#jaggerblood
― Kerm, Sunday, 20 March 2011 18:41 (thirteen years ago) link
omg lol
― VegemiteGrrl, Sunday, 20 March 2011 18:41 (thirteen years ago) link
milo z you are such a hardass and I am in no way pro-gadaffi
― WD-40 (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 March 2011 18:42 (thirteen years ago) link
his tumblr was pretty explicit
― Kerm, Sunday, March 20, 2011 1:38 PM (3 minutes ago)
ah, the extra nugget that presumes a degree of gives-a-shit...it's always in there somewhere, like the baby in the king cake
― lowfat dry milquetoast (WmC), Sunday, 20 March 2011 18:43 (thirteen years ago) link
I am in no way pro-gadaffi― WD-40 (acoleuthic), Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:42 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
― WD-40 (acoleuthic), Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:42 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
'objectively' boo
― I *\m/* metal soooo much (history mayne), Sunday, 20 March 2011 18:44 (thirteen years ago) link
anyway, when ppl insult others they're just mirroring insecurities they have about themselves, so I'll assure milo he's cool to keep posting by me although maybe lay off the 'god my ex is such an alcoholic slut/prise it out of my cold dead hands' posturing
WmC your inability to detect my swagalicious register is upsetting
wish I had more time to post about resource-based economies and holistic universe-energy shit, just gonna say that empirical paradigms and debt economies suck and leave it at that
― WD-40 (acoleuthic), Sunday, 20 March 2011 18:47 (thirteen years ago) link
wish I had more time to post about resource-based economies and holistic universe-energy shit, just gonna say that empirical paradigms and debt economies suck and leave it at that― WD-40 (acoleuthic), Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:47 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark
― WD-40 (acoleuthic), Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:47 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark
right... ok. so, about libya.
― I *\m/* metal soooo much (history mayne), Sunday, 20 March 2011 18:49 (thirteen years ago) link
there's a 'USS Barry'?
never gets up to full speed and very slow on the turn
― utterfilth (whatever), Sunday, 20 March 2011 19:14 (thirteen years ago) link
Doesn't request authorization from Congressional leaders on deck getting sun tans.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 March 2011 19:18 (thirteen years ago) link
lol greenwald never change:
How, then, can Obama's campaign position possibly be reconciled with his ordering military action in Libya without Congressional approval (something, it should be said, he has not yet done)?
― difficult listening hour, Sunday, 20 March 2011 19:57 (thirteen years ago) link
seems like the western allies here are making a fairly conventional gamble - assist with the toppling of the current regime and the subsequent regime will be beholden to us/more likely to act in our interests. this has worked out pretty reliably in the past. real question is how long will it take to knock of Qawdawfi
― Hyper Rescue Troop (Shakey Mo Collier), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:01 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm pretty sure that, as president, it's "no way imma wait for those dithering fuckwads to approve this!"
― Aimless, Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:02 (thirteen years ago) link
anyway jokes but i'd probably a BIT more cautious with the neo-neo-con shtick if the objectively-pro-gafaffi crew weren't such stinkers or, like louis, incoherent
Pretty much how I feel. Most of the people I'm reading or talking to who are in favour of intervention are cautious, conflicted and took a while to weigh up the options - most of those against are "It's all about oil, Milosevic was a sweetheart, blah". A generalisation maybe but I at least I can be sure of one thing: Neil Clark is a joke.
― Pop is superior to all other genres (DL), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:15 (thirteen years ago) link
was kinda hoping for a 'uss dave' or a 'uss terry' or something
― Romford Spring (DG), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:22 (thirteen years ago) link
why does the USS Barry weigh so much?its full of options!
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:24 (thirteen years ago) link
that's my mark russell style political zing of the week.
― Threadkiller General (Viceroy), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:25 (thirteen years ago) link
Louis, I have made terrible sexing decisions in the past indeed. But I can make better decisions in the future - you will always be a terrible person who gives leftists a bad name.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:39 (thirteen years ago) link
took a while to weigh up the options
This didn't seem to be the case with France or UK govs? They seemed pretty keen.
― a lot is my favorite number (Ned Trifle II), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:43 (thirteen years ago) link
well, you know what the french are like, always spoiling for a fight
― I *\m/* metal soooo much (history mayne), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:44 (thirteen years ago) link
Esp. when they've behind the National Front in the polls.
― a lot is my favorite number (Ned Trifle II), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:45 (thirteen years ago) link
Not sure that getting sucked into a potentially messy war in the Middle East is a sure-fire poll-rating booster.
It's interesting - there doesn't look like there's much prospect of Gaddafi being removed any time soon. In the medium term, at least, all those British, French and American corporate interests (oil, guns, etc) are going to be hugely disadvantaged.
― Ha ha ha ha. Jack my swag. (ShariVari), Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:02 (thirteen years ago) link
looks like someone just blew up his house
― Romford Spring (DG), Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:12 (thirteen years ago) link
xpost I haven't come across anyone who's put the pro-intervention case in the same kneejerk terms as some of the antis. This is costly, risky and will very quickly become unpopular if it goes wrong - the idea that this is an easy way to a fast buck or a poll boost is idiotic, as is the idea that this is just Iraq redux.
Been reading Andrew Rawnsley's account of New Labour, with a big detailed chunk on Iraq, which has reminded me that you can make dumb foreign policy decisions (and lie to justify them) for moral reasons. It's a misunderstanding of Blair's ego and moral zealotry to say that it was all about oil and business interests. It also shows how close Britain came to not going to war, and all the different personalities, calculations, decisions and mistakes that led to it - another thing that tends to get left out of the Pilger/Neil Clark/etc view that all wars are part of the same imperialist masterplan.
― Pop is superior to all other genres (DL), Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:12 (thirteen years ago) link
xp: Gaddafi was buying his weapons from the Russians and the major oil producers were Italy's ENI, France's Total and China's CNPC. The U.S. and Britain had rather little economic interest here.
I do like how the Chinese and Russians abstained from vetoing another engagement that will divert U.S. attention away from Europe and East Asia. Someone read their Machiavelli/Sun Tzu.
― What is here is dangerous and repulsive to us. (Sanpaku), Sunday, 20 March 2011 21:39 (thirteen years ago) link
This is costly, risky and will very quickly become unpopular if it goes wrong - the idea that this is an easy way to a fast buck or a poll boost is idiotic, as is the idea that this is just Iraq redux.
Exactly...which is why I've decided not to have an opinion.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 March 2011 22:58 (thirteen years ago) link
I think people are being hard on the antis here. Implying that those who oppose the strikes are somehow 'pro-Gaddafi' is beneath everyone here. I happen to favour the intervention, but it's probably the first military action in my lifetime that I have been in favour of. "It's all about oil, Milosevic was a sweetheart, blah" is a disgusting characterisation of the opposition. One thing that surprised me this weekend is that I am yet to meet a serviceman/woman who supports this action.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:11 (thirteen years ago) link
Don't talk to history mayne though, for whom any kind of hesitation is "objectively" pro-Qaddafi.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:13 (thirteen years ago) link
"It's all about oil, Milosevic was a sweetheart, blah" is a disgusting characterisation of the opposition
no it isnt
― Romford Spring (DG), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:17 (thirteen years ago) link
Yes it is.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:18 (thirteen years ago) link
― Romford Spring (DG), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:19 (thirteen years ago) link
Cool! I'm so happy it's 2003 again!
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:19 (thirteen years ago) link
lol
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:19 (thirteen years ago) link
you can be george galloway
― Romford Spring (DG), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:21 (thirteen years ago) link
we still need someone with brains
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:23 (thirteen years ago) link
let's make lots of money
Of course, Galloway was (along with a large and varied section of society) right about Iraq...
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:26 (thirteen years ago) link
(in the binary 'good/bad idea' sense.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:27 (thirteen years ago) link
He was right for the wrong reasons -- he was a Saddam quisling.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:27 (thirteen years ago) link
That's kind of the point - people oppose or support something for a wide variety of reasons. It's not just a handful of fellow posters who are capable of nuanced thought, or complex motives.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:30 (thirteen years ago) link
all im hearing from the anti crowd is wide variety of bad reasons tbf
― Romford Spring (DG), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:34 (thirteen years ago) link
Andrew Sullivan is screaming about We're At War, and he's technically wrong, but I'm not in the wait-and-see mode: the odds are Obama won't go to seek authorization for this as he is constitutionally bound to.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:38 (thirteen years ago) link
(x-post) I get that, and I have no doubt that there are loads of terrible SWP types trotting (see?) out the same nonsense. It's an interesting experience to be on the 'pro' side - I opposed and protested action in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Anyway, grumpy guts, we'll see what tomorrow brings, I guess.
― textbook blows on the head (dowd), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:40 (thirteen years ago) link
slim pickens riding a bomb i hope
― Romford Spring (DG), Sunday, 20 March 2011 23:43 (thirteen years ago) link
On balance, I’m anti becausea)It westernises a region-wide revolution, making said revolution less likely to succeed in the long termb)Americans etc yet again bombing an Arab country, how can this turn out wellc)Unless the West gets lucky with a direct hit on Gaddafi it’s going to be a protracted affair anyway - a months-long or years-long civil war is probably unavoidable, western bombs or no
ps I was in favour of the Kosovo intervention and don’t think Milosevic was a sweetheart. Kosovo was about as good as it gets for this kind of intervention, and more than a decade on the situation there is still highly unstable, held together by UN troops etc.
― Zelda Zonk, Monday, 21 March 2011 00:04 (thirteen years ago) link
Also, why are we doing nothing, zilch, nada to help Bahrain protesters and yet we are prepared to bomb Libya, i.e, it is actually about Western interests
― Zelda Zonk, Monday, 21 March 2011 00:08 (thirteen years ago) link
fucking hell you illiterates "objectively pro-" is a pretty well established rhetorical device read a book
― I *\m/* metal soooo much (history mayne), Monday, 21 March 2011 00:08 (thirteen years ago) link
Adverbs are silly.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 March 2011 00:11 (thirteen years ago) link
Also, why are we doing nothing, zilch, nada to help Bahrain protesters and yet we are prepared to bomb Libya
because it's easier to justify intervention when the country has already descended into near civil war, than when the government is still in full control?
― ledge, Monday, 21 March 2011 00:14 (thirteen years ago) link
"the eggs are already broken, we're just doing a bit of whisking" vs "let's start breakin' some eggs!". as it were.
― ledge, Monday, 21 March 2011 00:16 (thirteen years ago) link
because Qaddaffi is much more easily made into a target, and easier to topple.
― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 March 2011 00:17 (thirteen years ago) link