General politics discussion thread

[patiirc]

We're happy with psychotic dictators until they reach a point where we can't credibly support them any longer, or when they start acting against our interests. Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are still working for the west, and their crimes can be quietly swept under the carpet. Gaddafi's gone rogue and that puts the oil at risk.

 

The idea that "most of the country aren't faffed" is ludicrous. An uprising like this doesn't come about from widespread apathy.

 

 

Most of the country arent faffed. I cant remember whether it was RT or Al Jazeera I was watch who empiricallly confirmed that the freedom fighters and those fighting Gaddafi are a ridiculously small in the grandscale of things. A few thousand out of 6 million plus is hardly the entire country and all news outlets have shown enough pro Gaddafi protests away from their guides to show that it isnt all about the 'wind of change' for many civillians. They simply dont care or arent bothered. It does seem to be a power struggle of the few for the many. Or would see hundreds of thousands joining in the fighting as they fight for change and not just pockets of thousands.. heck at the height of the Benghazi protests there were only a couple of thousand people protesting out of a city of more than 500,000. Benghazi is the 'Barcelona' of Libya in terms of culture, intelligensia and sport and so on so its not amazing that things started there. It appears to be nothing more than another western style regime change because they can and has been brewing since the NCLO was formed in London in 2005 and all the crap with the Lockerbie Bomber. The west have been itching to get in there and I wouldnt be shocked to see a ground invasion to make sure Gaddafi is removed if, the bombing and the rebels cant do it, when they have had the army smashed for them, making any resistance light supposedly.

 

Make no bones, Im not defending Gaddafi. I just cannot see the point of why this why now? especially when the other countries are left to do their own thing. Saudi's empirical ambition in the oil states or the Bahrainian persecution of their own citizens ( the whole GP thing reminded me of Venus Wars) is fine, but Gaddafi trying to crush a rebellion is some how inhumane and unjust because he is a tyrant? The double standards on show by 'The West' are frankly shocking and thats why I dont get why Libya over other states ( I could guess because Libya has the biggest Oil Reserves in Africa and Bahrain is rapidly running dry, both are effectively economic powerhouses in their own areas of a sort. I guess we have had our soujourn's into the Persian Gulf and The Middle East, lets go back to Africa cos we havent fucked that up/ Fucked around with it for years?)

 

 

Yemen is the supposed home of Al-Quaeda as has been touted many times and is an enemy of the west. So why not help them rebel? No more boats sunk in harbour, no more ink jet plots and so forth and so on ( very simplistically)

[Loki]

Rebellions are rarely mass movements, they usually involve an educated middle class who aspire to more personal freedom, or power in the case of the Bolshevik revolution.

 

Libya is a tribal country that is massively split east to west, with the majority of Gaddafi's support centred around his tribe in the west and Tripoli, also in the west. I don't think it's right to say "most of the country aren't faffed" as there's been fighting everywhere.

[Carbomb]

Rebellions and revolutions aren't just measured by the number of people involved in militant action; that's a very shallow and simplistic way to look at it. Certainly, an educated middle-class (or sometimes an educated working class) demagogue is usually the catalyst, but if a non-military-based movement has no support amongst the ordinary people, it's doomed to fail. The average person is not likely to be a "soldier" or "partisan" as is usually portrayed, mainly because they're for the most part scared - they've got families to protect. The reason why revolutions are successful is because the militant members are supported through various means by the average person(s) on their side: hiding activists from regime troops, providing supplies and information, misdirecting regime forces, etc.

[Glen Quagmire]

We're happy with psychotic dictators until they reach a point where we can't credibly support them any longer, or when they start acting against our interests. Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are still working for the west, and their crimes can be quietly swept under the carpet. Gaddafi's gone rogue and that puts the oil at risk.

 

The idea that "most of the country aren't faffed" is ludicrous. An uprising like this doesn't come about from widespread apathy.

 

 

Most of the country arent faffed. I cant remember whether it was RT or Al Jazeera I was watch who empiricallly confirmed that the freedom fighters and those fighting Gaddafi are a ridiculously small in the grandscale of things. A few thousand out of 6 million plus is hardly the entire country and all news outlets have shown enough pro Gaddafi protests away from their guides to show that it isnt all about the 'wind of change' for many civillians. <snip>

It was RT, I seen a report themselves on it. However, the question is should I trust the general Western Media spin, or Russia Today's spin?

[David]

A rather decent article by Seamus Milne of the Guardian;

 

It's as if it's a habit they can't kick. Once again US, British and other Nato forces are bombarding an Arab country with cruise missiles and bunker-busting bombs. Both David Cameron and Barack Obama insist this is nothing like Iraq. There will be no occupation. The attack is solely to protect civilians.

 

But eight years after they launched their shock-and-awe devastation of Baghdad and less than a decade since they invaded Afghanistan, the same western forces are in action against yet another Muslim state, incinerating soldiers and tanks on the ground and killing civilians in the process.

 

Supported by a string of other Nato states, almost all of which have taken part in the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, the US, Britain and France are clinging to an Arab fig leaf, in the shape of a Qatari airforce that has yet to arrive, to give some regional credibility to their intervention in Libya.

 

As in Iraq and Afghanistan, they insist humanitarian motives are crucial. And as in both previous interventions, the media are baying for the blood of a pantomime villain leader, while regime change is quickly starting to displace the stated mission. Only a western solipsism that regards it as normal to be routinely invading other people's countries in the name of human rights protects Nato governments from serious challenge.

 

But the campaign is already coming apart. At home, public opinion is turning against the onslaught: in the US, it's opposed by a margin of two-to-one; in Britain, 43% say they are against the action, compared with 35% in support

[Loki]

We not talking about the budget then?

 

Watched various analysts contradicting each other on Newsnight last night, so still a bit unclear on what Osborne actually did, but the cut to winter fuel allowance is a real kick in the teeth to OAPs. I reckon I'll be mildly better off each month as a result of the various twiddlings, but that'll be pretty much all wiped out by the recent fuel escalations.

[jobberinho]

It's a typical mid term budget: nothing too radical, all the talk is about steadying the ship and stimulating growth, with a couple of stealth-ninja tax introductions (private jet tax or something this time) . The lack of typical 'electoral bribes' shows that for now the coalition are on good terms and an early election isn't on either sides' mind.

[David]

We not talking about the budget then?

The people who we thought were going to get shafted are getting shafted. Business as usual for the 'Tories & the Tory's wee brothers in power.

 

RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said:

 

 

[soretooth]

The Andrew Lansley Rap

 

[David]

Happ & Yoghurt's favourite journalist, Johann Hari, has written the following article on the budget;

 

There was a moment in George Osborne

[Yoghurt]

You really don't know what to make of me do you. I'm glad I get to cost people like you your jobs.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Yoghurt

[David]

I'm glad I get to cost people like you your jobs.

How do you work that one out?

[Adam Young]

This video is approximately six months old so I don't know whether it's been posted before. It's Boy George being quizzed about his approach to the economc crisis, six months later and Gideon's mantra still hasn't changed (and probably never will!).

 

George Osborne and the Tory debt lie - NAILED

[WildSybianRider]

"You really don't know what to make of me do you."

 

 

 

You are either a pretty entertaining troll or a more sophisticated version of Happ Hazzard. After your amazing line about turnover vs. profit yesterday, it seems only slightly more sophisticated. Regardless, your faux-arrogant posturing is indicative of some real insecurities. Not much to make of you, really. There's a few of you in every consultancy-type business in the country, clinging onto the ideals of free marketeering because they think one day they'll be top of the tree, when the sad reality is they'll hit (at best) 50k pa and get their gold watch thirty years down the line. Quite sad, in a way.

Edited March 24, 2011 by WildSybianRider

[JNLister]

Through it all, Nick Clegg sat there like James Caan in the film Misery, awakening from unconsciousness to find his legs are broken and he is held captive by an axe-wielding maniac.[/quote

 

Or as Sickboy put it, "Clegg's expression exactly matches that of a schoolboy watching a bullying incident which was initially "a laugh," but has now gone too far."