Completely agree.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
The place to watch for the Shock Doctrine is here at home. When Republicans say they need something due to the "budget crisis", your mind should go immediately to Shock Doctrine. See what's happening in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, and notice that similar shit is going down everywhere the GOP took control of the sate government in 2010.

Also see the impending kabuki about government shutdown at the Federal level.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
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.

The place to watch for the Shock Doctrine is here at home. When Republicans say they need something due to the "budget crisis", your mind should go immediately to Shock Doctrine. See what's happening in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, and notice that similar shit is going down everywhere the GOP took control of the sate government in 2010.

Also see the impending kabuki about government shutdown at the Federal level.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
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.

>> ^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?

>> ^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.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
*promote

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

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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:

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.

>> ^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?

My position on intervening in Libya is the same as yours, so I'm not sure what "excuse" you're referring to.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
What excuse have you now?

http://videosift.com/video/Breaking-News-US-Directly-Taking-Sides-in-Libyan-Civil-War

My pleasure.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Cheers! Thanks for that!

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Please allow me to lend you a hand Blanky. *promote

Cheers! Thanks for that!

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Please allow me to lend you a hand Blanky. *promote

What excuse have you now?

http://videosift.com/video/Breaking-News-US-Directly-Taking-Sides-in-Libyan-Civil-War

Maru is fine!

>> ^Payback:

Anyone heard if Maru (and his owner(s) of course) is ok?