RE: Egypt Protests (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


Chief Wiggum -> RE: Egypt Protests (11/6/2011 6:18:09 PM)


going to stop the quoting - starting to make the thread look a little messy.

My degree was fine - one of the top ranked in the country in fact. Pilger wasn't on any of the reading lists, that's not to say that he's done some very fine work - his stuff from Cambodia brought to light huge amounts of suffering. however since the cold war ended he seems to have veered into the realm of anti-americanism rather than straight anti-imperealism.

I think you missed the point about the Al-shifa/9-11 comparison, apart from the dodgy sourcing it demonstrated that he is quite willing to use deaths that result after the fact of the event in one case, but in the event of another he keeps the deaths to the ones that happenned at the time. if you see what I mean.

In terms of the Linguistics/politics validity - the way I think of it is that it's like watching football. sure Brian Moore could probably tell you what's going on, but it would be better that he stick to Rugby (well, maybe not even that[;)]) and let John Motson get on with it.

RE: the Khmer Rouge - my point wasn't that the US bombing didn't have an impact on their rise to power, and it wasn't Chomsky's. Chomsky is of the opinion (at least he was when the stories came out) that the violence itself was a response to the american bombing, which to me is a flawed argument when you compare it to other regimes that had a similar history and rise to power.


RE- Chomsky's ideal government - the information came from an article called "the Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky" by Keith Windschuttle, former member of the New Left. however in the copy of the article that I read the sources were not cited, so cannot say where Chomsky said that. if you want I'll happily withdraw it.

however the thing that makes me quite angry is your comment that, my response was completley unbelievable. it really is believable looking at the suffering caused by marxism/leninism/maoism over the years you are looking at TENS OF MILLIONS of deaths, through their policies, repression. not to mention the stifling of free speech, the dreaded midnight knock on the door.

I will quote this though...

quote:



Take them all out, but a) do it for the right reasons (humanitarian), and b) don't pick and choose your fights. On both a + b the West falls down heavily and history has shown this time and time again. We back the dictators in our pockets, we attack those that aren't. It's happening right now across the middle east as we very speak - you can't find any more blatant evidence than that. It's right in front of your eyes mate!


So you advocate that the US should use its military power to remove dictatorships and promote democracy? I presume that you'd prefer that if a country was making democratic reforms, or was willing to we should instead use aid and diplomacy to encourage them along the way.

I completely agree with you on this, my problem is that I do not see it being possible to do this militarily at the same time so would rather see force be used on those regimes that haven't changed for 30+ years rather than those like Bahrain which have seen positive changes in the last 10 years. I tend to see Chomsky as advocating that the US be more isolationist, and allow Democracy to grow at its own pace throughout the world rather than intervening and acting as a catalyst for democratic change.



ALSO...

quote:


Chief is like Anakin Skywalker - clearly a talented fucker, but has gone over to the dark side!

[:D]

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7Ha3VDbzE




Spaldron -> RE: Egypt Protests (11/6/2011 6:28:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7Ha3VDbzE


[:D] Why have I not seen this before?




Fluke Skywalker -> RE: Egypt Protests (12/6/2011 8:58:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum


going to stop the quoting - starting to make the thread look a little messy.

My degree was fine - one of the top ranked in the country in fact. Pilger wasn't on any of the reading lists, that's not to say that he's done some very fine work - his stuff from Cambodia brought to light huge amounts of suffering. however since the cold war ended he seems to have veered into the realm of anti-americanism rather than straight anti-imperealism.

That is because history does show us that the spear-head of imperialism over recent decades has been America - the evidence is there to show that.


I think you missed the point about the Al-shifa/9-11 comparison, apart from the dodgy sourcing it demonstrated that he is quite willing to use deaths that result after the fact of the event in one case, but in the event of another he keeps the deaths to the ones that happenned at the time. if you see what I mean.

Yeah kind of - once again need to research the exact events here.

In terms of the Linguistics/politics validity - the way I think of it is that it's like watching football. sure Brian Moore could probably tell you what's going on, but it would be better that he stick to Rugby (well, maybe not even that[;)]) and let John Motson get on with it.

I don't agree, he is a very serious thinker indeed. His work has parallels with the forementioned Pilger and the work of Naomi Kline whose Shock Doctrine focuses on the Chicago Boy Milton Friedman economic policies that US imposes on nations under it's control.

RE: the Khmer Rouge - my point wasn't that the US bombing didn't have an impact on their rise to power, and it wasn't Chomsky's. Chomsky is of the opinion (at least he was when the stories came out) that the violence itself was a response to the american bombing, which to me is a flawed argument when you compare it to other regimes that had a similar history and rise to power.

It was a society ripped to shreds by US bombing, it's perfectly possible this could have been the case. Either way it's indispitutable that the horrific level of bombing inflicted on that country helped the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

however the thing that makes me quite angry is your comment that, my response was completley unbelievable. it really is believable looking at the suffering caused by marxism/leninism/maoism over the years you are looking at TENS OF MILLIONS of deaths, through their policies, repression. not to mention the stifling of free speech, the dreaded midnight knock on the door.

I'm not denying at all that the Russians were pretty fucked up, but my point is we can't get on our high horses and pretend to be honourable and civilised if our response is to install brutal dictatorships, arm them and train them how to torture, kill and suppress their own populations.

I will quote this though...

quote:



Take them all out, but a) do it for the right reasons (humanitarian), and b) don't pick and choose your fights. On both a + b the West falls down heavily and history has shown this time and time again. We back the dictators in our pockets, we attack those that aren't. It's happening right now across the middle east as we very speak - you can't find any more blatant evidence than that. It's right in front of your eyes mate!


So you advocate that the US should use its military power to remove dictatorships and promote democracy? I presume that you'd prefer that if a country was making democratic reforms, or was willing to we should instead use aid and diplomacy to encourage them along the way.

The problem is there is so much going on behind the scenes, there's a mulitude of pressures on these nations being exerted from all angles, be it from the military, the secret services, organisations like the IMF and the World Bank. We simply do not allow democracy to take place, we actively try to make sure we can get someone who is in power who will do our bidding. My point about attacking people is not that we should do it, but if we are going to do it, it has to be carried out for the interests of the people of that nation not ours.

I completely agree with you on this, my problem is that I do not see it being possible to do this militarily at the same time so would rather see force be used on those regimes that haven't changed for 30+ years rather than those like Bahrain which have seen positive changes in the last 10 years. I tend to see Chomsky as advocating that the US be more isolationist, and allow Democracy to grow at its own pace throughout the world rather than intervening and acting as a catalyst for democratic change.

My central point is that we don't intervene for democratic change, we intervene to meet our own interests, and our foreign policy is riven with hypocrisy and double standards. Once again there's a mass of evidence to back this up. As I've said before it's time we started acting like the good guys instead of just pretending to be the good guys.




ALSO...

quote:


Chief is like Anakin Skywalker - clearly a talented fucker, but has gone over to the dark side!

[:D]

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7Ha3VDbzE




Fluke Skywalker -> RE: Egypt Protests (12/6/2011 9:01:31 PM)

Forgot to mention those Star Wars links - total quality [:D]




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Egypt Protests (21/8/2011 9:58:03 PM)

Holy shit at tonights footage!




Spaldron -> RE: Egypt Protests (21/8/2011 11:00:18 PM)

Shit just got real. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14608807




Titanm21 -> RE: Egypt Protests (22/8/2011 12:28:10 PM)

looks like its game over




clownfoot -> RE: Egypt Protests (22/8/2011 1:20:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief Wiggum

however the thing that makes me quite angry is your comment that, my response was completley unbelievable. it really is believable looking at the suffering caused by marxism/leninism/maoism over the years you are looking at TENS OF MILLIONS of deaths, through their policies, repression. not to mention the stifling of free speech, the dreaded midnight knock on the door.



[sm=33.gif]




DancingClown -> Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 12:43:24 PM)

News sources claiming Gadaffi captured -:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955




Toby Monroe -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 12:50:14 PM)

I've always had a soft spot for Muammar. He reminds me of Brutus Gold.




Deviation -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:10:28 PM)

It seems that he's been captured. I'll miss his sunglasses.

: (




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:11:56 PM)

And even more rumours saying he is now worm food. 




great_badir -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:24:26 PM)

I bet the remaining dictators are absolutely shitting themselves right now...




sharkboy -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:24:41 PM)

Reuters are reporting that he died of wounds sustained in a firefight




steffols -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:25:39 PM)

Sky News reporting he is dead.




great_badir -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:29:56 PM)

Is that a photo of his dead/dying body on the main News front page on BBC website?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:34:01 PM)

Yep. Good. 




great_badir -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:34:53 PM)

Most unlike the BBC.




Funkyrae -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:37:53 PM)

BBC are saying dead or wounded and captured.




Deviation -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 1:57:45 PM)

Al Jazeera are saying that his death has been confirmed.

End of an era people, end of an era.







Funkyrae -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 2:00:37 PM)

Either captured or dead his "rule" is definitely over.




jonson -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 2:00:40 PM)

They've got the wrong man, that's Leatherface.

[image]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56177000/jpg/_56177381_013188686-1.jpg[/image]




Funkyrae -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 3:09:01 PM)

Beeb are still being really cautious about confirming whether or not he's dead.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 3:33:33 PM)

Sky News have said he is dead. And the camera footage and pictures seem to confirm it. 




Spaldron -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 4:01:08 PM)

Well at least they had the balls to actually publish the pics unlike the Bin Laden "cover up".

EDIT: Waiting for the amusing meme's to show up.




Spaldron -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 4:17:55 PM)

[image]http://t.qkme.me/3574yb.jpg[/image]




Darth Marenghi -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 5:11:40 PM)

I have to admit that I'm slightly uneasy that he was apparently assassinated rather than captured and brought to trial, but perhaps this was the inevitable consequence of his own actions. The media in this country never seemed to talk about his crimes against his own people, so I wasn't aware of that aspect until relatively recently.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 5:14:00 PM)

While it might have been nice for a trial to happen I am not going to condemn them for what they did either. 




Spaldron -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 5:30:17 PM)

Do you think maybe now we'll find out who really did Lockerbie?




Ghidorah -> RE: Game over, Gadaffi? (20/10/2011 5:46:45 PM)

 Look like Bin Laden was lucky. A nice clean death and a funeral service he didn't deserve. Gaddafi on the hand most likely bleed to death and been drag through the streets by a chanting mob. I wonder the critics of Bin Laden's assassination will come forward again. Especially this time it's the Muslims handling the situation and not the Americans.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.203125