I gave you my response and it accords with the guy in the video with the f82 on line lock. Nothing more needs to be said.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not taking sides. I just happened to see this:
[/quote]
Yes, indeed. I finished reading the New Yorker article earlier and was wondering when it would crop up here!
My argument remains the same, though. (Big surprise, right?) I don’t deny that Libya is a mess. I don’t deny that it’s broken up and ripe for ISIS’ picking. I simply think that it would be a greater mess, more broken up, and riper for ISIS’ picking if the 2011 war had gone on without our intervention. Notice, for example, that Vox’s “one paragraph” cites, as evidence of Libya’s being chaotic, the fact that “some three thousand people have been killed by fighting in the past year.” This number is, of course, not a good one, and certainly a marker of chaos. But it’s much smaller than that achieved by the 2011 war. The question I’m concerned with is this: Had that conflict gone on without intervention, what would we be talking about now? Three thousand, or another thirty thousand? Would ISIS be slithering in, as it is now, or would ISIS (or something like it) have flourished, home-grown, during a years-long and intense civil war in Libya as it did in Iraq and Syria.
Basically, my contention is that, other things being equal, it is in our best interest to decide or diffuse Middle Eastern wars as quickly as possible.
Edited.[/quote]
Again, totally disingenuous. We started the war in Libya. We shipped in arms and had spooks all over the place training militias and we coordinated with them to attack and bring down the Gaddafi regime. None of it would be happening without our intervention, our arms, our air strikes. But keep pretending otherwise if you like.[/quote]
How did the U.S start the civil war? The western powers have been handing over info and sometimes even Libyan dissidents to the regime for well over a decade. The U.S was the least supportive of the Arab spring in general always talking about their national interest and how badly it might affect them as opposed to some other nations who were saying it was good to see the desire for democracy emerging in the arab world.
Before most people knew about the Libyan uprisings regular Libyans had been organising and fighting, it only got on the radar after it intensified. The FSA in Syria and the moderate forces in Libya were largely moderates and secular and nationalist, we seemed to be more interested in funding Jihadists than supporting them though as geopolitics is always trying to be strategic than morally sound.
That goes for all governments and their actions.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Oh, and who really gives a fuck if then Secretary Clinton laughed about Gadaffi’s execution? The man was a monster.[/quote]
And ISIS isn’t worse or just as bad?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Oh, and who really gives a fuck if then Secretary Clinton laughed about Gadaffi’s execution? The man was a monster.[/quote]
And ISIS isn’t worse or just as bad?
[/quote]
But no one is implying any different, why do you keep saying that as if we all think ISIS are better? Both are evil and supporting any, even strategically is morally wrong, especially when our governments could of done so much more to support the strong democratic forces of the FSA and Libyan councils.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
A variation on “All politics is local?” 
[/quote]
Well, yeah, but also a recognition that Japan has been SO moderate for SO long, that any move in any direction on the political spectrum seems extreme. Remember Murayama, the evil Socialist prime minister with the sinister eyebrows who unseated the LDP from their decades-long reign? Remember the Socialist nightmare that Japan became during his tenure?
No, me neither.
I fondly think of him as the Japanese Obama. [/quote]
During Murayama’s administration, I saw a comedy group on TV here singing:
Mayuge ga sugei! to the music for the YMCA song.
Hilarious.[/quote]
Now imagine if a Russian comedy group had tried that during Brezhnev’s reign, and what kind of hilarity would have ensued.
That’s the difference.
Tyranny, in common with religion, cannot bear to be laughed at.[/quote]
So, you have no concern about tyranny in the US, based on all the sorts of things you’ve been pointing out about Japan?
[/quote]
No, I think I made it pretty plain that I’m plenty concerned. I think the US is more likely to devolve into an authoritarian surveillance state/militarised police state, which will then fragment in a Yugoslav-style civil war, along ethno-religious lines, within my lifetime, than Japan is to ever flirt with the idea of being a fascist dictatorship again.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
No, you said simply that he started the war. [/quote]
Let’s skip over that ONE statement.
What else about what Sexmachine said is wrong? A few pages back you said the NATO bombing was successful since it stopped a long and drawn out civil war. Now you’re saying Libya was on the verge of collapse and ready to fall at any time. You completely ignored the part about Gadaffi giving up his nuclear program, arresting and taking on terrorists like al-qaeda, which Sexmachine and I both talked about, and generally being an asset to the West. And Obama turned on him and brought his government down.
And so he was a monster? What about the alternative situation is better now for Libya and the world?
If you’re so supportive of bombing Libya, why haven’t we bombed Syria? The civil war there has been going on for years? If Obama is so tough that he scares the Russians, shouldn’t he have carte blanche to do whatever he wants?
If his foreign policy is a success in Libya, then certainly it is a failure in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, & Yemen. (Sorry I brought in so many countries at once, I know that confuses ya.)
Um…by sending in arms and spooks and CIA backed dissidents and attacking the government forces with NATO air strikes and repeating anti-government propaganda and helping install Jibril and signing oil contracts with the Provisional National Council and stuff like that. I’m off now.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Um…by sending in arms and spooks and CIA backed dissidents and attacking the government forces with NATO air strikes and repeating anti-government propaganda and helping install Jibril and signing oil contracts with the Provisional National Council and stuff like that. I’m off now.[/quote]
There was huge amounts of fighting before any western funding began. The accusation the civil war started when the west got involved is not backed by the facts. The world reaction infact was one of anger at the U.S and Europe for going to war in Iraq yet waiting so long to help people fighting a dictator in Gadafi.
No one on the left or right that I’m aware of is under any allusion that the rebels would’ve got anywhere without the support of US/France/NATO and I say they would’ve been besieged and starved out in Benghazi if not for the West. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you have any commentator on the left or right saying the rebels would’ve survived without the West and NATO? Anything? This is ridiculous. This is another NATO war like Yugoslavia where a Democrat is in the White House so it’s nothing to do with them. Really it’s ridiculous and I’m not going to bother with it.
Did I mention a cursed name or something? Well whatever you think of his politics he was one of the best Japanese writers of the 20th Century and one of the few Japanese writers I’m familiar with and who has given me an understanding of traditional Japanese society, bushido and the schizophrenic nature of modern Japan.
Okay, you asked for this…
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
A variation on “All politics is local?”
[/quote]
Well, yeah, but also a recognition that Japan has been SO moderate for SO long, that any move in any direction on the political spectrum seems extreme. Remember Murayama, the evil Socialist prime minister with the sinister eyebrows who unseated the LDP from their decades-long reign? Remember the Socialist nightmare that Japan became during his tenure?
No, me neither.
I fondly think of him as the Japanese Obama. [/quote]
During Murayama’s administration, I saw a comedy group on TV here singing:
Mayuge ga sugei! to the music for the YMCA song.
Hilarious.[/quote]
Now imagine if a Russian comedy group had tried that during Brezhnev’s reign, and what kind of hilarity would have ensued.
That’s the difference.
Tyranny, in common with religion, cannot bear to be laughed at.[/quote]
So, you have no concern about tyranny in the US, based on all the sorts of things you’ve been pointing out about Japan?
[/quote]
No, I think I made it pretty plain that I’m plenty concerned. I think the US is more likely to devolve into an authoritarian surveillance state/militarised police state, which will then fragment in a Yugoslav-style civil war, along ethno-religious lines, within my lifetime, than Japan is to ever flirt with the idea of being a fascist dictatorship again.[/quote]
I see your point, but you do realize that you’re talking about a country that is already arguably “authoritarian,” where the police can interrogate you for, what, 16 hours straight with no legal rep, where you are only allowed to see your lawyer 1 hour a day (and not alone), where a judge can refuse to let you name your kid as you want, where carrying even a knife for protection can get you jail time, where every aspect of your existence is documented in a single place, where you have only limited rights to self-defense, where “unpleasant” truths are typically kept under the rug, where the votes of some citizens are worth twice those of other citizens, where the government has just given itself carte blanch to censor anything it wants, and where the power of right-leaning parties has been growing steadily, right?
[/quote]
Yup. And yet here we are.
And like I said, if any of the aforementioned ever threatens to affect me personally, well, I’ll find another place to mosey on over to.
EDIT: I was tempted to address each line in your post above, with a snarky reference to the American equivalent of each item, but decided against it. It’s pretty depressing when one is tempted to justify the mild tyranny of his adopted country by pointing out the similar tyranny in his home country, while dreaming about the delights of a country that has them both beat in terms of governmental abuse. I’m going to bed.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Did I mention a cursed name or something? Well whatever you think of his politics he was one of the best Japanese writers of the 20th Century and one of the few Japanese writers I’m familiar with and who has given me an understanding of traditional Japanese society, bushido and the schizophrenic nature of modern Japan.[/quote]
Sorry SexMachine, didn’t mean to ignore you. I haven’t really decided whether I think Mishima was a visionary, a highly troubled paranoiac, an attention whore, or all three. He was a fantastic writer, I’ll give him that.
But if you want to read a good book on Bushido, then read Bushido, by Inazo Nitobe. It might be of particular interest to you, as he wrote it in response to a question from a Christian friend who expressed surprise at the notion that the Japanese could be moral without religion.
…another book that I will bet any amount of money also sits in Chushin’s library. 
I’ve read it varq thanks. Quoted him here at PWI too I think.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
EDIT: I was tempted to address each line in your post above, with a snarky reference to the American equivalent of each item, but decided against it. It’s pretty depressing when one is tempted to justify the mild tyranny of his adopted country by pointing out the similar tyranny in his home country, while dreaming about the delights of a country that has them both beat in terms of governmental abuse. I’m going to bed.[/quote]
I wasn’t sure if he was talking about Japan or America for a while there myself.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
EDIT: I was tempted to address each line in your post above, with a snarky reference to the American equivalent of each item, but decided against it. It’s pretty depressing when one is tempted to justify the mild tyranny of his adopted country by pointing out the similar tyranny in his home country, while dreaming about the delights of a country that has them both beat in terms of governmental abuse. I’m going to bed.[/quote]
Do it!!! This I gotta read!!!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
(Sorry I brought in so many countries at once, I know that confuses ya.)
[/quote]
That would be pretty good if this thread hadn’t been a sprawling defeat of every single thing you and SM have tried to claim. Some of my (least) favorites:
– Obama started the war – look, an article from March 30 about things that happened in mid-March, after 2 of 3 largest Libyan cities had fallen along with entire chunks of the country and stretches of vital coastline!
– Libya is more dangerous now than it was in 2011 because articlez about teh 13 deadz and “just tell [the opposite] to our embassy staff” (holy shit did you actually say that as if it refuted the 2011 war’s tens of thousands of casualties?).
– And most ahistorically: The extent of the Libyan conflict before American intervention was “some civil demonstrations and then.”
There are many more. None of these are faulty lines of reasoning or bad arguments: they’re full-steam, screeching whiffs, and they get at a fundamental ignorance of the most basic fact-and-fiction questions one could ask about this very recent, very prominent, not-all-that-complicated series of events. Both of you came into this with a risible and obvious unpreparedness. You stepped into the big leagues with a minor-league eye, and you got burned by fastballs down the middle. Oh well: your mistake. I won’t suffer for it anymore.
Edited to add finality.
Look, if we just put ISIS on Gov’t assistance, food stamps, a pathway to citizenship and free college tuition, we can influence them. You see, we can’t kill them. We can’t defeat them. Only government is the answer. We just don’t all have the intellictual capacity of Marie Harf.