According to the Monroe doctrine, you have a much bigger doorstep than that ! <nudge, nudge>
I should probably just let it go, but:
Smash U.S. Imperialism Through Workers Revolution!
I, of course, link more anti-American imperialism articles than any other Paizonian, bar none.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell, the Syrian rebels were armed by U.S. allies in the region, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, along, of course, with the ubiquitous Islamic fundamentalists chopping off everybody's heads. Meanwhile, last I heard, Turkey's border was armed and I think I just saw a headline that Israel bombed something in Damascus.
Meanwhile, a short google search for Libyan news reveals that as of January 30, Bani Walid is stable, which I assume means that Western imperialism's allies have stopped massacring civilians for the moment.
So, no, I don't know if it's obvious that not using military force is or isn't the best option. I do think, however, that it's clear that imperialism has little to offer the Middle East and Africa other than destitution, exploitation and bombardment.
I'm not sure who this dude is, but I thought this was a pretty good article.
Help I'm being patriarched! https://twitter.com/throwawayimage/status/297051836815384576/photo/1
Poor bastard. The little one totally powned you.
According to the Monroe doctrine, you have a much bigger doorstep than that ! <nudge, nudge>I should probably just let it go, but:
Smash U.S. Imperialism Through Workers Revolution!
I, of course, link more anti-American imperialism articles than any other Paizonian, bar none.
I confess I tried to obtain EXACTLY that reaction. I'm in your brain, gobbo.
(and of course, by "your doorstep", I meant the american pinkskins' one, not yours in particular. You are nothing but consistent in your opinion about war and imperialism.)
Short answers :
1) we can only guess what would have happened if we had let Quaddafi crush the lybian rebellion, and if we had let the malian one topple the local government. So far, I feel from the data I have that what was done was the better option (as in, less bad). Perfect ones do not exist last time I went looking for them.
2) the tuaregs that went south with weapons were part of the Khaddafi forces. The guy got thousands of tuaregs mercenaries. It can be described as an unfortunate yet foreseen consequence of the lybian war. You must also have to consider that Khaddafi had been throwing fuel on that particular fire for years (in Mali, in Tchad, in all neighbouring countries).
3) most of the syrian rebels got their weapons from the syrian army, as you see a big bunch of them are deserters who got fed up shooting civilians. Arab countries did provide weapons; the occidental ones didn't so far.
I'm not sure who this dude is, but I thought this was a pretty good article.
Well, you should know him ! According to his bio, as was a sponsor of the Socialist Workers Party, a Staff Writer for the Communist Party USA newspaper People's Daily World, a board member of the U.S. Peace Council, and a lot of other stuff right in your field.
I confess I tried to obtain EXACTLY that reaction. I'm in your brain, gobbo.
(and of course, by "your doorstep", I meant the american pinkskins' one, not yours in particular. You are nothing but consistent in your opinion about war and imperialism.)
You French devil. And it is kind of funny, 'cuz I only posted that article 'cuz of the Sartre quote. :)
Short answers :
1) we can only guess what would have happened if we had let Quaddafi crush the lybian rebellion, and if we had let the malian one topple the local government. So far, I feel from the data I have that what was done was the better option (as in, less bad). Perfect ones do not exist last time I went looking for them.
2) the tuaregs that went south with weapons were part of the Khaddafi forces. The guy got thousands of tuaregs mercenaries. It can be described as an unfortunate yet foreseen consequence of the lybian war. You must also have to consider that Khaddafi had been throwing fuel on that particular fire for years (in Mali, in Tchad, in all neighbouring countries).
3) most of the syrian rebels got their weapons from the syrian army, as you see a big bunch of them are deserters who got fed up shooting civilians. Arab countries did provide weapons; the occidental ones didn't so far.
[Frowns]
1) And isn't it convenient that in both of these situations "we" (Franco-American imperialists that we are) supported the side more pliant to the West?
2) Qadaffi threw fire on the situation?!? Pardon moi, camarade, but what about cobbling together a bunch of ethnically diverse peoples and calling it a country?!?
3) Yes, Comrade Jeff always says that. I don't know. Everything I read says funnelled through Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Who knows, we're probably both right.
Anyway, it seems to me like a pattern of events has been unfolding in Africa over the past bunch of years that seems pretty familiar to anyone conversant with that continent's history. Maybe Obama and Hollande have learned from the mistakes of Wilson and whatever leftie French imperialist was running the Quai d'Orsay in the early 20th century, but I doubt it.
I'm not sure who this dude is, but I thought this was a pretty good article.Well, you should know him ! According to his bio, as was a sponsor of the Socialist Workers Party, a Staff Writer for the Communist Party USA newspaper People's Daily World, a board member of the U.S. Peace Council, and a lot of other stuff right in your field.
Huh. You don't find many guys writing for both the CP and the Trots. Good catch, camarade. Actually, where did you find that? On the site, or somewhere else?
Oh, you know what? I don't know this guy, but his father was a celebrity leftist back in the day.
More you know what? Conn Hallinan's articles for the Huffington Post collected in one place. 'Cuz I'm nice like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big problem is that there is no planning beyond the military solution by the western powers.
Nobody stopped to think what would a bunch of violent well armed mercenaries do when their employer had been deposed....
Or what would a trained military would do when their country had been defeated twice and they were told to go home they were no longer employed.
Or look we "killed" off this tribal group of extremists you have a new country when for the last 40 years we have been paying Pakistan to keep you destabilized.
EDIT: I need to proof-read before I post. There/their at least I didn't use a "your" incorrectly.
I'm not sure who this dude is, but I thought this was a pretty good article.Well, you should know him ! According to his bio, as was a sponsor of the Socialist Workers Party, a Staff Writer for the Communist Party USA newspaper People's Daily World, a board member of the U.S. Peace Council, and a lot of other stuff right in your field.Huh. You don't find many guys writing for both the CP and the Trots. Good catch, camarade. Actually, where did you find that? On the site, or somewhere else?
Oh, you know what? I don't know this guy, but his father was a celebrity leftist back in the day.
More you know what? Conn Hallinan's articles for the Huffington Post collected in one place. 'Cuz I'm nice like that.
Got his bio there.
I don't know if there is a pattern in Africa, and if it is so, it does look like we imperialists are running from a fire to another. So much for long term planning.
@8th dwarf: my thoughts, exactly. Both Lybia and Mali military interventions were last hour decisions triggered by a situation that was an inch from going down the drain (Kaddafhi forces mere miles from Benghazi, islamists mere miles from Bamako).
It's not that we didn't knew that Khaddafi had tuareg mercenaries and that weapons were bound to be smuggled south, it is there was nothing we could do about it (no ground troops).
Interesting problem.... Former colonial powers have post colonial guilt, they are reluctant to step in or when they do step in they leave as soon as they can.
The problem is they don't leave an infrastructure or administration behind to prevent it from happening again, in their rush to get out.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
:) Also a bit rich to be talking about meddling westerners setting up or tearing down governments while at the same time advocating for revolution based on a government system conceived of by westerners and developed in the colonial powers (UK, France, especially). Marx and Engles were old white dudes in England after all.
Clearly intervention leading to government overthrow has been accepted as a solution (worldwide worker's socialist revolution), so are we complaining about the end state, or the means, or both?
Okay, back to the thesis.
The Chinese are giving everybody in the Pacific the willies... So much money is being handed out, to the pacific island nations in an effort to pull them into the Chinese sphere.
It used to be us* the Japanese and the Yanks.... Throwing money around so we could exploit the locals.
Most of South East Asia sees us as a colonial dinosaur, inherently racist and the "Deputy Sheriff" of the US in the region.
*(Australia and New Zealand (New Zealand is an Australian state they just don't know it yet). Its funny because they call us the West Island).
I don't know if there is a pattern in Africa, and if it is so, it does look like we imperialists are running from a fire to another. So much for long term planning.
Who said anything about planning? I'd suggest you look at the first Scramble for Africa. Not much different.
2) Qadaffi threw fire on the situation?!? Pardon moi, camarade, but what about cobbling together a bunch of ethnically diverse peoples and calling it a country?!?That's the situation he was throwing fire on.
It's easy to point back at decades old colonial decisions and say "That's wrong! That's where the problem started!!". I've done it myself. It's often even true, though "started" is a tricky term. In history, nothing really starts, everything depends something earlier.
But it doesn't answer the question of "What do we do with the situation at hand?" We can't go back and change that. We can't uncobble the countries and split everything up by their (now blurred and disputed) ethnic boundaries.
First sentence:
Yes, I understand that's the situation that he was throwing fire on. However, if Comrade Le Couard will forgive me, his sentence stank a little of imperial arrogance to me. I mean, he threw fire on the situation? By backing the Tuaregs' legitimate claims to the right of self-determination? How horrid!
Rest of the paragraph: Bullshiznit. From what little I have gleaned from reading articles about Mali, most of its post-colonial history has bore the heavy stamp of the IMF and the Banque de France (which, I read, controls Malian currency). And then, of course, there's that whole American-trained general overthrowing the government, twice, thingie.
I, of course, don't recognize myself as part of your "we," but what imperialism is going to do to uncobble the clusterf$&% it has created will never be in the best interests of the masses of the neo-colonies. If it does, I'll eat my hat.
We're not nearly as all-powerful as you sometimes seem to think. Not everything that happens is an imperial US plot. The locals are actors on their own and start things we don't want them to.
More stuff like Comrade Le Couard's where you guys seem to think I'm some sort of Madame Sissyl-like conspiracy theorist. Although, I do remember quite a few CIA assets in the rogue's gallery of Libyan rebels.
Otoh, there was an article about Wahabbism in Mali on counterpunch that I read that claimed that these guys were also being funded by Saudi Arabia. What a weird web...
:) Also a bit rich to be talking about meddling westerners setting up or tearing down governments while at the same time advocating for revolution based on a government system conceived of by westerners and developed in the colonial powers (UK, France, especially). Marx and Engles were old white dudes in England after all.
Clearly intervention leading to government overthrow has been accepted as a solution (worldwide worker's socialist revolution), so are we complaining about the end state, or the means, or both?
Okay, back to the thesis.
I don't know, Bob. This intervention was about propping up a military dictatorship, not overthrowing a goverment, but I see what you mean.
I haven't actually called for the Malian working class to overthrow their oppressors yet, but if I did, and even if Marx and Lenin and Trotksy were white dudes, I'm not really sure if that's the same as having your country in thrall to foreign interests.
And just so it doesn't look like I'm picking on poor France:
I didn't realize that the NDAA also ramped up sanctions against Iran.
Down with Obama!
For international proletarian socialist revolution based on the theories of some old dead white dudes!
Just a slight interjection - as long as we are talking about meddling super powers lets not forget about China and the Rooskies. They both had an active hand in Libya (again for oil contracts) and Russia is propping up the Syrians.
Lots of blame to go around.
I would love to bash on Russian imperialism, but I don't know anything about it other than Chechnya. I'm sure it's bad, though.
I support the People's Republic of China in stockpiling tons of mineral resources, though. Someone's got to build ghost cities to keep international capitalism stable. Go Commies!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting problem.... Former colonial powers have post colonial guilt, they are reluctant to step in or when they do step in they leave as soon as they can.
The problem is they don't leave an infrastructure or administration behind to prevent it from happening again, in their rush to get out.
And if they do stay and put together a administration, they get flak for their neocolonial ways.
For the time being, the safer road for France is to play big brother with Mali and other african countries, trying to help them cobble together their own solutions (as we have been doing for months, gatehring soldiers from all over west africa, until the djihadists drove south toward Bamako), and come to the rescue when shit really hits the fan.
Of course, the artificial boundaries put in place a century ago did lead to interethnic strife. That is this strife I was refering to (which has been exploited by Kadhafi).
Yes, I understand that's the situation that he was throwing fire on. However, if Comrade Le Couard will forgive me, his sentence stank a little of imperial arrogance to me. I mean, he threw fire on the situation? By backing the Tuaregs' legitimate claims to the right of self-determination? How horrid!
If he was really doing that, he would have been applauded.
What he reaaly did, is providing weapons to rebel groups in neighbouring countries to undermine them, all in the pursuit of his dream of a panarabic republic. When he did invade Tchad in the 80's, I don't remember it was to provide a sovereign state for the tuaregs : he went for annexion, period.
What we had in Lybia was a warmonger pure and simple, who if anything delayed a peaceful political resolution to the tuareg problem by faciliatating and promoting violence.
Rest of the paragraph: Bullshiznit. From what little I have gleaned from reading articles about Mali, most of its post-colonial history has bore the heavy stamp of the IMF and the Banque de France (which, I read, controls Malian currency). And then, of course, there's that whole American-trained general overthrowing the government, twice, thingie.
Yeah, we do control the currencies of not only the Mali, but most of our previous african colonies (and of some countries who weren't, but voluntarily joined in, such as Guinea).
Guess how much would be worth their own currency on the worldwide market, if we weren't providing them this service and our guarantee ?
Ironically, Mali was one of the two countries who chose to opt out of this system back in 1962 (got independant in 1960). Economic crash ensued, and they got back in in 1984. They can opt out again anytime.
You can call that neoimperialism. You can also call that a direct way of helping out those countries, as the system has both advantages and drawbacks (in fact, they are exactly the same as the Euro's).
Addendum : elections are to be held in Mali before summer, under UN/EU control. Back to civilian control, this time.
Conspiracy theorist? Et tu gobbo?
Hmph!
Jewish or not, he was an old white dude. You can't have that beard and not be.
Ethnically speaking, Marx was Jewish.:) Also a bit rich to be talking about meddling westerners setting up or tearing down governments while at the same time advocating for revolution based on a government system conceived of by westerners and developed in the colonial powers (UK, France, especially). Marx and Engles were old white dudes in England after all.
And Engels was German.
2 sets of stuff
Well, I'm certainly not going to defend Qadaffi. But you will forgive me if I interpret your two sections as meaning that his dreams of a panarabic blah blah blah got in the way of the French neocolonial empire whose economy France controls, and whose governments are pliant to French interests or they get bombed by French airplanes
But they're going to have elections! Like they did in Libya! And Egypt!
2 sets of stuffWell, I'm certainly not going to defend Qadaffi. But you will forgive me if I interpret your two sections as meaning that his dreams of a panarabic blah blah blah got in the way of the French neocolonial empire whose economy France controls, and whose governments are pliant to French interests or they get bombed by French airplanes
But they're going to have elections! Like they did in Libya! And Egypt!
Sure, how could I (or you) know about hidden ulterior motives of even the more apparently altruistic moves ?
"Democracy is the worse form of government, to the exception of all the others" (Churchill, approximately).
Don't know how it will turn out in Lybia or Egypt in the long term. It will be their own mess. The question is, would the Lybians have been better off with Khadafi (french spelling) ?
Tunisia is a different matter, as they did launch and achieve their revolution by themselves, without any outside intervention (on the contrary : our government supported Ben Ali, which can explain a little bit why it intervened in Lybia, this time on the "right" side).
Anyway, we can keep arguing about French imperialism, or I can relate my funny stewarding story:
I've seen him before, but he doesn't work in my area and I've never spoken to him. He's from somewhere Spanish-speaking and his English isn't very good (although far better than my Spanish). "Are you Doodlebug?" "Yeah." "I need union representation."
So, he introduces himself, and tells me that he needs me to come with him to talk to management. Okay, I say, and we're headed over and he's talking, and I'm like, "Wait a minute, do they want to talk to you, or do you want to talk to them?" "I want to talk to them," he says. I smile, "Oh, okay. Well, do you want to give me an indication as to what's going on?" "No," he says, "I just want you to listen."
Now, this isn't usual s.o.p., but, hey, whatever. At this point I notice that he's dressed much too nicely for loading trucks. And then I notice that he's carrying a fake-leather flip-open clipboard embossed with the words "U.S. Congress" and a copy of The Prophet by Khalil Gibran. Hmmm, I think, that's weird.
So, we get over to the boss and here I have to back up. This boss is a real f@#@face. I don't like him at all. Nobody does. He's been cycled through every center in the building and wherever he goes, personality clashes occur and grievances get filed. I mean serious shiznit. Harassment. Sexual harassment. Harassing women who are pregnant. He's a real piece of work, but management loves him and they recently promoted him to full-time supervisor and now he's the boss of my Spanish-speaking, Gibran-reading member.
So, we get over there and the boss asks me what it's about it, and I say I have no idea, have you had problems with XXXX lately? And he's like no, so I'm like, well, let's see what he has to say.
So, we go in the office. And XXXX starts off "You need to listen to me. Don't speak. Listen to me. I am a crazy man, so you need to listen."
My ears perked up. He then went on a little about the nature of work and relationships and trust. Then he opened his US Congress clipboard and pulled a piece of paper and handed it to the boss. "Do you know this word?" "Yeah," the boss says, "It says 'morals.'"
What? I looked at the piece of paper and, sure enough, like a flashcard it said in bolded blue magic marker letters MORALS.
XXXX then handed him another piece of paper. It read ETHICS.
Everyone in the room is looking around at one another in shock. I'm fighting the urge to smile as XXXX hands the boss another piece of paper that read KINESIS when I have a horrible thought: what if XXXX has a gun and is going to waste everybody in the room at the end of this totally awesome presentation? (It happened not too long ago in Connecticut).
So, I yank XXXX out of the room. "What?" he asks. "What are you doing?" I say, furtively looking to see if he has bulges around his waist. "I'm just talking to YYYY." "Yeah, but what's going on? What brought this on?" He didn't want to talk about it, but he didn't seem to have a gun, and he still wanted to talk to YYYY. Hee hee!
So we go back in and the boss tries to take control of the meeting and the two of them butt heads for a little bit--a chuckle-moment is when XXXX said he wanted to talk about the "evils of hip-, hip-, hip-" he looks over at me "hypocrisy?" "Yeah," I smile, "Hypocrisy, let's talk about the evils of hypocrisy!"
Anyway, as awesome as it was, these things, of course, never make any impression on the bosses, and they continued to butt heads and then in a crescendo of arguing, XXXX sprang up, pointed his finger and declaimed "Just remember this: I am a ghost in the machine; I am a tiger in the jungle; I'll see you Monday!" Then he turned on his heel and stormed out of the door. (I think it was a Wednesday or a Thursday this happened on.)
I was laughing my ass off as I hustled after him to slow him down. The boss was yelling how if XXXX left the building he'd be fired for job abandonment. I slowed down XXXX, told YYYY to go get his boss, worked everything out and sent XXXX home for the rest of the week.
Actually, he didn't work this week, either. I think he got some FMLA time to go chill out. But, I do love seeing that boss get totally owned by a complete stranger.
Hee hee!
Guys!
We didn't have to wait months!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'll apologize for invoking a little humor at HRW's expense, but mostly because it appears that I was premature and the events being reported were before the French intervention.
But as to Comrade Jeff's post: From what I've been reading, the Malian army has been happily abusing Tuaregs for many, many a year--most recently, according to Mr. Hallinan, with the help of War on Terror dollars. But when it looks like they're going to turn the tables with the help from some Islamic jihadis, then France steps in to put an end to the bloodshed for humanitarian reasons? You believe that?
I know, I know, it's Russia Today. But they quote a bunch of different dudes, not all of whom appear to be kneejerk anti-imperialists. Since I don't know if anybody actually reads my linked articles anymore, I'll take the liberty of cut-and-pasting them:
--"They’re attempting to militarize huge sections of Africa so they’re able to monopolize the access to the resources which are there,” Ceasefire magazine associate editor Adam Elliott-Cooper told RT.
--“In the long term, France has interests in securing resources in the Sahel – particularly oil and uranium, which the French energy company Areva has been extracting for decades in neighboring Niger,” Katrin Sold of the German Council on Foreign Relations said, as quoted by DW.de. The Sahel is a roughly 1000km-wide belt on the border of the Sahara, which passes through central Mali.
--Decolonization is far from over, and France is just one of the parties having a keen interest in African Neo-colonialism, Bruno Drweski of the French National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations told RT.
“Apart from economic there’s also a strategic importance: this part of Africa opens routes to the Red Sea and the Middle East. Britain and France have for centuries fought over it. It’s like a remake, but with many others involved,” Drweski argued.
--“Francois Hollande has seen fit to justify French military intervention in Mali with the drama of the hostages in Algeria which left 30 dead according to official sources. Far from justifying France’s neocolonial intervention, it condemns it,” France’s New Anti-Capitalist Party said in a statement.
Four in one!
--The French are following in the footsteps of US military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), Adam Elliott-Cooper told RT. Created in 2007, it served the militarization of Africa aimed to control more energy resources.
Vice-Admiral Robert T. Moeller has openly declared AFRICOM’s guiding principle as protecting “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.” Challenging US interests in the region is China, he added.
Echoing Moeller is the French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici, who urged French companies “to go on the offensive and fight the growing influence of rival China for a stake in Africa's increasingly competitive markets.”
It is widely-acknowledged that “this part of the world was escaping from France so [the French want] to remain present in the region,” Philippe Moreau-Defarges of the IFRI think-tank was quoted by AFP.
Also, Madame Sissyl's been PMing me about XXXX being crazy.
Which was what other people had been saying to me, but I thought he'd just cracked dealing with a douchebag boss.
But Madame Sissyl is trained in psychology or sumptin' and she listed a bunch of symptoms that I never would have noticed.
I guess it's a good thing we got him FMLA time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I don't know if anybody actually reads my linked articles anymore, I'll take the liberty of cut-and-pasting them
And I'm glad I did.
Here's the first one:
"France opened 2013 with a series of airstrikes on Northern Mali to prevent “the establishment of a terrorist state”. At the time of writing, 11 civilians (including two children) have been killed, and according to the UN, an estimated 30,000 have been displaced. The morbid irony of the France’s leaders bombing people in order to prevent a “terrorist state” appears to be lost on them, but this may be due to their eyes being on something far more important – Mali’s economy."
This Cease Fire web site looks pretty awesome. I'm glad I found it.
---
Look: Redefining Feminism: Overcoming the Legacy of Exclusion !!!
(Sorry, but there were more people hanging out in here when we were talking about chicks. Figured this might lure some back in.)
---
Lots of stewarding from the Nth dimension
Well worth the wait !
Well, I'll apologize for invoking a little humor at HRW's expense, but mostly because it appears that I was premature and the events being reported were before the French intervention.
But as to Comrade Jeff's post: From what I've been reading, the Malian army has been happily abusing Tuaregs for many, many a year--most recently, according to Mr. Hallinan, with the help of War on Terror dollars. But when it looks like they're going to turn the tables with the help from some Islamic jihadis, then France steps in to put an end to the bloodshed for humanitarian reasons? You believe that?
Huh, yes ? (seriously, a terrorist haven in Mali would have been a major pain in the ass : sufficient motivation for us).
I have no doubt there could be other atrocities against suspected islamists, even now, as the french army isn't monitoring everything the malians are doing.
Though, still think it's better than having the djihadists seizing control. They DID execute thousands of people during the last year.
I know, I know, it's Russia Today. But they quote a bunch of different dudes, not all of whom appear to be kneejerk anti-imperialists. Since I don't know if anybody actually reads my linked articles anymore, I'll take the liberty of cut-and-pasting them:
** spoiler omitted **...
Nothing to add : russians are expert on matters of imperialism. And on morals, too. They do have a sterling behaviour in Syria, for instance, selling heavy weapons to the government to better crush its population. Inspiring work.
Lots of stewarding from the Nth dimensionWell worth the wait !
Thank you, although I am feeling a little bit guilty now that I realize that XXXX's actions may have been caused by mental illness rather than a wickedly awesome and creative way of telling the bosses off.
Huh, yes ? (seriously, a terrorist haven in Mali would have been a major pain in the ass : sufficient motivation for us).
I know you believe the bourgeois lies your comrades in the Socialist Party have spoonfed you, that's why I asked Comrade Jeff and not you.
Nothing to add : russians are expert on matters of imperialism. And on morals, too. They do have a sterling behaviour in Syria, for instance, selling heavy weapons to the government to better crush its population. Inspiring work.
Huh. Is Russia Today owned by the Russian government? If not, then your comment is simply chauvinist baiting. I mean, seriously, are you going to claim that French imperialism--from Algeria to Vietnam--has been an example of sterling morality? Or that the arms being channelled to the Islamic fundamentalists chopping everybody's heads off are somehow more inspiring?
Anyway, a word from Brother Glen Ford:
"Europeans are pouring into northwest Africa in such volume, the huge U.S. airlift capacity may soon be necessary to keep the “Crusaders” supplied. African militaries are being assembled to do the white man’s bidding. The U.S. hopes to establish a Somalia-like operation on the near side of Africa – with Americans in overall charge."
Preach on, brother! Let everybody know!
---
Edit in under the wire:
So I've been going through articles from last year on AI, HRW, BBC (front for British imperialism), al-Jazeera, HuffPo, etc. Are you claiming, Comrade Le Couard, that thousands have been executed by jihadis in Mali or worldwide?
Ooh! An article for Comrade Dwarf:
Huh, yes ? (seriously, a terrorist haven in Mali would have been a major pain in the ass : sufficient motivation for us).I know you believe the bourgeois lies your comrades in the Socialist Party have spoonfed you, that's why I asked Comrade Jeff and not you.
Sorry.
Nothing to add : russians are expert on matters of imperialism. And on morals, too. They do have a sterling behaviour in Syria, for instance, selling heavy weapons to the government to better crush its population. Inspiring work.Huh. Is Russia Today owned by the Russian government? If not, then your comment is simply chauvinist baiting.
Oh, I see. So I have to tell you that RT is the russian CNN, owned by the governmental news agency RIA Novosti. So yes, in short, it's the Kremlin's voice (or the new Pravda if you prefer).
The article you cited is exactly on the same line as a recent declaration from Poutine.
I mean, seriously, are you going to claim that French imperialism--from Algeria to Vietnam--has been an example of sterling morality? Or that the arms being channelled to the Islamic fundamentalists chopping everybody's heads off are somehow more inspiring?
No, I'm not. I'm talking about the current affair in Mali. The past shouldn't be forgotten, but it's the past. You have a very cynical point of view, if you believe that nobody can learn from past mistakes.
How much people were executed by the djihadists? Who knows ? There was no journalist or NGO to keep count. When Tombouctou was taken, we found prisoners due for execution the next morning (for crimes such as womanly behaviour). Was it a busy day for the djihadists? Business as usual ? There is no count so far of people killed in the last year, only witness accounts.
As always, doing nothing is the easiest way. It's easy to nitpick from across the Atlantic, but to the malians living under the djihadists wasn't piece of cake.
I'm pretty sure CNN isn't owned by the American government.
I'm pretty sure if I had posted an article from the BBC, you wouldn't be pointing to the evils of British imperialism.
Either way, I doubt that Ceasefire Magazine, the German Council on Foreign Relations, the French National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilization or a Vice-Admiral in the US Navy are mouthpieces for Putin.
I'll admit to being quite cynical.
I can find no mention that "thousands" were executed by Islamic militants in Mali last year. If you can't substantiate that, I am going to have to consider it propaganda.
I'm pretty sure that life for the oppressed Tuaregs wasn't a piece of cake, either, but I don't remember any French military intervention on their behalf.
---
Edit: I will apologize for the "spoonfed a bunch of bourgeois lies," though. It has been a humorous stock phrase of my friends and I for two decades now, but there's obviously no way for you to share in that in-joke. I am sorry,
Wikipedia's page on Russia Today, the heading under Objectivity and Bias:
Stephen F. Cohen, who I think is the same guy that wrote a decent book on Nikolai Bukharin years ago, on RT:
Russian studies professor Stephen F. Cohen stated in 2012 that RT does a lot of stories that “reflect badly” on the United States and that they are “particularly aggrieved by American sermonizing abroad.” Thus RT compares stories about Russia allowing mass protests of the 2011–2012 Russian election protests with those of U.S. authorities nationwide arresting members of the occupy movement. Cohen states that despite the pro-Kremlin slant, “any intelligent viewer can sort this out. I doubt that many idiots find their way to RT.”
Emphasis added. I like to consider myself an intelligent viewer.
I'm pretty sure CNN isn't owned by the American government.
I'm pretty sure if I had posted an article from the BBC, you wouldn't be pointing to the evils of British imperialism.
I'm afraid you misunderstood me, or rather, I failed to make myself clearly understood.
I said that RT was the russian CNN because it's an 24/24 information network, that's all. THEN I said it was also a governement controlled network (more like PBS then, without Sesame Street), which isn't necessarily in itself a bad thing, but Russia isn't big on freedom of the press.
The point I tried to make is that at the moment Russian-european diplomatic relations are at a low point, because of our disagreement about Syria. Criticism of the malian intervention is part of the play.
Remember Depardieu, the french actor ? Two weeks ago, Poutine made a big show of giving him a russian passport to help him evade french taxation, just in spite. He was made minister of culture for Moravia.
I can find no mention that "thousands" were executed by Islamic militants in Mali last year. If you can't substantiate that, I am going to have to consider it propaganda.
I'm pretty sure that life for the oppressed Tuaregs wasn't a piece of cake, either, but I don't remember any French military intervention on their behalf.
If you can't substantiate oppression of the tuaregs, I'll consider it propaganda too. :)
Seriously, the malian army was unable to seriously oppress anyone. Part of the problem is that it is so rotten that most soldiers (including two thirds of the elite ones, trained by te USA) simply turned coats and went to the side of their business partners, that is tuaregs and djihadists.
Edit: I will apologize for the "spoonfed a bunch of bourgeois lies," though. It has been a humorous stock phrase of my friends and I for two decades now, but there's obviously no way for you to share in that in-joke. I am sorry, ** spoiler omitted **
No need for that : I wasn't offended. That line exists (and is funny) in french too. International humor of the internationalists.
Of course, you can call me naive because I think my government is trying to do some good in that mess. We will have to wait for years before knowing which one of us is an ass.
Wikipedia's page on Russia Today, the heading under Objectivity and Bias:
Stephen F. Cohen, who I think is the same guy that wrote a decent book on Nikolai Bukharin years ago, on RT:
Russian studies professor Stephen F. Cohen stated in 2012 that RT does a lot of stories that “reflect badly” on the United States and that they are “particularly aggrieved by American sermonizing abroad.” Thus RT compares stories about Russia allowing mass protests of the 2011–2012 Russian election protests with those of U.S. authorities nationwide arresting members of the occupy movement. Cohen states that despite the pro-Kremlin slant, “any intelligent viewer can sort this out. I doubt that many idiots find their way to RT.”
Emphasis added. I like to consider myself an intelligent viewer.
I never said or implied you were an idiot.
We have differing views of a bunch of topics, and you may sometimes be too much of a jaded cynic for my taste, but I'm sure you are well-read, well-informed, and quite willing to at least discuss your beliefs.
I just underscored the link between RT and the Kremlin, which is important in the currently tense diplomatic context.
Friends ?
Ooh! An article for Comrade Dwarf:
Yep the British Fabians aren't what they used to be.
In Australia Labor Priminister Julia Gillard (unmarried, atheist, female) has called an election. It's going to be a very long election campaign - usually we have 6 months of bullshit but it's being pushed out even longer.
I fear that Labor will lose, even though it's not the socialist party I used to know, I much prefer it over the conservative parties (the major Conservative party calls themselves the Liberal party, and the farmers party or National party as they call themselves).
Tony Abbott is the opposition leader (he went to Uni to train to be a Jesuit priest, but liked drinking boxing and womanizing too much so he became a politician).
We have a preferential voting system. My preferences usually go Greens, Social Democrats, socialist alliance, Labor, communists, novelty parties, Liberals Nationals and the far right shitheads at the bottom.
I may have to move labor to the top.....
I just underscored the link between RT and the Kremlin, which is important in the currently tense diplomatic context.
Friends ?
Between you and I, Comrade Le Couard, there can only be Liberte, Fraternite, Amite!
(The relations between the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) and the French Socialist Party of Hollande and DSK are a bit more strained, however, and have been since 1914.)
My point about RT and whatnot isn't so much, hey, look at me, I'm smart!
It's that I have found, along with Prof. Cohen, that given some thought and discernment, they can be quite a useful newsservice...as long as you're not looking for news about, say, Pussy Riot.