Oh man, I wish I had a promote. This is exactly the sort of thing the Democrats said they wouldn't do. They'll claim it's a humanitarian military effort, but we'll all know that's bullshit. It's always about hegemony. Always.

So disgusting.

Well, AC-130s and A10s have been deployed to Libya for how long now, a week? Short of putting boots on the ground, it's hard to get more involved than gunships and Warthogs -- and arming one side of this civil war.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Palm + Face = ya that's right - you got it...

Please allow me to lend you a hand Blanky. *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, March 31st, 2011 11:59am PDT - promote requested by Duckman33.

@blankfist, your title is wrong. CNN's is "CIA operating in Libya", which is what the news is.

Have you not watched Obama's speech on Libya? For that matter, have you read even the UN's summary of the UN resolution on Libya?

Both make it pretty much obvious that this is about opposing Gaddafi. I don't think it's at all surprising that our Covert Intelligence Agency (CIA!) is engaged in providing intelligence in an area where we've also got military assets engaged, and not particularly surprising that the CIA is sharing that intelligence with local allies like the Libyan "rebel forces."

FWIW, I disagree with Obama's decision to involve us in Libya, but he's been pretty upfront, even going back to his Presidential campaign, saying "I'm not against all wars, just dumb wars." The closest thing to a concrete promise of what he won't do militarily is get us involved in another decades-long commitment...something he reiterated in that speech.

So bottom line: quit trying to play off Libya as a partisan wedge issue to turn Democrats against Obama.

If you cared about the actual war itself, you'd talk about the war in terms of how you're concerned about innocent lives lost, or new enemies made, or the moral quandaries created by trying to impose our will on a foreign country...or something.

But no, to you, it's just one more spitball to launch in some petty political game.

I don't want us getting into the middle of someone else's civil war. That said, I understand the impulse to feel like morality demands action, but I think we could very easily wind up doing more harm than good. I come down on the "don't do it" side of that judgment call, Obama came down on the other side. I don't think his words or actions have demonstrated a departure from what I consider ethical behavior, I just think that he's made a bad call that's going to get a lot of people killed.

So while you're hoping he fails, and this turns into a huge fucking mess, so you can rub it in me or DFT's faces, I'm hoping he pulls it off, because I don't want lots of innocent people to die.

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist, your title is wrong. CNN's is "CIA operating in Libya", which is what the news is.

@2:15. His summation is: "The US clearly taking sides in this civil war"

What is wrong about the title, again?

>> ^NetRunner:

I don't think his words or actions have demonstrated a departure from what I consider ethical behavior, I just think that he's made a bad call that's going to get a lot of people killed.

Glad you think his "bad call" that could get "a lot of people killed" is still within the realm of "ethical behavior".

I wouldn't label Obama's decision for interventionism and military aggression a "bad call". A bad call is when you decide to eat pizza even though you have heartburn. Potentially putting innocents in harm's way in a part of the world that's already suspicious of the US' intentions is not a bad call or ethical behavior, it's an act of war.

Fail.

@blankfist I'm saying it's not news, not that the rest of the title is wrong. Even the UN resolution that started this whole thing said we'll be taking "direct action" in support of the rebels. Hell, even if you think the "direct action" part is news, I fail to see how sharing intelligence is more significant "direct action", than bombing tank columns and shooting down fighters was.

Just to reiterate, I think the US shouldn't be in Libya either. So what's your real beef with me?

>> ^NetRunner:

So while you're hoping he fails, and this turns into a huge fucking mess, so you can rub it in me or DFT's faces, I'm hoping he pulls it off, because I don't want lots of innocent people to die.


I agree. blankfist sees this as a game and shows no genuine concern for anything other than his own ego.

For anyone interested in going beyond the sports of politics, there is a good exchange of ideas here: http://videosift.com/video/Democracy-Now-Debate-on-U-S-Military-Intervention-in-Libya, here: http://videosift.com/video/TRN-Obama-and-the-Libyan-Rebellion and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Sg8U07tDQ (still unsifted, go for it.)

And for the record, I'm pretty sympathetic to both sides of the debate at this point. Helping the Libyans to gain independence is a good thing, but fears of Milton Friedman style Chicago school economic imperialism (like we've seen in Iraq, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, etc.) are well founded.

I'm a centrist on this issue.

>> ^NetRunner:

So what's your real beef with me?


You and DFT (just in this thread alone) have defined my anti-war position as a "sport" and a "game". You've spun being against military aggression and interventionism to mean I'm apathetic to life-loss or I'm stroking my own ego. Or that this is somewhat about pitting Democrats against one another. All baseless red herrings.

You've both taken disingenuous and sanctimonious positions of morality when your party supports acts of war, and belittle and browbeat anyone who scrutinizes it.

I especially love how DFT spun Obama's acts of war into something completely ridiculous about Milton Friedman. It's amazing what you two think you can get away with.

Civil war in Ivory Coast:
- Chief export: Cocoa
- US response: None

Civil war in Libya:
- Chief export: Oil
- US response: War

These are both current events, BTW. I hate regurgitating the "blood for oil" mantra, but if someone else can offer me a better explanation then I'm all ears. Or as soon as someone says "blood for cocoa" for some other war in the world, then maybe I'll shut up.

*promote

Read up/listen to Chomsky, he's been calling this shit for years. Fucking disgusting.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, March 31st, 2011 2:09pm PDT - promote requested by JAPR.

>> ^JAPR:

promote
Read up/listen to Chomsky, he's been calling this shit for years. Fucking disgusting.


Yes. I thought I'd never see eye-to-eye with Chomsky, but on US imperialism we see things the exact same way.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Civil war in Ivory Coast:
- Chief export: Cocoa
- US response: None
Civil war in Libya:
- Chief export: Oil
- US response: War
These are both current events, BTW. I hate regurgitating the "blood for oil" mantra, but if someone else can offer me a better explanation then I'm all ears. Or as soon as someone says "blood for cocoa" for some other war in the world, then maybe I'll shut up.


The only thing I'd mention is that it's a resource that will draw blood here if we let it destabilize too far (and yes we may cause it). Oil is used in so many things, materially and fuel wise, that it becomes easy eventually to see how there could be lives lost on our own soil due too any number of issues.

But, they won't be flashy deaths. So who cares right? My biggest issue with this so far is that ALL members on the security council have not had a hand in this. Also, remember that Libya is "supposedly" a U.N. abiding nation. Yet they're doing the opposite of what was required by the resolution.

I hate war; I know it will be for money, oil, and gaining footholds. This one I think is correct, but we've abused our leverage with the U.N. a lot. It's nice to see us actually following that resolution.

I have no idea how the congress should be involved (other than an "atta boy" or "you're a terrible Democrat, all hail the Republicans). This was voted upon 50 years ago--basically. While this follows many trends it also skips others; I think I've not fully concluded on where we should be. But, that is why we have our leaders. To make informed decisions and I dearly hope it's true here.

Sorry brother, that's how it comes off. As for Friedman, you should check out Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine". There is a very dark side to your market fundamentalism that you are either not aware of or in denial of. Most of the post WW2 and Cold War American military conflicts have been in the name of market capitalism. You always change the subject when I bring up Freidman's thugery. Perhaps it's time for you to do some research on the history of your belief system.

(Chomsky writes about it too, since you've recently become a fan.)

>> ^blankfist:

You and DFT (just in this thread alone) have defined my anti-war position as a "sport" and a "game".

I'm saying that because that's what this video is about. You went to my profile to tell me about it, with the comment "What's your excuse now?"

Hell, your reaction to hearing about the no-fly zone was to race to my profile and say "Congratulations on Libya."

You haven't made any kind of argument for why someone on the fence should be opposed to intervening in Libya. You're not rattling the cages of our normal pro-war stalwarts who are saying Obama's barely doing enough. You're just going after Obama, Democrats in general, and DFH's like me and DFT, as if this proves some petty prejudice of yours you've been nursing through the Bush years.

Again, I'm opposed to this misadventure in Libya. I'm not opposed to Obama because he chose to do it.

Which half of that are you arguing about with me?

The NR/DFT reacharound is in full effect.

You've got to read the Shock Doctrine, it'll change the way you view your own politics. All that stuff you want to do - deregulation, privatization, the ending of social programs, etc. - it's all been tried. It's been tried in Chile and Argentina (among other places) and the results are always the same - massive unemployment, inflation, the destruction of the middle class, the destruction of small business, corporatism and violence. Does this sound familiar? It's a racket.

Believe me, I know how hard it is to question your own heroes and belief systems, but in the end you're always better off for it. The whole free market thing is a racket. It only helps the rich and hurts everyone else. Why do you think that your movement is bankrolled exclusively by billionaires?

It's quite possible that the Shock Doctrine will be put into effect in Libya. The CIA and NATO getting involved is a bad sign. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.

@dystopianfuturetoday. It's all you've spoken about for two months. And peddling it like some pushy Jehovah's Witness handing out copies of the Watchtower isn't going to get me to read it any faster.

Here's a few tips you can use that may help your sales approach:

1. Try not to talk down to people when pushing your religious memorabilia. Others may misread your self-proclaimed brilliance as the unrestrained ego of a self-centered fuckhead.

2. Pick an appropriate time to work in the sale's pitch. Not every conversation or thread is the right moment to spread the gospel. You have to discriminate so you can seize the right moment to make the convert. Maybe a video on Obama's aggressive warlust isn't the right time to blame the ills of the world on Milton Friedman?

3. Make the conversion process a dialogue, not a monologue. Fun fact about people: they like to feel they're being engaged and not just talked at. Even though you may be right about everything because your bible says you are, you don't want others to think you're just a prickish, arrogant, insufferable, egomaniacal, self-important cocksucker who enjoys attacking those who challenge your unshakable, inerrant belief system.

You are hopeless.

I'm sorry, I think you missed #1 above.

You should take your own advice!

For example, what's something you've said often enough that it'd be your catchphrase if they made a sitcom about Videosift? "Ha ha statist idiots"?

You break all three rules every time you say that.
>> ^blankfist:

1. Try not to talk down to people when pushing your religious memorabilia. Others may misread your self-proclaimed brilliance as the unrestrained ego of a self-centered fuckhead.
2. Pick an appropriate time to work in the sale's pitch. Not every conversation or thread is the right moment to spread the gospel. You have to discriminate so you can seize the right moment to make the convert.

3. Make the conversion process a dialogue, not a monologue. Fun fact about people: they like to feel they're being engaged and not just talked at. Even though you may be right about everything because your bible says you are, you don't want others to think you're just a prickish, arrogant, insufferable, egomaniacal, self-important cocksucker who enjoys attacking those who challenge your unshakable, inerrant belief system.

>> ^NetRunner:

You should take your own advice!
For example, what's something you've said often enough that it'd be your catchphrase if they made a sitcom about Videosift? "Ha ha statist idiots"?
You break all three rules every time you say that.
>> ^blankfist:
1. Try not to talk down to people when pushing your religious memorabilia. Others may misread your self-proclaimed brilliance as the unrestrained ego of a self-centered fuckhead.
2. Pick an appropriate time to work in the sale's pitch. Not every conversation or thread is the right moment to spread the gospel. You have to discriminate so you can seize the right moment to make the convert.
3. Make the conversion process a dialogue, not a monologue. Fun fact about people: they like to feel they're being engaged and not just talked at. Even though you may be right about everything because your bible says you are, you don't want others to think you're just a prickish, arrogant, insufferable, egomaniacal, self-important cocksucker who enjoys attacking those who challenge your unshakable, inerrant belief system.



I guess that would be true if I was selling something like DFT has been pushing the Shock Doctrine. But then again usually the statist idiot comment is on a video that has something to do with a failure of the statist system, so #2 is certainly not broken. Grasping at straws.

You two should go to another thread somewhere Obama needs defending and stroke each other off with comment upvotes. Run along, dearest statist idiot.

Now you've gone and made blankfist cry, @NetRunner. To your room with no supper, young man!

*stroke, stroke, stroke*

>> ^blankfist:

But then again usually the statist idiot comment is on a video that has something to do with a failure of the statist system, so #2 is certainly not broken.

Not really. Usually you break it out for when some individual who works for the state does something against the law for him to do. There are always going to be people who break the law, or choose to to immoral things.

It might be appropriate if it was a video about someone doing something bad, then getting a slap on the wrist for it (which would actually be the system failing). But you don't like those videos, because the anger it inspires makes people want to make the system better, and that just doesn't serve your agenda. You like it better if you can take advantage of people's shock and horror over abuse of power to ram your "free market" doctrine down people's throats.

(And yes, that's a plug for Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which is available now on Amazon for $19.95 + S/H and applicable taxes, order now and you'll be able to get No Logo: 10th Anniversary Edition at half price!)

*stroke, stroke, stroke*

8===D~

Wait... I haven't read all of the comments, but it seems clear that the claims that Wolf and indeed the title of the linked article (at http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/30/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1) are making don't follow from the facts the article or Wolf is stating. (Ie. That the US is directly taking sides in the Libyan civil war.)

The fact that is stated is that the CIA is on the ground in Libya providing intelligence to the US in order to help in the ongoing (now NATO) intervention. But was this not perfectly known already?

Is that a surprise to anybody? Would it be at all possible to keep a no-fly zone in place and keep Gaddafi's armour from being used and mortars from killing civilians without having verifiable intelligence being actively gathered on the ground? Would one expect us to be able to just trust either what Gaddafi says or what the rebels tell us is happening without having some trusted eyes embedded in the situation? I think that's got to be the way things are done in order to remain as 'impartial' as possible. Otherwise we would just be flying blind, so to speak. No?

Oh... I just realized that it's only the title of this video that says that the US is 'directly taking sides in the Libyan civil war.' I think that title should be changed because it's claim clearly doesn't follow from what is said in either Wolf's report or the linked article.

>> ^blankfist:

stroke, stroke, stroke


http://www.amazon.com/lonely-troll-Alphakids-Shelley-Jones/dp/0760842019