to truly be defeated, they need to be brought down internally. Persians are notorious for their unbelievably venemous resentment of any 'foreign meddling' and any blatant foreign aggression - even something as small as an Osirak-type strike - will strengthen the regime and the military to the massive detriment of any homegrown reformers.
Twice before, Iran has come close to throwing out the mullahs, once in the mid-eighties and again in the early 90's. The first time, the Iraq war boosted the Ayatollah, the second time it was Western saber-rattling (specifically, the 'Axis of Evil' speech... I'm not even kidding on that, it was a big driver of votes for Ahmadinejad.
The single best weapon anyone has against the mullahs is the Iranian people themselves. The problem is that the west must resist the temptation to intervene.
Highly relevant: Persian Nuclear scientist killed in mysterious bomb blast. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60B0WJ20100112)
Now I don't know that this was the work of 'foreign agents' or if the guy's wife (or even the regime) just didn't like him and the government's just taking advantage of the situation, but even stuff this small causes a big furor.
EDIT: More details in today's Globe. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/bomb-kills-iranian-nuclear-scientist/article1427957/)
Also very relevant: Saw an article elsewhere that claimed the projections for Iran having a bomb have been pushed back to five years or more, though I can't seem to find it. this editorial (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/dont-bomb-irans-hopes-for-change/article1424821/) seems to have seen the same report (and seems to parrot my view), but doesn't mention the source for the new figures. If correct, it means the west has at least some time to wait.
-
Understood. The old people are reluctant to believe that the neoShah is going to be brought down in this round, but I can see that the extremist factions are starting to come to light. Needless to say, it's going to be a manhattan kind of day in Iran for a little while.
On Israel: Osairak is out of the cards right now. Too much dispersion, not enough concrete intelligence or incompetence on Iran's side. Unlike Syria, Iran isn't silly enough to keep all their eggs in one basket. You need American military might to put a dent into their gig. Only the Americans have that.
Realistically, the Israelis right now are putting their weight into defensive measures. Fucking with Iran means that they have to deal with HA. The IDF would be loathe to deal with that unless they get ROE to burn down every last village in southern Lebanon (it's the only way to be sure). For now, it's less expensive and makes more sense in the long run to build up some sort of an "Iron Dome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome)" while choking the Gazans into submission through ensuring that the well extends low enough to hit the water table(Think Alesia, only with well-meaning NGO's squeezing in food aid and medical assistance).
-
HA? Hezbollah?
Also, Iran almost certainly has their facilities buried and dispersed BECAUSE of Osirak (Operation Orchard also provided a solid reminder 26 years later that the Israelis had no qualms about a repeat).
Also, LOL Alesia.
-
Iran doesn't even need a warhead, really. Japan has the capacity to begin production quite quickly. That would be all they need to increase their strategic power in the region. Also significantly less stupid than a nuclear test.
And proper democracy in Iran would be nice and all, but it has absolutely nothing to do with stopping their nuclear program considering Mousavi's statements and the general attitude towards it.
It's all up to the Iranians if they want nukes or not at this point. Short of an actual test, the U.S. is ham-stringed from bombing Iran unless it wants Iraq times a billion levels of prestige loss. Israel's situation is identical as they'd have to go over Iraq, whose airspace is de facto U.S. territory at this point and thus making it the U.S.'s decision again.
-
Iran doesn't even need a warhead, really. Japan has the capacity to begin production quite quickly. That would be all they need to increase their strategic power in the region. Also significantly less stupid than a nuclear test.
And proper democracy in Iran would be nice and all, but it has absolutely nothing to do with stopping their nuclear program considering Mousavi's statements and the general attitude towards it.
It's all up to the Iranians if they want nukes or not at this point. Short of an actual test, the U.S. is ham-stringed from bombing Iran unless it wants Iraq times a billion levels of prestige loss. Israel's situation is identical as they'd have to go over Iraq, whose airspace is de facto U.S. territory at this point and thus making it the U.S.'s decision again.
I'd agree that they don't need a warhead. But I have no idea what you meant by the Japan comment. Did you start one thought and let it finish as another? :wat:
And yes, ultimately if the people of Iran decide they want a nuke, they'll keep trying to get one, democracy or no. But it would be pretty stupid to assume that relations with the rest of the world wouldn't improve at least a little if the government was not comprised of people who need to continually 'stir the pot' to stay in power. Right now it's a bit of a vicious cycle: threaten the US etc, they worry they need to threaten back. Toss the desire for a true deterrent into the mix and there you go.
I'd also like to think that external relations would also genuinely improve under a democracy, but I understand that can't be counted on. I'd give it better than even odds though.
-
Re: Japan comment
It was meant to be an example of another country that is a "virtual nuclear power." Could have used a transition sentence.
-
Right, I got that, but Japan isn't really a useful comparison to Iran because they can basically flip a switch and 'go live' if they wanted, whereas Iran is under significant import restrictions (of varying effectiveness), is under international duress (and fairly intense scrutiny), and has an active interest in being an aggressor or threat (if only as a deterrent, though this can certainly be debated).
What I'm not sure I get is what you wanted to say they had as an alternate option. Garden-variety WMD's? A large conventional barrage?
-
Mongrel: your thoughts on the assassinated scientist appear to be wrong. Will wait to let dust settle. He looks a bit too green to be with the nukes.
-
He looks a bit too green to be with the nukes.
"Metal Gear... is a weapon? :;_;:"
-
Right, I got that, but Japan isn't really a useful comparison to Iran because they can basically flip a switch and 'go live' if they wanted, whereas Iran is under significant import restrictions (of varying effectiveness), is under international duress (and fairly intense scrutiny), and has an active interest in being an aggressor or threat (if only as a deterrent, though this can certainly be debated).
What I'm not sure I get is what you wanted to say they had as an alternate option. Garden-variety WMD's? A large conventional barrage?
Oh, well I'd have to disagree with you there. Iran has significant uranium reserves and technical know-how for enrichment processes, so I would consider being able to build a nuke independently a given. That's what I meant. They probably have chemical weapons stored somewhere, but that's not what I'm referring to.
-
Right, I got that, but Japan isn't really a useful comparison to Iran because they can basically flip a switch and 'go live' if they wanted, whereas Iran is under significant import restrictions (of varying effectiveness), is under international duress (and fairly intense scrutiny), and has an active interest in being an aggressor or threat (if only as a deterrent, though this can certainly be debated).
What I'm not sure I get is what you wanted to say they had as an alternate option. Garden-variety WMD's? A large conventional barrage?
Oh, well I'd have to disagree with you there. Iran has significant uranium reserves and technical know-how for enrichment processes, so I would consider being able to build a nuke independently a given.
That's what I thought too, but now we're hearing reports of them running out of raw materials and centrifuges going hungry for lack of product. I don't have a handy link, but apparently all the stuff they've been refining recently is left over from a decades-old purchase of yellowcake from South Africa, with their own supposed reserves untapped.
Now I don't know if this means that they actually don't have as much uranium as the world has been led to believe (if it's a lie, it's a lie that would make sense if they're trying to justify a domestic nuclear program for electricity), OR if they lack the know-how to mine their own uranium reserves (which casts further doubt on their ability to do this independently). But either way the answer is good for the west.
But even if Iran had the raw materials, I would say there is a massive difference between the ability of Iran to get a nuke up and going in a big hurry and for Japan to do the same. The speed and efficiency of the one versus the other would be an order of magnitude in difference. Thirty years of sanctions HAVE taught Persians to be self-reliant at the highest levels of manufacture (and for those of us who know, this modern trend is actually older). But understanding self-reliance is still not the same as already having the technical knowledge.
They'll get there, given time, but a comparison to Japan just isn't useful. Anyway, that point still doesn't make any sense. Here's the sentence:
Iran doesn't even need a warhead, really. Japan has the capacity to begin production quite quickly. That would be all they need to increase their strategic power in the region. Also significantly less stupid than a nuclear test.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just honestly can't parse what you're getting at. Based on this and your later replies, I've got:
- Iran doesn't need a nuke.
(Agreed.)
- Japan could significantly increase it's power if it wanted to by making a nuke.
(And this means Iran should... not? To say nothing of the North Korean example which is actually more relevant?).
- Iran has the the technical know-how to produce a nuke.
(Quite probably - but not nearly as quickly as any nuclear-powered western nation. Especially not under such intense scrutiny.)
- Iran has the natural resources to make a nuke.
(To quote: "In the same sense that someone with an iron mine is close to making a car.")
- What's 'significantly less stupid than a nuclear test'? Just making a bomb and not telling anyone? Sticking to conventional weapons? Staying peaceful?
-
(http://legacy.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/food/060426/cake1.jpg)
:want: Mmmmm, yellowcake...
-
You're forgetting a major key element in deciding foreign policy
Biggest difference between Japan and Iran: Abe has yet to call for Israel to be wiped off the planet. Heck, if you want relevance: India never called for Pakistan to be wiped off.
Secular westerners do not trust theocracies period. There is a good reason for this.
In a globalized world with a functional black market, technical capacity and mineral reserves mean less and less then they once did.
-
You're forgetting a major key element in deciding foreign policy
Biggest difference between Japan and Iran: Abe has yet to call for Israel to be wiped off the planet. Heck, if you want relevance: India never called for Pakistan to be wiped off.
Secular westerners do not trust theocracies period. There is a good reason for this.
Word up, homes. (http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu23/Bon_Bon_2009/scruffy-1.jpg)
In a globalized world with a functional black market, technical capacity and mineral reserves mean less and less then they once did.
Mostly agreed, though native know-how, resources, and overall industrial/scientific capabilities are hardly irrelevant yet.
Were you uh, disagreeing with me? Because the former point is certainly one I've already been pushing, and the latter is kind of neutral (mostly it's an academic question about the timetable. IMO the only really relevant question on that point is not 'how soon' but 'does the will for this project exist?').
-
Re: Mongrel's stuff
I just brought up Japan because it illustrates the virtual nuclear power concept well. In every other respect, yeah it's wrong. I'll explain it a bit further nonetheless.
- Japan could significantly increase it's power if it wanted to by making a nuke.
(And this means Iran should... not? To say nothing of the North Korean example which is actually more relevant?).
Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that. Japan could increase military strength by doing so, but it could always do that. Japan was merely about the possibility. There are lots of strategic (re: East Asia doing spit takes) why they shouldn't. Similarly, Iran wouldn't make one either because crippling sanctions and/or international isolation.
Not going to dispute you on the technical matters. A time line isn't that relevant for this tangent.
- What's 'significantly less stupid than a nuclear test'? Just making a bomb and not telling anyone? Sticking to conventional weapons? Staying peaceful?
Having an undeclared/secret nuclear arsenal is not as bad as declared one. Israel's super secret arsenal is a good example.
If the current situation is anything to go by, having the potential is probably enough for Iran's leaders.
Playing the "Is Taiwan worth Los Angeles?" game is quite possible with mere capability since countries such as South Africa (secretly dismantled) or Israel (open secret, but wasn't always) have kept them hidden. Countries couldn't be sure and wouldn't calculate on "ifs." Even if you don't think they have them, they wouldn't want to push them into building the damn things. It's a game theory thing, I suppose? I didn't actually put that in my post so I can see where I was a bit vague.
Of course this master plan requires the IAEA to bugger off. So, you know, there will be warning signs.
Staying conventional/chemical/whatever doesn't really count unless you have a lot of it, like North Korea has pointed at Seoul.
Am I still incoherent y/n.
-
n
and thanks
-
Glad to see that hate begets hate, as usual. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/challenger-rejects-opponents-sri-lanka-poll-majority/article1445608/)
-
God damn it.
There are coups that try to prevent a country from sliding into deeper murkyness like that of Honduras'. While the temp administration was balls, and militaries seldom make good governments, or good government services except as the sharp end of foreign policy, they did end that one with a vote and a way out for the deposed leader into the pages of history without a noose.
The coup we're about to witness here is just going to be plain African ugly. I really hope I'm wrong. Scumbag general who's a hero to the troops versus a scumbag president. Ding, ding....
-
Looks like Pakistan knew where most of the Taliban leadership was all along. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/with-spate-of-arrests-pakistan-turns-tables-on-taliban/article1481841/)
Let's hope this change of heart isn't too little too late. At any rate, this year's campaigning should be damned interesting.
-
I suspect the high level talks with India had something to do with it.
This sits well with me. I'd rather see Pakistan doing away with the militants for an asian subcontinent-geopolitical reason, than a western. Would sit better with the locals.
-
That, and their discovery over the past year or two that feeding the trolls is bad for everybody
-
Now now, it did keep the commies away...
-
TRADE WAR!!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8556920.stm)
-
Pick my...
-
Oh goody, an economic dispute involving the US government and disenfranchised cotton farmers. That's something you want to escalate to something called a war.
-
On Afghanistan (and the Canadian involvement in Kandahar):
While the Canadian army has re-attained their place in the eye of the yanks as a respected force to the point where Gen Petraeus has said that Americans "not just feel comfortable working aside Canadians in combat operations, but are also comfortable being led by Canadians", a statement which I've never heard before to the best of my knowledge - another example of the shortcomings of the civilian arm (http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/12/terry-glavin-reconstruction-seizes-up-amid-afghan-paralysis-in-ottawa.aspx) of operations in Afghanistan once again proves to its allies of it's reliability and how it has improved naught since Canada entered combat operations in 2001.
-
Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan fired for violating fraternization regulations. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-top-soldier-in-afghanistan-relieved-of-duty/article1585697/)
Rarely has this thread's title been more apt.
-
So...
Love can bloom on the battlefield, but it's the crabgrass of your battlefield?
-
US identifies vast mineral riches in Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?ref=world)
The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.
Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.
The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.
“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.
Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.
The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.
The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.
oh
my
god
-
Anybody following the McChrystal silliness?
Here's the original article that started the mess, in case you were wondering (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236)
-
"The dinner comes with the position, sir," says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn.
McChrystal turns sharply in his chair.
"Hey, Charlie," he asks, "does this come with the position?"
McChrystal gives him the middle finger.
I like him already.
"Who's he going to dinner with?" I ask one of his aides.
"Some French minister," the aide tells me. "It's fucking gay."
This aide, however? :facepalm:
-
The second paragraph on page 5 pretty much says "You think there's even the ghost of a chance of winning Afghanistan? You probably wanna rethink that guess."
(I didn't just quote it, because you need to read the preceding material).
Hell, the fifth page as a whole is pretty goddamned heartbreaking.
-
That quote is the root of all that is wrong in the US military, and why I look forward with glee for the cuts that are being made by both Gates and Canada's own chief (the one in the uniform).
There are too many office jockeys and suits who have never been out on the lines who believe they can interpret the commanders intent and translate that into understandable rules of engagement better than the veterans, which are in a very large supply right now. Add the diplomatic offices into the works (there is not much love for the un-uniformed crooks working in state these days for the people who've been there again and again and again), and put together a team of the best, most experienced Afghan and black staffers who love the sharp end, and articles like that were going to happen sooner or later.
That being said, if Obama punts the 4-star, he will lose Afghanistan and the next election. I will put money on that.
-
And if he doesn't he basically acknowledges that he is not Commander-in-Chief.
-
I believe I have said sometime back that Obama will be a one-term president, which got poo-poo'ed.
I wish to take my prediction one step further by stating that the first black president will be followed by the first female president. You heard it here first (not that I'd admire her).
-
What exactly is winning in Afghanistan?
-
For this generation, there is no such thing.
The problem is getting anybody to admit that.
That quote is the root of all that is wrong in the US military, and why I look forward with glee for the cuts that are being made by both Gates and Canada's own chief (the one in the uniform).
There are too many office jockeys and suits who have never been out on the lines who believe they can interpret the commanders intent and translate that into understandable rules of engagement better than the veterans, which are in a very large supply right now. Add the diplomatic offices into the works (there is not much love for the un-uniformed crooks working in state these days for the people who've been there again and again and again), and put together a team of the best, most experienced Afghan and black staffers who love the sharp end, and articles like that were going to happen sooner or later.
That being said, if Obama punts the 4-star, he will lose Afghanistan and the next election. I will put money on that.
It was more tragic than that even.
When you boil it down, McChrystal is smart enough to realize that killing civilians is going to destroy anything you do faster than you can ever hope to rebuild it. It was probably the single biggest problem they had. But it's all come way WAY too late.
You can see McChrystal's lost the room and can't really convince the rank and file. In the article they say that when McChrystal's there and explains the rules of engagement, the troops get it, with the problems starting after he leaves. But even in the little scene they describe, the soldiers don't accept it. He just seems to be saying "I know it's hard guys, but you gotta have faith." without really explaining it in a way that anybody really believes in it.
I mean, the guy is willing to put his life on the line to be with the men and show that he means what he says, but even that's not cutting it. Nobody's getting anywhere and soldiers are simply getting frustrated to the point where they just want to kill shit - but if you go that route, you're fucked anyway.
They lost the war 3-5 years ago, for a variety of reasons. They haven't stopped the money. They haven't stopped the weapons. And they've only increased enemy recruitment. And now they're all trapped in the hell without end together.
Fuck, I'd give someone massive credit just for openly saying they should just go "Look, we lost. We didn't do this right and now it's gone to hell with no hope of recovery. Sure, it's selfish as fuck, but we're broke, only a minority of people here want us to stay, and none of our allies seem to give a fuck about something that'll probably hurt them before it hurts us, so we're leaving. Now. No 'advisors', no aid funding, nothing. We lost and we're just going. Bye."
That too would be the wrong decision in many ways. It would directly cause the deaths of thousands of vulnerable Afghans and be a huge victory for international terrorism (of course, there is the argument that says international terrorism has already won, just by bleeding so many trillons away), but just once I'd like to see someone stand up and say something like that, just for the sheer balls of it all. At least it might prompt an honest discussion of what to do, as opposed to the usual blithering horseshit.
-
Oh I have to admit that this NBC quote made me giggle.
We also learned from Hastings' story that McChrystal's favorite beverage is Bud Light Lime, so we can only assume the bus was well stocked. The real question is where in Paris would one procure such a wondrous delicacy (and which foul-mouthed staffer's job it was).
Mostly because I tried some Bud Light Lime for the first time ever on Sunday.
It tastes like Sprite.
It tastes exactly like fucking Sprite.
-
I don't really like beer, but if that's the case I would totally drink Bud Light lime.
Also, wait, are they planning to remove McChrystal? He seems to know what he's doing pretty well.
-
I think he's gong to survive by the skin of his teeth, but that O-Dawg is going to tear him a new one before and after kicking him up and down the white house lawn.
To make it clear, McChrystal (or his staff) slags everybody in that article (I mean everybody) EXECEPT Obama (you could argue that he was indirectly slagged, but eh, it's still an 'out'), so this isn't another Douglas MacArthur kinda thing. Just a bunch of fratboys getting REALLY DAMN STOOPID ALL UP IN HERE.
EDIT:
Oh and the :tldr: version of my big post above is:
McChrystal has been mostly right, but he can't really convince anybody below him. And now with this Rolling Stone article, he'll never convince anyone above him either.
Both problems are kinda his fault and kinda not-his-fault.
-
Oh wait, that article was actually a thing? I thought it was pretty entertaining, I didn't know there was a fuss about it.
-
Oh wait, that article was actually a thing? I thought it was pretty entertaining, I didn't know there was a fuss about it.
Well, they pretty much call the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Biden, a variety of allies, and half the general staff (including both his direct superiors), morons of various capacities.
Yeah there's a fuss.
-
That being said, if Obama punts the 4-star, he will lose Afghanistan and the next election. I will put money on that.
And if he doesn't he basically acknowledges that he is not Commander-in-Chief.
The aide gets fired, the general apologizes, and everybody forgets about it by next month. If the Republicans want to make a big deal out of it come November, Obama can only make it worse by getting rid of McChrystal; "He fired a general who criticized him" is a much better attack ad than "He failed to fire a general who criticized him."
I believe I have said sometime back that Obama will be a one-term president, which got poo-poo'ed.
I wish to take my prediction one step further by stating that the first black president will be followed by the first female president. You heard it here first (not that I'd admire her).
So do you think it's going to be the incompetent talking-point machine who quit in the middle of her term, or are you suggesting a cabinet official is going to quit her post to run against the President in the primary? Because those both sound pretty damn farfetched to me.
I'm pretty frickin' nonplussed with Obama at the moment, but I still see him winning in '012 simply by default. I've yet to see anything resembling a good contender in the Republican field, and the idea of a Democratic challenge in the primary is a fantasy.
-
I figure the best possible demonstration of what'll happen if the Tea Party-Palin crowd actually gets their claws on the nomination, is the comedy that followed Ron Paul's kid (his name escapes me right now) getting the Republican ticket nomination in whatever state it was. Just repeat that, but on a larger scale.
But that's a discussion for another thread.
-
Yeah, I'm with Thad on this. I was honestly really worried about Obama's reelection, but there's no electable candidate the opposition could put foward at this point- I'm sure McCain would try again, but I doubt the party would have him and no doubt a "tea party" candidate would come out of the wordwork to run against him in the general election. Beyond that, what do they have left? Sarah Palin may be loved by the roots of the party but moderates and undecideds hate her, not to mention the advertising machine that could point out how she couldn't handle the stress of an executive office in the least populated state in the country. Everyone else is (at best) a joke candidate. Glenn Beck / Joe the Plumber ticket in 2012? Huckabee has talked about running (again) but nobody knows who he is and he has all the charisma and appeal of a wet brown sack of dog shit.
I still think Romney is the most dangerous candidate that the republicans could field, just like he would have been the most dangerous candidate if he'd won the nomination in 2008 - the problem is that the base fucking hates Romney (being a Michigan/Massachusetts Republican) and he does not have a prayer of winning a primary. Republicans are nothing if not irrational, and electability is going to take a backseat to whether or not he's going to kick out the A-rabs and Mexicans, and whether or not he thinks a fetus has a soul. Not to mention he's Mormon.
With the shit that happened in New York earlier this year, I can't really see any result that does not end with "Tea Party" third party splinters off and loses the election for republicans ala Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
-
Thad: I'm suggesting the later in a circumstance where she would not have to run in a primary where the incumbent was an opponent. Again, this may seem far-fetched, but you heard it here first. And as you say, there are no GOP candidates, because most of them are stereotypes and it's way to early to run an "I like Ike" campaign for a competent ex-serviceman centrist who has experience in creating order and better-than-anarchy governance from a situation which was quite the attempted genocide, which I wouldn't bet on happening on account of the republicans being that lost.
Matt: After some deliberate thought, I don't think it's over just yet. There is a lot that is being left out of the papers of how things are conducted in the absence of cracking skulls, and why. While this strategy has been successful when it was employed in other recent theaters there was a lot of allied deaths. The general will have to account for his words and the words of his aides, however. That, he is responsible for as the captain of his ship. However I rescind my comments about losing on account of him being punted. He is not the only player in the US greens in Afghanistan.
Better yet, someone says it better than I can (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/opinion/23boot.html)
This is going to be the case here for a little while longer. That being said, if the Americans would have just cut off Saudi revenue back in 2001, then the more shadowy crown princes and their mullahs wouldn't be in a position to purchase the Chinese weaponry that rains down mortars and rockets on my buddies.
Actually, come to think of it, it's still not too late to crack a high-altitude nuclear warhead over the Saudis to ensure that the wahabbi scumbags would be closer to achieving the dream of living like the prophet... Heck, it would be the greatest gift to the Egyptians as well, considering how close they are to being couped by the Muslim Brotherhood! No deaths, no radiation (there's already plenty of Alpha, Beta and Gamma up there anyway), and plausible deniability: America is an ally of the Saudis, and Israel and Saudi military cooperation has never been higher due to the Iranian threat...
-
Alright, well I didn't know the new deployment hadn't even really come online yet. I guess we'll what happens.
But the Graveyard of Empires isn't done with us all yet. Not by a damn sight.
-
Ron Paul's kid (his name escapes me right now)
There's a very easy mnemonic.
Just repeat that, but on a larger scale.
Well, we kind of already did. When she was running for VP.
Huckabee has talked about running (again) but nobody knows who he is and he has all the charisma and appeal of a wet brown sack of dog shit.
I'll agree on appeal but not charisma; I think he's a great speaker. Frankly he might be the ideal Tea Party candidate since, unlike Sarah, he has a brain.
On the other hand, he doesn't hate poor people, so that might work against him.
With the shit that happened in New York earlier this year, I can't really see any result that does not end with "Tea Party" third party splinters off and loses the election for republicans ala Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
Neither of those things actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992#Analysis) happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Results).
Thad: I'm suggesting the later in a circumstance where she would not have to run in a primary where the incumbent was an opponent. Again, this may seem far-fetched, but you heard it here first.
So your theory is that Obama will become so polarizing that he'll step aside...so that Hillary goddamn CLINTON can run?
That's sort of from the "Would it help to confuse it if we run away more?" school of combat tactics, isn't it?
-
Please do me a favor and do not discuss your desire to commit an act of terrorism on this board again, thank you. (THAD EDIT: The post Brent is referring to here has been jailed (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=469.msg157156#msg157156).)
Anyway, I don't see Obama stepping down or being forced out - he's not really impeachable, and no matter how battered he gets I don't see him stepping down simply because he's winning on his pet issues. That man couldn't give a shit less if Afghanistan imploded and Russia got all its mineral resources. He just wants every insurance lawyer and banker in this country to fuck off.
If anything, the idea of Clinton risking her political career to overthrow him is the most likely scenario. God knows she wants it, and in 20/20 hindsight I don't think I'm the only Democrat who's thinking "If only we have elected a raging cunt into office" right about now...
-
it's way to early to run an "I like Ike" campaign for a competent ex-serviceman centrist who has experience in creating order and better-than-anarchy governance from a situation which was quite the attempted genocide
Okay, has your hatred of brown people and blind cheerleading of anything in a uniform actually taken you so far over the edge that you're proposing a President Petraeus? Here's a hint: Realizing 30 years too late that "hearts and minds" is more than a buzzword and throwing good lives after bad with his nonsensical surge do not a political civilian leader make.
Actually, come to think of it, it's still not too late to crack a high-altitude nuclear warhead over the Saudis to ensure that the wahabbi scumbags would be closer to achieving the dream of living like the prophet... Heck, it would be the greatest gift to the Egyptians as well, considering how close they are to being couped by the Muslim Brotherhood! No deaths, no radiation (there's already plenty of Alpha, Beta and Gamma up there anyway), and plausible deniability: America is an ally of the Saudis, and Israel and Saudi military cooperation has never been higher due to the Iranian threat...
Apparently you have gone completely off the deep end. Jesus christ, do you listen to yourself? You hate Muslims so much that you think it's a good idea to "deniably" nuke two of the more major powers in the Middle East?
-
There's a difference between firebombing the powers, and disabling their electronics, TA. And while I have gone off the deep end, I still think that it is a much more sane tactic than fighting the insurgents on one end while giving billions of dollars to the nation which indirectly finances them with weaponry and madrassas for recruiting. Also, at no point did I declare that I hate all Muslims nor Muslim states. That is untrue: Jordan is still gradually getting its act together after they dispensed with the PLO in Black September.
Also, your premise on the correct individual are incorrect as they do not reflect the character of the actual individual, but instead reflect the inferior military culture which is still in the process of being quashed. Here are my premises on why the man would make an effective POTUS:
-The last competent republican president in the oval office was Ike
-man in question took mission that was about to fail and turned it around
-man in question has real track record of using opinions of competent individuals of all political stripes including anti-war protesters (emma sky), conservative researchers (Australian researcher D Kullian I believe...) and others
-Only book published is not a autobiographical turd basket about a possible way to fix a nation, but a instructive manual on the strategies of operating in an unconventional style of warfare which was so-well assembled that it not only worked in the nation in question, but has been adopted or adapted for use by several other allied nations
-Individual understands nature of logistics, finances, and the "political game"
-There will be no "Swiftboats against this man" campaign
-He is neither engaged, or answerable to public sector unions nor the religious right
Also, it needs to be said that I do not cheer on all people in uniform, but just these two and Odinero (Also Leslie, Natynczyk and Hillier on my home team) only for the reason of "right man in right place" versus the previous generals who mucked things up. This is not blind faith (with likely exception to the bracketed three) as all three have proven themselves effective in endearing circumstances except for one with the media.
PS: Thad the notion of Hillary for POTUS would be very weird. I'm still putting beer on it like I did with myself stating in 06 to friends that the final fight of 08 would be between McCain and Obama when everyone in my realm was looking towards Clinton and some other looney. While I have nothing credible to back this up unlike my other more controversial views, I think this one is more likely to be the case.
-
I don't really think EMP-ing Saudi Arabia would be a good idea for about... oh, a billion reasons.
Not least of which is that it would be even less effective against terrorists than conventional air-bombing campaigns.
Please do me a favor and do not discuss your desire to commit an act of terrorism on this board again, thank you. (THAD EDIT: The post Brent is referring to here has been jailed (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=469.msg157156#msg157156).)
Whenever I see on the board summary that Catloaf has posted anything in this subforum, I just start giggling a bit.
I suppose I should clarify that that doesn't mean I WANT to see those posts, because they're... well, you know.
-
Not going after their terrorists in my happy fantasy world: I'm going after their bankrollers.
And yes, I understand that the largest reason why we can't emp the saudis has more to do with the US' requirement for oil than international diplomacy.
-
Still wouldn't do a damn thing. Maybe you'd get a week's disruption in financial transactions. Tops. If anything. The masters of low-tech, low-budget warfare aren't about to let a mere EMP sand their gears.
And no, it's not that you can't do that because of 'oil'. You can't do that because it would make the US the first country in the history of the world to detonate a nuclear warhead as an unannounced act of aggression. In peacetime*. On an ally (however nominal).
I'm pretty sure that an act that could potentially be interpreted as a declaration of (possibly nuclear) war on the whole planet is what you might call a bad idea.
*They're not at war with Saudi Arabia is what I mean here.
-
While I disagree with the effects on the finances, you are correct without a smidgen of doubt on the effects of that one.
-
I think the most shocking part of this entire discussion is that SCD is suggesting killing or otherwise disabling tens of millions of people to prevent them from funding terrorists who, yearly, kill fewer people in the entire world than bee stings kill in the continental united states.
In general, I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to terrorism - sadly, it's not just SCD. Worse, the people who do have these ridiculous knee-jerk reactions tend to be people in positions of power or entire national governments, e.g. the USA, Russia and Israel. (the worst offender) If the entire point of terrorism is disruption and one of the entire points of guerrilla warfare is to make your enemy waste huge amounts of resources to get little-no results, eventually breaking their spirit, why in the name of fuck do we waste such tremendous amounts of time and energy on these anti-terrorism campaigns?
-
Well. They call it Terror-ism for a reason. When people call for that disproportionate response stuff, it's working as intended.
If you think about it, it's basically trolling as an operational military doctrine.
-
Shinra, the fact that you refuse to use the second person is nothing less than you trying to pretend that you are better than me and refusing that among my bombast that there are deeper issues beyond national lines.
What scares me is that you and Mongrel do not even try to ask the purpose of terrorism in these circumstances. Boiled down, terrorism is a series of deliberate attacks on soft civilian targets in the purpose of political or religious change using fear as its mode of operation. While I will be the first to admit that my half-serious gestures are crazy and not a substitute to an effective longterm strategy, to act in the fashion that bill did after the US Cole by slapping the baddies on the wrist and pretending there was no problem at all was what got your nation into the mess in the second place (financing them directly being the first).
What really scares me about your type Shinra is the lack of understanding (let alone care) of the background knowledge that drives the decisions of the people who think along my minds. Do you care to see that every moderate islamic republic required to have a mass cleansing in order to maintain its status? No, you wouldn't care about that. Would you care about how certain non-islamic entities or lesser muslim entities such as the Alawi's ('lesser' being the interpretation of the "more pure" entities which just slaughtered them)? Just as much as your type would like to admit that the party of who is considered the kingmaker in the Neitherlands after the last election was brought in due to these fears from people like myself. Of course you wouldn't care about how those in that nation must live in fear after insulting the prophet lest end up like Van Gogh, who didn't insult the prophet but the specifics of the more theocratic society which is the nations main import at the moment.
Wake up and realize that this is a serious debate and not something you should push off to the side as "oh, those xenophobes". As I am a bit on the extreme side, I will not have all the solutions but to ignore these signs as a higher political power is to cede the votes of everyone who has served (and there happen to be a lot right now) and their vote to the american religious right, something I see as a lesser evil albiet an evil nonetheless. This is no longer something you should pooh pooh due to its offensive nature.
-
:itsmagic: McChrystal, that's enough! Petraeus, I choose you! (http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2010/06/23/general-stanley-mcchrystal-relieved-of-command-petraeus-taking-over-in-afghanistan/)
-
The fact that it's Petraeus is what turns this from catastrophe to brilliant.
Even though it's technically a demotion of sorts for Petraeus, it can only reflect amazingly well on the man. Even Obama doesn't look too bad for the decision.
Still, I hope the effect on morale isn't too devastating. It'll really depend on how well Petraeus handles that angle.
@ SCD: Who says I haven't already asked about the origins of terrorism? I just figure that dredging up that convoluted morass of a 'discussion' here is probably a form of terrorism in it's own right.
-
So, you're saying we rational people need to start catering to racist xenophobes like yourself, or else the racist xenophobes will hand elections to the theocratic racist xenophobes.
No. Your type, as you not-at-all-insultingly put it, are a blight on society, and deserve no recognition beyond scorn and derision. Your beliefs are offensive to any sane person.
-
The fact that it's Petraeus is what turns this from catastrophe to brilliant.
Even though it's technically a demotion of sorts for Petraeus, it can only reflect amazingly well on the man. Even Obama doesn't look too bad for the decision.
This. When I said that his best option, politically, was to keep McChrystal, I of course did not even consider the possibility that he would replace him with Petraeus. This really is the best possible move he could have made.
-
"I'm sorry sir, you've been demoted to Captain and they're going to place you back in command of the Enterprise."
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/f/fd/James_T_Kirk,_2293.jpg)
-
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 88 (10 U.S.C. § 888) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000888----000-.html)
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Dumbass is lucky to get off this easy. It's a court-martialable offense, punishable by dismissal, confinement for up to 1 year, and forfeiture of all pay.
-
Concurred.
I don't see this one as a demotion for Petraeus, but rather "one more mission for all his sins". There would be no better person for the job.
TA: Coming from you, I will consider such a label a compliment. It's not like you've been one to back up your words with thoughts, let alone try to understand the ramifications of court-martial ling Karzai's only american friend at the time (apart from Hil-Dawg).
-
Gotta admit, the highest levels of government are not where you would normally expect a total subversion of the Peter Principle to occur.
-
Shinra, the fact that you refuse to use the second person is nothing less than you trying to pretend that you are better than me and refusing that among my bombast that there are deeper issues beyond national lines.
EARLIER...
Actually, come to think of it, it's still not too late to crack a high-altitude nuclear warhead over the Saudis to ensure that the wahabbi scumbags would be closer to achieving the dream of living like the prophet...
:whoops:
I don't think it's a stretch to say that I'm better than someone who seriously suggests genocide, as motivated by less than thinly veiled racism.
What scares me is that you and Mongrel do not even try to ask the purpose of terrorism in these circumstances. Boiled down, terrorism is a series of deliberate attacks on soft civilian targets in the purpose of political or religious change using fear as its mode of operation. While I will be the first to admit that my half-serious gestures are crazy and not a substitute to an effective longterm strategy, to act in the fashion that bill did after the US Cole by slapping the baddies on the wrist and pretending there was no problem at all was what got your nation into the mess in the second place (financing them directly being the first).
Enhance...
What scares me is that you and Mongrel do not even try to ask the purpose of terrorism in these circumstances. Boiled down, terrorism is a series of deliberate attacks on soft civilian targets in the purpose of political or religious change using fear as its mode of operation.
Enhance...
Boiled down, terrorism is a series of deliberate attacks on soft civilian targets in the purpose of political or religious change using fear as its mode of operation.
Enhance!
terrorism is a series of deliberate attacks on soft civilian targets in the purpose of political...change
BINGO!
Prior to our two failed wars in the middle east spurred on by a relatively minor loss of life from a non-centralized entity, we've lost most of our international clout, previous allies mistrust us at best and resent us at worst, and our economy is in complete fucking shambles. The entire point of 9/11 was to provoke a knee jerk response. They weren't trying to turn us into muslims, they were trying to destroy our empire. Thanks to assholes like you thinking we needed to hit them back, we're now on the verge of becoming internationally irrelevant. Can't happen? Ask Britain about that.
What really scares me about your type Shinra is the lack of understanding (let alone care) of the background knowledge that drives the decisions of the people who think along my minds. Do you care to see that every moderate islamic republic required to have a mass cleansing in order to maintain its status? No, you wouldn't care about that. Would you care about how certain non-islamic entities or lesser muslim entities such as the Alawi's ('lesser' being the interpretation of the "more pure" entities which just slaughtered them)? Just as much as your type would like to admit that the party of who is considered the kingmaker in the Neitherlands after the last election was brought in due to these fears from people like myself. Of course you wouldn't care about how those in that nation must live in fear after insulting the prophet lest end up like Van Gogh, who didn't insult the prophet but the specifics of the more theocratic society which is the nations main import at the moment.
You're right; I don't care about any of those things. [spoiler]Because I don't think it's any of our business to try to change or police the lives of a bunch of dirt farmers on the other side of the world who have spent two thousand years murdering each other, any more than it's our business to try to change water being wet and grass being green.[/spoiler]
Wake up and realize that this is a serious debate and not something you should push off to the side as "oh, those xenophobes". As I am a bit on the extreme side, I will not have all the solutions but to ignore these signs as a higher political power is to cede the votes of everyone who has served (and there happen to be a lot right now) and their vote to the american religious right, something I see as a lesser evil albiet an evil nonetheless. This is no longer something you should pooh pooh due to its offensive nature.
Enhance...
a serious debate
Actually, come to think of it, it's still not too late to crack a high-altitude nuclear warhead over the Saudis to ensure that the wahabbi scumbags would be closer to achieving the dream of living like the prophet...
:lol:
-
Eeeeyeah, pretty much with Shinra on this one. There's a serious discussion to be had here. "NUKE THE MUSLIMS!!!" is not it. The "give that hornet's nest a good whack with a baseball bat" school of foreign policy has not served us well up to this point -- but never mind that, you're actually, apparently seriously, suggesting an attack, of massive force, on an ally nation. And then in the next sentence providing a lecture about how terrorism is when you attack civilian targets to gain a political result, and how Muslims are awful awful people because they do things like that.
Basically at this point I'm trying to determine which character in Dr. Strangelove I should picture every time you open your mouth, and I'm thinking probably General Turgidson.
-
Turgidson? I would have said Ripper.
-
At this point, I'll concede.
-
What a coincidence. I was just reading about Dead Hand. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war))
President Merkin Muffley: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you *build* such a thing?
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.
-
This is the best Wired article in forever (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/pl_motor_assaultbreacher/)
-
More than a little disturbed that the army is willing to spend $3.7 million on things I thought were badass when I was eight.
-
Cheap, safe, effective. You only get to choose two when it comes to defusing a minefield.
-
So, it's pretty much on every news outlet everywhere. Apparently someone's leaked pretty much the entire not-for-public-consumption internal US documentation of the Afghan war up to 2009 (conveniently or inconveniently excluding the Obama-administration era).
It's supposed to be up on Wikileaks soon, but the NYT, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel all got early access.
...
...
:popcorn:
-
It should be interesting, as I expect a lot of the major issues to mirror problems with other old powers and how they handled insurgency "back in the day". To paraphrase a pretty keen US General of the past, "Counterinsurgency is a racket". However despite the political " :whoops:"'s, Afghanistan's best days are still ahead of her.
To start on the Wired article itself, you'll notice the "next-generation" anti-IED road clearing vehicle designed to knock out under-road IED's are huge, but despite the massive size of this behemoth and the millions that will go into it there is one error of shortsight not thought out by the fobbits in puzzle palace when they try to foist this sort of thing on the taxpayer. This flaw should be obvious to some, and I will explain without going into the murky electronic warfare which is just as incremental and circular in nature with a bit of recent history. For the Canadians, the insurgents started out knocking our unarmoured jeeps with old landmines as well as our soft-skin logistics tpt, so we switched to the Mercedes-jeeps. The insurgents responded with "double" and "triple stacks", which are pretty much what they sound like. The Conservative government decided then to allow the forces to buy these honking huge stuffy Nyalas (http://defense-update.com/images/rg-31.jpg) (RG-31) which are SA in design, and are meant to drive on minefields. They withstand triple-stacks.
Unfortunately Einstein was wrong: The two most common elements were not Stupidity and Hydrogen, but Soviet-era weapons from Soviet stockpiles and Chinese factories and stupidity(don't worry China, we forgive you! If you can't protect your citizens from lead or other forms of simple poisoning, how can we expect your citizens to have the same care for your stockpiles of weapons not for your army? I still haven't forgiven you for not fixing the lack of White Rabbit candies being exported after the melanoma scare.. Bad China!). The crater that took out our first RG-31 took out everything in a three-lane radius and left no survivors. So now as the U-wals decide to implement even larger and more-expensive road clearing attachments for the M1 Abrams, I will predict that the next IEDs will go where there is less armor - dig deeper, or just placing them where they cannot be scooped up. Sadly this shows that the fobbits in Puzzle Palace failed to read the opening phrases in the bible FM 3-24, which explain that the more you pursue in making your troops more safe in insurgencies, the less safe they become.
And on the official US field manual's author, I am pretty gleeful that he has scrapped the old guy's plans to go in guns blazing (http://tribune.com.pk/story/30925/petraeus-scraps-mcchrystals-plan-to-secure-kandahar/) but instead look at tribal-based solutions. It won't be anything near perfect, but that corrupt neighbour bob with the AK sure beats the ANP (which is not saying much; a stop sign beats those guys hands down). However, NPR has a good explanation of the situation as well as an interview of an (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128506407) Ozzie (http://www.teamfortress.com/loosecanon/09.html) who is one of the foremost experts on counterinsurgency (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128506407). I still revere Petraeus as the best general in irregular warfare, but despite my bias it's important to note that he did win a sparsely-populated region using the same basic strategy with the same non-support from the HN government in a similar "almost all hope lost" scenario not half a decade ago. Hope Endures.
As far as the kill-all strategy of the last guy, the Canadians tried that hard and slaughtered the Taliban by the hundreds during Op Medusa. It calmed things down during that following winter more than the others, but it didn't work in the long run. Something about the lack of good government and many other things you will no doubt read about if Mongrel's link reads true.
-
Well, in the Canadian media, there has been a bit of hoo-haw about how there was a possible coverup of a few Canadians killed by friendly fire in the aforementioned op in my pre-emptive essay up there. Luckily, a Globe and Mail reporter by the name of Christie Blatchford was around in the time of the operation (and wrote a memoir called "Combat Charlie). This is what she has to say about the most damning reports of coverup up north (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/canadian-media-at-fault-for-rush-to-believe-friendly-fire-report/article1653971/).
-
Christie Blatchford's columns can frequently be asinine and forgettable (especially anything about 'everyday life'), but I've generally found her SRS BIZNESS REPORTUR columns to be top-notch (most of her military ones and also her stories on the native occupation in Stoney Creek).
-
Really loving Robert Gates right about now (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10921450). Fresh from his last round of cuts of ridiculous spending projects(Laserjet, anyone? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1)), he's at it again looking to snip out another 20 Bn USD from the budget by looking for stuff that doesn't work and going "HEY YOU, GET A REAL JOB".
While the taxpayer won't see the money go back into the pot, if this is successful it will ensure that the logistics of Afghanistan is less likely to require a 20 billion dollars a year of emergency funding
-
Oh, Robert Gates. I'm still tickled pink by this quote of his about the recent WikiLeak posting:
Gates: Posting classified war documents was morally wrong (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/01/gates.wikileaks/) (emphasis mine)
"If I'm angry it is because I believe this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk," Gates said, citing a Taliban statement that it would seek out informants and other collaborators exposed by the documents.
He said the issue involved two areas of culpability - legal and moral.
While the Department of Justice will decide on the legal questions, "there's also a moral culpability, and that's where I think WikiLeaks is guilty," Gates said.
-
And would you say why posting raw data containing names of individuals is wrong, given knowing the context?
-
The individuals' names are not required to understand the content of the dumps. There is no benefit to providing them, only a risk.
-
It's the hypocrisy of the Defense Secretary accusing someone else of having blood on their hands that I hate.
-
He is probably qualified to make that assessment though? I don't know the guy, but it seems he doesn't harbor any illusions of being "clean" himself.
-
It's not hypocritical. The people who offered translators and others work promised secrecy of the names, and due to some idiot intelligence operator who should never see the light of day again and some idiot with an ego the size of jupiter (who could have had the decency to have his minions at least black out the names) these Afghans and their families have to fear for their lives.
I fail to see how gates is any more responsible for this any more than the other two I bring up. In addition to that, it was not Gates who signed on to this war, or cowered away when it got ugly, but chose the option of loyalty regardless of the political flavor in office. Your anti-war bias is clouding your judgement in this case.
And for what it's worth, Gates keeps a counter of all the people who has died on his watch. I'm pretty sure this is a guy whose been looking forward to a nice full-pensioned retirement, but has had to push it off for a good 6 years because no other adult would step in and clean the mess the kids made.
-
It's not hypocritical. The people who offered translators and others work promised secrecy of the names, and due to some idiot intelligence operator who should never see the light of day again and some idiot with an ego the size of jupiter (who could have had the decency to have his minions at least black out the names) these Afghans and their families have to fear for their lives.
You know what is also making them fear for their lives? The war.
I fail to see how gates is any more responsible for this any more than the other two I bring up. In addition to that, it was not Gates who signed on to this war, or cowered away when it got ugly, but chose the option of loyalty regardless of the political flavor in office. Your anti-war bias is clouding your judgement in this case.
So I should go easy on those whose job it is to ensure the healthy funding and budgeting of the war? Boo-fucking hoo. Gates has influence, an opinion, and his own self-respecting. Every moment he continues to do that job is a moment he's responsible for the deaths of Afghan civilians as well as American and allied soldiers. He may not have started the war, but he sure as hell has become a pivotal cog in it.
And for what it's worth, Gates keeps a counter of all the people who has died on his watch. I'm pretty sure this is a guy whose been looking forward to a nice full-pensioned retirement, but has had to push it off for a good 6 years because no other adult would step in and clean the mess the kids made.
I'm glad he can look forward to a full-pensioned retirement one day. Hundreds of thousands of others have lost their loved ones.
-
Gates is a dick, sure whatever. The point being that the wikileaks guys were absolutely and totally irresponsible for posting that stuff without first blocking off names or contacting the governments about what sort of stuff was on those papers and what kind of harm it could cause, not to the government itself but to their afgan or iraqui collaborators who are trying their best to help their country out.
If there wasn't any war in the first place then sure, maybe they wouldn't have to fear for their lives, but guess what, they are in a war now and leaving them now it's not gonna do them any good, especially not now that the enemy knows their identities and the fact that they were collaborating with the US.
-
You seem to be under the assumption that the war would stop without this man.
-
I blame the troops.
-
You seem to be under the assumption that the war would stop without this man.
Agreed, or that this man lacks the moral integrity to go against his chief.
-
Is he still picking up a paycheck for helping wage a war? That goes a long way towards my thinking he's a hypocritical shit.
No, I never thought Gates could stop the war by himself. But that doesn't mean he has to be complicit in it. And don't get me wrong, I don't think this is an either/or situation. Julian Assange may have fucked up by failing to redact names, but that makes the reality of the actual masters of this war no less horrifying. In the last four years, Robert Gates is responsible for more Afghan deaths than Assange will ever be.
-
My biggest beef with Assange is that while I largely agree with his ideas and even most of his actions, by refusing to redact names, not only has he possibly killed some folks (not to trivialize that), he has also provided every opponent who might ever criticize Wikileaks with the beat possible ammunition they could ever have against them.
-
Is that really a problem though? They've basically proven that they can't be trusted to do what they're doing responsibly.
You can agree with an entity's goals and disagree with their methods. And vice versa.
-
They've basically proven that they can't be trusted to do what they're doing responsibly.
I can't decipher this. Do both of those 'they's refer to Wikileaks? I mean, if someone is doing something responsibly, how can they also not be trusted to do that same thing?
You can agree with an entity's goals and disagree with their methods. And vice versa.
Well, yes. That's basically what I said. But I was also saying they were damned stupid for choosing that particular method, since it's pretty self-defeating.
-
Is he still picking up a paycheck for helping wage a war? That goes a long way towards my thinking he's a hypocritical shit.
No, I never thought Gates could stop the war by himself. But that doesn't mean he has to be complicit in it. And don't get me wrong, I don't think this is an either/or situation. Julian Assange may have fucked up by failing to redact names, but that makes the reality of the actual masters of this war no less horrifying. In the last four years, Robert Gates is responsible for more Afghan deaths than Assange will ever be.
Isn't the commander-in-chief more responsible for this? After all, he had every opportunity to fire Gates and end the war.
-
Did I ever say Obama wasn't responsible? The point of my calling Gates a hypocrit is that he is a part of the institution that is currently waging war in Afghanistan, killing civilians and soldiers alike, and he has the temerity to accuse of others of having moral failings as long as this war is going on.
After all, he had every opportunity to fire Gates and end the war.
I'm not sure if you meant this to be as :strawman: as it sounds. Are these two separate thoughts, or causation?
-
Itt two instances of the perils of relying on text as a communication medium.
I'll explain later when I'm not quickly ducking out just to get away from a pair of conflicting, massive problems.
-
Did I ever say Obama wasn't responsible? The point of my calling Gates a hypocrit is that he is a part of the institution that is currently waging war in Afghanistan, killing civilians and soldiers alike, and he has the temerity to accuse of others of having moral failings as long as this war is going on.
So would you be this aghast at Obama if he said the same thing? Do you think he would say something different? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to understand your logic. Your anger at Gates seems to stem from his role in the war, not just from his statement. Shouldn't you have this same anger at Obama regardless of the statements he makes? If not, why?
After all, he had every opportunity to fire Gates and end the war.
I'm not sure if you meant this to be as :strawman: as it sounds. Are these two separate thoughts, or causation?
It's part of the same thought: Obama is the commander in chief and Gates' boss, so he should bear responsibility for anything that goes on in the war. It just feels to me that you're singling out Gates because he's a Bush appointee and it's much easier to get angry at him than at the President who's the "good guy". I sincerely apologize if I'm mischaracterizing you, but it bothers me when people get attacked just because it's easy to make them the villain. I really don't want to be accusing you unjustly, that's why I'm asking questions to clarify your point, I just wanted to clarify why I'm questioning you in the first place.
-
No, I'm singling out Gates because he has the stupidity to open his mouth and try to take the moral high ground as he plays his part in waging a war. Don't get me wrong, I blame Obama for the ongoing of the war as much as I blame Bush for starting and maintaining it, I was just singling out Gates for saying something stupid.
Also, I'm not sure where the impression that I was blaming Gates solely for the war came from. I only meant to call him a dumb hypocrite for trying to act moral and righteous against WikiLeaks. I was never trying to blame him for the entire war.
-
Lets be clear, there is nothing hypocritical about a military chief denouncing the enabling of the opposite force to murder NATO-assisting translators or other aides and their families through an intermediary who hides in the shadows.
While it would be hypocritical for a military chief to denounce an attack like this one (http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/14/assignment-kandahar-taliban-spin-it-is-to-laugh/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter), dismissing the attackers as cowardly and without ethics would fall under this definition as would the same chief denouncing the use of force to vaporize the insurgents, as which happened.
You have failed to explain your accusation in a fashion which is sound. It stands refuted.
-
I think you mean '/debate'
-
Lets be clear, there is nothing hypocritical about a military chief denouncing the enabling of the opposite force to murder NATO-assisting translators or other aides and their families through an intermediary who hides in the shadows.
Turns out the Pentagon had refused to help WikiLeaks when it asked for help in redacting the documents, then flat out lied about it (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/20/wikileaks/index.html)
But yesterday, the DoD itself released a letter -- dated August 16 (two days before the Newsweek article) -- which makes clear that WikiLeaks did exactly that which DoD officials denied they did: namely, they asked DoD for help redacting these remaining documents. That letter, written by DoD Legal Counsel Jeb Charles Johnson to WikiLeak's counsel, Timothy Matusheski, explicitly recounts -- contrary to the emphatic denials in Newsweek -- that WikiLeaks' lawyer had contacted the Pentagon and requested help in the "harm minimization" process. The DoD, however, is explicitly refusing to offer any help whatsoever
-
That, uh... kind of turns this whole thing on it's head.
Whoopsie!
-
And, just to put the WikiLeaks thing to a close (via CNN):
Gates: Leaked documents don't reveal key intel, but risks remain (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T2)
The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.
...
The assessment, revealed in a letter from Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July.
The letter, provided to CNN, was written August 16 by Gates in response to a query by the senator regarding the leak of classified information.
...
But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak
Just in case there was any lingering doubts as to why I consider Robert Gates to be a scumbag.
-
That's rational. The justification you set out before was more along the lines of "Because he is connected in any way shape or form to the United States military."
-
Well, you'll forgive me for thinking that when people who are a vital part of the "bombing and killing" portion of the government start accusing others of being responsible for killing, I find that more than a little bit hypocritical.
That's rational. The justification you set out before was more along the lines of "Because he is connected in any way shape or form to the United States military."
I also gripe on Gates and others because they're more than just "connected in any way shapre or form". The guy is top brass, and one of the main components of helping the government wage what I consider to be illegal, violent campaigns against other countries. Gates isn't just some grunt stationed in Indonesia or something, his decisions everyday, in one form or another, help shape the predator drone strikes that kill civilians.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/19/pentagon.gays.recruiting/ (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/19/pentagon.gays.recruiting/) Not sure if this is 'NEWS' or if we already talked about it, and I'm not sure if this is the right place, move it around however you like.
Oh yeah, its a link about the don't ask don't tell ruling.
-
For those of you following the latest round of Wikileaks releases, but who are too lazy to actually read thousands of diplomatic cables yourselves, here's the highlight reel (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/breaking-down-the-wikileaks-release/article1816784/).
Most of it is unsurprising "Well, no shit." stuff, but it's still interesting.
-
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear program and is reported to have advised Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.
[...]
Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups such as al-Qaeda
-
So wait, are the Saudis the good guys, or the bad guys?
-
Yes.
-
other nuggets of fun i've read:
the Iranian Red Crescent is actively controlled by the government and is involved in illicit arms smuggling and intelligence gathering on behalf of Iran
Ali Khamenei has terminal leukemia
Kim Jong-il is quote "a flabby old chap"
-
The Leukemia, now that's interesting.
-
Interesting theory proposes that Stuxnet is in fact a Chinese creation (http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/12/14/stuxnets-finnish-chinese-connection/?boxes=Homepagechannels)
It feels a bit too much like a conspiracy-theory-fetishist's ignoring of Hanlon's Razor, but it's an interesting possibility all the same.
-
Pretty much everything involved with Stuxnet is going to end up sounding like a conspiracy theory. The thing is literally straight out of a Metal Gear Solid game.
Actually literally, yes.
-
Egyptian Muslims organize to act as human shields for fellow Egyptian Christians (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/3216/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-Muslims-to-act-as-human-shields-at-Coptic-Ch.aspx)
I wouldn't call it good news, but it's very heartening.
-
From the "no shit" department: Curveball admits he was lying about the WMD's. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war)
-
What an appropriate codename. Your CIA tax dollars were good for SOMETHING, I guess!
-
US Army general attempts to use psyop(ie propaganda) to influence US senators. (http://m.rollingstone.com/?redirurl=/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223?page=1)
-
Oh hey, I was just coming here to post that.
I like that once again it was ROLLING-FUCKING-STONE that broke the story.
-
Holy shit the Arab League found a spine (more or less) somewhere!?!
-
FUCK YEAH, THE ADMINISTRATION'S 180. HOLY SHIT.
I'd say my hopes had been answered but this still has to pass the Security Council tonight. The BBC grapevine seems to indicate that China and Russia may have agreed to abstain, but of course the proof is in the pudding.
Meanwhile Sarkozy (bless his cotton socks) and Cameron are practically ready to run out and jump in fighter-bombers themselves.
-
Links, motherfucker.
-
I went to go link the previous articles by way of reply, but NEVER MIND THAT, WE'VE GOT AN UPDATE ALREADY.
How about
FUCK. YEAH.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009)
(http://files.sharenator.com/victory_baby_picdump-s400x400-140848.jpg)
The 180 was the fact that up until this morning, Obama had been ruling out military action of any kind in spite of strong international support, a unanimous request from the Arab League, and Biden, Hilary and a number of US senators and congressmen pushing hard for action and the plain ol' justice of the situation.
-
That's cool, looks like we can liberate Libya like we did Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
If you think Libya will be the same, you simply have not been paying attention.
The situation equates more closely to the US revolution than it does the Afghan war or Iraq.
-
Okay, you deserve a better explanation that one-liners.
It's not often you get a truly just war, but anything that involves greasing Ghaddffi (the world's second-foremost cartoon dictator) and ending that regime comes pretty damned close. This isn't the abortive uprising in Iraq in 1991/92, nor is it the "Northern Alliance" of Afghan memory, or the Iran uprisings. The rebels were out there doing the real heavy lifting all on their own, bleeding and dying without anybody having promised them help or showing up with a train of M1 Abrams for them to hide behind.
The rebel leadership has taken great pains to demonstrate that they're not a bunch of extremist nutjobs and are doing a surprisingly good job of putting together a rough-and-ready provisional government. And they managed to impress Biden, Hilary, and half the EU in the process. Best estimates show that a clear majority of the population of the country is rebel or has strong rebel sympathies. In fact the core of the rebel army is comprised of defecting regiments from the regular army. They're more than just a one-hit wonder too. After the recent setbacks, they dug in and showed resilience and resourcefulness in a long fighting retreat.
The Rebels almost managed to toss Ghadaffi out on their own, pushing him almost to a small area around Tripoli, until regime armour, artillery, and air assets started getting into play. They easily outnumber the regime forces in manpower (even more so when morale is good - some of the non-soldiers are hedging their bets by fleeing when things get back. But they're not trained soldiers, so I can't lay blame there). But the effects of heavy artillery and armour were simply too much.
Various rebel mouthpieces have been saying that a Ghaddafi victory will mean genocide. It's easy to be cynically skeptical of this, especially considering a biased source, but don't forget, who we're talking about here. Momar Ghaddafi. Even leaving his past aside, he's been damn well doing his best in the past two weeks to show that genocide is something he's relishing very much. The regime has been about as indiscriminate in it's killing as can be.
Sure you can say something nasty like "They were too good for our help, but when the going got rough they came whining for the US to step in". The rebels originally asked the UN for a no-fly zone, not for intervention. Basically the rebel view is partially a fear of foreign dominance, but it's also an old-fashioned homegrown pride issue. They want to do this themselves. I mean, that's something truly precious, something you almost never see anymore.
They want a no-fly zone because they're not afraid of being outgunned by tanks or artillery - they can fight those, though it's difficult (and if they can get some heavier weapons they can balance that out very quickly). But they couldn't counter air power and even if someone gave them planes, they wouldn't have an instant air force to fight with - that takes time they don't have. Forcing both sides to stay on the ground would go a long way towards evening things up and to boosting rebel morale.
Those men have more guts than most. Up until yesterday, I was saying to anyone who cared to listed that if I had my way, NATO would be their personal airforce and I'd be dumping planeloads of easy weapons and supplies for 'em like there was no tomorrow. They've got the fight in 'em, and they've got the numbers. Just give them the tools. I thought that would probably a bit too much for the realpolitik lot, but today has been a day for grand surprises.
The Afghans hate everybody,
The Iraqis were invaded based on trumped-up imperialist nonsense and everyone knew it,
These guys were out taking artillery in the face for weeks before they started asking for help.
-
if you believe American involvement will mean anything other than trying to setup a puppet government, then I suggest you familiarize yourself with American involvement in Cuba.
-
I'd take a puppet government over millions dead, but that's just me. Then again I don't believe the US will actually involve themselves in ground fighting for this anyway.
-
Yeah, really I don't care if the US is going to end up supporting a puppet government (which I don't think will be the case*). The alternatives would have made Iraq circa spring 1991 look like a daycare.
*If you look at a map of Libya, the only regions with any population that didn't rebel are an irregular 300 km circle centred on Tripoli. Almost the ENTIRE REST OF THE COUNTRY - including every city of significant size other than Tripoli - rose in rebellion. I think these guys will be able to stand on their own. The invasion of Iraq may have been a complete and utter disaster, predicated entirely on lies, but in spite of everything it looks like they might actually turn out alright in the end. The situation in Libya is far more promising.
-
It'll be funny if they call this the Third Barbary War.
-
Mongrel
Your entire argument is based around that the American invasion force will be strong enough to quelch Qaddafi, but not strong enough to resist the whims of the rebellion. That is bullshit. Once in, the American government will do what it damn well pleases. America is not and never has been interested in spreading peace and democracy around the globe. We are interested in making sure that America gets what America wants, which is usually pretty counter to whatever the rebels will want. We will simply trade out Qaddafi for someone who is the same but is more pliant to our needs.
-
Of course, that's leaving out the years and years of occupation.
-
If you want a picture of American history, imagine Uncle Sam punching himself in the face -- forever.
...wait shit the last part of that quote doesn't work now fuck.
-
Mongrel
Your entire argument is based around that the American invasion force will be strong enough to quelch Qaddafi, but not strong enough to resist the whims of the rebellion. That is bullshit. Once in, the American government will do what it damn well pleases. America is not and never has been interested in spreading peace and democracy around the globe. We are interested in making sure that America gets what America wants, which is usually pretty counter to whatever the rebels will want. We will simply trade out Qaddafi for someone who is the same but is more pliant to our needs.
Your entire argument is based around there being an American invasion force. Which there isn't. This is a UN-sanctioned operation under French command, with NATO support and Egyptian backing, and all that's being done is taking out Qaddafi's air force and leaving the ground war to the existing rebels - the resolution specifically rules out a foreign occupation force "of any form on any part of Libyan territory." This isn't Iraq.
-
What he said.
Don't let knee-jerk cynicism prevent you from reading about the actual facts.
-
Hey, I wouldn't want to let a little thing like the history of imperialist powers crushing the spirit of rebellions allow me to temper my yee-haa acceptance of the neo-con view of policing the world. It's like 2003 all over again. But this time it'll be different, because x = y and ?????
-
:facepalm:
What part of 'this is a french-lead nato-backed UN resolution' do you not understand?
We didn't propose the idea, we're not in charge of the idea, and both the military and the executive branch of the government have gone so far as to say that they didn't want to get involved in the conflict. Sure, we could have vetoed it. And who do you think the international community would blame for the libyan genocide that would follow?
We have to trade with these people, you know.
-
No no.... it's all clear now. Because I made a joke invoking the Marines' Hymn, that means three divisions of them will be on that selfsame shore in twenty minutes, complete with little American flags and oil contracts.
-
Let me put it this way: I'll believe that the UN resolution will be in good faith to actually help the ideals of the rebellion when I see it. It's just that to this point, the actions of the major imperialist nations of this world have never been in the interest of the people or democracy, they have been purely for the sake of economic and cultural expansion. And I doubt that Nicholas Sarkozy is the man to turn that around.
But go on, continue insisting that just little hits of war won't trigger a relapse in the conquest addicts.
-
I'll be as happy as you are to say "just you wait and see".
-
Isn't Gaddafi a Western prop to begin with?
-
There's some speculation that the CIA helped him in back in '69, but that's unconfirmed in the true sense (as opposed to the nudge, wink, "we know NOOOOOTHING" sense). Even if it was the case it wasn't much help and he never received substantial US support.
There was a long streak when Gaddafi was about as popular as Khameni. Libya and Iran were the big sponsors of Islamic terror back in the 80's - the Berlin disco bombing in '86 and the Lockerbie disaster in '88 were both Libyan, as well as some other stuff. Then after Saddam bit the biscuit, Gaddafi decided to cave and play nice. Cowardice is one of his strong suits, a trend we can see continues today.
Gaddafi threw away all his WMDs and made some noises about behaving and renouncing terrorism, so Bush-and-Cheney funnelled him a couple of sheckels and a few toys (but not many) and let him back in the "nations club" (this last one was the important bit, since it removed all of the old long-term civil trade sanctions).
-
So if the French are leading this thing, why the fuck are we the ones starting the bombing? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/operation-odyssey-dawn-us_n_838009.html)
Also, gotta love the weasly reporting by the AP.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement -- at least in the initial stages -- to helping protect French and other air missions.
That's the kind of information that only a deeply subservient media could pass on without asking any further questions about!
Of course, none of that matters when we have the opportunity to spend up to $1.2 billion a month on this thing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/libya-no-fly-no-drive-zone_n_837754.html)
-
They seem to be taking down air defense facilities like radars and missiles so the pilots enforcing the no-fly won't get shot down. It's not like they're bombing palaces or supply depots. I'm not one to be overly lenient towards American military ambitions, but this does seem fairly reasonable so far.
-
So if the French are leading this thing, why the fuck are we the ones starting the bombing? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/operation-odyssey-dawn-us_n_838009.html)
Maybe try a source that's a legitimate news organization rather than a blog. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972)
A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman.
I love the Huffington post but let's not pretend for a second that they're any more legitimate a news source than any other blog network.
-
Uh, dude, that was an AP story they reposted.
-
As the US rains down 110 tomahawk missiles of Democracy on the people of Libya, suddenly the Arab League has doubts about asking known mass-murders to, ahem, come into their countries and commit mass murder (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320).
Since he's vowed, or at least insisted, that there won't be ground troops in Libya, maybe he can follow the Pakistan model and just send Predator Freedom Drones into the area to ensure that people are liberated from their oppressed lives. Hurray!
Soon the US will have deposed of Qaddafi, and allowed his former Minister of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Abdul_Jalil) to take his place. I can't see ANYTHING bad coming of that.
Meanwhile, keep cheerleading for the 3rd, 4th, 5th I honestly can't remember which war in a muslim country guaranteed to continue a black hole of taxpayer money into some very rich hands.
Oh, also, the worst part of this war is that I am going to be a TOTAL DICK about it while we're involved.
-
That, uh, Wiki article about the former Justice minister is actually pretty complimentary. I mean, Amnesty International seemed to think he was okay. And while they can be a bit silly at time, I'm going to cede to them here.
And the US pasted Libya flat today because Ghaddafi violated two truces in under 24 hours. I mean COMPLETELY ignored them. He declared a ceasefire and the tanks didn't even pause.
Like, I understand that in war "rules" are often silly and that brutal reality means they are ignored (even when obeying them is actually sensible and helps with the prosecution of a war, like when you treat prisoners nicely so that your opponents surrender easy). But truces are generally sacred for very good and practical reasons.
-
That, uh, Wiki article about the former Justice minister is actually pretty complimentary. I mean, Amnesty International seemed to think he was okay. And while they can be a bit silly at time, I'm going to cede to them here.
Well, the international community waited until this guy was more firmly in charge before deciding to go ahead with the invasion. And given what a hodgepodge of scumbags the international community is, I think that says a lot as well.
But moreover, I pointed out the Wiki just to note how a former stooge of Qaddafi is leading the rebellion against him. It's easy to use the language of human rights merely to bolster one's own standing the world. For a more prominent example, see Barack Obama.
And the US pasted Libya flat today because Ghaddafi violated two truces in under 24 hours. I mean COMPLETELY ignored them. He declared a ceasefire and the tanks didn't even pause.
Like, I understand that in war "rules" are often silly and that brutal reality means they are ignored (even when obeying them is actually sensible and helps with the prosecution of a war, like when you treat prisoners nicely so that your opponents surrender easy). But truces are generally sacred for very good and practical reasons.
You misunderstand my point. Air strikes are messy, imprecise, and rarely, rarely used with the intent of "just hitting military targets". From World War II to Vietnam to Desert Storm to Kosovo and Syria and Pakistan, air strikes are a form of shock and awe intended to just take out as many "enemies" as possible. And when their targets are inside civilian cities, the pretense of doing it to save innocent lives just flies out the window.
In short, by the time this war is done (2025?), Obama and Co. will have probably killed more civilians than Qaddafi ever could have.
-
Actually Constantine, you're way overthinking air strikes. Never ascribe to malice, etc.
Ground troops take time, are expensive, and make lots of people at home upset. Westerners are lazy and pampered and have been sheltered from the realities of the world for many years now.
Western governments don't drop air strikes because they WANT TO KILL KILL KILL BLOODLUST OMG, but because we're soft and would prefer not to do anything difficult. So we play armchair videogame general with the "DROP BOMBS" button instead of actually going and fighting and just rationalize the extra casualties away. That's why air strikes are always the first choice and that's why we never send enough troops to get a job done anymore on the occasions when we DO send troops.
But I still think the current situation is vastly better than letting Ghaddafi just mow his own people down. I mean I understand that you think this is Imperialism and trumped up excuses, but what exactly did you think was going to happen if nobody had intervened? As I said earlier, this is Momar Gaddafi we're talking about. He actually came out and said "There will be no mercy!". Even if you mistrust recent reports, he has a fourty-two year record we can consult for guidance.
-
I understand that you grew into political adulthood during the Bush administration, but you're actually starting to bore me with your relentless cynicism here, Constantine.
-
Good for you, Bal, although I'm starting to suspect you've never actually read a history book.
Mongrel came on here being a cheerleader for the next American/Muslim war, and I'm offering evidence that maybe, just maybe, this isn't the war that is someone how Different from the last 100 years of American conflict. The USA has never entered a war for any reason except personal economic reasons.
Hell, I don't even trust Obama. In his first year, he intensified the war in Afghanistan, stepped up unmanned drone attacks in Paksitan and Yemen, and is still continuing to operate
torturous, illegal military bases abroad. He's ignored the actual genocidal actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians, and he's even stepped up the abuse and attacks on whistle-blowers at home.
What sudden US involvement in Libyan says to me is not that America has finally grown a conscious and decided to bring liberty and prosperity to a blighted people, but that the rebellion has developed favorable US leadership and will be pliant when Qaddafi is out of the way. This also sends a valuable lesson to the rest of the Muslim world that they better put the brakes on their own attempts to secure Democracy or we will start bombing them.
You'll forgive me for having thought that growing up during several failed wars and "peace actions" across the globe (Not just Bush II, but Clinton, Bush I and Reagan, as well), and after witnessing just how horrible a human being our current president is, that I simply don't believe America is going to war for any reason than America's self-interest. And I won't stand by and watch people I know are capable of compassion suddenly cheerleader like neocons in 2003 just because the man in the White House has a D next to his name.
And for the record, part of it is personal. Mongrel had the temerity to actually refer to it as a Just War, and if there's any reason to legitimately ball-slap a man in public that is it.
-
At this point I'm just going to shrug and accept the fact that I happen to be a benefactor of this dirty-Muslim-kicking-over habit my elected officials have adopted. It seems a lot more productive than whining about it anyway, even if only personally.
-
I mean when you get right down to it your choices in this country are to take your piece of the pie or let the fatass oil baron eat it.
-
See but the point unless you are making over $100 million a year you do not benefit. You, Brentai, will gain nothing from this occupation, but every Tomahawk missile is equivalent to the yearly salaries of 20 teachers.
-
This also sends a valuable lesson to the rest of the Muslim world that they better put the brakes on their own attempts to secure Democracy or we will start bombing them.
Isn't the bombing related to the exact opposite of that statement?
-
Only if you believe in the fundamental benevolence/comptence of first world militaries, I think that's constantine's point.
-
This also sends a valuable lesson to the rest of the Muslim world that they better put the brakes on their own attempts to secure Democracy or we will start bombing them.
Isn't the bombing related to the exact opposite of that statement?
Only if you believe in the fundamental benevolence/comptence of first world militaries, I think that's constantine's point.
Not really. It still doesn't make sense even if you parse it that way.
Constantine, just when exactly did you become a raving ideologue.
When I called this a Just War, that referred specifically to the fact that it would be less immoral to start shooting then to stand by and do nothing. That's all. I asked you what you would have had us done and instead of replying you went on a tirade about US imperialism. In fact the only inkling I have of what possibly reply you might have made is when you refer to the "last 100 years" - can we assume this places you in the school of thought that says the US should have stayed out of World War II?
As powerful and influential as the US is, it's an incredible disservice to the rest of the world to simply claim this war is the US's. They are certainly lobbing the most ordnance, but this is not the US's war, nor is it part of the US's personal agenda. In fact the Administration has already announced their intention to hand off formal command within days. As much as you want this to be the US's war, so you can rail against the evil empire, it's not. The French (and to a lesser degree, the English) pushed it, and continue to drive it. Even the Arab league was behind this, though they're not happy with overkill*. The US wants little to do with this, outside of a few hawkish senators who would be happy to throttle Ghaddafi with their bare hands on national TV.
I suppose the US could do another unexpected 180 in the next 48 hours, with Obama suddenly putting on an outfit stolen from Snidley Whiplash, twirling his mustache and throwing all the Libyan widows out to steal their oil, but what if they don't? What if they do hand off command and recede to a lesser role?
When you speak of "Pliant leadership" you dismiss the locals out of hand. You think the average person in the Middle East isn't aware of the pitfalls of asking for help from the US? Yet they chose to do so - they judged their need was bad enough. But this does not mean that these people are going to just fold, or let themselves be taken advantage of.
You also make the same mistake the Chinese make about democracy. Democracy is something that is seen as "Western" or "American" but the fact that western Democracies have allowed themselves to become corrupt and bloated and to let their institutions fall apart, does not mean that it is wrong for other nations to pursue freedom or democracy, nor does it make it immoral or stupid for those nations to ask for the West's help when they feel they should do so. All it means is that Democracy works best when the average citizen has a stake in it and has a visceral understanding of the collective responsibilities that comes with a vote. Let me tell you, these people understand that far better than most US citizens do. Frankly we are children here. We live soft pampered lives. Even our western militaries. Out there is where the real adults are, fighting and dying.
A Canadian is about as jaded about US influence as you're going to get short of people who have suffered violence at the hands of the American military, and even I'm still not going to say that everything the US does is going to automatically turn to shit.
*One thing I'll always be happy to concede is the rather trigger-happy nature of the US forces. Though, as stated above, the continuing violation of ceasefires on the part of the regime may justify a response that seems disproportionate right now. I would need to learn more about the actual tactical objectives before judging use-of-force, and we won't get that intel until long after the shooting stops.
-
So anyway,
There is a joke circulating amongst Tripoli's men: "When Libya is liberated, our brothers in Benghazi will march to the capital with containers of women's underwear to distribute to us."
They collapse in laughter as they tell the tale and sip on their coffee.
At least one woman in Tripoli has expressed a similar view, but this was no gag, as far as I'm aware. The incident was witnessed by my relative's friend at a bank in the Souk al-Jumaa district.
An old woman, in her late 70s at least, I'm told, entered the bank to collect her 500 Libyan dollars ($410; £253) in state aid announced a couple of weeks ago.
There were two long queues - one for men and one for women. She stood in the men's queue.
The men urged her to move to the women's section. "Why?" she challenged.
A man told her: "Ya haja [a term of respect for an elderly woman] this line is for men, women is the other one".
She loudly replied: "No. All the men are in Benghazi."
The room is said to have been stunned into silence and she remained in her place until her turn came and she walked out with her money.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/FramFramson/dayum.jpg)
From an excellent BBC article this afternoon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803282).
-
I am reserving judgment on the revolution until I hear some assurances for the protection of Shiite Muslims, but this country is Not Iraq. There is a big difference between invading a stable, peaceful nation to overthrow a dictator and create a power vacuum in a diverse and tense region, and invading to assist an already-underway insurrection in a religiously and culturally homogenous area with the most educated, literate, and urbanized population in the region.
One was a disaster, and the other was how the united states were founded.
(hi5 lafayette)
-
My favorite line of this whole thing is the repeated assertion that we're not there to take out QGuaddhaffi, we're there to "level the playing field" so the rebels have an "equal chance" with government forces. Which sounds a lot like "We don't care who wins as long as it's as long and bloody as possible."
I know I keep saying "It's the plot of MGS4" but... well, it's the plot of MGS4.
-
I haven't played that yet Brentai. No spoilers!
-
Constantine, just when exactly did you become a raving ideologue.
You know Iraq was a 12 year long no-fly zone, right? And perhaps you should look up Bill Clinton's atrocities in Kosovo.
But there's other things that just Don't Sound Right. Such as our decision to implement a No-Fly zone on a guy who's been hitting the rebels with tanks and artillery. Does taking out his radar installations really help the rebels? Or does it setup a ground invasion down the line?
Really, it comes down to, do you trust the governments of Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy to be about bringing liberty and democracy to the Middle East?
-
And perhaps you should look up Bill Clinton's atrocities in Kosovo.
What about his atrocities in Rwanda?
-
You know Iraq was a 12 year long no-fly zone, right?
You also know that the Iraqis didn't ask for us to come (well, okay, the Kurds were always happy to see us) and that the entire fucking planet knew that Iraq was a farce based on blatant lies and a personal vendetta?
Gulf War II: This Time It's Personal.
And perhaps you should look up Bill Clinton's atrocities in Kosovo.
I did a long time ago. Thanks.
But there's other things that just Don't Sound Right. Such as our decision to implement a No-Fly zone on a guy who's been hitting the rebels with tanks and artillery. Does taking out his radar installations really help the rebels? Or does it setup a ground invasion down the line?
I understand the fact that you give no credence to the face-value statements made by western militaries, but I really don't see something wrong with "We need to shoot radar stations and anti-aircraft positions so that we can fly around with total impunity."
Really, it comes down to, do you trust the governments of Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy to be about bringing liberty and democracy to the Middle East?
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
-
Gulf War II: Sins of the Father
Gulf War II: Taking Back The Turf
Gulf War II: The Legend of Curly's Gold
-
Gulf War II: Arab Bud
-
Gulf War II: Electric Boogaloo
-
Great editorial from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18441153?Story_ID=18441153&fsrc=nlw%257Chig%257C24-03-2011%257Ceditors_highlights)
-
I like how fear over 1% of the world's oil supply raised prices worldwide by 20%. :whoops:
-
Yes, this is how fear + money works.
-
Math you can believe in!
-
So Pakistan recently called for a ban on drone strikes, CIA operatives, and pretty much anything US in their territory.
The war's still being prosecuted with hopeless idiocy, but as long as Pakistan was sort of on board, there was a slim chance of a resolution that wasn't hopelessly awful for the US. But unless this can be resolved I think it's sunk for sure.
I think the time has come for a very, very ballsy play. The US needs to present the Karzai government and the Pakistani government with an ultimatum. Either they step up or the US walks - including all current aid to Pakistan. The Karzai government has reached a point where it's actively self-sabotaging and this will never be resolved unless the Pakistanis finally break the North-West territories.
To be honest, it's probably an unfair play. The Afghan central government is a failure (ooo now there's a surprise), and the Pakistani central government would (for the most part) be happy with getting the tribal areas under control - they just want the US to stop randomly shooting them up.
If they do withdraw, use the aid money to reward any of the middle eastern states where democratic reforms genuinely take hold. Basically tell the whole world that from this point on, the US will put the onus on the locals to do something, dammit.
It's never going to happen, but unless there's a dramatic improvement soon, you might as well just close that damned book. To say nothing of the "this area is going to go back to becoming an extremist training centre" factor, which acts as a brake on all possible sanity.
-
I'm really curious about the deleted post that got the new guy both his negative karma.
-
He posted a slowpoke image macro and said something about catching Saddam. Your basic 4chan reject.
-
Guess what guys! You now have secret prison ships! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/us-indicts-somali-on-terrorism-charges/2011/07/05/gHQA8bbfzH_story.html)
SECRET PRISON SHIPS
What kind of 3rd rate dystopian science fiction world do we live in now?
-
Explioting treaty loopholes in International Waters? Unthinkable!
-
So it's looking like Libya is successfully toppling its tyranny. That's wonderful.
Hey, so remember that time we invaded that one country in order to bring down its leader and free its people and it totally fucking backfired and we've been there for nearly a decade?
Yeah.
-
This is pretty much what the neocons were after all along: we invade Iraq and it acts as the first domino in a series of popular uprisings in the region.
However, (1) Iraq had fuck-all to do with any of this and (2) I think the neocons are finally starting to figure out that maybe popular uprisings don't always lead to stable, friendly democracies.
I was just saying this morning, it's great that Ghadaffi's finally going to be out of there, but who are we going to prop up in his place and how long until he becomes our next big enemy?
-
Oh well never mind. For now, just sit back and enjoy the moment in the sun. Or let the Libyans enjoy theirs anyway. :happy:
-
Al Jazeera runs story claiming Jack Welch was advising the Ghaddfi regime right up until August 2nd at least and that Dennis Kucinich directly contacted the regime to support his position against the intervention and offered advice in exchange. (http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-aug-31-2011-2029)
-
Well, now that Tripoli has fallen, and there's been a few days to rifle through stuff, it's DIRTY LAUNDRY TIIIMMMME!
Trove of documents confirms China sold huge quantities of arms to Libya while maintaining official neutrality (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/china-offered-gadhafi-huge-stockpiles-of-arms-libyan-memos/article2152875/)
The US comes doesn't come off much better, as other documents show that the CIA was working closely with Libyan intelligence.
Of course NATO may well have supplied arms too, but I doubt the rebels will be complaining about that particular violation.
-
Dennis Miller interviews George Carlin (1997) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxIJ8ONGeQ#)
-
Unconfirmed reports indicate that Ghadafi has been captured/killed.
-
Also, the Libyan
orks militia built themselves a tank. (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/bizarre-war-machine-rolls-into-libyan-battle-4476687)
-
They've built themselves a lot of weapons and vehicles.
It's quite orky.
-
Apparently they did kill Gaddafi. How do they know? Because he was using a golden gun. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15389550)
(http://i.imgur.com/VWaE3.jpg)
-
Also, the Libyan orks militia built themselves a tank. (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/bizarre-war-machine-rolls-into-libyan-battle-4476687)
Requires additional onomatopoeic word for automatic weapons fire.
-
They even have their own Kaptin Bluddflagg:
Commanding a posse of pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, the man in the sea captain's hat, postman Lutfi al-Amin, plans to follow.
"When it clears the way, we will follow," Amin said.
Asked about his headgear, he said: "It's my lucky hat!"
-
Death and misery are tragic, but this was honestly the best damned war in decades.
-
When was the last "good" war, anyway?
-
That depends on which side of the political spectrum you ask.
-
I like to say "The Korean War" and then when people say "what's that?" I suddenly flood into their base with 100 lings
-
This has been 'Sexual Encounters with Friday'
Next week: ANAL!
-
same butt-time, same butt-channel
-
I don't think I want to know how many butt-channels there are.
-
Just one, but it's public-access.
-
Love this quote:
Gadhafi's erratic behaviour prompted some to speculate he suffered from a legitimate medical problem: megalomania, bipolar disorder, or perhaps paranoid schizophrenia. Frank Anderson, a former CIA officer assigned to Libya in the 1970s, was a little less clinical in his assessment. “I just don’t know anyone like him,” he once said. “He’s a whack job.”
-
Full withdrawal from Iraq by January 1. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-to-speak-on-iraq-at-1245-pm/1)
Well, good.
-
"Hay Sarge, why does my ticket home list 'Afghanistan' as the destination?"
-
In fairness, Obama HAS been totally consistent in saying he'd ramp down Iraq to focus on Afghanistan. I may not agree with it, but I can't begin to understand all the liberals acting surprised by it when it's EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE'D DO.
Then again, Obama delivering on a campaign promise IS a pretty unexpected development.
-
Did we ever figure out why the Bush administration was so gung-ho about having a war with two countries? Did we ever figure out why we invaded Iraq?
I'm not sure I understand why Afghanistan has so much strategic significance, but I did understand how toppling the Taliban was an obvious retaliatory measure.
-
Did we ever figure out why the Bush administration was so gung-ho about having a war with two countries? Did we ever figure out why we invaded Iraq?
Basically the Bush Administration was made up predominantly of people who'd been wanting to invade Iraq for a decade and were looking for an excuse. Give a gander at the Wikipedia entry for Project for a New American Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_New_American_Century).
Notably, a paper signed by Wolfowitz (among others) urged Bill Clinton to invade Iraq as a bulwark to promote democracy in the Middle East -- basically, the neocons were trying to provoke an Arab Spring. Damningly, the report noted that the American people would be resistant to such a plan and it would take an event along the lines of a Pearl Harbor to get them to agree to the plan.
(Conspiracy theorists, of course, use that to promote "9/11 was an inside job" whackjoberry. I make no such claims; I merely suggest that the neocons were ready to capitalize on a tragedy if one were to happen.)
Bush was swept up in all of this, plus he had his own personal reasons for wanting to take Saddam out.
Essentially, the plan to go to Iraq was underway long before 9/11; once 9/11 happened, the administration scrambled to find any justification they could for the already-decided policy, and seized on any flimsy evidence that Iraq posed any kind of threat while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that it didn't.
Ultimately, if Iraq -- or any other Middle-Eastern nation -- flourishes as a stable democracy, the neocons will claim credit, and if it doesn't, they'll blame Obama.
(And it should probably go without saying, but the Arab Spring has fuck-all to do with our invasion of Iraq, though the neocons will be happy to claim credit if it ends up the way they want it to.)
-
(Conspiracy theorists, of course, use that to promote "9/11 was an inside job" whackjoberry. I make no such claims; I merely suggest that the neocons were ready to capitalize on a tragedy if one were to happen.)
i take the middle ground of moonbattery and hold that the conspirators knew the attack was coming and just deliberately did nothing so they could use it as their excuse for invasion, but.
-
I wouldn't say the Arab Spring has fuck-all to do with the Iraqi occupation. Most likely it would have happened half a decade ago or sooner if there hadn't been a powerful military force that may or may not be fo the idea of basic human rights for Arabs hanging out nearby.
-
i take the middle ground of moonbattery and hold that the conspirators knew the attack was coming and just deliberately did nothing so they could use it as their excuse for invasion, but.
And I just gotta Hanlon's Razor it. Yes, they had ample warning it was coming, and no, they didn't do anything to stop it, but I still have to go with Team Stupid over Team Evil on this one.
I wouldn't say the Arab Spring has fuck-all to do with the Iraqi occupation. Most likely it would have happened half a decade ago or sooner if there hadn't been a powerful military force that may or may not be fo the idea of basic human rights for Arabs hanging out nearby.
I wouldn't say that exactly -- more that our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have galvanized extremists and made it harder for moderates. Same basic idea, though.
Course, it's still unclear whether the Arab Spring will result in a leg up for the moderates or for the extremists. Closest thing to a stable democracy in the region is Iran.
I'm sure as hell not going to mourn Qaddafi, but the fact that he was "accidentally" shot in the head after being captured is not exactly the triumph of the rule of law that one might hope for.
(And hey, maybe it really WAS an accident. Shit happens in the chaos of a firefight. But in this particular case I think Hanlon's Razor is at odds with Occam's.)
-
Let's say Hitler didn't shoot himself (OH NO, GODWIN'S LAW! THIS COMPARISON IS TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE!) and was instead found by some erstwhile private Kaplanski.
I'm not saying that a trial wouldn't have been the right thing there either - I am definitely not an eye-for-an-eye kind of fellow - but I'm not saying I would've been surprised if an "accident" happened.
Hell, I don't even have to make up stupid imaginary scenarios. That really did happen with a bunch of Death Camp guards and Kommandants, known partisan hunters, etc. etc.
People are only concerned in this case because they're hoping that Libya puts on a big show of western-style values so that NATO can get that warm fuzzy feeling of total justification. I think the Libyan leadership - and even much of the rank and file - have tried very very hard to show they're not a bunch of jihadist nutbags. This was a pretty big slip-up on those grounds and might hurt their image a little, but in the long run it's all going to be swept under the table.
Worst case scenario, they'll blame the schmo who pulled the trigger and then let him off easy (see: the Shoe-Thrower dude).
-
Let's say Hitler didn't shoot himself (OH NO, GODWIN'S LAW! THIS COMPARISON IS TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE!) and was instead found by some erstwhile private Kaplanski.
I'm not saying that a trial wouldn't have been the right thing there either - I am definitely not an eye-for-an-eye kind of fellow - but I'm not saying I would've been surprised if an "accident" happened.
"Now they'll never save your brain, Hitler."
-
BB: Blackwater Iraq data-dump: mercenaries shot a judge with impunity, used bullets as hand signals, were not disciplined as this "would lower morale" (http://boingboing.net/2011/12/14/blackwater-iraq-data-dump-mer.html)
-
Also, if you haven't heard, Blackwater renamed itself again, from Xe. It's now called "Academi" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204319004577089021757803802.html).
On Monday, Virginia-based Xe plans to unveil a new name—Academi—and new logo. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Ted Wright, president and chief executive, said the name change aims to signal a strategy shift by one of the U.S. government's biggest providers of training and security services.
Mr. Wright said Academi will try to be more "boring."
Yeah, you know, we'll try to scale back on murdering civilians until the PC POLICE decide we're sufficiently dull enough. What ever happened to the ACTION in this biz, mann
-
Well, Blackwater DID sound like a generic bad guy in a Bond movie/superhero comic/what-have-you.
-
I prefer my amoral mercenary rings to sound as genuinely evil as they act!
-
"Blackwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29)" has long been a euphemism for sewage water contaminated with feces and urine.
-
White House senior officials will not recommend a veto of the Defense Bill (http://www.bnd.com/2011/12/14/1978835/house-to-move-ahead-on-defense.html).
More troubling to me is how it's been reworded (http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-defense-levin-635/):
Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that "any person who has committed a belligerent act" could be held indefinitely.
“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin. “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”
You have got to be shitting me.
-
The veto is irrelivant. If you look at the numbers (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218), Congress will probably override. He'll veto for the press but be overridden by congress.
Here's the house vote as well. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540&tab=votes)
-
At least Obama is finally giving his opinion about Occupy Wall Street now.
-
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/764/niku.png)
-
If I'm reading Google Chrome's translation correctly, the US just approved legislation that names Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/816465.html).
Oh, and they just sent troops into Mexico (http://www.animalpolitico.com/2011/12/militares-de-eu-entran-a-matamoros/), too.
-
Looks like those Mexican papers just got a little overexcited (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/army-134930-members-military.html)
-
Not even a day after we leave Iraq and they go and arrest their own VP.
Welp.
THAT was a huge damn waste of time.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg/220px-Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg)
-
100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, 32,000 wounded
4,500 US soldiers dead
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg/220px-Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg)
-
AT LEAST WE ARE NOT AS BAD AS SADDAM HUSSEIN :)
-
ALSO WE KILLED UGLY MEAN BEARD MAN :) :)
-
I liked all the articles in the news about the US Army leaving in such a hurry that they abandoned thousands of pieces of equipment. The articles tried to play it off as us being so gosh darn nice to the new Iraqi Army. I laughed pretty god damn hard.
-
Gotta get back home in time for NDAA, bro. all those FEMA internment camps aren't gonna man themselves.
-
WaPo does a rundown on drone killings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/under-obama-an-emerging-global-apparatus-for-drone-killing/2011/12/13/gIQANPdILP_story.html)
The Obama administration’s counterterrorism accomplishments are most apparent in what it has been able to dismantle, including CIA prisons and entire tiers of al-Qaeda’s leadership. But what the administration has assembled, hidden from public view, may be equally consequential.
In the space of three years, the administration has built an extensive apparatus for using drones to carry out targeted killings of suspected terrorists and stealth surveillance of other adversaries. The apparatus involves dozens of secret facilities, including two operational hubs on the East Coast, virtual Air Force cockpits in the Southwest and clandestine bases in at least six countries on two continents.
Other commanders in chief have presided over wars with far higher casualty counts. But no president has ever relied so extensively on the secret killing of individuals to advance the nation’s security goals.
The rapid expansion of the drone program has blurred long-standing boundaries between the CIA and the military. Lethal operations are increasingly assembled a la carte, piecing together personnel and equipment in ways that allow the White House to toggle between separate legal authorities that govern the use of lethal force.
-
I liked all the articles in the news about the US Army leaving in such a hurry that they abandoned thousands of pieces of equipment. The articles tried to play it off as us being so gosh darn nice to the new Iraqi Army. I laughed pretty god damn hard.
We did this during the Gulf war too. My understanding about this is that it's a lot cheaper for us to just leave equipment behind and remake it back in the US than it is to load it all back up into crates and send it back home.
-
I liked all the articles in the news about the US Army leaving in such a hurry that they abandoned thousands of pieces of equipment. The articles tried to play it off as us being so gosh darn nice to the new Iraqi Army. I laughed pretty god damn hard.
We did this during the Gulf war too. My understanding about this is that it's a lot cheaper for us to just leave equipment behind and remake it back in the US than it is to load it all back up into crates and send it back home.
It also "creates jobs."
(http://grammarwithteeth.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/dr-evil-aie-quotes.jpg)
-
The supposedly voiceless speak. To the sobering shame of us all.
Two excellent NTY op-ed pieces today from Guantanamo survivors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html)
-
In both, when they first realize they're being handed to Americans, they think, "Ah, it's going to be OK. The Americans are here. They're the good guys."
Ffff.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/jqTkR.jpg)
-
The supposedly voiceless speak. To the sobering shame of us all.
Two excellent NTY op-ed pieces today from Guantanamo survivors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html)
One of the documents said American military guards thought I was dangerous because I had prayed during the American national anthem.
I am pretty fucking ashamed that we live in a country where the department of defense takes the gut feeling of roughneck shitkickers as gospel over the joint consensus of one of our strongest allies and our own diplomats that someone is fucking innocent.
-
Marine guilty of murdering 24 Iraqi civilians sentenced to three months confinement (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-marine-haditha-idUSTRE80M1U620120123)
-
"But the fact of the matter is that he has now been totally exonerated of the homicide charges brought against him by the government and the media. For six years he has had his name dragged through the mud. Today, we hope, is the beginning of his redemption," the statement said.
You have got to be shitting me.
-
They're not War Crimes if you win.
-
He wasn't found guilty of murder because he did not personally murder anyone.
There are still grounds to discharge him dishonorably though.
-
Top story on Google News is that the FBI has arrested a guy who was planning to blow up the Capitol.
Unsurprisingly, it turns out it's yet another story where the guy was not actually planning to blow up the Capitol until the FBI entrapped him.
You know, I'm not opposed to the idea of keeping an eye on people who are unstable, potentially dangerous, and prone to spouting violent anti-government rhetoric. But I continue to question whether these guys would have actually done anything if the FBI hadn't approached them pretending to be Al Qaeda and said "Here are some guns and bombs, go nuts."
-
Boingboing (http://boingboing.net/2012/02/23/did-syrias-army-use-sat-phon.html): two reporters at EFF are suggesting that the two reporters killed in the recent Syria bombing weren't collateral damage, they were the target. And they were tracked using their phones.
Grain of salt for now, but it makes sense -- at least, if you assume whoever gave the order had the thoroughly-mistaken notion that killing western journalists would suppress their message.
-
So, okay.
How the fuck could anyone, anywhere, have the thought "Hey, I think it would be a good idea to burn this Koran" enter into his head?
What's that? You didn't know it was a Koran? You thought it was some other book?
Well okay then. Precisely which book did you think you were burning that was a perfectly all right book to burn?
-
Because these are people who equate burning flags to burning books and they thought of it as a reciprocal punitive measure?
-
Okay.
And they thought that was a good idea?
-
The Korans in question had all sorts of anti-Western messages scrawled in them, and the heads who ordered their disposal believed they were being passed around as a form of viral propoganda. The people in charge of making sure the heads don't make any incredibly bad decisions showed up on the scene too late to stop the heads from making an incredibly bad decision.
-
Which was the plan, no doubt.
You know, we all know the Taliban and their ilk are actually quite smart in spite of their lack of any sort of "book schoolin'", but damned if that isn't a plan a five year-old could come up with.
-
The Korans in question had all sorts of anti-Western messages scrawled in them, and the heads who ordered their disposal believed they were being passed around as a form of viral propoganda. The people in charge of making sure the heads don't make any incredibly bad decisions showed up on the scene too late to stop the heads from making an incredibly bad decision.
Right. All of which still circles back to my "Who the fuck was so indescribably stupid that he thought burning Korans was a good idea?" question.
I mean, presumably this decision was made by somebody capable of dressing himself and operating a motor vehicle.
I don't know from military codes but honest to Christ I think this should be treated the same as if he'd shot a bunch of his buddies because he forgot to put the safety on. I think it's the equivalent in unbelievably stupid carelessness, and it certainly had the same end result of a bunch of soldiers shot to death because somebody was unbelievably carelessly stupid.
-
Someone who probably wasn't on on the front or has a hatred of Islam. A lot of the things I read from soldiers that have been to Afghanistan is that one of the first things you have to learn is respect and how to deal with the locals in order to get anything useful out of them.
-
Right. But my point is "People get pissed off when you burn their holy book" is one of those things people should not need explained to them.
Stewart made a joke the other night about how silica gel packets say "DO NOT EAT", because we are so stupid that we would if that warning were not there. That is the kind of stupid I think we are talking about here.
-
So uh for those not following the news since yesterday, a US soldier went nuts and murdered 16 Afghan civilians, mostly children (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/asia/us-army-sergeant-suspected-in-afghanistan-shooting.html). (Warning: linked article opens with a photo of one of the dead children.)
This is pretty much how the entire Arab/Persian/North African/Muslim world sees us at this point. It's a problem that's not going to be fixed within a decade, and certainly not by us staying in Afghanistan.
-
I heard on the radio today that the Accused's lawyer is saying that this was his fourth deployment and he'd been injured previously, including losing part of a foot.
Obviously I am not excusing what the guy did. He went door-to-door murdering children. He'll probably be executed for it, and I won't shed any tears for him.
But he shouldn't have been redeployed. And I can't help but look at the recent news of hundreds of soldiers being denied a PTSD diagnosis and thinking oh hey, I think maybe these two stories could be related in some way.
If we can make this a discussion about how our government has failed our troops, and about how we should get the fuck out of Afghanistan because we're doing more harm than good, then that'll be something good coming out of this tragedy. But I'm not holding my breath.
-
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-is-preparing-israeli-public-opinion-for-a-war-on-iran-1.418869 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-is-preparing-israeli-public-opinion-for-a-war-on-iran-1.418869)
uh-oh
-
Jesus. PLEASE not let this mean what I think it means.
-
Of course it means what you think it does.
:/
-
At least it's going to be hard for the US to spin this as anything but open expansionist aggression from Israel.
-
So uh for those not following the news since yesterday, a US soldier went nuts and murdered 16 Afghan civilians, mostly children (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/asia/us-army-sergeant-suspected-in-afghanistan-shooting.html). (Warning: linked article opens with a photo of one of the dead children.)
This is pretty much how the entire Arab/Persian/North African/Muslim world sees us at this point. It's a problem that's not going to be fixed within a decade, and certainly not by us staying in Afghanistan.
I'm going to sound like a dick for pointing this out, but I think the only way that we can get ahead of this at this point in Afghanistan is to make a very, very public show of executing this piece of shit.
Preferably by finding a very tall branch and a very stiff rope.
-
Honestly the best option would be to just throw the guy to the locals and turn your back on whatever happens. That's not going to happen in any universe we know, but that's pretty much the only thing that would save face for the US on this.
Alternatively, as some people have pointed out, it's great opportunity/catalyst for just getting the fuck out ASAP and damn the consequences.
Both are horrible, really, but this situation's already well beyond horrible and has been for years.
-
Yyyeah, neither public executions nor turning people over to the enemy really fit with "U.S. policy" though. Plus they both carry the unfortunate implication that U.S. forces can be made to buckle to demands if sufficiently embarrassed. You think nobody out there is above attacking their own people and making it look like the U.S. did it?
It's kind of sad, but the only thing to do now as I see it is to take a hard line against the victims and show some sack. Yes, this was a serious war crime, no, we didn't authorize it, yes, we're going to throw every book we have at this guy, and no we are not going to give him over to you, and P.S. fuck you sideways for even asking. I don't see you in any hurry to turn over all the people on your end who've attacked us over to U.S. custody.
After that it's pretty much not a question of "should we pull out of Afghanistan" but "how the hell are we going to?" Because I think the heads have got the message that the pooch has been royally screwed here, but just taking off tail-between-legs isn't going to help at all.
My guess is that we're just going to maintain a presence until the slated 2014 withdrawal date, but under orders to sit tight on the goddam base and not fucking do anything, ever.
-
While most of the media is desperately trying to make excuses for Robert Bales, Al Jazeera actually went and found the names of his victims. (http://blogs.aljazeera.com/asia/2012/03/19/no-one-asked-their-names)
-
Most of a world, most of a century, and a hot-button political issue away, Woody Guthrie nails it:
Arlo Guthrie & Emmylou Harris - Deportees (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN3HTdndZec#)
Goodbye to Mohamed, goodbye Shatarina
وداعا يا أصدقاء Nazar و Robeena
You won't keep your name through the bullets and flame
All they will say is the number sixteen.
...best I could do off the top of my head using Google Translate. Hope that comes across as heartfelt rather than illiterate/insensitive/maudlin/some other negative adjective. If nothing else, it's the right number of syllables.
Thanks to Al Jazeera for remembering what's important. He didn't know their names; to him they were just the Other and the Enemy. We need to be better than that.
-
I don't think it's so much trying to make excuses as humanity is really, really bad at handling random acts of violence. "He flipped and killed 16 people because he was in a war zone where no one wears uniforms and PS he got his foot blown off," is still absolutely horrific but it's at least a little comprehensible.
-
Yeah, "trying to make excuses" isn't quite accurate. But we DO have a tendency to focus on our own and treat the Other as a statistic.
Morning Edition (http://www.npr.org/2012/03/20/148974952/afghan-farmer-lost-11-relatives-in-shooting-rampage) had an interview with Muhammad Wazir today -- 11 of the victims were members of his family. (This goes to show that NPR is the last bastion of actual journalism in America -- occasional fuckups like the Daisey story and all -- and as such must be destroyed.)
Heartbreaking stuff, but the kind of thing you need to give a read or listen to.
-
Bosnia, 20 years later. (http://boingboing.net/2012/04/06/bosnian-war-20-years-later-m.html)
11,541 dead. Christ.
Now THAT was a military intervention that I think we made the right call on.
-
Omar Khadr still not returned to Canada, even though they said he would be (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/19/toronto-omar-khadr-canada-return.html)
You know, it's interesting. Omar Khadr was 15 when it all went down. If he had fatally shot a police officer here in Canada, he probably would've been freed years ago.
-
It's that time of the year again, folks!
(http://i.imgur.com/68Hjz.jpg)
Fox News's current top image, along with headlines such as "OPINION: Our Leaders Are Wrong, the War on Terror is Not Over", "EXCLUSIVE: Did Obama Administration Endanger Bin Laden Raid Heroes?", and "EXCLUSIVE: Connecticut real estate exec remembers his remarkable effort at Ground Zero in honor of lost pals".
The image actually struck me as a bit subdued for Fox News, so I took the liberty of spicing it up a little bit.
(http://i.imgur.com/ChO3T.gif)
-
And they called the new tower BABEL, for that was where two angels confounded man's language and perception so he could no longer work together.
-
It's that time of the year again, folks!
Yes. Time to remember that this is the 39th anniversary of the Chilean coup-d'état. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'%C3%A9tat)
-
Militia forces in Bengazi, Libya stormed the embassy yesterday and killed the ambassador to the US and a number of DOD staff. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254)
Among the dead was somethingawful's D&D moderator Vilerat. He was apparently on mumble moments before he died and pretty much knew it was coming.
Can we please just pretend these countries don't exist anymore?
-
The Vienna Convention doesn't seem to be getting much respect these days. Not exactly a good sign.
-
Over a Youtube video (http://boingboing.net/2012/09/12/crappy-low-budget-youtube-tra.html).
I remember saying something, during the Everybody Draw Muhammad Day kerfuffle, about Internet Tough Guys who are totally okay with sitting comfortably in California poking a hornet's nest on the other side of the world.
Sam Bacile is an asshole. Yeah, tough guy, real easy to talk shit and hurl insults when it's not YOUR life on the line. (And it's not; I hear he's in hiding now but it's not like he's living in a goddamn DMZ.)
On the other hand -- and this shouldn't even have to be said, but here it is -- Bacile has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants and mock whoever he wants and be as much of an asshole as he wants as long as he's not actually physically harming anybody. And fuck anybody who's willing to murder another human being because he made fun of you. Fuck anybody who's willing to murder another human being because SOMEBODY ELSE HALFWAY ACROSS THE FUCKING PLANET made fun of you even more.
-
I can't condemn Bacile because there have been much worse attacks on Islam by Americans in the past. Fuck, Frank Miller ain't in hiding (well, he probably is, but nobody's directly threatening him).
He just happened to be the wrong guy saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. And everything he said just happens to have been given weight.
-
Also, it's possible Sam Bacile does not actually exist.
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2012/09/12/3106801/who-is-sam-bacile-neither-israeli-nor-jewish-says-a-self-described-acquiantance (http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2012/09/12/3106801/who-is-sam-bacile-neither-israeli-nor-jewish-says-a-self-described-acquiantance)
-
FTR I think Frank Miller is an asshole too.
-
Well, of course, but would you accuse him of endangering our people overseas under normal circumstances?
-
"Endangering" is a strong word.
Not considering the potential repercussions of his work for people other than himself? Yeah, I would ABSOLUTELY accuse him of that.
-
I'm sure everyone's caught Romney's insane asshole response, but a picture says a thousand blah blah
(http://i.imgur.com/c6X3s.jpg)
The guy is putting political cartoonists out of work.
-
I almost want to say that that's the picture that loses him the election right there.
-
Popehat (http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/12/the-heavy-burden-of-black-and-white/) has rather a good post on the subject.
It's possible to say that there is no excuse whatsoever for this violence in response to speech you don't like, and that the angry mob should be condemned without qualification, and still believe — and say — that "filmmaker" Sam Bacile is a vile bigoted douchebag peddling contemptible hate-smut.
It's possible to say that the bigoted Bacile has an absolute right in the United States to make and distribute anti-Muslim propaganda (with very narrowly limited exceptions — for instance, showing it to an angry crowd gathered outside a mosque might be intended to cause, and likely to cause, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action), and say say that his exercise of that right makes him vermin. He seems like a verminy kind of guy. Here's what he had to say about the murders in Benghazi:
Though Bacile said he felt sorry about the death of the American who was killed in the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.
"I feel the security system [at the embassies] is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."
(The argument that Bacile is not legally responsible for mob violence is correct, the argument that he is not morally responsible for mob violence is persuasive to me, but the argument that the fault lies with bad security is the sign of a disordered mind.)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/PAkso.png)
JESUS CHRIST DONALD TRUMP SHUT THE FUCK UP
-
Nothing like the safety of a tyranny, said the rich man born into his life of privilege.
-
That's not really earthshattering anyway. That kind kind of thinking informed American foreign policy for over a century (and still does now and again).
But you're not supposed to say that out loud, (The) Donald. That's just crass!
-
Man, I just had a little mind blowing moment: The horrible right wing now hates the Middle East for their freedom.
-
These are the horrible people Romney will absolutely not have America making amends with:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer)
-
These are the horrible people Romney will absolutely not have America making amends with:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer)
You gullible libtard, those photos are obviously staged in a cynical attempt to convince us that every single citizen of that country doesn't want to kill us.
... shit. I was being sarcastic, then I scrolled down to see that this is half the facebook comments, almost word-for-word.
-
What a fucking tragedy.
-
These are the horrible people Romney will absolutely not have America making amends with:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer)
You gullible libtard, those photos are obviously staged in a cynical attempt to convince us that every single citizen of that country doesn't want to kill us.
... shit. I was being sarcastic, then I scrolled down to see that this is half the facebook comments, almost word-for-word.
You're not tricking me into reading Facebook comments that easily.
-
Man, I just pulled my eyes off of Romney's MUAHAHAHA to look at some of the expressions of the audience in that picture.
Worth a chuckle, if a rather dark one.
-
Yeah, I noticed that. They look like they are just realizing what a fucked up world they live in, to me.
"Did that guy just say that? Really say that? I'm not sure he said that. I'm gonna have to check the internet later to make sure that he said that, because I can't believe he just said that."
-
These are the horrible people Romney will absolutely not have America making amends with:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer)
Stuff like that warms the cockles of my icy, icy heart.
I like to think most people are basically decent and think murdering people is pretty not-cool. Nice to see people speaking out to mourn a man they didn't even know and show some solidarity and common cause.
I wish we'd quit fucking wasting opportunities like this one.
-
Embassy in Yemen is stormed by protesters (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/hundreds-of-protesters-storm-us-embassy-in-yemen?ref=fpb)
Luckily no one was hurt this time. Though I have my misgivings about blaming it on that video. While I'm sure that people got angry about it, that anger really seems to be bubbling over in countries where America has been messing with the politics, and some where we're bombing them to hell and back. It's almost as if the video has touched off deeper held sentiments.
-
From what I heard on the radio yesterday and today, there IS some suggestion that these attacks were planned in advance for the anniversary of 9/11 and the video was a coincidence.
That said, what the interviewer talking to people on the street suggested was that most of the locals believed it was retaliation for the video (and indeed didn't understand why the US government wouldn't take the video down).
One way or another, yeah, I think we can all agree that the video may be an excuse but it's not the real cause.
The NPR correspondent in Benghazi was suggesting that Stevens was a really popular guy there and the public as a whole is pretty outraged. I'm still worried the killers could get away without being identified, but if that's true then they're going to have a much harder time keeping their heads down.
EDIT: MEANWHILE: McCain is blaming it on Obama for pulling out of Iraq. Really. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/obama/2012/09/13/mccain-obama-pursues-feckless-foreign-policy/Y1eAypEXsnxdEz3gxvVkQO/story.html)
EDIT 2: The New Yorker has a good piece called What Was Really Behind the Benghazi Attack? (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-was-really-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html), which persuasively argues that this is a relevant question even as people are jumping all over the "it was a YouTube video" explanation. It bolsters the "it was an excuse" point:
And these far right groups that feign religious and moral outrage are being very deliberate in their progress. They have turned a blind eye to what can be argued are conservative Libyans’ more traditional concerns. They have said nothing, for example, about the widespread consumption of drugs and alcohol among Libya’s youth, about the young men who fill Tripoli’s costal cafes late into the night, descending into hopeless states of intoxication before every weekend. This is not an oversight but intentional. Infringing on the freedoms and fun of young people would provoke too much anger and, more crucially, lose the extreme right the support of their main target audience: young men. Like Benito Mussolini’s Milan fascio in nineteen-twenties Italy, Libya’s far right also knows that it cannot rule through violence and fear if it does not have the young and strong on its side.
So instead they have focussed on easy targets: architecture, women, and, now, America, or, more abstractly, the West. They demolished landmarks, claiming them to be unreligious; demanded that women be banned from cafés; and now, because of a film almost no one has seen, they have attacked symbols of the American state. But perhaps this latest assault is their most cunning. Not only because it involved the loss of four innocent lives, but also because it is trying cynically to capitalize on legitimate grievances.
-
BEEP BOOP MY BINARY BRAIN CANNOT COMPREHEND CONCEPTS MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOUTUBE VIDEOS
-
And these far right groups that feign religious and moral outrage are being very deliberate in their progress. They have turned a blind eye to what can be argued are conservative Libyans’ more traditional concerns.
Yeah Libya sure is a fucked up place amirite
-
The guy credited as its filmmaker, "Sam Bacile," has been outed as one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. He first told news outlets he was an Israeli Jew; law enforcement authorities have since identified him as a Coptic Christian immigrant with a shady past. He reportedly has a criminal record including at least one narcotics conviction: an LA County District Attorney’s office source says he was arrested by the L.A. Country Sheriff's Department in 1997 and charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.
-
People are going to start reaching for Niko Bellic references now, aren't they?
COUSIN NIKOULA, DO YOU WANT TO START BEEG AMERICAN SHEETSTORM?
-
Because he claimed he was a Jew, the internet is now aflame with hilarious/sinister IT WAS A SECRET MOSSAD OP!!!! chatter.
Rest assured that if this was a Mossad op, I doubt we'd have even realized that this attack was separate from the protests.
-
EDIT: MEANWHILE: McCain is blaming it on Obama for pulling out of Iraq. Really. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/obama/2012/09/13/mccain-obama-pursues-feckless-foreign-policy/Y1eAypEXsnxdEz3gxvVkQO/story.html)
Yeah, it's looking like Republicans are getting their message together and that message is "run with Romney and blame this on Obama". I guess they are going all in on this strategy and hoping that the media goes along with it.
-
Which is going to work beautifully, seeing as how we've already managed to make arrests and further inquiries. The worst thing they can say about Obama is that a situation occurred, not that he mishandled it at all, just "It happened JUST SAYING."
The elephant in the room here is so goddam gigantic that it is fucking crushing me, help.
-
Oh, so the GOP logo.
-
Newt Gingrich slams the ball all the way down into the end zone. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81182.html)
Fuck it, I've only got one response to this.
Sam & Max - War Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2Gve7oh_4#)
-
I like how Newt kind of wishy-washily implies that this should be an act of war by Al-Qaeda... the terrorist group we are already basically at war with and whose leader Obama had killed.
I cannot fucking believe that the right is seriously trying to make this election about foreign policy.
-
Because he claimed he was a Jew, the internet is now aflame with hilarious/sinister IT WAS A SECRET MOSSAD OP!!!! chatter.
Rest assured that if this was a Mossad op, I doubt we'd have even realized that this attack was separate from the protests.
...huh. I'll admit that the confluence of an offensive video by a mysterious, shady Middle-Eastern individual operating under a pseudonym just in time to be blamed for an attack that was probably orchestrated well in advance DID make my conspiracy theory sense tingle a bit, but I must not be very good at conspiracy theories because I was going to blame it on the Libyan terrorists, not The Jews.
(And, you know, while a plant would be convenient, it's not like it's actually REQUIRED in this case. The Venn Diagram of "crazy shit posted pseudonymously to Youtube" and "shit Muslim extremists might use to enflame anti-American sentiment" is two pretty fucking large circles with a significant overlap. They could have just as easily punched in "muhammad blasphemy" and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.)
-
FYI guys, waves of protests are hitting just about every western embassy in the Middle East and northeast Africa right now.
EDIT: All the way to central Asia, actually. Just about the entire Muslim world outside of Turkey, Morocco, and Indonesia.
-
Maybe they're sick of being cast as the enemy of civilization for the past fifteen years.
-
Them and us both, compadre.
-
Via Gaiman (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html), a letter from one of the actresses who appears in the film but thought she was appearing in a completely different film.
Given that Nakoula's already in trouble for fraud, I'm curious what his potential liability could be for misleading a cast of actors into putting their faces on this thing. Wonder what kind of contracts he had them sign, and whether a contract would even hold up under such self-evidently deceptive circumstances.
-
Well, assuming the actors themselves aren't lying. I can honestly say I wouldn't hold it against them one bit if they were.
-
Considering they might have bounties put on their heads for this, yeah, they might have a case. And yeah, I wouldn't blame them at all if they were lying, because I doubt that even if they went into it with open eyes they were frothing-at-the-mouth right wingers - starving actors desperate for B-grade movie work typically aren't.
-
Well, assuming the actors themselves aren't lying.
Well, I haven't watched the video but my understanding is that it's pretty obviously dubbed.
-
Oh, brother. Now everyone's going to go and try trolling muslims.
-
Oh also anybody else paying attention to the little Asian brouhaha we've got right now?
I think that it's still a pretty long shot for any of this to come to actual blows*, but history HAS shown a tendency for stupid shit to sometimes get wildly out of everyone's control .
To say nothing of the mass of futureless, repressed young men in China looking for somewhere to vent their blueballed fury.
*I don't think there's been enough broader global tension built up yet, but if things continue like this for a few years, I guess we'll see.
-
We're looking at something that's going to be the supporting tension rather than the spark that sets it all off. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the world's powder keg is located today.
-
Yeah, I think Canada just withdrew their embassy from there.
-
We're looking at something that's going to be the supporting tension rather than the spark that sets it all off. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where the world's powder keg is located today.
Plenty of room for more than one powder keg all up in here.
@Buge: We shut our mideast embassies for a couple days until shit dies down.
-
@Buge: We shut our mideast embassies for a couple days until shit dies down.
Yeah, like Iran's going to let us back in after that.
-
No, our closing of the Iran embassy is permanent and a separate issue (mainly that Baird's been itching to flip the bird at the Iranians since he became Foreign Minister).
-
I think, deep inside, I always suspected civilization would fall apart because of a video a troll posted on Youtube. If I didn't, I should have had.
-
Interesting update on the Asian kerfuffle (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/manchuria-invasion-anniversary-sparks-fresh-anti-japan-anger-in-china/article4551170/). Some inadvertently reassuring things:
A line of riot police walked in front of and behind each group of 100, preventing the protesters from ever forming a mass that couldn’t easily be controlled.
Each group was allowed to pause briefly in front of Japan’s stern grey embassy on Liangmaqiao Road to hurl plastic bottles and eggs at its gate. Then they continued their brisk walk east to the end of the kilometre-long protest area, where police instructed them to loop around and march back to where they began. More bottles were hurled on the return trip. Then it was another group’s turn.
“Our manager brought us here,” whispered a cleaning lady walking with two dozen co-workers wearing identical bright orange uniforms. “We have the day off.”
Wang Heyan, a reporter with Caixin, one of China’s most independent news organizations, described how he was invited by police on Sunday to join the demonstrations in Beijing. But when he asked if he could shout “punish corruption!” police told him that “only slogans concerned with Diaoyu Islands are allowed.”
So, basically business as usual, with most of this staged to effect.
Still, there's an uneasy undercurrent in there. Given "legal permission" by the central government to vent their spleen at an honest-to-god legal target, many citizens have responded with rage far exceeding anything that had been 'planned'.
I doubt this will explode in the short term, but I'm suuuuuuuuurrrrrrre there's no possible danger to setting up one particular country as the whipping boy for your pressure cooker (to ruinously mix metaphors) in the long term. I'm starting to lose count of the planetary landmines we need to keep track of.
-
Well, assuming the actors themselves aren't lying.
Well, I haven't watched the video but my understanding is that it's pretty obviously dubbed.
Gawker's apparently got the full script (http://gawker.com/5944290/here-is-the-original-script-for-innocence-of-muslims), and expands a bit.
In the YouTube trailer some lines were dubbed over with specific references to Islam, to make the insults clearer. (George was renamed "Muhammed," for example.) An actress told us she was sickened by the words put in her mouths. But even before the tricky post-production, it would have been obvious to anyone who read the full script that the movie was a hitpiece against Islam.
(The actors and actresses may very well have not known what they were getting into if they hadn't read the entire script and had no familiarity with Islam.)
Gurji specifically stated that she did not have access to the full script, only the material she was shooting.
-
Gurji specifically stated that she did not have access to the full script, only the material she was shooting.
Oh, so like Bowfinger, only more hideously inflammatory.
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-weekly-publishes-mohammad-cartoons-075449808.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-weekly-publishes-mohammad-cartoons-075449808.html)
:facepalm:
-
yeah, France really seems to fucking hate Muslims.
-
Chauvinisim? Among the French?
:thefakestshockedface:
-
Well, with the French and Muslims, it's kind of like America and Hispanics. They fear this minority is going to come in and take away everything they hold dear. Actually that's kind of true of a lot of Europe. Doesn't make them any less horribly racist, but explains why they are so horribly racist.
-
They're sort of Europe's Mexicans, yeah.
-
If what I've been going through lately is any indication, horrible racism doesn't seem to require much of an explanation.
-
They're sort of Europe's Mexicans, yeah.
That works even better if you think of "Algeria was kind of like France's New Mexico/Ariziona/etc.", only instead of doubling down with a Gadsen Purchase, they were (more or less) chased out.
-
They're sort of Europe's Mexicans, yeah.
I thought that was Gypsies.
-
They're sort of Europe's Mexicans, yeah.
I thought that was Gypsies.
No, they're more nomadic than American-residing Mexicans. Also, Mexicans had no non-coincidental (if any at all) inclusion in the victim-hood of the holocaust.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't think the bad guys are the French newspaper here. Freedom of speech and expression are not something to be temporarily set aside because you're afraid of offending people who can't take a joke as a matter of dogma. You do not have the right not to be offended, and behaving the way many (obviously not all) Muslims groups have in the wake of the YouTube controversy and now possibly this is their fucking fault. Setting aside for a moment the attack in Libya, which now seems to have been a premeditated terrorist attack that just happened to coincide with the outrage at the time (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-libya-consulate-attack-idUSBRE88I13P20120919), you do not get to act like that and be taken seriously as anything but an unruly mob.
I am not interested in the hurt feelings of, well, anyone really, but most particularly those of violent mobs.
-
Dude, no one's talking about stopping the people from saying what's on their mind. We're just calling them bigoted assholes. And they're not helping the situation. They're playing into the machinations of people who want to foster a fucking violent culture and religious war between the West and Middle-East.
-
What's the old saw? Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a good idea to do so.
-
I'm not sure how it is bigoted to parody reactionary behavior in another group. For fuck's sake, it's a butt joke. This is just the Danish cartoons all over again. I don't think the proper response to violent tantrums over fucking nothing is to self censor. I think it's to say, look, we can show or say anything we want, and you can be offended by it. Hell, maybe even we'll be offended by it, but when you act like that you have disqualified yourself from the conversation. I understand that people can be put in danger by this kind of thing, and I genuinely don't want to see anyone hurt, but I also don't feel much like backing down on this whole western culture thing.
What's the old saw? Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a good idea to do so.
I don't claim that it is necessarily a good idea, only that it is hardly the problem here.
-
Europeans having an inflated sense of superiority is an entirely different, arguably longer-standing problem?
-
They do have an inflated sense of superiority, and for many years the culture they were trying to keep at bay was ours (that being the US), but they are also legitimately being encroached upon by an alien culture at this point. Just look up the number of groups in European countries that are pushing for the establishment of Sharia law, either in general or as legal to enforce within their own communities. It's not something we face here in the States very much, but it is an increasing issue throughout Europe and the UK. The French are xenophobes to begin with, so I'm sure they're reacting poorly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-
You seem to be under the impression that we're talking about a protest specifically against the violent mobs and not a big general shit all over the important beliefs of those people in the "This is not us" photos.
-
No, I thought I made it pretty clear that it doesn't matter what someone says or otherwise expresses, short of violence or direct incitements to violence, they should be allowed, and the extreme reactions of offended parties are the problem, not assholes in France.
-
See, that's the thing. If you want to make fun of extremists, a broad swipe that smears everybody who happens to share a religion with said extremists is probably not the most effecive tool. If anything it makes people sympathize with extremists. I mean this isn't kids throwing a tantrum about a cookie, or staying up late. This is Religion. The human race as a whole has been known to tilt about that a bit and the only way we've ever found to sidestep disaster is to politely agree to disagree.
Anyway, I don't for a second imagine that the people who are putting months into making TROLOLOL anti-muslim videos or stupid "AHAHA, WE'LL SHOW YOU!" cartoons are making much of a distinction between the large "this is not us" crowd and the extremists. No, these are the idiots who are posting in newspaper comments sections about "MUUSLIM RELIGION CAVE MANS IS MEDIAEVIL RELIGON! FUKKIN DUNE COONS!! BOM THEM BACK 2 THERE SONE AGE WHERE THEY CAME FROM!!!!!!!"
-
Bal just seems to have caught rabid islamophobia. C'mon, you're complaining about Sharia law now? You know what that even is, in any western context?
It means private contracts that allow for issues of breach to be arbitrated by an Imam according to the tenets of Sharia, if both parties agree. That's it. That's seriously, literally it. Exact same stuff you see from every kind of Orthodox community. It's what Covenant Marriages are. It's ubiquitous, and it is no harm to anybody.
-
(Responding to Bal; insert your own red Warning! Message.)
Legally, yes of course, and I don't see anybody suggesting that France should or ever had any authority to shut that speech down. We're just using our own freedom of speech to call these people incredible, irresponsible, stupid-as-a-bag-of-shit sopping douches.
-
SO BRAVE
-
Via Gaiman (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html), a letter from one of the actresses who appears in the film but thought she was appearing in a completely different film.
Given that Nakoula's already in trouble for fraud, I'm curious what his potential liability could be for misleading a cast of actors into putting their faces on this thing. Wonder what kind of contracts he had them sign, and whether a contract would even hold up under such self-evidently deceptive circumstances.
Looks like we're gonna find out (http://[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/actress-in-anti-muslim-film-sues-filmmaker-for-fraud/article4554908/)
-
Bal just seems to have caught rabid islamophobia. C'mon, you're complaining about Sharia law now? You know what that even is, in any western context?
It means private contracts that allow for issues of breach to be arbitrated by an Imam according to the tenets of Sharia, if both parties agree. That's it. That's seriously, literally it. Exact same stuff you see from every kind of Orthodox community. It's what Covenant Marriages are. It's ubiquitous, and it is no harm to anybody.
First, Islamophobia is a ridiculous buzzword aimed at polarizing the left in fear of seeming bigoted, rather than critical. I have no problem with Muslims on a personal level, though I do think that the tenets of Islam present difficulties for the orthodox with regards to interacting with the modern world. I think the specifics of that are for another conversation.
Second, I DO know what Sharia is, and maybe you should look into what some of the consequences that these agreements might be. Now, I'm not suggesting that if a little bit of Sharia ends up being allowed in Britain that there will be stonings Trafalgar square, but I'd rather have no poison at all than survivable doses.
And finally, I disapprove just as strongly of other religions receiving the same special treatment under the law, and if we were talking about those I would certainly object.
-
I think he have enough history under our belt to know that every single religion to ever outlive its creators has some pretty fucking questionable tenets, or at least plenty of vague shit that's easy to manipulate. This isn't inherently a problem with islam (or rather, it's not any more of an inherent problem than it is with any other religion). It's a problem with driving people into the arms of religious extremists.
-
Ok, so I guess we're having the conversation now? Just one issue for now I think. A problem that Islam faces that most other religions do not is that a central, non-extremist tenet of the faith is that the Koran is the perfect word of God, and the final, ultimate Revelation of that God. This is problematic for a number of reasons, but just for starters the book was ostensibly written (there is evidence of later revision) in the 7th century. If your faith demands that you strictly look at the world through a 7th century lens (and older, as much of the Koran is taken from the Old and New Testaments) then you are going to have problems with the not insignificant changes that have occurred since then. Most problematically the social changes. The places in society people hold, what is and is not acceptable, and so on. Now, obviously, other religions face this problem too, but they are not expected to believe the same things about their holy books as Muslims are about the Koran.
The second part of that point, that this is meant to be the final, unalterable Revelation is also troublesome, because that makes it not only the word of God, but the final say. The ultimate divine warrant until the end of days. That combined with the first point means that, without any kind of strange interpretation of the text at all, one can justify some seriously unpleasant behavior. I stress again that this is not the extremist view, but one of the central pillars of the religion.
Now, I happily and readily admit that most Muslims, like most every religious person, tends to just live their lives as best they can in the context of their circumstances, taking mostly simple comfort from their faith. I am simply pointing out that there are things about Islam that make it, shall we say, volatile.
-
My best friend's wife is critically examining the Koran using the framework of Northrop Frye. She's examining the book on a literary level and not a theological one, so I think she'll be safe from reprisal.
-
I think she'll be safe from reprisal from people who recognize that distinction, but it doesn't take a very long game of telephone to go from "Someone is doing is literary critique of the Koran" to "Someone is criticizing the Koran!".
-
Looks like we're gonna find out (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/actress-in-anti-muslim-film-sues-filmmaker-for-fraud/article4554908/)
YouTube has refused Ms. Garcia’s requests to remove the film, according to the lawsuit. The complaint contends that keeping it online violates her right of publicity, invades her privacy rights and the post-filming dialogue changes cast her in a false light. “(Garcia) had a legally protected interest in her privacy and the right to be free from having hateful words put in her mouth or being depicted as a bigot,” the lawsuit states.
YouTube said it is reviewing the complaint and its lawyers will be in court on Thursday.
You know, I bet if she were a representative of Sony or Universal Pictures they'd take it down faster than you can say SOPA.
also I fixed your darn link
-
As much as I'd like to get offa this train we're on, I do have to ask what makes Islam's book-is-right policy more of a hard line than other religions'.
-
Lack of both a reform movement that would remove the sharpest edges, and forced disentanglement between church and state that would reduce political power.
-
It sounds like the problem isn't with Islam itself so much as there hasn't been enough time to develop Lutheran Muslims.
(Nor has there been enough time for the Lutheran Muslims to become everything Luther was trying to stop.)
-
Ok, so I guess we're having the conversation now? Just one issue for now I think. A problem that Islam faces that most other religions do not is that a central, non-extremist tenet of the faith is that the Koran is the perfect word of God, and the final, ultimate Revelation of that God. This is problematic for a number of reasons, but just for starters the book was ostensibly written (there is evidence of later revision) in the 7th century. If your faith demands that you strictly look at the world through a 7th century lens (and older, as much of the Koran is taken from the Old and New Testaments) then you are going to have problems with the not insignificant changes that have occurred since then. Most problematically the social changes. The places in society people hold, what is and is not acceptable, and so on. Now, obviously, other religions face this problem too, but they are not expected to believe the same things about their holy books as Muslims are about the Koran.
The second part of that point, that this is meant to be the final, unalterable Revelation is also troublesome, because that makes it not only the word of God, but the final say. The ultimate divine warrant until the end of days. That combined with the first point means that, without any kind of strange interpretation of the text at all, one can justify some seriously unpleasant behavior. I stress again that this is not the extremist view, but one of the central pillars of the religion.
Now, I happily and readily admit that most Muslims, like most every religious person, tends to just live their lives as best they can in the context of their circumstances, taking mostly simple comfort from their faith. I am simply pointing out that there are things about Islam that make it, shall we say, volatile.
You know, I'm not nearly well-versed enough in religious semantics or scripture, so you're probably going to find some grounds to flat-out dismiss this, but I call total bullshit.
The Bible, the Pope, the Torah and many other religious books and authorities have been declared sacrosanct or infalliable many times prior. This really is not something exclusive to Muslims AT ALL.
-
Additionally, the nature of the religion is such that there really is no other center to it. They are forbidden (for realsies) making any graven images, of Muhammad in particular, and the practice of the religion is very austere, with a great deal more focus on following the rules than observing elaborate ceremonies. So the observance of the faith is mostly in the form of reflection on the text.
-
It sounds like the problem isn't with Islam itself so much as there hasn't been enough time to develop Lutheran Muslims.
(Nor has there been enough time for the Lutheran Muslims to become everything Luther was trying to stop.)
Part of the problem was the way Islam was flat-out destroyed by the Mongols in the 13th century. What happened was that there ceased to be a strong central religious authority and local mullahs became more and more important over time. Fatwas (i.e. edicts) can be literally given out by almost any qualified Imam.
An "islamic lutheran" movement is way less likely, because the trolls have no clear central authority to rebel against and are free to troll anyway - there's no islamic inquisition that's going to take them into a back room somewhere. Instead, the worst trolls just play Fred Phelps and try to reshape their congregation into whatever looney bin they see fit. And if you're an isolated village of dirt farmers stapled to the side of a mountain somwhere, you're a lot more likely to buy in to that stuff.
EDIT: Lack of a central authority also hinders centralized reform (i.e. stuff like the Second Lateran Council).
-
You know, I'm not nearly well-versed enough in religious semantics or scripture, so you're probably going to find some grounds to flat-out dismiss this, but I call total bullshit.
The Bible, the Pope, the Torah and many other religious books and authorities have been declared sacrosanct or infalliable many times prior. This really is not something exclusive to Muslims AT ALL.
See above, first of all. Secondly, with the religions you mentioned just now the text is part of the religion, largely conveyed to the people through the clergy. In Islam the text more or less IS the religion, with Imams and others interpreting it and gathering followers here and there. It is also not the case in the other Abrahamic texts that the claim of final revelation is made.
RE: A lack of an Islamic reformation. This is an idea that has been bandied about by quite a few scholars, some even positing that we are in the middle of such a reformation as the Muslim world faces the inevitability of the modern world, and reconciling that. I don't have much to say on the subject. I don't know that it would help, and in any case it would be very different from the schism experienced by Christianity, as Islam has rarely been even remotely monolithic.
-
You know, I'm not nearly well-versed enough in religious semantics or scripture, so you're probably going to find some grounds to flat-out dismiss this, but I call total bullshit.
The Bible, the Pope, the Torah and many other religious books and authorities have been declared sacrosanct or infalliable many times prior. This really is not something exclusive to Muslims AT ALL.
See above, first of all. Secondly, with the religions you mentioned just now the text is part of the religion, largely conveyed to the people through the clergy. In Islam the text more or less IS the religion, with Imams and others interpreting it and gathering followers here and there. It is also not the case in the other Abrahamic texts that the claim of final revelation is made.
As long as the word "interpret" is in there somewhere, this reeeeeeeeallly smells of hairsplitting.
-
Well, yes, of course there will be interpretation, because humans are reading it. I had actually just come in to add the addendum that there is also a complete lack of a tradition of apologetics in Islam. The idea of literalism with regards to the Bible and the Torah was considered ridiculous by most church fathers from the very start of those religions, whereas with the Koran it is the default state. It's not that there's no variation in the reading, it's that there is no tradition of questioning the text itself.
-
One more point. The Christian and Jewish traditions have, for most of their histories, been obfuscated in ceremony, tradition, and ritual. Much of it very elaborate and, particularly with regards to Catholics and the Latin mass, completely impenetrable. With Islam it's just you and the book, or you and your prayers, unless you specifically seek out a religious figure to give you his take on things. In some ways I find that concept rather nice, but it does contribute further to the volatile nature of the religion I alluded to earlier.
-
Yo, so I'm just going to pop into this conversation for a drive-by real quick. You guys are talking about how it always seems like Muslims are always real hard line and just go off at this images and such. But man, ask yourselves some real big questions:
1) How many Muslims in real life do you know who are just going apeshit over this stuff? Like seriously, all the people I know are generally cool and just laugh it off. And I'm talking real No-Alcohol, no-pork, always at mosque types.
2) Ever notice how easy and often it is that western media depicts crazy, fired-up Muslims over shit like this? Like, I never see the media publishing counter-stuff by Muslims who just brush it off. It's always the same angry Muslims getting all up in people's grills. Do you think media has a vested interest in portraying the angry Muslims more, like they want us to view all Muslims that way? And do you think that Christians are usually shown reacting to things in a more positive light, even when that Christian happens to be a crazy-ass-angry-motherfucker?
Just some questions I'm going to toss out there.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't think the bad guys are the French newspaper here. Freedom of speech and expression are not something to be temporarily set aside because you're afraid of offending people who can't take a joke as a matter of dogma.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Do you see anybody here saying the French papers should have been LEGALLY PROHIBITED from publishing those cartoons?
Because
You do not have the right not to be offended
cuts both ways.
People printing racist cartoons are assholes, whether or not I respect their right to do so.
You can defend a bunch of racists' right to be publicly racist while still saying hey, fuck these people for being a bunch of racists. It is not a contradiction in terms.
Think I already linked this Popehat article, but here it is again: The Heavy Burden of Black and White (http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/12/the-heavy-burden-of-black-and-white/).
tl;dr Of COURSE French racists are bad guys. Even if they're not as bad as people rioting in the streets and setting shit on fire.
Also tl;dr "They're exercising free speech therefore you shouldn't criticize what they're saying" is about the hoariest strawman in all of Internet debate. I have very little respect for it.
-
Alright, this is my... third attempt at writing a response
that doesn't begin and end with a hearty "shut the fuck up, bal".
So, claiming Islam is more volatile than any other given religion is, I think, giving too much credit to the power of religion and not enough to human nature. Religion tempers a person's values, but so do culture, upbringing, experiences, personality and other varying factors too numerous to really count. Basically, it's why you've got people protesting against gay marriage for going against the bible, but you don't see those same people denouncing Red Lobster for serving shellfish on Friday or whatever.
The reality is that Islam simply isn't the problem with the Middle East, it's the fact that it's the Middle East that's the problem. It's one of the most regularly fucked over parts of the world, since the Crusades all the way to today. Meddling foreign and corporate interests, cultural dissonance and general religious persecution have rendered the entire area a continent-sized powder keg. Honestly, if the dominant worshiped deity there was Zeus we'd be talking about how a serial rapist and wife-eating was written into their holiest documents.
There's also the fact that, A) many Islamic Libyans are regretful and ashamed that the American Embassy was attacked on their soil, B) the guys who brought RPGs to the protest were probably in the minority and may in fact have been using the protest as cover for the attack, and C) many Libyans are probably unfamiliar with Western values and Freedom of the Press, and are under the misconception that by allowing the movie to be made the U.S. Government condones its message.
-
C) many Libyans are probably unfamiliar with Western values and Freedom of the Press, and are under the misconception that by allowing the movie to be made the U.S. Government condones its message.
This is actually worth repeating. I have known more than a few Chinese or Russians who refuse to believe that anything the US does abroad isn't part of some careful plan to CONQUER THE WORLD AND BLEED IT DRY. When you only know the cynicism that autocracy breeds, the "but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" stuff doesn't ring the same at all.
-
I'm not going to argue the effect of religion in general compared to Islam in the specific here, but I stand by the idea that there are specific issues, some of which I outlined, that make Islam prone toward what we think of as extremist behavior.
RE: Thad's comments, I don't believe I said you couldn't criticize the French cartoonists in this situation, but if I did that was not my intent. I simply meant to say that the blame was not to be laid at the feet of what I think I referred to as "French assholes", but instead with the reactionary mobs.
RE: Libya specifically, my very first post suggesting setting aside the Libyan attack in this discussion because it was probably a terrorist attack, and I even included a link to a Reuters article to that effect. I have also heard the reports that the majority of the Libyan people are horrified, particularly since we just helped liberate their country, and that the Ambassador had in fact been quite popular, as far as Ambassadors go.
Finally, the idea that many people in the region have no idea what Freedom of Speech is is completely valid, though I'm not sure how it addresses my points. Even if the US Government did release a statement saying that the prophet was a fraud and Islam was false, they've no business behaving that way.
-
I'm not going to argue the effect of religion in general compared to Islam in the specific here, but I stand by the idea that there are specific issues, some of which I outlined, that make Islam prone toward what we think of as extremist behavior.
So Bal, how exactly did those "Specific issues" shake out between Islam and other Abrahmic religions from say... 700 AD to 1200 AD?
My point being, we had five-hundred years of real concrete history where Islam was the tolerant, prosperous, liberal, scholastic, science-friendly religion (in fairness, much of the Christian world was also scholastic and science-friendly during this time, but then so were a lot of other religions and regions). or, more accurately, that the societies which had Islam as their religion were the most tolerant, prosperous, liberal, scholastic, and scientifically advanced of their time. They could have had any broad-based religion. Would you blame the fall of Rome on the inherent conflicts of the Greek Pantheon? Or the fall of Ancient Egypt on the wackiness of the Gods of the Nile? How absurd is this?
Any social system - political, religious, whatever - that comes to be hundreds of years old winds up with thousands of different traditions and tenets and the more of those there are, the more can be manipulated for good or ill by that system's current living practitioners.
-
You can argue that Islam helped create the environment where that history of enlightenment was possible (though I would say the cultures absorbed during early Islamic expansion had more to do with it, Persia most particularly). Muslim scholars invented algebra, and named most of the stars in the sky that are visible with the naked eye and early telescopes, and then 900 years ago they stopped because their religious leaders forced them to. I would be delighted if they started again. Would they have recovered better without the crusades? Probably, but we'll never know. Your nonsense about the falls of Rome and Egypt are non sequitur so far as I can tell. Unless you think I'm decrying Islam as the root of the inevitable downfall of modern civilization, which I haven't. I have simply, and I thought clearly, said that I believe there are serious problems at the root of the religion with regards to integrating with MODERN society.
If you disagree, fine, but I'd prefer you not put words in my mouth. If you want me to get into the highs and lows of religion throughout history I can, and I assure you I would shit on all of them, because while it seems like I'm picking on Islam here, I pretty much hold all religion in contempt.
EDIT: Also, and I should have made note of this earlier, what the fuck does 700 to 1200 AD have to do with modern concerns? I don't think interactions with post-enlightenment western ideals were a huge fucking problem back then.
-
Hey, this seems relevant: while the FBI is still trying to coax young muslim men into becoming terrorists, one of them was talked out of it by his sheik. (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/adel_daoud_sting_muslim_leader.php?ref=fpnewsfeed)
-
Hey, this seems relevant: while the FBI is still trying to coax young muslim men into becoming terrorists, one of them was talked out of it by his sheik. (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/adel_daoud_sting_muslim_leader.php?ref=fpnewsfeed)
this entrapment shit leaves such an awful taste in my mouth and we would never be doing this to a fucking white person.
-
You can argue that Islam helped create the environment where that history of enlightenment was possible (though I would say the cultures absorbed during early Islamic expansion had more to do with it, Persia most particularly). Muslim scholars invented algebra, and named most of the stars in the sky that are visible with the naked eye and early telescopes, and then 900 years ago they stopped because their religious leaders forced them to. I would be delighted if they started again. Would they have recovered better without the crusades? Probably, but we'll never know. Your nonsense about the falls of Rome and Egypt are non sequitur so far as I can tell. Unless you think I'm decrying Islam as the root of the inevitable downfall of modern civilization, which I haven't. I have simply, and I thought clearly, said that I believe there are serious problems at the root of the religion with regards to integrating with MODERN society.
If you disagree, fine, but I'd prefer you not put words in my mouth. If you want me to get into the highs and lows of religion throughout history I can, and I assure you I would shit on all of them, because while it seems like I'm picking on Islam here, I pretty much hold all religion in contempt.
EDIT: Also, and I should have made note of this earlier, what the fuck does 700 to 1200 AD have to do with modern concerns? I don't think interactions with post-enlightenment western ideals were a huge fucking problem back then.
Your argument so far has been that islam is some inherently retrograde religion that puts any society that adheres to it at some kind of disadvantage, that the religion inherently promotes conflict and ignorance. If that's true now, it would be no less true when it was a thousand years younger.
All modern religions have had their chance to promote ignorance or hatred (or, good works... religions have been known to actually do positive things sometimes!) many many times over. Islam has zero claim to anything special here.
Blaming Islamic culture for putting the kibosh on scientific inquiry is frankly dumb. Christians tried to do the same thing only a little later, the only difference being that the Islamic world was run over by tsunami of rapid, successive invasions that destroyed their society and golden age. Whereas governments in Western Europe were so desperate for any advantage in a thousand years of unceasing warfare that even if something was actually rejected or banned on religious grounds, it was quickly embraced by someone else until adoption. This wasn't because Christianity was more enlightened or superior as a religion, but out of brutal mercenary necessity.
Hell, if Islam is so hostile to progressive thought they should never have had a Golden Age of any kind because the same proscriptions you're talking about would have also banned the adoption of Greek science and any sort of scientific inquiry in the first place.
If you want to blame the wording Koran specifically, I could run out and grab a bunch of pro-science hadiths from it, like "the ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr". This is no different than the bible: There's material in there for anyone to buttress their views, whatever those views might be. As Tommy Douglas said of the bible "You can play any tune you want on it". But damned if I'm start arguing the religious semantics of chapter and verse on the internet (HURRR MONGREL IS JUST LAZY. WHAT A QUITTER, RITE GUYZ?). That has to be some of the worst nonsense going. You've clearly got your own dogma you're looking to justify.
-
Your interpretation of my argument may have been that it is inherently universally retrograde, but all I KEEP SAYING OVER AND OVER is that the precepts of the religion make interface with the modern world troublesome at best. I'm not pushing some kind of broad anti-Muslim agenda here. I have concerns about the religion based on inherent facts about it and the form it currently takes in most of the Muslim world, all in the context of interfacing with western culture in particular. I have no real desire to justify anything to you, because frankly you obviously don't want to hear it in any case. I would appreciate not being branded dogmatic just because you don't like an opinion I hold for well considered reasons.
I do agree that quote mining any religious text can "prove" just about anything you'd like about it though, and doesn't get you much of anywhere.
-
Your interpretation of my argument may have been that it is inherently universally retrograde, but all I KEEP SAYING OVER AND OVER is that the precepts of the religion make interface with the modern world troublesome at best. I'm not pushing some kind of broad anti-Muslim agenda here. I have concerns about the religion based on inherent facts about it and the form it currently takes in most of the Muslim world, all in the context of interfacing with western culture in particular. I have no real desire to justify anything to you, because frankly you obviously don't want to hear it in any case. I would appreciate not being branded dogmatic just because you don't like an opinion I hold for well considered reasons.
I do agree that quote mining any religious text can "prove" just about anything you'd like about it though, and doesn't get you much of anywhere.
I know you were referring to my statement above, but you do realize that quote mining is exactly what extremist preachers of any stripe do, right? The eerie similarities between religious extremists around the world have often been pointed out on these very boards.
The precepts you are having trouble with are not some exclusive MUSLIM SPECIAL OFFER. The bible has inf. passages that can "make interfacing with the modern world troublesome at best". I mean have you ever heard of an institution called "The Catholic Church"? I heard they've had some problems lately.
Over and over you state that this is a specifically muslim problem. Well it's not. The only way the "inherent facts" support this is if you somehow ignore the entire rest of the world outside the islamic middle east.
@ mods: Threadsplit?
-
I have said that it is currently a Muslim problem, and I did not limit myself to the middle east. If you want me to complain about the Catholics I would be more than happy to, but that's not really the point. I'm totally on board with other religions being bad too, and similarly bad as well, but this doesn't make Islam less bad, or of less immediate interest.
-
My point is that if the other religions are just as capable of the same bullshit, then singling out islam specifically is a distraction from the real issues at best and borderline racism at worst.
-
Your interpretation of my argument may have been that it is inherently universally retrograde, but all I KEEP SAYING OVER AND OVER is that the precepts of the religion make interface with the modern world troublesome at best.
Perhaps the same could be said of all religions.
...
...what?
-
They are just as capable, but as it turns out they aren't doing it right now in anything like the numbers you see across the Muslim world, which is the main distinction. I think all religion, and sometimes specific religions or sects of religions pose particular problems, or just particularly immediate problems. Is a Pope a hate mongering old shit? Absolutely, and it makes me sick the things he's said, particularly with regards to AIDS in Africa, but the difference is the relative toothlessness of the Catholic Church today. If we were to go back in time just to the 1930s I would be railing against the not just complicity, but outright alliance between the Vatican and Fascism across Europe. I don't mean to Godwin myself, but literally the first treaty made by the Third Reich was with the Vatican. That upsets me now, and I imagine would have upset me even more then, but we're not talking about the 1930's, we're talking about the 21st century, and the continuing cultural conflict between the Muslim world and what I'm broadly just going to refer to as the West. That is a thing that is happening.
People were killed over Danish cartoons, and more lately mass outrage has been sparked by a YouTube video. These actions have everything to do with the religion practiced by the participants in these riots, and they'd tell you so if they weren't too busy screaming it already. I'm not "singling Islam out specifically". It singles itself out through the actions of, yes, a few, but a vocal and dangerous few who are not denounced nearly as much as they ought to be in their countries of origin. Hell, in the case of the Danish cartoon incident mass assemblies of rioters were held in countries where mass assembly is illegal. That's tacit state approval.
Also, please don't conflate religion and race. I don't hate Arabs or Persians, or anyone else based solely on race or creed, but that doesn't mean I have to like the religion, and keep my mouth shut about legitimate concerns I have just to save face in the name of tolerance.
Your interpretation of my argument may have been that it is inherently universally retrograde, but all I KEEP SAYING OVER AND OVER is that the precepts of the religion make interface with the modern world troublesome at best.
Perhaps the same could be said of all religions.
...
...what?
I would seriously submit that it could, though it is a sliding scale.
-
They are just as capable, but as it turns out they aren't doing it right now in anything like the numbers you see across the Muslim world, which is the main distinction. I think all religion, and sometimes specific religions or sects of religions pose particular problems, or just particularly immediate problems.
Sure. But this suggests that the problem isn't really Islam or the particulars of that belief system.
-
There are much more recent examples of Abrahamic religious-based violence than the 1930's. Right off the top of my head, Irelend's relative state of peace is not even two decades old, and Israel is doing an threatening some pretty fucked-up shit right now (not all of it is based on religious reasons, but dangerous hardline sects are becoming an ever more pernicious influence).
Now, you might say, "Well, those are actually situations where the real problem was the economics, or the longstanding antipathy for one tribe over another and religion was just window dressing", but if you did, I would reply "Exactly."
-
I actually would not at all argue that religion was just window dressing, not in Ireland nor in Israel/Palestine. The parties of God on both sides of both of those wretched conflicts were/are integral to their beginnings, their motivations, and their perpetuation. Of course there are other factors such as those you mentioned, but the hands of the religious leaders in those places who perpetuate such conflicts are coated in blood.
I went to the 30's just because I was in mind of the Catholics and that was the first example to occur to me.
They are just as capable, but as it turns out they aren't doing it right now in anything like the numbers you see across the Muslim world, which is the main distinction. I think all religion, and sometimes specific religions or sects of religions pose particular problems, or just particularly immediate problems.
Sure. But this suggests that the problem isn't really Islam or the particulars of that belief system.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that to soften the other religions we've been talking about here they all had to make quite serious concessions in their doctrine, and in the amount of power they wield over secular life. If the Catholic Church still had the power they once possessed, Europe would be in a great deal of trouble, as indeed it once was. These religions may come off fairly mild today, but don't forget how they behaved when they had the power to back their claims with force.
-
Well okay, but part of the problem is you're treating "the Catholics" and "the Muslims" as monolithic groups. They're not.
You're using "Muslims" as shorthand for "Muslims in the middle-east and north Africa", which, while still a generalization, is not as bad as suggesting that the entire faith is alike. But I think you need to be clearer that that's what you're doing.
Bosnian Muslims are really nothing at all like Iranian Muslims (and, in case you missed the protests after the election, Iranian Muslims aren't exactly a monolithic group either), and Louis Farrakhan's got more in common with Jesse Jackson than he does with the rioters in Egypt.
-
Normally when referring to those areas I'll use the phrase "The Muslim world", as those are the parts of the world under Muslim theocracy, either official or practical, but yes I should have been more clear when I was talking about the Muslim world and Muslims in other parts of the world, with whom I still have some objections, but not much discussed here.
As for Catholics I was referring to the policies of the Vatican and the Papacy itself. I come from a Catholic family, so I know full well what Catholic means in the context of an American family compared to the official doctrine, but when speaking about the Catholic Church I find it most clear to speak of the Church proper, because if we go down the road of individual faith, well, down that road madness lies.
Bosnian Muslims are actually very interesting to me, because during the Serbocroatian conflict, which was in fact Catholics vs Eastern Orthodox as much as Serb vs Croat, the Muslims there were often times the voice of reason.
Frankly I'm getting kind of tired of the discussion at this point, but these distinctions are important, and I'm glad you brought it up.
EDIT: Oh, and obviously I was talking about Irish Catholics in the context of The Troubles, but I would expect that to be obvious.
-
I actually would not at all argue that religion was just window dressing, not in Ireland nor in Israel/Palestine. The parties of God on both sides of both of those wretched conflicts were/are integral to their beginnings, their motivations, and their perpetuation. Of course there are other factors such as those you mentioned, but the hands of the religious leaders in those places who perpetuate such conflicts are coated in blood.
I went to the 30's just because I was in mind of the Catholics and that was the first example to occur to me.
They are just as capable, but as it turns out they aren't doing it right now in anything like the numbers you see across the Muslim world, which is the main distinction. I think all religion, and sometimes specific religions or sects of religions pose particular problems, or just particularly immediate problems.
Sure. But this suggests that the problem isn't really Islam or the particulars of that belief system.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that to soften the other religions we've been talking about here they all had to make quite serious concessions in their doctrine, and in the amount of power they wield over secular life. If the Catholic Church still had the power they once possessed, Europe would be in a great deal of trouble, as indeed it once was. These religions may come off fairly mild today, but don't forget how they behaved when they had the power to back their claims with force.
When those religions did soften it required leaders to essentially look to their respective scriptures to find new passages to "prioritize" over old ones (or to reinterpret old ones in a different way).
Islam has not recently gone through a religion-wide movement like that, but it is not less capable of the same reinvention. Due to the current leaderless patchwork nature of the religion you can see some imams in western countries making very liberal, tolerant pronunciations based on the exact same book the nuts are using. This isn't some vague furture possibility that only exists in potentia - it's happening right now.
The problem is that extremists ignore those calls, dismissing their authors/speakers as stooges of western heathens or whatever. But the two wildly different parties are adherents of the same religion based on the same book and traditions.
EDIT (While you...): As soon as you cease treating the religion as a monolithic bloc, blanket criticism of said religion becomes severely problematic. I find that if you're going to paint with a broad brush, it's vastly more useful to generalize about religious extremism as a whole than any one religion.
-
One of the more valid complaints that the general Muslim population has is that Western dick-waving keeps fucking up their efforts to calm down all the angry people who WANT to believe that their religion actively encourages their violent tantrums.
Which, of course, is what started this whole mess.
-
I still find Islam particularly problematic, or perhaps I should say prone to "extremism", in comparison to other religions today. I feel, as I have said, that this has to do with their fixation on the Koran and it's value as the ultimate and final source of divine knowledge. I do not mean to imply that this precludes rational scholars from taking that same book and finding peaceful coexistence with other cultures within.
The point of reform has been brought up before in this thread, and it would be nice of some kind of sweeping reform, or uprising of moderate Muslims to cast off the perception of the rest of the world with which the extremists paint them, but they have yet to do that. The liberal thinking Imams you speak of are in the minority right now, and their message is largely ignored even by moderate Muslims, because their's is a message that has failed to galvanize practically anyone except non-Muslims.
I don't feel that I'm painting with a broad brush here, just highlighting a large problem. I'm not talking about extremists in other religions because that's not where this conversation started. I could definitely go on about other extremists, but it wasn't pertinent.
One of the more valid complaints that the general Muslim population has is that Western dick-waving keeps fucking up their efforts to calm down all the angry people who WANT to believe that their religion actively encourages their violent tantrums.
Which, of course, is what started this whole mess.
I'm not sure which western dick-waving you're referring to, but I don't think that actually is a valid complaint in at least this regard. Those groups and leaders which are most offended are very clearly seeking to be offended, and in this at least Islam is by no means alone, just numerous.
-
Bosnian Muslims are actually very interesting to me, because during the Serbocroatian conflict, which was in fact Catholics vs Eastern Orthodox as much as Serb vs Croat, the Muslims there were often times the voice of reason.
I mention Bosnian Muslims because I've known a few.
My old roommate told me that to Bosnians it's less a faith than a culture; they drink and eat pork and do any number of things that don't strictly adhere to the holy book.
On the other hand, I knew a family of Bosnian Muslims when I was growing up who didn't eat pork, so again -- even as you start to narrow down the demographic you never get a culture that's quite monolithic.
I still find Islam particularly problematic, or perhaps I should say prone to "extremism", in comparison to other religions today. I feel, as I have said, that this has to do with their fixation on the Koran and it's value as the ultimate and final source of divine knowledge. I do not mean to imply that this precludes rational scholars from taking that same book and finding peaceful coexistence with other cultures within.
Well, again, I'd say that's nothing unique to Islam, that's just the religion in the region where shit's flaring up right now. Hasn't been long since Eastern Europe was the world's biggest powder keg. Dogmas -- and not just religious ones -- are easily manipulated.
I WOULD say that I find it interesting that Christianity and Islam seem distinct from other religions in their specific emphasis on a single messiah/prophet figure. While any religion can get riled up over doctrine, I'd say the reverence of Jesus and Muhammad makes it a lot easier for believers to be goaded into extreme action by insulting depictions of same.
In America at least we're a bit more civilized and mockeries of Christ are more likely to be met with pickets, boycotts, and calls for museums to Lose All Government Funding.
But it wasn't so long ago that Lyle Stuart was arrested (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/10/15/comic-book-legends-revealed-229/) for making fun of Santa Claus because that was defamation of a saint.
-
Hey, this seems relevant: while the FBI is still trying to coax young muslim men into becoming terrorists, one of them was talked out of it by his sheik. (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/adel_daoud_sting_muslim_leader.php?ref=fpnewsfeed)
this entrapment shit leaves such an awful taste in my mouth and we would never be doing this to a fucking white person.
No no, they would, they just use drugs instead. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/03/120903fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all)
-
In America at least we're a bit more civilized and mockeries of Christ are more likely to be met with pickets, boycotts, and calls for museums to Lose All Government Funding.
There's kind of an interesting point in relation to that. When a Christian culture insults Mohammad, Muslims can't respond in kind, because they dig Jesus too (though not exactly in the same way of course). It's the same situation where Christian anti-semites generally don't claim that Moses worshipped a false pagan deity or print depictions of King David on toilet paper.
It doesn't excuse the violent reactions. But it reveals another angle where the French idiots are in the wrong. Their insults on the religious level literally cannot be responded to on the religious level; all the backlash ends up on the social, political and diplomatic levels, where the harm it does is an order of magnitude greater.
-
How about this: should freedom of speech extend past country borders? Because that's the issue here. The french newspaper is not endangering itself, it's endangering French people in countries that very much do not approve of freedom of speech.
But if it doesn't, how the hell do you keep it in-country without censoring it?
-
Well you simply can't. The world so connected at this point that even if you wanted to keep something in country it's practically impossible, even in countries without the freedoms we enjoy. I think about the only country in the world where it's possible to keep a secret like that is North Korea, and that's only because most of the population lacks electricity and, you know, food. I would also go to my point of those people who seek to be offended, and I'm not even just talking about Muslims here. There are people in probably every ideological group that scour the media for things to offend themselves and use as rallying points. So I think our freedom of speech extends beyond our borders whether we want it to or not, but if I had the choice I would still want it to. I don't want people to get hurt, of course, and there's an inescapable contradiction there, I know, but I just can't stomach the idea of stifling that freedom. I really believe it is the most important one we have, and backing down on it isn't something I can support.
-
There are people in probably every ideological group that scour the media for things to offend themselves and use as rallying points.
They're all over Tumblr, that's for sure.
-
But it wasn't so long ago that Lyle Stuart was arrested (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/10/15/comic-book-legends-revealed-229/) for making fun of Santa Claus because that was defamation of a saint.
Er, your link is to Stuart getting arrested for selling something laughably considered pornography. It does further link to an earlier article about the state of Massachusetts asking retailers to voluntarily refuse to carry it for desecration, which is a fair bit different. But also getting pretty tangential.
-
There are people in probably every ideological group that scour the media for things to offend themselves and use as rallying points.
They're all over Tumblr, that's for sure.
+1 million karma for GryffindorBuge
-
I don't go to Tumblr. What is joke.
-
The joke is that anyone would consider the outrage of Tumblr posters to be relevant.
Further explanation: Tumblr is full of people who only read tiny snippets of things then get outraged and post about it. Eventually this is followed by several people reposting the original outrage without bothering to read fully the original article or post or whatever. Eventually it creates an echo chamber of thousands of angry voices and none of them is aware of what they're angry at.
-
Further explanation: Tumblr is full of people who only read tiny snippets of things then get outraged and post about it. Eventually this is followed by several people reposting the original outrage without bothering to read fully the original article or post or whatever. Eventually it creates an echo chamber of thousands of angry voices and none of them is aware of what they're angry at.
Also, there's enough people on Tumblr with their own axe to grind regarding social issues that it makes meaningful communication impossible without offending someone. And they'll yell at you for making a gaffe that they take personally.
-
I see, so Tumblr in particular is a particularly bad community in that regard. The echo chamber effect, and data mining to find things to be angry about, are so prevalent in almost every community centered on, or containing, ideological movements. Actually, your description here put me seriously in mind of LiveJournal back in the day. I remember reading some insane rants by, fuck, I can't even remember what they called themselves. People, mostly women, against getting pregnant and having children. Anyway, they'd unload incredibly amounts of vitriol on new mothers and dissenters, using all kinds of made up slurs. It was rather remarkable.
-
xX-_~CHILDFREE HARDCORE~_-Xx
-
But it wasn't so long ago that Lyle Stuart was arrested (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/10/15/comic-book-legends-revealed-229/) for making fun of Santa Claus because that was defamation of a saint.
Er, your link is to Stuart getting arrested for selling something laughably considered pornography. It does further link to an earlier article about the state of Massachusetts asking retailers to voluntarily refuse to carry it for desecration, which is a fair bit different. But also getting pretty tangential.
The same issue contained a parody of 'Twas the Night Before Christmas, and yeah that's where the "desecration" talk comes from -- they made fun of Santa Claus.
As I recall, both Aragones's retelling of the story in the first issue of Liberty Comics and David Hajdu's The Ten-Cent Plague refer to the "defaming a saint" charge as one of the reasons for the arrest, not just the pornography allegation. However, it's possible that I'm either misremembering or they're both wrong -- Cronin is damned good about doing his homework and I'm probably more inclined to believe him than Hajdu or Evanier-who-heard-it-from-Aragones-who-heard-it-from-Gaines. (Evanier is a damn fine fact-checker but this was a strip where he was literally just transcribing what Aragones told him -- that's the strip, the two of them are walking and Aragones is telling Evanier the story. Aragones would have heard the story from people who were there but he didn't join Mad until years after it happened.) Hajdu's book is excellent and highly recommended but it contains a few notable factual errors here and there, including the assertion that Gaines turned Mad from a comic into a magazine to escape the Code -- that's an oft-repeated assertion but it's wrong; Gaines turned Mad into a magazine because its creator, Kurtzmann, wanted it to be a magazine; that they managed to get around the Code in the bargain was a lucky coincidence.
So it could be that there were separate trumped-up incidents revolving around Panic #1 and I'm either conflating them or remembering multiple sources that conflated them. Either way, EC Comics got in hot water for making fun of Santa Claus.
-
I see, so Tumblr in particular is a particularly bad community in that regard. The echo chamber effect, and data mining to find things to be angry about, are so prevalent in almost every community centered on, or containing, ideological movements. Actually, your description here put me seriously in mind of LiveJournal back in the day. I remember reading some insane rants by, fuck, I can't even remember what they called themselves. People, mostly women, against getting pregnant and having children. Anyway, they'd unload incredibly amounts of vitriol on new mothers and dissenters, using all kinds of made up slurs. It was rather remarkable.
What's important to realize, though, is that it's just Tumblr. They may be a bunch of blowhards with an ax to grind, but none of these people represent the ideology they claim to hold. If you get worked up by this people, you might end up thinking that these fringe crazies represent actual, mainstream ideology and spend your time trying to fight against worthless causes.
-
The closest thing to righteousness is indignation.
-
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINL5E8KLI5W20120921?irpc=932 (http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINL5E8KLI5W20120921?irpc=932)
Okay, NOW we can talk about France and the right to free speech.
-
I see, so Tumblr in particular is a particularly bad community in that regard. The echo chamber effect, and data mining to find things to be angry about, are so prevalent in almost every community centered on, or containing, ideological movements. Actually, your description here put me seriously in mind of LiveJournal back in the day. I remember reading some insane rants by, fuck, I can't even remember what they called themselves. People, mostly women, against getting pregnant and having children. Anyway, they'd unload incredibly amounts of vitriol on new mothers and dissenters, using all kinds of made up slurs. It was rather remarkable.
What's important to realize, though, is that it's just Tumblr. They may be a bunch of blowhards with an ax to grind, but none of these people represent the ideology they claim to hold. If you get worked up by this people, you might end up thinking that these fringe crazies represent actual, mainstream ideology and spend your time trying to fight against worthless causes.
The fact that people do it on Tumblr don't make it any less of a real world phenomenon. It happens constantly in public discourse, politics, religion, social movements of practically every kind. It's just an element of these things.
-
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINL5E8KLI5W20120921?irpc=932 (http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINL5E8KLI5W20120921?irpc=932)
Okay, NOW we can talk about France and the right to free speech.
I think my predictable complain here is that France is banning ostensibly peaceful public assembly. Maybe if they had some kind of evidence that it was going to turn ugly they might be justified, but even the extremists seem to feel violence would be counter productive right now, and for fuck's sake this is a country that has street protests about free bikes. Seriously France? YOU are going to ban some protests?
-
I think they're hoping to relive La Resistance vicariously through the inevitable reaction.
-
More like wanting to relive the student actions of 60's (if you don't know, that stuff was a lot more violent and arguably more interesting in France than it ever was here) but either way it'll probably get the kibosh.
-
(if you don't know, that stuff was a lot more violent and arguably more interesting in France than it ever was here)
Huh. Wasn't it the same with the Revolutions of each respective nation?
-
Touché.
-
Libyan counter-protesters literally run the hardline militias out of town and burn their base down (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/libyan-protesters-storm-militia-compound-in-benghazi/article4560913/)
“This brigade was a big problem for us and for everybody. It was a centre of extremists,” said one of the demonstrators, 32-year-old Tawfik Mohamed.
“The death of the ambassador was the spark that set off the fire,” said another demonstrator.
Earlier Friday, a group of Benghazi residents stormed the barracks of another group, the Martyrs of Abu Slim brigade, and ousted its members.
“We kicked them out and called the army to take over this place,” Hamza Jehani told AFP, adding that around 70 people had forced their way inside and driven the militiamen out.
“No to armed formations” and “Yes to the Libya army” read banners raised by protesters at the Tibesti Hotel before marching to Al-Kish Square, near barracks housing several brigades.
“Our law is God’s law, not the law of the jungle,” women chanted.
Banners paid tribute to the slain U.S. ambassador, with signs reading “Libya lost a friend” and “We want justice for Stevens.”
Holy shit! :smile:
-
Bravo them. Exactly the appropriate response.
-
Update: The Libyan government is definitely getting SERIOUS BUSINESS about shutting down the extremist militias and making sure the rule of law (or at least the rule of the central government) is paramount. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/libya-to-dissolve-unlawful-militias-after-benghazi-uprising/article4561669/)
Though it sounds like the militias might fight back, they are already starting from a position of serious weakness with little popular support in any major population centre. At least, not enough to prevent them from having been run out of town in the first place. If the government can strike a good balance between carrots and sticks they might just shut these guys down before this has the chance to drag out. We'll see.
At the very least the central government seems to be able to tell which way the wind is blowing and can be decisive, so that's a damn good start right there.
-
"Welp, Ghadaffi was taken out because he didn't care about the people on the street. Might be a good idea to care about the people on the street guys. Just a thought."
-
And if there's one thing the people on the street are tired of it's armed gunmen with ambiguous agendas. I think after the recent strife in the country what people mostly want is evenly distributed rule of law, and for no guns to be shot practically at all.
-
Also, they've had decades being thought of as one of the world's most nutbag countries and they know it. They're super sensitive to anything that's going to mess up their efforts to get the fuck away from that.
-
Yeah, I mean, they weren't really in the public consciousness world wide since Gaddafi made a whole bunch of concessions so as not to be caught up in the general middle eastern WMD Easter egg hunt, but they haven't exactly been part of the world community for the last couple generations.
-
Well, there's provocation and there's provocation: Pro-Israel extremists buy adspace in the NY subway stating muslims are savages (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ads-posted-in-new-york-subways-test-limits-of-free-speech/article4568396/)
MTA did refuse the ads at first, but had to run them after the group fought the ban on first amendment grounds.
EDIT: Oh man the woman who bought the ads is a Randian too. :8V:
-
w...what?
no. that's not how free speech works. that's not how the first amendment works. you're allowed to say what the fuck ever you want, but no one is obligated to provide you a platform with which to speak on.
what the fuck.
-
jesus fuck, this is an infringement on fucking the MTA's 1st Amendment rights.
-
I think that because the MTA is subsidized\owned by an agency bound by the constitution it is obligated to uphold those standards as well?
-
So... can I put porn on MTA's walls?
-
So... can I put porn on MTA's walls?
No, because that violates decency laws.
Thanks, evangelicals.
-
I think that because the MTA is subsidized\owned by an agency bound by the constitution it is obligated to uphold those standards as well?
Yeah, that's about it. It's allowed to set broad guidelines about what advertising it accepts, so long as it applies those standards evenly and without exception. The MTA's accepted plenty of political advertisements before, so that isn't controversial, but where they lost out here is that their "no derogatory language" rule laid out only specific categories that it applied to, implicitly allowing equally derogatory speech if it wasn't in one of them (so you could run an ad claiming that everyone with green eyes was a brain-damaged monkey or whatever). It's that selective division that the judge ruled against on First Amendment grounds.
They've still got a month to appeal or to change their public advertising standards, and I'd bet they'll at least do the second. The ads haven't gone up yet.
-
Following where that quote came from (Ayn Rand) led me to her wikiquote page[/quote] which is just full of gems.
(http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand)They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.
She said, advocating for the overthrow of private property rights.
Let no man posture as an advocate of peace if he proposes or supports any social system that initiates the use of force against individual men, in any form.
Wait what...?
It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders' motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world. Instead, we are deluding the ignorant and the semi-savage by telling them that no political knowledge is necessary—that our system is only a matter of subjective preference—that any prehistorical form of tribal tyranny, gang rule, and slaughter will do just as well, with our sanction and support. It is thus that we encourage the spectacle of Algerian workers marching through the streets [in the 1962 Civil War] and shouting the demand: "Work, not blood!"—without knowing what great knowledge and virtue are required to achieve it. In the same way, in 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: "Land and Freedom!" But Lenin and Stalin is what they got. In 1933, the Germans were demanding: "Room to live!" But what they got was Hitler. In 1793, the French were shouting: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" What they got was Napoleon. In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming "The Rights of Man"—and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it. No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal.
"The Rights of Man" was written by Thomas Paine, who wrote the book in support of the French revolution, and who liked the Jacobins (of which Napoleon was) in particular. He was eventually exiled from America.
The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in your own face.
She just sounds so delightful, doesn't she?
-
The ads haven't gone up yet.
Then why is this picture in the article:
(http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/033/news/world/article4568395.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/jihad-posters26nw1.JPG.jpg)
...along with a bunch of vox pops comments about the ads?
-
The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself.
Don't worry, lady, there are plenty of other people willing to laugh at you.
-
The ads haven't gone up yet.
Then why is this picture in the article:
Huh. Because I totally misread "July 20" (the date of the ruling) as "September 20" somehow?
-
She said, advocating for the overthrow of private property rights.
How did you come to believe that Ayn Rand opposed private property rights? That's kinda the main thing she favored, to the detriment of all else.
-
...I think you've missed his point. I believe he was pointing out the contradiction in Ayn Rand's quote and her own beliefs.
-
(http://mondoweiss.net/images/2012/09/23d-street2.jpg)
-
...I think you've missed his point. I believe he was pointing out the contradiction in Ayn Rand's quote and her own beliefs.
The quote is also in favor of property rights.
-
Unless you happen to be a Native American.
-
According to her, the reason it's okay to steal land from Native Americans is because they had no concept of individual property rights. If they had already advanced to the enlightened and civilized condition of promoting individual property rights, we would have had no claim on their land when we met them.
-
Do you see where that is a very racist and not actually coherent argument?
-
Worth a repost: http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_19864_6-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-founding-america.html)
Wherein it's pointed out that if you think Native Americans and think "Na'vi" rather than "Persian Empire", you kinda got it wrong.
-
My primary focus on why her quote is dumb and bullshit is the fact that they kept trying to kill us in the 1800s when we came on their land.
The entire quote is just so inconsistent in its assessment of Native Americans. She opens by trying to claim that it's okay to take from people if they don't believe in property rights (which is an inconsistent view on its face), but then advocates using violent force to acquire what they have, which seems to imply a recognition that, yeah, they do believe they own the land they're on.
It basically advocates that property rights only exist for the person who successfully kills another. I contrasted that with the second quote, where she says killing someone to take their property isn't cool.
-
Honestly guys, I wouldn't spend too much brainsweat trying to overanalyse the poster child for cognitive
dissonance cacophony.
-
Considering that her ignorant view of property rights accounts for like 40% of how our nation views things I think it's worth getting in discussions over sometimes.
-
Considering that her ignorant view of property rights accounts for like 40% of how our nation views things I think it's worth getting in discussions over sometimes.
Hear hear!
-
Also that 40% should not be taken as accurate in any context. In fact, I don't know why I threw that in there.
-
Do you see where that is a very racist and not actually coherent argument?
Of course I do. The point is that it is not in any way an argument against individual property rights. She disparaged Native Americans because they only believed in collective property rights.
-
Petraeus resigns as CIA Director over affair (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15054517-cia-director-david-petraeus-resigns-cites-extramarital-affair?lite)
:popcorn:
-
If he were still a general I wouldn't give a fuck.
But when you're operating as the head of a clandestine organization, then yeah, poor judgement in your personal relationships and compromising situations that could be used as blackmail are things that can interfere with the proper execution of your job.
(There's a good bit in Atrocity Archives that highlights how, in the old days, gay people would be kicked out of covert organizations because they were susceptible to blackmail -- and how the modern Laundry deals with that problem by saying we don't care if you're gay, you just can't be CLOSETED, and mandating that you routinely participate in a pride events or other extremely public declarations of your sexual orientation.
To that end, I wouldn't give a shit how many mistresses Petraeus had, if his wife and everybody else knew about it. Unless they knew because he was really terrible at keeping secrets, I guess.)
-
When your job is to train and manage people who are in the business of discovering secrets, the only way to keep a secret is to fail at your job.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/UIzke.jpg)
-
Stay classy, NYP.
-
The war in Syria is now spilling over into Turkey and Israel. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/world/middleeast/syria-war-updates.html?_r=0)
:fukit:
-
Stay classy, NYP.
Of course, it's the mistress's fault (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/internet-gets-its-slut-shaming-kicks-paula-broadwell) that Petraeus got dismissed.
-
Petraeus once admonished her... to "dress down,"
I'm sure he did. :whoops:
-
McCain, you fucking Partisan hack. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/mccain-skips-benghazi-briefing-gets-testy-when-questioned-by-cnn/?hpt=hp_t1)
If there was any illusions before about the Republican interest in Benghazi being 100% political, a huge number of them skipped briefings about Benghazi from the intelligence community so they could hold press conferences about the administration not doing enough to make people aware of what happened in Benghazi.
The media (for once) is actually calling out the hypocrisy, and McCain's response was (of course) to angrily chew out the reporters for asking him why he skipped the briefing. Couldn't you have at least made something up?
-
I am bemused by Hamas' decision to launch their biggest attacks since 2008 during Netanyahu's reelection campaign.
It's either an incredibly far-sighted act of genius (provoke Israel into it's usual response, continuing the glacially slow erosion of the international opinion on Israel - though this time the Israeli response looks to be much cagier and more careful than 2008's blundering, so maybe not), or the act of complete morons who haven't been able to keep it in their pants since Morsi was elected in Egypt (if they think he's going to back them up in any way, shape, or form, well... they're in for an incredibly an unpleasant surprise).
-
Holy shit (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/meast/palestinian-united-nations/index.html?hpt=hp_t1), I don't know if this is the right thread for this but I think the UN just recognized Palestine as a state?
-
Not quite. Looks like more ceremonial wheel-spinning to me.
-
It was enough to make John Baird recall diplomats from Israel, West Bank and the UN. (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-recalling-diplomats-israel-west-bank-un-over-131704442.html)
But then, what else would we expect from this ham-handed crony?
-
Dreams in infrared: USAF drone pilots share their stories (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pain-continues-after-war-for-american-drone-pilot-a-872726.html)
Courtesy of Der Spiegel.
-
Counterfeit parts made in China are even making their way onto military aircraft, where they might cause a "catastrophic failure" during a combat mission (http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/fake-parts-in-hercules-aircraft-called-a-genuine-risk)
I... does anybody in charge care about anything anymore? Like are we even bothering to try and do anything right?
-
That costs money.
-
So, I'm hoping this comes to nothing (and given that Obama seems to want some of his legacy to be "Didn't get involved in any new wars", that seems hopeful for now), but I just want to say this somewhere for the record:
Would it not be the bitterest of jokes if the US were to once again become involved in a hopeless morass in an unimportant foreign country.
After being begged by the French to join them in a (neo)colonial war, which they have been losing.
Where the the enemy is a local gaggle of extremist ideologues.
Who raise the mostly-hollow spectre of an international bogeyman that spawned them?
-
As far as justifications go, "They kidnapped and possibly shot our citizens" is a lot more concrete than "We thought they looked scary."
-
American Jews are settling in the West Bank against international law. (http://www.vice.com/read/living-the-american-dream-in-the-west-bank-0000345-v20n1?Contentpage=-1)
To encourage Jews to illegally settle there, the Israeli government subsidizes home purchases and offers reduced rates for leasing land, in addition to the perks all new Israeli citizens get such as free health care, upward of a 90 percent reduction in property taxes, tuition waivers for earning advanced degrees, and a payment of about $14,000 spending money for a family of five. The first installment is paid on arrival at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport—in cash.
-
Illegal settlement encroachment has been going on for oh.... fifty years now? Longer?
-
So how are we treating the man who ended Osama bin Laden? (http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1909513)
-
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
(with a ribbon on your bumper, not anything that costs more than a couple of bucks, obviously)
-
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
made in China
-
It's insincere for me to complain about this, but it seems like veteran's care and retirement plans get cut from the defense budget more easily than production projects.
-
Iraq marks the 10th anniversary of America's invasion with a wave of car bombings. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wave-of-car-bombs-kill-56-in-iraq-ten-years-after-invasion.php?ref=fpb)
-
Newly released Johnson tapes notably include proof that Nixon deliberately sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks (http://www.ibtimes.com/lbj-tapes-show-richard-nixon-may-have-committed-treason-sabotaging-vietnam-peace-talks-1131819) to win in 1968.
Why did Johnson refuse to break the news? In part, it would mean admitting that he had bugged several ambassadors’ phones, which also might not sit well with the American public. Johnson informed Humphrey of Nixon’s actions, though he ultimately decided not to make the announcement in the vain hope that he was on track to win anyway.
I can't really improve on Mark Evanier's comments (http://www.newsfromme.com/2013/03/19/not-all-the-way-with-l-b-j/):
That was one of the amazing things about Nixon: Just when you thought your opinion of the man couldn’t get any lower, he’d always surprise you. It’s somehow comforting to see he’s still at it.
-
That is a hell of a thing. God damn.
-
Always nice to be reminded why the guy is up there with Richelieu on the list of moustache-twirling cartoon historical villains. Except as a more worldly, venal evil.
And then we get the irony of looking back at everything else he did and realizing that compared to what we have now the boogeyman was practically a liberal. Way to found the EPA and a bunch of other stuff, you satanic fucking werewolf.
Shit. I was being just a touch sarcastic, but that is about as close as you can get to literal sympathy for the devil.
-
The story of how drones came to be used and how the CIA shifted from intelligence-gathering back to targeted assassinations (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/revealed-the-secret-deal-that-launched-drone-assassinations/article10828181/?page=1)
This is the shorter version. The full length story is suppposed to be coming out soon.
-
An interesting window is opened on the North African branches of Al Quaeda... thanks to an inter-branch hissy fit (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/28/al_qaeda_slams_terrorist_for_botching_price_for_kidnapped_canadian_diplomat.html)
:popcorn:
-
The best part: Al Qaeda has expense reports.
-
I know! Everybody I know has been laughing at that one.
The trivial minutiae of boys playing at being men.
-
It is kind of amazing how the world's foremost terrorist organization has the same problems as any mid-level corporate office.
-
Yyyyeah, I'm gonna need you to purge the infidels on Saturdayyyy.
-
It'll blow your mind when you find out that drug cartels and gangs have them, too.
-
That sort of makes a lot more sent there though, as those are nominally "businesses".
-
You still haven't made the connection between extremist religious groups and "business"?
-
I meant in the "self-identify as" sense.
-
You still haven't made the connection between extremist religious groups and "business"?
Fixed it for you.
I mean, I guess I should make some note of religious organizations that don't have any hierarchy to speak of and don't prescribe any kind of support structure (through sacrifice or tithe or the purchase of religious rites), but I'm not sure any such religions exist...
-
Yyyyeah, I'm gonna need you to purge the infidels on Saturdayyyy.
I'm also gonna need you...on Sunday, too. We lost some people this week, and we have to sorta play catch-up, mmmkay?
-
Border services consider weaponized drones (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/03/documents_show_customs_and_border_protection_considered_weaponized_domestic.html)
♫♪ Who's afraid of the big bad drone, the big bad drone, the big bad drone? ♫♪
-
Washington seems to frown on drone hunting for some reason (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/19/faa-warns-against-drone-hunting-shooting-at-unmanned-aircraft-for-reward/)
Everything about this story is funny.
-
A friend has a subscription to the current version of Gary Brecher's War Nerd feature, which is normally behind a paywall. Knowing I'm a fan, he unlocked these two recent columns on the Syrian situation for me, so read 'em while they're hot, if you're interested (they have about 1 day and 16 hours left as of this posting):
Kerry's Chem Speech: Old-School Empire (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/kerry-s-chem-speech-old-school-empire/4f2c505b4f4a0b02a8a0852a149181e44baa9923/)
Little Kerry and the Three Bad Options (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/little-kerry/2521ca5c93773cf0c0914d487a4e1ab157b709eb/)
EDIT:
Now that those columns have had a bit of time to percolate, I think there are two points where Brecher misses something.
The first is that when he's talking about major powers turning a blind eye to massacres committed with conventional weapons, I think that an important cushion there is the slow speed of escalation in Syria. This looked extremely small scale at first and there were several times when most observers thought Assad would snuff the uprisings out completely, much as his father had done several times. Few world powers were about to get involved when the casualties were only measured in dozens or hundreds. Now that the Syrian army has gradually worked it way up to thousands, global news readers have had time to build their mental insulation.
That's not the whole story (I actually posted earlier in this thread about how the US and Europe would have left Assad alone if he'd avoided using taboo weapons), but it figures in there. And I think that carries possibly as much weight as the weapon-technology taboo.
The second is that I think he's off when he talks about the 99% vs the 1% outrage. I think he's largely right that the majority is not going to give two shits about another tribe, but the percentage is not THAT badly off (maybe it's 10%, maybe even more). I also think that the internet has changed the game a little as manufactured outrage and moral offence is propagated faster and wider than ever before - and he's even touched on that himself in older columns. Point being that while "let 'em kill each other" will still usually win, that minority can drive action more often than he's giving it credit for at the moment.
I mean, I largely agree with his particular stripe of cynicism, but I think once in a while he lets it drown some fringe points - even ones he's previously made himself.
-
http://www.alternet.org/iraq-war-vet-arrested-cops-rally-opposing-syria-attack (http://www.alternet.org/iraq-war-vet-arrested-cops-rally-opposing-syria-attack)
-
What a terrible article. Just gonna quote someone else rather than make the effort to paraphrase, because it's right to the point:
That's like a "how not to" video on responding to being arrested. There's a reason every ACLU flier about how to handle being arrested in existence stresses not struggling and not arguing with the cops doing the arresting. The only interesting legal question in that video is whether the rangers had legal grounds to ask her to move out of that part of the park. Assuming that they did I'm reasonably confident that they are under no legal obligation to explain their reasons for closing a public park or parts thereof and they gave her every possible opportunity to leave quietly; she was intent upon getting herself arrested and, in the end, they obliged. If you struggle with officers while they're making an arrest, that's pretty much what it's going to look like; there was no evidence there of excessive force or brutality, they were simply trying to physically force an unwilling and resisting person into handcuffs.
The description of the event on her legal-fund website is pretty hilariously at variance with what the video itself actually shows. They make it sound like she was just standing around playing the banjo when a bunch of cops jumped her out of the blue.
-
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/47621/large/TMW2013-09-11color.png?1378570746)
That said, there's a pretty clear history of major world powers doing limited-intervention stuff and not calling it a war. They've had names like "Punitive expedition" and the like.
-
So it looks like Russia actually found Obama an escape hatch?
If this wasn't absurd before... (and it was)...
Basically, Kerry made an offhand (or "Offhand") comment this morning to the effect that the only way Syria could avoid getting cruise missle'd would be if they gave up all of their chemical weapons to international observers.
Russia took those words and ran with them, getting the Syrian foreign minister on the phone in ten minutes. Then went public to rub the US's nose in it, uh, I mean, tell the US it wanted to broker an international agreement for exactly what Kerry had mentioned. And while the Russians are clearly gloating, Obama jumped for it like a Luisitania crewmember looking for a life preserver, because the last place anyone wants to drown is in Congress.
So supposedly they're trying hammer out the details on how they arrange a ceasefire (ha), go in and scoop up all of Assad's chemical weapons (haha), perfunctorily "inspect" Assad's weapons stores (hahaha), and get the fuck out as fast as they can. Almost the exact opposite of how Iraq was handled. It's basically even more ridiculous now than it was last night, and things were already pretty stupid even then (note: genocide is not funny).
Oh and Lindsey Graham is flipping his shit because the Russians are "manipulating them" into not throwing missiles at Syria and "But I wanted to se explooosioonnnnnnnnnnns!" (that IS actually quite funny).
-
I mean, Obama getting saved by Putin is like the scene in the movie where the local almost-but-not-quite-corrupt cop now owes the local crime boss a big favour.
-
tbqh:
If it keeps us from lobbing cruise missiles and risking killing even more civilians, I'm all for it.
-
Russia took those words and ran with them, getting the Syrian foreign minister on the phone in ten minutes. Then went public to rub the US's nose in it, uh, I mean, tell the US it wanted to broker an international agreement for exactly what Kerry had mentioned.
So turns out the way to make peace in the Middle East was to dare Putin into doing it? Incredible!
It seems many ceasefires don't actually make the concerned countries actually cease fire. Let's see if it works.
-
Also, the same republican pundits that accuse Obama of being a socialist are applauding Russia's 'strong leadership'.
It's amazing how if you say enough bullshit with a straight face, people think you're making sense.
-
(http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/cms/binary/8893605.jpg?size=620x400)
-
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/16/taliban_accidentally_ccs_everybody_on_its_mailing_list?wpisrc=obnetwork (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/16/taliban_accidentally_ccs_everybody_on_its_mailing_list?wpisrc=obnetwork)
pfflol
-
Another Gary Brecher unlock, good for another 1 day & 20 hours as of this posting.
It's an almost crazy coincidence, as this was posted one day before the Nairobi attack.
Jihad vs. the Shopping Mall (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/jihad-hyperpanda/d4186f75e9aea6dccb91f6367757ee5b272dc3ca/)
-
A whole pile of Gary Brecher unlocks, with a day and a half left on 'em:
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/north-korea-mao/268628964c5f5ce404d0f2465dd70c3b65ef8ef4/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/north-korea-mao/268628964c5f5ce404d0f2465dd70c3b65ef8ef4/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/boston-bombs/f14527b725ea850169eed979ddfae29e2cb04445/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/boston-bombs/f14527b725ea850169eed979ddfae29e2cb04445/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/central-african-republic/26c6b4f18d27991ab7b91890f545eb6e498b7cf0/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/central-african-republic/26c6b4f18d27991ab7b91890f545eb6e498b7cf0/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/ringer-vs-ringer/ee5e2ca82edff245ebddaa2db7f76ab0c106d0a3/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/ringer-vs-ringer/ee5e2ca82edff245ebddaa2db7f76ab0c106d0a3/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/i-heart-syria/f363a4b0bbea9b6fda61b1c37b0ef12fbff55cbf/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/i-heart-syria/f363a4b0bbea9b6fda61b1c37b0ef12fbff55cbf/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/adam-gurowski/294b8a2f39c734d572e4b9831bb91eb0dc6a6391/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/adam-gurowski/294b8a2f39c734d572e4b9831bb91eb0dc6a6391/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/good-healthy-riots/ee82d3e363ec6ad9ad9cb974d0279ccdf37221a0/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/good-healthy-riots/ee82d3e363ec6ad9ad9cb974d0279ccdf37221a0/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/land-of-the-flies/9170519c1a2aeba41b72c7bf2be7b31176f45d3b/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/land-of-the-flies/9170519c1a2aeba41b72c7bf2be7b31176f45d3b/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/who-killed-gilgit/e204980c65a4b2309fc7a3bcb5613e226c2eeb8f/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/who-killed-gilgit/e204980c65a4b2309fc7a3bcb5613e226c2eeb8f/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/atop-recruiting-greatest-admiral/054f8c4d708176d86a7ea64fa85bf8a447960fbd/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/atop-recruiting-greatest-admiral/054f8c4d708176d86a7ea64fa85bf8a447960fbd/)
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/george-vs-alqaeda/388f2fe09f0b00a6bbd5035b8a1f8bcb680fce22/ (https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/george-vs-alqaeda/388f2fe09f0b00a6bbd5035b8a1f8bcb680fce22/)
The Gurowski one is particularly awesome, but they're all solid. The hedged mis-prediction the day after the Boston bombings is kind of interesting.
-
http://www.vice.com/read/i-was-david-petreauss-bitch-in-the-90s-and-i-hated-every-second-of-it (http://www.vice.com/read/i-was-david-petreauss-bitch-in-the-90s-and-i-hated-every-second-of-it)
The comments are the usual brand of internet awful, but one interesting thing I noted is the high volume of purportedly ex and current military comments along the lines of "What did you expect! That's the army, you fucking pussy! You don't like it, leave!"
Which would be more-or-less understandable, if it wasn't for the fact that they all miss the point about how not a single lick of what went on had anything even remotely to do with actually winning a real war anywhere on god's green earth.
Granted, that stuff is hardly new for armies anywhere or any time. Those few armies where the front-line soldiers and "middle manager" officers are mostly genuinely interested in winning wars are the truly fearsome machines of history.
-
If it's not your own way it's easy to forget how valued and respected the act of ass–kissing is in most of our culture. Our dominant religion is entirely based around it.
Most soldiers, if they're being honest, don't join up to defend the country's citizens - at least half of whom they truly hate - but to serve their country , that is, to submit to whatever master their society gives them. Humility and servitude is a good and proper way of life for a lot of people. I think most of the comments here are actually JEALOUS that the writer drew such a gloriously sorry lot.
-
Man, at first I read that as "ass-kicking" and was all "Waaaaaiiiiit a minute here".
-
The incredibly high chance of having a moron as a commanding officer with no recourse to you whatsoever is probably the single biggest reason I never remotely considered joining the military in any form. And in spite of the fact that by all accounts our armed forced are quite a bit better about that compared to you folks or the British.
People think I have a problem with authority. I only have a problem with stupid authority (this is most authority, yes).
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress)
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11)
-
Another reminder of just many different factions are in Syria: Buzzfeed article on Kurdish women fighters fighting against Al-Quaeda-backed forces in Syria (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/these-women-are-fighting-al-qaeda-in-syria)
-
http://projects.wsj.com/lobotomyfiles/ (http://projects.wsj.com/lobotomyfiles/)
-
There is still a war on.
-
Is this thing on?
-
You can't post here! This is the War Thread!
-
Anway, here's what I was gonna post.
Apparently Robert Gates's memoir is helluva interesting. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/01/robert_gates_duty_the_defense_secretary_s_criticisms_of_obama_and_bush.html)
-
“The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his.”
So he's... exactly what he appears to be on the face of things, when everybody in the world believes him to be the opposite. Huh.
-
"I'm really good at killing," (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/4/obama-brag-new-book-im-really-good-killing-drones/), says President who keeps a kill list. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
For what it's worth, saying "doesn't consider the war to be his" is pretty facetious. Obama is the president and expanded the US forces in Afghanistan in 2009. He maintains the drone program and has expanded it into other countries. And the NSA has been growing under leaps and bounds under his command. It sounds less like "Maybe Obama isn't the war mongering he looks like" and more "Robert Gates is a high-level toady"
Of course, either interpretation of Obama puts him in the classical Bush analysis of "Is he evil or just incompetent" and the true answer of "Both are awful with the same results"
-
"I'm really good at killing," (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/4/obama-brag-new-book-im-really-good-killing-drones/), says President who keeps a kill list. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
For what it's worth, saying "doesn't consider the war to be his" is pretty facetious. Obama is the president and expanded the US forces in Afghanistan in 2009. He maintains the drone program and has expanded it into other countries. And the NSA has been growing under leaps and bounds under his command.
Well, there's an argument to be made that he's really just continuing what the last guy did.
Which is small fucking comfort but absolutely the most important lesson everybody on either partisan side needs to learn here: if it's not okay when the other guy does it, then it's not okay when your guy does it, and vice-versa; and even if you trust the guy in charge now, the other party could be back in control in a couple of years.
(Maybe. Demographics at this point strongly suggest that the President will continue to be a Democrat, the House will continue to be Republican, and the Senate will continue to be split, probably for quite some time. But I think the larger point that you can't trust any of 'em is probably a good one for people to learn. Course, there's the argument to be made that that leads to voter apathy and makes things even worse, so hey, whole new set of problems.)
-
I think "Can't trust any of 'em" is the wrong lesson, and it should be pushed that "Their interest do not relate to our interests," and to continually push for political action in more than just electoral politics.
The greatest advantage I can see to having Democrats in power is that people are actually talking about economic issues. When Republicans are in power, all energy is focused on defeating Republicans.
-
But I think the larger point that you can't trust any of 'em is probably a good one for people to learn. Course, there's the argument to be made that that leads to voter apathy and makes things even worse, so hey, whole new set of problems.)
There's no argument to be made. That's what's already happening. That's what has already happened.
A democratic government is the form of government which is BY FAR most dependant on the confidence of the governed to function. It is exquisitely vulnerable to crises of confidence. I'd say you guys have been sliding in to just such a crisis for a while, arguably for about forty years come August 9th, but maybe a little while longer. The exact date is unimportant.
Clawing back from such a slide will take heroic efforts. Short of a miserable crisis, I would say you would have to have a fucking brilliant two-term president who made restoring confidence in government his primary political aim, over and above anything else. Now, I didn't say it would require MULTIPLE such presidents (that's when you know you're really in the shit), but from a distance, man, things don't look so good for you guys.