The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[phazedout]

This doesn't relate to any of the discussions elesehwre but it's more about politics than it is about the documentery also touches on what large companies will do and what governments (mins particularly) will allow to happen.

The pipe (to quote imdb) David faces Goliath in this stirring documentary when the Irish citizens of Rossport protest energy giant Shell, which wants to build a gas pipeline through the countryside in a project that could bring economic prosperity but environmental danger. As violent clashes erupt between activists and police, with locals being jailed, the farmers and fishermen almost dissolve into chaos while seeking the best way to protect the lands and seas they love.

I just watched this, this is in Mayo in the West of Ireland, an area i've lived in for just under 4 1/1 years.

this is in Belmullet and Rossport, areas quite close to me and areas of established national Beauty and nature reserves, which shell simply (allegedly) bought and bribed their way in to and over, with the support of both our national government and the local police forces as well as unnamed private shell security.

This makes me somewhat angry as you can probably tell but I'm happy to debate the accusations I've implied above.
Alan

[David Panzer]

While I believe that Bin Laden is dead, it's not that much of a conspiracy theory to suggest that the US government may be lying about it. It's not like the US has received several gold stars from teacher for being honest.

[Doom Shepherd]

I'm assuming you're referring to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in the Iraq War. I find it sad that you find it necessary to demean someone who has suffered such a loss with absurd nicknames, or to imply that she is mentally unstable for opposing war - something which she has done consistently, opposing both the Democrats and the Republicans.
.

Actually, she's crazy both because she blamed the jews for the US's war on Iraq, and because she's embraced the Alex-Jonesian paranoid conspiracy theory that BinLaden isn't dead.

And I demean her for cynically USING the loss of her estranged son, who wanted nothing to do with her, to whore attention to her fringe causes (which go FAR beyond being anti-war, and always have.)

[Jonas]

I'm not going to continue participating in this discussion. I want to point out one last thing, but that's it.

Though I'm sure Crazy Cindy would have liked the idea.

I'm assuming you're referring to Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in the Iraq War. I find it sad that you find it necessary to demean someone who has suffered such a loss with absurd nicknames, or to imply that she is mentally unstable for opposing war - something which she has done consistently, opposing both the Democrats and the Republicans.

Furthermore, I think it's worth thinking about that you believe that an anti-war activist, someone who wants to prevent more people from being killed, would want a war against America to depose its President. Not everyone who disagrees with you wants to kill you - that's the whole point. You shouldn't be surprised that no-one suggested a war against America to depose Bush, because the people you're talking about are opposed to war as a method of solving problems. Call them naive or stupid if you must, but at least try to understand what they're saying. "Death to America" is not it.

And that's all I've got to say on this matter.

[Jan]

Tread re-opened.

If you want to discuss various issues with facts and politely phrased opinions, feel free. If you can't do that, then do it elsewhere.

If you want to discuss the thread closing, Private Message either me or DougO.

Really folks, civil discussions *can* be had no matter how much people disagree. We've proven it in this forum before with some really volitile issues.

Jan
Moderator

[Jan]

Thread closed for one week.

Jan
Moderator

[Doom Shepherd]

Getting drunk is not required.

More like getting high AND drunk AND forgetting to take one's meds, I would think.

the fact that the groups being supported by this "humanitarian" war aren't really representative of the Libyan people is, however.

I have to admit, this is the first time I've heard anyone I'd consider "liberal" quoting the standard right-wing paranoid conspiracy line regarding the Libyan movement.

Is it really that hard to imagine that people don't want the United States - or France or anyone - intervening in their politics?

It is when you consider the fact that they ask us to intervene in everything else.

Is that really so weird? Wouldn't you be pissed off if Germany or China or anyone started bombing your home to get rid of a bad President?

The only thing that surprises me is that no left-wing nutball tried asking them to between 2000 and 2008. That I'm aware of. Though I'm sure Crazy Cindy would have liked the idea.

America's foreign policy has killed more civilians than any terrorist group, after all

Ah, the AQ party line. I wondered where Al Awlaki was hiding.

Meanwhile, the great stuff we do (Asian Tsunami relief, Haiti Relief, pretty damn well near everywhere relief) has a suspicious tendency to get ignored.

We're like that smart kid who gets all the hate for messing up the curve and is picked last for gym... until he starts doing the jocks' homework, and then he's their best friend... for as long as they need him, then he goes back to being a pariah.

There's a lot of jealousy and butthurt from the has-been and never-will-be nations, as well. Aww. someone wost their widdle empiwes!

America exerts its power because it CAN. That is what power is FOR. And believing that ANY other nation would not exercise any power that it has in it's own interests is not only colossally ignorant of history, it is positively delusional.

[Jonas]

So wait, despite what the leadership of the Libyan Transitional Government, (or whatever it is we call them) says when they meet with the President, they really DON'T want our and NATO's support?

I'm not sure I can get drunk enough to believe that.

Getting drunk is not required. Reading up on the complex history of the region, foreign intervention, the human cost of the bombing, and the fact that the groups being supported by this "humanitarian" war aren't really representative of the Libyan people is, however. Opposing a dictator to enable other oppressors does not equal supporting democracy. You can't just reduce it all to soundbites and binary thinking.

Is it really that hard to imagine that people don't want the United States - or France or anyone - intervening in their politics? Is that really so weird? Wouldn't you be pissed off if Germany or China or anyone started bombing your home to get rid of a bad President? America's foreign policy has killed more civilians than any terrorist group, after all - does that give others the right to intervene in American politics?

[David Panzer]

I think the world would be better off if more nations adopted this line of thought: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.

[Doom Shepherd]

That's... well, that's not really true. The revolutions in the Middle East are not in support of American interference - in fact, much of the anger is there because these dictatorships have been propped up (and are still being propped up, in many cases) by the United States.

So wait, despite what the leadership of the Libyan Transitional Government, (or whatever it is we call them) says when they meet with the President, they really DON'T want our and NATO's support?

I'm not sure I can get drunk enough to believe that.

The alternative to meddling is doing nothing, and allowing the competing nations who WILL meddle to have a far greater influence against our interest. (In political circles, this is referred to as "collective suicide.")

Why do you assume that such tactics are only condemned when they come from the United States? This isn't us versus them - not everyone is thinking in binaries. You seem to have rather strange preconceptions about what other people want.

I can only judge people by their actions. I see a lot of anti-US dogpiles, (and the occasional anti-Israel one) but people very infrequently seem to pipe up about anything else. Even when people are protesting the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or their many other abuses, they're seen as more of an annoying bunch of malcontents than anyone to be taken seriously. They certainly don't get as much airtime. (This may have to do with China's being a debt owner)

I find it a source of endless amusement that most of the same people who were pissed off that the US supported petty dictators (usually against the petty dictators that the Soviets were supporting - an inconvenient truth they regularly overlook) now have turned around and gotten pissed off when we take petty dictators out.

There's just no pleasing some people.

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." ~Henry L. Mencken

[Jonas]

Might be entertaining... if only to dispell illusions like the one addressed there.

I still wonder why you even support Sheridan's actions against Clark in the first place. It can't be Clark's violation of the Constitution, since you believe that it is normal for governments to ignore their own laws.

[Jonas]

[citation needed]

Well, I'm currently writing from a 56k connection, so I can't link to any of the dozens of articles about the subject, but my statement was certainly not particularly controversial.

And if I pooped gold, I'd be a billionaire. However, in the real world, neither of these things ever happen.

I'm not actually sure what you're talking about here.

(Incidentally, I love how nobody ever seems to mind when any other nation other than the US projects force. It's so marvellously hypocritical, especially when the truth of the matter is that the complainers would project their own force, for exactly the same reasons, given the opportunity.)

I think it's hilarious that you think no-one does. Why do the supporters of bully nations always think they're the only ones being picked on? Why are people protesting similar tactics by Europe, Australia, Canada, India, China...?

Unfortunately, the policy of aliances with jerkasses resulted from the necessity of containing a greater evil throughout the days of the cold war...

A greater evil? You know, the Soviet Union was pretty rotten, but not everyone in the world buys the old Cold War propaganda of the Evil Empire - not given what the United States did in the Cold War themselves. Most people think both sides were equally, or almost equally, insane.

a conflict with a jerkass nation whom we'd previously been allied with in order to destroy an even BIGGER jerkass nation.

And what precisely would you say made these nations "jerkass" nations? That they did not obey international or national laws, indiscriminately killed civilians in wars of conquest, eliminated their enemies without trial... all things that you advocate as perfectly justified for the United States.

But I do like how you manage to insist that we should let people have the governments that they want, AND not support them, at the same time with no apparent cognitive dissonance.

Why, where's the problem? Where is the contradiction in thinking it wrong to interfere, especially by force, and thinking it wrong to support dictators? Is the only alternative to invading a country giving its dictators weapons and support?

I notice that we've turned against no less than 5 dictatorial regimes in the region... meanwhile, our Left is still sucking up to the Dictator of Cuba, not to mention a few other wannabes in Latin America. (Yeah, I know, Socialist Dictators aren't "real" dictators.)

It's rather ridiculous to refer to South American countries (I presume you mean Venezuela and a couple of others) as dictatorships. That their democratically elected governments do not do the bidding of the United States does not make them dictatorships, no matter how much propaganda the media present. Neither does it make them perfect. And they're certainly not socialists - Social Democrats, perhaps.

Cuba, unfortunately, is not a free country. It is not the hell it is often presented as, but it's certainly not a model of what a country should be.

Or to draw the obvious Koshism: "The pebbles must be dislodged BEFORE the avalanche can begin." Our effective annihilation of AQ in Afghanistan, and our "assistance" (interference) to those who are working against it in the Arab world, helped embolden the type of people who would fight against it.

That's... well, that's not really true. The revolutions in the Middle East are not in support of American interference - in fact, much of the anger is there because these dictatorships have been propped up (and are still being propped up, in many cases) by the United States.

(At least, we hope so. The "secularists" may turn out not all really to have been that. We already suspect Iran of involvement in some of these revolutions, and we know how "secular" they are. HEY! maybe someone should tell IRAN to stop meddling with its neighbors! I won't hold my breath to hear ya rattle off THAT one.)

Why do you assume that such tactics are only condemned when they come from the United States? This isn't us versus them - not everyone is thinking in binaries. You seem to have rather strange preconceptions about what other people want.

[David Panzer]

You do realize how broadly such things can be defined.

Well, yeah. What's the military industrial complex to do for work if the US isn't involved in a war

[Doom Shepherd]

I think the only time that the US should intervene is when the US' sovereignty and/or security is threatened or attacked.

You do realize how broadly such things can be defined.

[Doom Shepherd]

I was thinking if we could start another thread on this specific topic, staying in B5, I think I'd be interesting and more fun to discuss than this one. Anyone like this idea?

Might be entertaining... if only to dispell illusions like the one addressed there.