86 replies to this topic

[SolarPlexus]

RavenHawk, on 19 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

If we go in to stop Bechir, we need to be prepared to stay several generations to allow the Sudanese intelligentsia to rebuild itself...

In the same way Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are "rebuilding"?

The Afghans fight more fiercely than ever. Just the other day we witnessed major coordinated assaults on several NATO strongholds, of magnitude not seen in years. And don't forget assaults on western embassies every couple of months. Iraq is no different whereas insurgence shows no signs of cessation. And Libya, a ruin seeded with DU, it's people forgotten by the West.

RavenHawk, on 19 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

The British Empire in India is the best example of success but you are wrong about there being few exceptions.

I can think of no other.

RavenHawk, on 19 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

For bad or worse, American Hegemony has brought relative peace in these last 60 or 70 years.

If by "relative peace" you mean "no World War" I'd agree. What you say entirely depends on location.

RavenHawk, on 19 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

What drives American Hegemony isn’t conquest but stability and that hope for that proverbial multipolar world.

Hegemony and a multipolar world are mutually exclusive. The rest of your sentiment would imply a Hegemonic Stability Theory, which in my opinion would - given time - look much like the movie "Matrix".

RavenHawk, on 19 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

This is incorrect.  The reason that NATO is so aggressive is because it has to equally balance out the Dark Energy present.

That's... interesting.

RavenHawk, on 19 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

But without America in the mix this world would be worse off

There's no reason for America not to stay, as long as it's leaders change their foreign policy.

Edited by SolarPlexus, 19 April 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[SolarPlexus]

Sorry all, took me a while to respond to everyone! Peace

[RavenHawk]

SolarPlexus, on 19 April 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

...
Did the Libyan citizen have any reason to rebel against the regime of Muammar al-Gaddafi? I think not.

But they did.  So why?

Quote

...
If we look at the living standard of the Libyan people and the benefits offered by the government, they had little reason to do so.

All we have to do is look at the next sentence.  The human being was not made to be nannyied by the state.  This is enslavement.  This tells me that you do not understand what it is to be truly free.  And also that you did not understand that clip “The American Form of Government”.  Man was meant to grow and succeed from the struggle.

Let me give an example.  In this country, in our National Parks you’ll see signs along pathways warning not to feed the animals?  So the question is why do they say that?  If the animals become dependent on humans for food, then when times get hard, the animals won’t be able to fend for themselves.  By programming them to go against their nature and become reliant on hand-outs puts them in a precarious spot.  In the long run, this does them more harm.  This is what happens when a government takes “care” of its people.  Now I believe that the government should establish an environment that its people can thrive in.  I believe in a government giving individuals a helping hand as opposed to hand-outs.  But a helping hand carries a responsibility and that it is the individual’s responsibility to pay back that helping hand whereas with the hand-out, there is no responsibility.  Just obedience.

Now getting back to the op, after a while people will begin to tire of such treatment and become restless.  The utopia loses its appeal.  But still many get drawn into the trap and then they must fight to free themselves.  But when you are so far in, fighting no longer becomes appealing.  Once the human being submits to that, culture and life becomes stagnant and it withers and dies.

[MichaelW]

Ccel, on 19 April 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

Typical arrogance of the west, as expected... you think youre the world but you are in a minority. Dont worry after the American dream ends the American nightmare begins, so thankfully youll reap the misery your leaders have sown across the globe....

The American dream has already ended. That's why we are in a recession. That's why the West is struggling to keep its head up from the chaos below.

Where are you from? Because whichever part of this world you occupy, you will need to do a hell of a lot more learning about the world around you.

[The New Richard Nixon]

SolarPlexus, on 19 April 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

I can think of no other.

Hong Kong
The Bahamas
South Africa
Australia
Canada
Ghana
Kenya
Malta
Nigeria
New Zealand
Those countries have boomed and some them are about to become better like Nigeria and Kenya

[SolarPlexus]

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

But they did.  So why?

A distinction is required to be made between the terms "Libyan people" and "rebels", the latter who've spearheaded the endeavor aided materially and logistically by NATO.

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

All we have to do is look at the next sentence.  The human being was not made to be nannyied by the state.  This is enslavement.  This tells me that you do not understand what it is to be truly free.  And also that you did not understand that clip “The American Form of Government”.

I was only forwarding this information, as I did not live in Libya.

Erix, on 20 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Hong Kong
The Bahamas
South Africa
Australia
Canada
Ghana
Kenya
Malta
Nigeria
New Zealand
Those countries have boomed and some them are about to become better like Nigeria and Kenya

Most are proper examples of classical colonialism (some more successful than others) rather than recent post-Cold War type of military interventions aimed at replacing dictatorial regimes. The subject being the latter.

[SolarPlexus]

Here are some standard justifications of such military interventions. According to the sociologist Anne Morelli the "humanitarian interventionists" make the following claims:

- We do not want a war;
- The attacked country is held solely responsible;
- Head of state is the same devil, Hitler;
- We defend noble moral principles;
- The attacked country commits grave crimes; while we, during the attack, only sometimes make mistakes;
- The attacked country is using weapons forbidden by international law;
- Our combat losses are minor, while that of our enemies are huge;
- Artists and intellectuals support us;
- Our cause is holy;
- The ones who doubt our intervention, are traitors; *


* Morelli Ann, Principles elementaires de propagande de guerre, Labor, Bruxelles, 2001

[RavenHawk]

SolarPlexus, on 19 April 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

In the same way Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are "rebuilding"?

Well here, we might see eye to eye.  Because we are talking about what actually is happening as opposed to what should have happen.  I have a bone to pick with my own government on this.  I saw Iraq as a very necessary war and I thought Bush did the right thing – I still do but what has become of it is shameful.  We have failed in Iraq, we are failing in Afghanistan, and Libya was a joke.

As I mentioned in an earlier post: The three things that guarantee victory are 1) boots on the ground, 2) an adequate multigenerational plan of occupation, and 3) the will to see it through, to do whatever is necessary.  We failed in all three of these areas.  If we couldn’t accomplish these then we should have never gone in in the first place.  But the thing is is that now we are pulling out and this is seen as weakness in the eyes of Islam and will only encourage more attacks.  We had such a great chance to positively change the world and we let it slip from our fingers.  Our current regime has just made a debauchery of the whole thing including the incitement to riot with the Cairo speech, then when the protestors in Tehran were being massacred, offered no support.  Encouraged the Arab Spring but yet stepped back from the chaos.  Obama’s actions have only guaranteed the loss of more blood and treasure down the road.  Unfortunately I know that the opportunity will come again and when it does we need to be prepared to be in it to the end.  “We are now in this war: We are all in it all the way” has got to be our attitude if we want to see that multipolar world.

Quote

The Afghans fight more fiercely than ever. Just the other day we witnessed major coordinated assaults on several NATO strongholds, of magnitude not seen in years. And don't forget assaults on western embassies every couple of months. Iraq is no different whereas insurgence shows no signs of cessation. And Libya, a ruin seeded with DU, it's people forgotten by the West.

That’s right because the job wasn’t completed.  The Taliban will reclaim Afghanistan as soon as we leave.  And it’s hard to tell with Iraq at this point, but my prognosis is not good.

Quote

I can think of no other.

Erix has put up a list, so I won’t go further into it.  There are more with a mix of levels of success.

Quote

If by "relative peace" you mean "no World War" I'd agree. What you say entirely depends on location.

Primarily being the steadfast rock against Communism in the Cold War.  There were the proxy wars, but that was far better than Communist domination.  Europe had the space to rebuild.  Japan has become a great economic power.  India grew up.  Most of the world is democratic although most of that is still socialist; it’s at least a step in the right direction.  The US hasn’t been involved with conquest; it has been a beacon of light.  Just because Communism was defeated doesn’t mean the Dark Energy has gone away.  There are new dangers as there will always be.

Quote

Hegemony and a multipolar world are mutually exclusive. The rest of your sentiment would imply a Hegemonic Stability Theory, which in my opinion would - given time - look much like the movie "Matrix".

That’s not the way to look at it.  Until we can truly have a multipolar world, there needs to be that American Hegemony.  If that hegemony was not there, Dark Energy would suck into the vacuum so fast that a multipolar world would never be realized.  We need a Gort (from the original movie).

Quote

That's... interesting.

Yes it is.  It is a combination of the physical and the meta-physical.  It all depends on your point of view of whether NATO existed first or Dark Energy.  To go into that is probably beyond the scope of this thread but suffice it that by context you get the idea of what it is.  Which is a collective of those forces in opposition to a multipolar world.  Some are natural and others are supernatural.

Quote

There's no reason for America not to stay, as long as it's leaders change their foreign policy.

I tend to agree.  We need to follow a foreign policy that reflects Genghis Khan’s policies but tempered with our unique capacity of compassion.  But that only makes sense if you understand who the man really was and not the hype of history.

[RavenHawk]

SolarPlexus, on 20 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Here are some standard justifications of such military interventions. According to the sociologist Anne Morelli the "humanitarian interventionists" make the following claims:

- We do not want a war;
- The attacked country is held solely responsible;
- Head of state is the same devil, Hitler;
- We defend noble moral principles;
- The attacked country commits grave crimes; while we, during the attack, only sometimes make mistakes;
- The attacked country is using weapons forbidden by international law;
- Our combat losses are minor, while that of our enemies are huge;
- Artists and intellectuals support us;
- Our cause is holy;
- The ones who doubt our intervention, are traitors; *


* Morelli Ann, Principles elementaires de propagande de guerre, Labor, Bruxelles, 2001

I don’t think some of these are reasons, but I can reduce this list to just two.  The only two that matter.  Conquest or defense.

[RavenHawk]

SolarPlexus, on 20 April 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

A distinction is required to be made between the terms "Libyan people" and "rebels", the latter who've spearheaded the endeavor aided materially and logistically by NATO.

No doubt that there were “Libyan people” that supported Kaddafi.  But I think everyone knew that Kaddafi was on borrowed time.  There were enough “Libyan people” that were done living under his rule.  Now we’ll see what replaces it.

Quote

I was only forwarding this information, as I did not live in Libya.

That was obvious.  But is that the way you want to live?

Quote

Most are proper examples of classical colonialism (some more successful than others) rather than recent post-Cold War type of military interventions aimed at replacing dictatorial regimes. The subject being the latter.

Is there anything really wrong with colonialism?  I would think that all the major powers on this planet past and present have colonized to some degree.  It’s just part of civilization.

[Helen of Annoy]

@Solar.

If you keep avoiding to talk about Serbian imperialism and criminal methods it uses you are useless in your own thread. Or at least you are proving mine instead of your point.  
Because Milosevic was a perfect example of dictator that should have been stopped, and it should have been done much, much earlier than it happened.

So, who ordered artillery attacks on civilian targets in Croatia? Was it Milosevic? If not, who was it?
Was it not Milosevic’s goal to conquer territories that were never a part of Serbia and ethnically cleanse them?
Is it not the ultimate hypocrisy for a Milosevic’s adherent to give others moral lectures?

Is it not true that chetnik movement is being whitewashed in Serbia today?
Is it not true that crimes Serbian regular and irregular forces committed in Croatia and Bosnia are forbidden to speak about in Serbia?

Milosevic was good for you, you say, but was he good for others? What about others? What about expelled, maimed, killed? Do they ever cross your selfish mind?

What you display here Solar is mind blowing hypocrisy.  

Now discuss.
Start with answering at least half of my questions.

[SolarPlexus]

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

I saw Iraq as a very necessary war and I thought Bush did the right thing – I still do but what has become of it is shameful.

Tell me, why was it necessary? Wait I know. To balance the "Dark Energy" right? A silly set of beliefs I will not further elaborate on.

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

We have failed in Iraq, we are failing in Afghanistan, and Libya was a joke.

Depends on who you mean. War profiteers have succeeded. For others, such prolonged unconventional warfare cannot "win" anything. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are all good examples of underground warfare, meaning: 1) prolonged time periods and vague directives; 2) inhospitable environments (desert, jungle); 3) pervasive multi-layered insurgency; to name but a few.

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

As I mentioned in an earlier post: The three things that guarantee victory are 1) boots on the ground, 2) an adequate multigenerational plan of occupation, and 3) the will to see it through, to do whatever is necessary.

I can see how well those things "guaranteed victory" for the aforementioned. At the least, you could try not to contradict yourself. Like I said, the only victors are corporations and other, lesser war profiteers. The losers are everyone else - the native peoples and the American people.

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Erix has put up a list, so I won’t go further into it.  There are more with a mix of levels of success.

Classical colonialism being quite different to neo-colonialism we're debating.

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

The US hasn’t been involved with conquest; it has been a beacon of light.  Just because Communism was defeated doesn’t mean the Dark Energy has gone away.  There are new dangers as there will always be.

No comment.

Edited by SolarPlexus, 20 April 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

Not really Hong Kong boomed under the Empire, when the handover was complete, it was unsure how communist China would to Hong Kong.

[SolarPlexus]

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

No doubt that there were “Libyan people” that supported Kaddafi.  But I think everyone knew that Kaddafi was on borrowed time.  There were enough “Libyan people” that were done living under his rule.

Like I said, "rebels" have spearheaded the effort aided materially and logistically by NATO. Common Libyan citizens, naturally, only followed the path of least resistance. May I remind you, in many an occasion during this campaign ordinary people were terrified to enter the streets, in fear not of Gadaffi loyalists, but of these "rebels", the youngest of them just as unpredictable.

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Now we’ll see what replaces it.

Lawlessness and tribal warfare have, for the time being.

RavenHawk, on 20 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Is there anything really wrong with colonialism?  I would think that all the major powers on this planet past and present have colonized to some degree.  It’s just part of civilization.

Googling "types of colonialism" might clear up your apparent misconceptions, as is the case with Erix.

Edited by SolarPlexus, 20 April 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[Helen of Annoy]

Thank god, it’s Friday.
We’ll see if Saturday will bring any plausible explanations from Solar why is it acceptable for Serbia to destroy other countries and exterminate people for their “wrong” nationality or religion. Why is that not imperialism if Serbia attempts it?
Or, if he’s not aware of that part of his country’s recent history, what plausible explanation he has to offer for his unbelievable lack of awareness.

(I wouldn’t insist on that if he hasn’t clearly and undoubtedly stated that he thinks life in Serbia was better under Milosevic. Life in state of war was better?! Under sanctions and in no-fly zone?! Life in police state controlled by madman that had even Stambolic, guy who brought him to power, executed? Jesus, Solar... is it that you really don't know or that you really support that?)