Who would have thought thatQuote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Printable View
Who would have thought thatQuote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
The death of a crown prince is surely more than just an excuse. A better way of putting it would be that there was a history of antagonism between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which canned any chance the Serbians may have had to defuse the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Agreed. Killing the heir to the Austrian throne is a casus belli in and of itself. If you factor in the animosities, then any chance for peace is truly lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
They knew it would happen, they had a free pass at the border. They knew they were Black HandQuote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Yes, and the Black Hand was definitely not sanctioned by the Serbian government. However Austro-Hungary made several demands (which I don't know in detail) to Serbia in order to root out all Black Hand members involved, and they refused most of them.
Some of those demands couldn't be expected to be met. But still, Europe was going to war anyway, either in 1914 or some years later.
Austria-hungary was actually put on a leash by Germany for two weeksQuote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
An interesting take on the outrage-a-thon currently sweeping the Arab world:
As the latest wave of indignation sweeps across the Muslim world, we should not be despondent. Yes, this is a setback for the Arab Spring. Yes, it is bloody, dangerous, and chaotic on the streets. Yes, innocent people are dying and their governments are powerless. But this too shall pass.
Utopian ideologies have a short lifespan. Some are bloodier than others. As long as Islamists were able to market their philosophy as the only alternative to dictatorship and foreign meddling, they were attractive to an oppressed polity. But with their election to office they will be subjected to the test of government. It is clear, as we saw in Iran in 2009 and elsewhere, that if the philosophy of the Islamists is fully and forcefully implemented, those who elected them will end up disillusioned. The governments will begin to fail as soon as they set about implementing their philosophy: strip women of their rights; murder homosexuals; constrain the freedoms of conscience and religion of non-Muslims; hunt down dissidents; persecute religious minorities; pick fights with foreign powers, even powers, such as the U.S., that offered them friendship. The Islamists will curtail the freedoms of those who elected them and fail to improve their economic conditions. [...]
In one or two or three decades we will see the masses in these countries take to the streets—and perhaps call for American help—to liberate them from the governments they elected. This process will be faster in some places than others, but in all of them it will be bloody and painful. If we take the long view, America and other Western countries can help make this happen in the same way we helped bring about the demise of the former Soviet Union.
Austro-Hungary wasn't on anybody's leash in 1914. But they decided to wait until they could get explicit ensurance from Germany that they'd have backup. John Keegan's assesment was that immediately after the murder the world and its governments were shocked, and that if Austro-Hungary went after Serbia immediately even the Russians would have understood and not intervened. Because they took so bloody long however the Russians regained their composure, and the rest is history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Are we talking about Syria? Don't think I've said much about Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Let’s not re-fight the first world war. It is sufficient to say that Terrorists were and excuse then and Terrorists are the current cause du Jour for most anything it does or wants to do.
Labeling a particular militia terrorists after the fact is convenient. Why not take necessary precautions beforehand?
And too, Obama’s praise for rioters dropping the body at the hospital after killing him, and in light of who they were with regard to the hospital does not inspire great confidence in the man.
I just wasted five entire minutes trying to Google up a transcript that reflects/substantiates this claim, and came up empty. Could you please provide a link when you assert the President said something? I think this is a reasonable request for two reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
- The Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly in this crisis that they will criticize the President for things he never said or did.
- It would save time and substantiate the accusation.
To be truthful, I did not read that account. A friend of a friend put it up on fb so it could easily be a misquote or even a fabrication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
My wrong assumption that it was so.
The people who brought his body to the hospital were rioters?
The Libyans say the body was left at the hospital. In view that that militia guards the hospital you can see why and how.
Now I have to go to fb and see that link that was put up…
Clinton said some stuff. Shortly after 1:05. "Libyans carried Chris' body to the hospital."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It could have been that Hillary said it. It may have been that it was just attributed to the Obama Administration.
At any rate it has fallen of my radar, due to kitsch cards, new photos, and football fans.
I will be more careful in the future. I do my very best not to blame Democrats for the things Hillary says.
I found articles saying it was Libyans who tried to defend the Americans and another saying it was looters who later found the body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Obama and Clinton praised them and said they had tried to defend the consulate. Whether that is true or not, they certainly did not call them rioters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I'll take both of these together, just because all I can say is that they are both fair points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
This, however, is more of the complacency evidenced by Frags and PJ, among others. The key assumption is that this strife is necessary and that it is all part of the "growing pains" the Arab world has to go through. This is based on several fallacious assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
1. A succession of Civil wars are necessary for a nation to mature and "grow out of" violence.
2. The people in the Arab world are generally immature.
3. The situation in the Arab world is a natural state of affairs, and it just needs to progress to the next level.
4. This particular current cycle of strife is necessary, and if we just let it go on then it will eventually wear itself out.
This is all WRONG WRONG WRONG.
1. Much of the Arab world has been a pawn in someone else's game for the last couple of centuries, this isn't Europe where nation-states formed when people broke away or banded together, this is a completely different world.
2. The people in the Arab world are generally quite politically mature, most aren't raving loons and the ones in the cities are generally quite well educated to boot. The tribal peoples are the result of a lack of Urbanisation, which itself results from the poor state of the economy, which is down to bad management in a lot of cases.
3. There's nothing "natural" about the Arab dictators, all of them from Iran to Libya were propped up by the West until they were bedded in. There has been a policy for at least five decades of Western Powers overthrowing monarchies and democracies in favour of "friends" - the worst example is Iran, where a Constitutional Monarchy with a democratic government was overthrown by the West and the Shah was made an autocrat - Iran is our fault.
4. The idea that, having overthrown one dictator, the various Arab peoples will install another one is only surpassed in stupidity by the belief that they'll overthrow the next dictator "in a few decades". If we ever thought this was true the USSR and more recently Iran should disabuse us of the notion. If another dictator takes control of Libya it will be with outside help, and there is no telling how long he will stay. More to the point, we cannot simply shrug our shoulders and say the Arabs need to solve their own problems when many of those problems are of our making.
So, what to do?
For one thing, learn from Afghanistan. There the US backed a minor Warlord who was seen as "friendly" to the US over the Afghan King, the only man who might have been able to build a consensus. The mistake here was for the US to think it knew best who should be in charge, and that it could create an administration that was friendly by default.
The US has a poor history in how it treats its allies, the abysmal situation in the Falklands is a good example of the US trying to woo naturally hostile governments with dubious records rather than protecting vulnerable communities under the care of its long-term partners.
With Arab world the US, and the US is the only country that matters really, needs to realise that supporting dictators hasn't worked and is never going to. It burns up political capital in the region and generates ill feeling, to the extent that the US as a nation is blamed for any perceived insult visited upon Arabs by Americans. Basically, the Arabs think the Americans don't respect them as a people - they're right.
Despite this, the US has generated positive feeling in Libya, as demonstrated by the vote of sympathy for the Ambassador in the wake of his killing; Drone strikes would destroy that good feeling which exists at ground-level. The US government should capitalise of the good feeling it has in the country by helping Libya and the other newly-democratic Arab countries, and continuing to help them so long as they main democratic. Instead of waiting for democracy to break out in the Middle East like a rash we should support the democrats and the democratic governments. The freer a country is, the better its judiciary and the more transparent a government it has the more help it should get.
It's simple really, make it in the interests of the Libyan politicians to help the Libyan people, if they don't you can withdraw support, offer asylum to the political dissidents who do want something better for their fellow countryman. During the Cold War there was Polish Government in Exile in London, and it remained there until the exiles could return to a free Poland.
I've said it before - you can't kill an idea - but you can help it to take root and flourish.
Lol he is crearly alive at first, and he's obviously dead later, look at the pics hQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR
No, the government would not have called those who returned the body rioters, nor would they have said looters.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Nothing that I have seen from government sources have said that he was captured alive, killed, and paraded through the streets either but that is obviously what happened. It was perpetrated, at least in part by a militia group that boasted of their ability to do this very thing, beforehand. They also do not see Islam as compatible with democracy, that is fine.
Put out the truth in full measure. Not part of it or a little now and a little later. Deal with the truth above board. Let politicians tell us the worst and why their course of action was taken.
If they are hiding this and we know it, what else could be covered up? When do we know what is true and what isn’t? Are we only to get the truth through political filters or what they wish us to know?
Completely and utterly agreed on this. It is so simple an idea which it seems to escape many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I can't say if he was alive or not. I don't see any parading in the photos but I see chaos though. We know nothing of the surroundings and the situation beyond the limited details from the photo. You don't even know if this is the group who brought him to the hospital.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If he was alive at first and then dead in the later photo then what? I guess it must mean they killed him! It's obvious!!
Libyia... Sounds like Australia http://www.news.com.au/national/prob...-1226475238920
You know what I don’t get?
This Libyan TV footage taken off of Youtube!
It is not that they are just denying US viewer access. It is world wide!
In other words we have US government telling the world at large what they can and cannot see, and yet there has been not a whimper of protest by any Europeans or others around the world?
Would it be less ignorable if you had fewer political sympathies with the current administration or with it be okay if George Bush had done it too?
Or do you just assume that the media would not cooperate with a Republican, and that makes it okay?
I am not having trouble it's all still on youtubeQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Oh a video?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes found one. Finding him and carrying him through a window. I don't know what they are saying beyond the allahu akbar bit, but I guess that must mean something bad is about to happen right?
Is that the same group that took the photos? And same group who took him to the hospital?
http://tribune.com.pk/story/437772/u...ose-consulate/
They get over $2B from us, and they are making demands? We should just pull our cash and our embassy now, why bother with these people?
Favorite quote from the article:
As if we're going to change our Constitution for you :daisy: heads.Quote:
“If the US claims to be a civilised nation, why does it stoop to insult other religions and civilisations?”
It's a true shame that what Youtube does is seen as relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
It isn't thard, he was alive and suddenly he's dead. I sespect murderQuote:
Originally Posted by CBR