You don't half go fucking on though.
Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement
- Thread starter ernestolynch
- Start date
You don't half go fucking on though.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
LOL. Bless
BBC reports propaganda on the THE DEMOCRACY APACHE ATTACK COPTER...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13541379
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13541379
LOL. 'Divisive Coc-oen' creams his load.
But there's been Western intervention throughout the Arab world, and in Iran too. You must admit that the revolts were Western-inspired to some degree: the only question is how much.
Why do you think Netanyahu is praising them so enthusiastically?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Israel condemned the Egyptian uprising and criticized the US for not sticking with Mubarak. Everything else is mere words after the event. Israel is shitting itself over the Arab spring. Do you honestly think Israel is happy with Egypt opening the Rafah crossing?
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Phil is just taking the piss, though
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Has this been posted already? What do people think:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Deary me:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/26/gaddafi-paranoid-run-cameron
Also gotta laugh when the word paranoid is used at times like these, as if any fear Gaddafi may have can really be that irrational at a time like this. Same as when either the BBC or AlJazeera touted Gaddafis Benghazi bunker as a sign of paranoia. Come now media, we are bombing him, which rather makes his bunkers seem like a worthy investment rather than a paranoid excess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/26/gaddafi-paranoid-run-cameron
Also gotta laugh when the word paranoid is used at times like these, as if any fear Gaddafi may have can really be that irrational at a time like this. Same as when either the BBC or AlJazeera touted Gaddafis Benghazi bunker as a sign of paranoia. Come now media, we are bombing him, which rather makes his bunkers seem like a worthy investment rather than a paranoid excess.
I suspect Israel is behind the whole thing, to one degree or another. The aim is to restructure the entire middle east, installing regimes who will be friendly to Israel and--more importantly--will repress Israel's opponents within their own borders.
This has been the declared agenda of the think-tanks that run American foreign policy for at least a decade. It's actually a perfectly rational, if daring, plan from Israel's perspective. Why should Israel remain a sitting duck surrounded by hostile or sullenly acquiescent states, if it has the power to change that situation?
Explain this if you can:
Netanyahu said:
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Your argument is Orientalist. The dismissal of the possibility of the Arab masses being capable of articulating their own desires and executing their own will. The denial of agency and the reduction of the actions of millions to the machinations and conspiracies of the other. Notice how the actions and desires of the Egyptian people are entirely missing from your argument.
So, according to this argument, decades of repression and corruption and brutality by a hated and unrepresentative regime is not enough to explain the mass uprising of the Egyptian people. Millions who fought and bled on the streets in the most inspirational outpouring of popular defiance we have seen in years are merely manipulated puppets in a game played by their betters. This is what your argument reduces to. It is an old and tired discourse, one rooted in a contempt for the democratic capacity of those in the Arab world and a refusal to countenance the possibilty that the Arab masses have democratic aspirations of their own.
For this frankly disgraceful narrative to hold water however, you should be able to show that the political order that is emerging from these events is conducive to the political and strategic interests of the USA and Israel. So please explain to me how any move towards representative governance in a region hostile to Israel is in Israel's interests? Also explain to me how the permanent opening of the Rafah border with Gaza and the utter collapse of Israel's strategy for isolating Hamas serves the interests of Israel? Also explain to me why of all the regimes in the region the only one to explicitly condemn not only the Egyptian uprising but also to condemn the USA for "betraying" Mubarak, was Israel.
Netanyahu's speech means nothing. Nothing but meaningless rhetoric from an increasingly isolated Israel desper rately trying to come to terms with events that are out of its control. Of course the US and Israel want to manipulate and divert the events in the region, to halt the moves towards representational governance and to readjust their political approach to these events. These are a recognition of political realities however and do not in any way demonstrate US or Israeli control over events. The opposite is the case. Mubarak's fall is a blow to both the US and Israel and it is here that your argument collapses utterly. Because Mubarak was their man.
What we are witnessing and what Netanyahu's speech does represent is an attempted American supported counter revolution with the intention of using the military to reclaim control and redirect the revolutionary process away from genuine democratic representational government. This is being carried out in a number of ways but central to the counter revolution is the US, and by default Israel, reframing the revolution in terms conducive to their interests. This is the context in which Netanyahu's astonishingly hypocritical new found praise for the Arab spring should be placed
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
So, the Apache is a boeing 'chopper, and the British Army have a bastardised version made by Westland, have I got this right?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
We should take this discussion to the Egypt thread Phil. As my remarks don't really apply to Libya where Western intervention is all to obvious
DownwardDog
Riding a Brompton with a power meter.
Designed by Hughes, who were bought by MacAir who were in turn consumed by Boeing.
The British ones have indeed been bastardised/manufactured by AgustaWestland. We paid 45 million quid each, rather than the 12 million pound flyaway price of a standard AH-64D Longbow Apache from the Boeing factory in Arizona. Awesome.
binka
!!!!!!!!!
to be fair if you dig deep enough you'll find out they are behind almost everything
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Though for once ours are better than the original though still probably not that enough to justify the extra money.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Clearly we are well into an especially blatant phase of trying to scare members of the regime into capitulation. Its unclear to quite what an extent this is a sign of desperation and impatience, as opposed to being down to favourable timing and a sense that this is the right moment to apply this sort of pressure. For it remains very hard to judge the full reality of the situation, we may presume that Gaddafi has survived in power way longer than UK, France etc would initially have hoped, so this may be desperation, but assume situation is also pretty desperate for Gaddafi & regime.
In any case the latest visible pressure, following on from helicopter announcements, is bunker-busters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13589783
Theres quite a collection of barefaced quotes mounting up as a result of this war.
In any case the latest visible pressure, following on from helicopter announcements, is bunker-busters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13589783
Theres quite a collection of barefaced quotes mounting up as a result of this war.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I love the way he is being reported as "paranoid" as though his fear of assassination is completely unreasonable and irrational. As if they aren't bombing the shit out of his country and didn't just kill his son and various other members of his family. Many things Gaddafi may be but paranoid about the possibility of being assassinated is not one of them. I am reminded of the old saying that you are not paranoid when they are really after you.
Correction: the neo-liberal regime running Russia you mean.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
As opposed to "the fantasy government of Russia that Ern would like to see in place"?
Me and most Russian people yes.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
and you know how many Russians?
All those I've met or worked with are usually more or less neutral as far as politics are concerned, but tend to agree that things are a lot better than they were in the "bad old days" and cant see any decent alternative coming soon.
You're a fucking yuppie though.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
binka
!!!!!!!!!
the newsnight debate on libya conists of three men who all support bombing libya but are disagreeing about how effective it has been.
david owen is one of them men. i know he was foreign secretary about 50 years ago but why do they keep dragging him out to justify bombing libya?
david owen is one of them men. i know he was foreign secretary about 50 years ago but why do they keep dragging him out to justify bombing libya?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Because he is well up for it, and not quite as stupid with his words as the likes of Hague. I expect he has a personal interest in intervention, possibly in part due to his role in Yugoslavia, making him a good candidate to say the 'we must not sit back and do nothing' role early on, and again now that things are dragging on. It seems he was also used to argue for sanctions against Argentina back in the day. Throw in his involvement with old Rhodesia plans, and Thatcher praising him with 'He was very good on the Northern Ireland terrorist business', plus some apparent oil business interests, and I think we can say he is a safe pair of hands for this kind of thing eh.
stuff_it
Too skool for cool
Because he's not an early riser and he doesn't turn up drunk?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
