Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Revolutions throughout the Middle East!!!
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Self Conscious



Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
redball wrote:
Your idea of how countries are run is laughable.


Ditto.


i think he was talking about you
Post Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Post Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

Maybe this is just media bias, but everything I've seen on the rebels suggests they're unorganized and strategically ignorant....Suppose they do win the war, how are they going to create an effective government?
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5453
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

They're very disorganized. Due to the nature of Gaddafi's regime there is very little in the way of civic institutions in Libya. Even the army is disorganized and weak (except for certain brigades, such as the one lead by Gaddafi's son Khamis.) I don't see any way for the rebels to win a conventional war. The army units that defected to the rebels contain about 1000 soldiers if I'm remembering right. Gaddafi has about 10,000 which are better trained and better armed. The rebels also have about 8000 or so volunteers but these guys are completely unexperienced. They have RPGs, AKs, and technicals, but their strategy has basically been to rush to the front, fire ineffectively towards the enemy line, and then rush back before the mortars and artillery find them. It's pointless. The rebel commanders try to keep them from rushing to the front but they go anyway. In an urban setting they might be able to have some success against Gaddafi's forces but in the desert combat we've been seeing they're nothing buy a liability. , The only thing keeping the rebels alive is NATO airstrikes.

The political organization is a little bit harder to determine. There are no major sectarian divides, which makes things a lot easier. I think they could form an effective government but it'll really impossible to say at the moment. Everyone is forced to get along as long as Gaddafi's forces remain a threat. As soon as the survival of the rebels is relatively secure, I'm sure we'll see divisions grow between the Shabab, ex-regime officials, Islamists, etc. Hopefully we'll get to see how this plays out.
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:50 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6278
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

I'm kind of interested in fireflys opinion of the Ivory Coast situation. The entire world wants gbagbo out of power. He is holding up a publicly elected official from entering office. Do you still side with him just to be contrary? Do you spend hours looking for that one article written by disgruntled russian doctors that lends any narrow thread to your argument?
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:32 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5453
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

gbagbo tried nationalize cocoa and a few other industries and ouatara used to work for the IMF, so i imagine there's plenty of people up in arms about how the story is unfolding.
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:02 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6278
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
gbagbo tried nationalize cocoa and a few other industries and ouatara used to work for the IMF, so i imagine there's plenty of people up in arms about how the story is unfolding.


Oh sure, there's also the possibility of UN/US/Illuminati stooge being put in place, etc. which actually might not be so far off from the truth, I digress...

I guess I just don't understand the mindset that every single televised event in the world is a manifestation of a malicious overarching global media/governing corporation that has infiltrated every blog, website, newspaper, magazine, history book, and any other kind of non-fiction media to corroborate and collaborate to produce a single, unified web of lies to portray each event differently than the truth. That truth being that every person involved in that government is only interested in a) money or b) power. Yet, this huge, multi-lingual, multi-national, multi-continental organization manages to leak nothing, ever.

I guess I get it. I do like Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's a fun story. Sure, the idea that we can blame most of our problems on some anonymous, shape-shifting, all rich and powerful group is almost comforting in a way. It's also convenient. At the end of the day though, there are superlatives to any idea (and this one specifically), and both ends of the spectrum are the least likely. Especially with the invention of the internet. At minimum, people can live-blog from anywhere, anytime. It also takes a lot of the human aspect out of the decisions people make. Like there's no one left in any position of power that could do both good AND bad things, or do things that he or she would consider "right" or "wrong". Like, Obama and "the America" can only act in the name of destroying nations and strengthening our tie$ to the UN (also by extension, the whole population of the US except the rare few that visit indie rapper message boards, again I digress...). On the other side, Gaddafi/Gbagbo/Mubarak are only capable of good and are bastions of good humanity in a cruel world. Obviously, I'm exaggerating. What's reality is something in the middle.

I guess taking pessimism to an extreme produces extreme expectations? I couldn't live like that though.

edit: bad grammar


Last edited by jakethesnake on Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:

I guess I get it. I do like Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's a fun story. Sure, the idea that we can blame most of our problems on some anonymous, shape-shifting, all rich and powerful group is almost comforting in a way. It's also convenient.


That's not what 1984 is about at all. 1984 was just Hitler and Stalin taken to another level. By setting it in England, Orwell was trying to say that such things could just as easily happen in the supposedly more advanced and enlightened country. There's no shadow government in 1984: Big Brother is the government. And Big Brother would not be able to maintain power if it wasn't for the ignorance of the proles and the conformity of the outer party members. What you're talking about is more like The Matrix or The X-Files.
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:11 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Raoul DeGroot



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 2438
Location: Son Quest
 Reply with quote  

Naw, Animal Farm was kind of Orwell's direct USSR metaphor.

1984 was something a lil different.
And though he may've started out with the Rooskies in mind, 1984 was saying something a bit more complex about the nature of power and 'manufactured consent' -for lack of a better term.

He begins to hint at the self perpetuating nature of power -as distinct from the powerful.
Different from a shadow government the way conspiracy dummies always want to think of it, but still another deeper and systemic structure of control that begins to take shape in a way that's almost beyond the particular intentions of any individual, or groups of individuals, that happen to hold the reigns at the moment.


I think anyway...
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
See Arrrgh



Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 251
Location: New England
 Reply with quote  

Alan Hague wrote:
It's also important to note that, by law, only Congress can grant the U.S. the power to go to war - and the Obama administration completely sidestepped that little bit of legal procedure.

They definitely don't take everyone's opinion into consideration.


It's also important to note that Congress, via the War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution), has set limitations to what the President is allowed to do with the military in these types of conflicts. The constitutionality of this resolution is up for debate (and I don't really care to get involved in debating it), but it basically grants the president the power to legally do what he is doing.

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."

I'd also like to add that according to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." I think this goes along with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in defining what is and isn't within the powers of the President of the United States in regards to military action.
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Self Conscious



Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:



that was funny and appropriate, i realized you understood but didn't bother to come back and change my post
Post Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:22 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

I don't know where to start in response to this post. I guess I'll start from the top ....

jakethesnake wrote:
I guess I just don't understand the mindset that every single televised event in the world is a manifestation of a malicious overarching global media/governing corporation that has infiltrated every blog, website, newspaper, magazine, history book, and any other kind of non-fiction media to corroborate and collaborate to produce a single, unified web of lies to portray each event differently than the truth. That truth being that every person involved in that government is only interested in a) money or b) power. Yet, this huge, multi-lingual, multi-national, multi-continental organization manages to leak nothing, ever.


Of course not everything is a huge lie perpetrated by some secret Illuminati sorceror, nobody ever says that. You and others say shit like this to discredit people who are open to conspiracy, either because of misunderstanding or as a form of condescending exageration. The fact that all major media is ulimately owned by 5 huge corporations obviously means nothing to you. Examples of video manipulation in Iraq and Venezuela mean nothing as well. When I took public relations in University my teacher told us of her conspiracy theory involving Tylenol faking the deaths of 11 people (in the early 80's, huge scandal that eventually had Tylenol with the first secured seal) whom they never procured certificates. You have politicians flat out making shit up ALL THE TIME (if you saw the Daily Show last night you would have saw the guy who just made up a stat about abortion, then when being called on it saying that the statement wasn't meant to be factual). Yet you still feel compelled to take their word for it. This I have a difficulty understanding.


Quote:

I guess I get it. I do like Nineteen Eighty-Four. It's a fun story. Sure, the idea that we can blame most of our problems on some anonymous, shape-shifting, all rich and powerful group is almost comforting in a way.


That's comforting to you? More comforting then the belief that our government reps actually have our best interests at heart? Hang out with a real conspiracy theorists and tell me they look comfortable.


Quote:

Like there's no one left in any position of power that could do both good AND bad things, or do things that he or she would consider "right" or "wrong". Like, Obama and "the America" can only act in the name of destroying nations and strengthening our tie$ to the UN


I'm friends with a lot of politicians and activists from the Municipal to the Federal level so I know that there are some good people in politics. Some however, despite their kind intentions become corrupted and often sidetracked by the whole "game" aspect of politics. I know a lot of activists who are into politics as a way to climb the social latter, born actors who are at all the rallies, phone stations, putting up posters, etc but then cheat on their girlfriends, lie and do other selfish shit to better their social standing. My point is, politics actracts both kind ambitious people and self serving ambitious people. To get to the level of president of the USA ... fuck, it's ALMOST a definite that they have been corrupted by that point. Is it really that "crazy" to not trust someone who is rich/connected enough to be president of the US? I don't think so.


Quote:

On the other side, Gaddafi/Gbagbo/Mubarak are only capable of good and are bastions of good humanity in a cruel world. Obviously, I'm exaggerating. What's reality is something in the middle.


Ummm, no, you're making more condescending exagerations again. It's not "somewhere in the middle". You made an assumption that I must be a supporter of Gbagbo and Mubarak because I was questioning the news surrounding Gaddafi. I never once said that I support him even, I'm just very skeptical about the news regarding this situation for reasons that I have already stated.


Quote:

I guess taking pessimism to an extreme produces extreme expectations? I couldn't live like that though


You couldn't be further from the truth, I'm actually very much an optimist (I wouldn't be an activist if I were an "extreme pessimist"). Just because I don't close my mind to the posibility of certain dark scenarios doesn't make me a pessimist.
Post Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:44 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Raoul DeGroot wrote:
Naw, Animal Farm was kind of Orwell's direct USSR metaphor.


Has anyone ever read "anthem" by Ayn Rand. Really good book.

"The secrets of this earth are not for all men to see, but only for those who seek them."
Post Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Self Conscious



Joined: 01 Apr 2009
Posts: 322
Location: Sleeping in a box car dreaming of lost starts
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
Raoul DeGroot wrote:
Naw, Animal Farm was kind of Orwell's direct USSR metaphor.


Has anyone ever read "anthem" by Ayn Rand. Really good book.

"The secrets of this earth are not for all men to see, but only for those who seek them."


i tried reading atlus but her writing in my opinion was so boring
Post Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5453
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

firefly wrote:
The fact that all major media is ulimately owned by 5 huge corporations obviously means nothing to you.


media outlet - owner
-------------------------------
BBC - UK govt.
CSM - christian science publications society
almasry alyoum - self owned
the guardian - scott trust
new york times - new york times company
washington post - washington post company
reuters - thompson reuters
foreign affairs - council on foreign affairs
new yorker - conde nast publications
al ahram - egyptian govt
al jazeera qatari govt
the economist - the economist group

you'd be lot less obnoxious if you toned down the smug condescension when relating your made up facts.
Post Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:35 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:07 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon