Cosmopolitan Dystopia: Why Empire Needs 'Human Rights'.

[jonnysensible]

So, in this formula is say someone like a Joe Rogan a Neo-Fash? I am curious.

havent suffered enough of him to categorize, wishy washy libertarian with reactionary views who platforms outright fascists?

hes a fellow traveler. If i think about something like this , rogan goes nazi.

i mean he bigged up Stefan Molyneux and gavin mccinnes (and alex jones) who are in the obsessive watch history of the christ church shooter. the rogan to fash pipeline isnt an ironic meme he introduces his large audience to some pretty bad hombres.

[Theodarzna]

havent suffered enough of him to categorize, wishy washy libertarian with reactionary views who platforms outright fascists?

hes a fellow traveler. If i think about something like this , rogan goes nazi.

i mean he bigged up Stefan Molyneux and gavin mccinnes (and alex jones) who are in the obsessive watch history of the christ church shooter. the rogan to fash pipeline isnt an ironic meme he introduces his large audience to some pretty bad hombres.

I dare say by your rubric most people are Neo-Fash, as most people pretty much fit the model of socially more conservative and economically more Leftist.

If your simple definition of Neo-Fash is, "They want Universal Health Care and don't believe in Open Borders", well shit, that is the vast majority of any given country.

[XDurionX]

Yeah, but it's almost as though people cloaking interventionism in the language of 'human rights' doesn't actually make human rights a bad thing.

QFT /thread.

[jonnysensible]

I dare say by your rubric most people are Neo-Fash, as most people pretty much fit the model of socially more conservative and economically more Leftist.

If your simple definition of Neo-Fash is, "They want Universal Health Care and don't believe in Open Borders", well shit, that is the vast majority of any given country.

strawman thx

[Theodarzna]

strawman thx

Pot meet kettle, I mean we are ascribing people all sorts of views here. In fact in every interaction we have that is your go to, even when we are not talking to one another you are very happy to ascribe all sorts of views to myself and others. But do go off King.

[Mihalik]

In my personal experience, as a refugee to US, from USSR in 1990... The idea of left reeling is a joke...

Western left wing support for the USSR broke down much much earlier.

Specifically in 1956 when the Soviets invaded Hungary.

Camus and Sartre both railed against the USSR (tho Sartre's critique probably did more towards pushing Western communists/socialists to fully reject the Soviet model as a failed experiment).

It broke the Italian Communist party at a moment when it actually had a chance to enter government. Killed what was left of the British communists, and Sartre basically torched the relationship between French communists and Moscow.

After that the western Left wing consensus was that the Soviet model was a practical and moral failure. The Warsaw pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 68 and the publication of the Gulag Archipelago were the final nails in the coffin of the relationship between western left wing movements and the USSR.

(The whole OP is just nonsense.)

[Deja Thoris]

Just knew the poster when I saw the title.

[Shalcker]

Dudayev died during the first war. As I said, should not have killed moderates. Even better, should have let them go in the first place, but Russia lacks land as we all know it

They essentially were until end of 1994.

"Reasonable moderates" who:
During the undeclared Chechen civil war, factions both sympathetic and opposed to Dudayev fought for power, sometimes in pitched battles with the use of heavy weapons. In March 1992, the opposition attempted a coup d'état, but their attempt was crushed by force. A month later, Dudayev introduced direct presidential rule, and in June 1993, dissolved the Chechen parliament to avoid a referendum on a vote of non-confidence.
Yeah, right.

Just a reminder - Dudayev was the guy who sent field kitchens to protesters in Tallin instead of using his troops to supress the independence movements as he was ordered to.

Ah, so that's why you paint him as a saint.

What, afraid to write dictator without ""? Not surprising all things considered. Also it is quite foolish to believe in the theory of lesser evil, but you do you. Kadirov loves your taxes

As utilitarian obviously i'm all about lesser evil when you cannot avoid evil at all.

Do you weight actions by results or by rhetoric?

[Howel]

Basically forever. Got it.

Yes. How long were troops stationed in Germany and Japan after the second world war?

[Mihalik]

Yes. How long were troops stationed in Germany and Japan after the second world war?

There are significant differences between Afghanistan and Germany/Japan.

US forces in Germany and Japan acted primarily as a security guarantee against third party external threats, without the need to actively involve themselves in domestic peacekeeping or combat operations.

Law enforcement and civil administration never disintegrated in either of those countries, not before or after occupation. Neither of those examples did really spiral into a failed state status.

On the other hand Afghanistan is a failed state. It was a failed state before the occupation and remains a failed state now. The country is essentially a patchwork of tribes ruled by warlords who are held together in a loose ideological coalition under the flag of the Taliban. The three things that unite them is 1) armed resistance against foreign troops 2) rejecting the authority of the Kabul government that they accurately perceive as a puppet government 3) the desire to keep the profits from the opium trade/human trafficking/and protection racket running.

The Afghan National Government basically lacks any presence in most of the country. The Afghan National Police is a joke, and the Afghan national military is utterly useless operationally and strategically.

The 4500 US troops are just the backbone of a roughly 12000 troop NATO presence in the country which collectively prop up the otherwise utterly useless Afghan military/police. The territories the Afghan government has held onto so far are the areas adjacent to the 5 major NATO bases in the country, anything outside the immediate patrol range of NATO forces is basically Taliban country, which is most of the country.

The continued long term presence of allied forces in Afghanistan is unlikely to meaningfully change the map. No amount of further investment in wealth and human lives is likely to create a functional and capable national military/police/government when the country as a whole lacks a sense of national identity and rejects the social model the occupation forces are offering.

An immediate withdrawal on a whim is likely to make the situation exponentially worse, turning the country into a bloodbath and mess that would make Somalia look like a walk in the park. The solution, the only solution, no matter how unpalatable is buying the Taliban out somehow. This would inevitably lead to the return of the Caliphate, make drug running/human trafficking/kidnappings etc worse, but the damage could possibly be contained to the country itself.

[Felya]

Yes. How long were troops stationed in Germany and Japan after the second world war?

Better question... Why was the Taliban pissed at US, after being funded and supported by US troops in defense against USSR, once USSR fell? What happened between Iraq being the top foreign recipient of US funds in the 80s, to Kuwait in the 90s?

The reason we stayed in Afghanistan and Iraq, is because of what happened when we left Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just to get this out there... there was history before 1990..

- - - Updated - - -

Do you weight actions by results or by rhetoric?

Did he have WMDs? Was this to stave off the humanitarian crisis in Chechnya?

[Mihalik]

Better question... Why was the Taliban pissed at US, after being funded and supported by US troops in defense against USSR, once USSR fell? What happened between Iraq being the top foreign recipient of US funds in the 80s, to Kuwait in the 90s?

The Sunni's problems with the US are largely rooted in the US intervention in Lebanon and the US support of Israel.

The Taliban were never overtly hostile to the US tho. To this day there's no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11.

The reason why they refused to hand Bin Laden over to the US was two fold.

1. They could not be perceived to bend to the demands of Christian/Western power by handing over an Islamic cleric/"freedom fighter". Especially after the US made the demand publicly.

2. While they did get US assistance during the Afghan-Soviet War, their main ally was Saudi Arabia, and they were financially and religiously dependent on the Saudis. While technically the Saudi government itself declared Bin Laden a persona non grata, in reality the various Saudi princes and clerics continued supporting Bin Laden, as they continue supporting other terror groups today.

The Taliban are very mercenary, and that's always been true about them, it's just that incidentally the Saudis are much better at exploiting the Taliban than the US is.

[Shalcker]

Was this to stave off the humanitarian crisis in Chechnya?

Yes unironically.

How else do you suppose to control tribal country if not leaning on one of clans to weight in internal disputes in favor of controlling power?
They were rooting out wahhabits for decades after war was over.

[Elegiac]

And here I was thinking that ethnonationalost dog whistles are supposed to be subtle.

[Easo]

They essentially were until end of 1994.

"Reasonable moderates" who:
During the undeclared Chechen civil war, factions both sympathetic and opposed to Dudayev fought for power, sometimes in pitched battles with the use of heavy weapons. In March 1992, the opposition attempted a coup d'état, but their attempt was crushed by force. A month later, Dudayev introduced direct presidential rule, and in June 1993, dissolved the Chechen parliament to avoid a referendum on a vote of non-confidence.
Yeah, right.

Ah, so that's why you paint him as a saint.

As utilitarian obviously i'm all about lesser evil when you cannot avoid evil at all.

Do you weight actions by results or by rhetoric?

Abotu the same time something very similar hapened in Moscow. Did you forget about it? You know, the famous pictures of tanks shooting at House of Soviets?

Compared to Russian military who killed us, yeah, he is a saint for us. Should be obvious, but then again it is you.

And then the lesser evil can be stretched very far... very far.

[Logwyn]

Are you asking all the people murdered by Russia? Are you sure that’s what they say?

Also, what year is this from?

You do not know much about Libya under Gaddafi, do you? The man started a war or conflict with every one of his neighbors at some point in time. Good thing it was Libya and not a country with a large population, military, and means to wage a major conflict.

[Machismo]

I dare say by your rubric most people are Neo-Fash, as most people pretty much fit the model of socially more conservative and economically more Leftist.

If your simple definition of Neo-Fash is, "They want Universal Health Care and don't believe in Open Borders", well shit, that is the vast majority of any given country.

Well, look at Theo defending white supremacists.

I did Nazi that one coming.

[Felya]

Yes unironically.

No shit... Russia invaded Ukraine to save the Russian speakers... no... shit..........

- - - Updated - - -

You do not know much about Libya under Gaddafi, do you? The man started a war or conflict with every one of his neighbors at some point in time. Good thing it was Libya and not a country with a large population, military, and means to wage a major conflict.

In what way? By showing pop culture references to it from 1985? By showing that it wasn’t some secret that no one knew about, but was part of pop culture in 1985? It kind of goes along with my following posts, questioning if history started in 1990...

Edit: You guys do know why I link pop culture references to events, instead of Wikipedia? The odds that you read or will read the wiki, are far smaller than the chance you will remember the events, when referenced through pop culture that you did consume and have a reference point to remember.

It’s like... when you lose your keys, you go to the last spot you remember having them... This is the same tact...

- - - Updated - - -

I dare say by your rubric most people are Neo-Fash, as most people pretty much fit the model of socially more conservative and economically more Leftist.

This is a straight up lie:

Americans Remain More Liberal Socially Than Economically
https://news.gallup.com/poll/311303/...nomically.aspx

39% identify as economically conservative, 38% moderate, 21% liberal
35% say they are socially conservative, 36% moderate, 29% liberal
Majorities of Republicans remain economically and socially conservative

Your conservative news sources are warping your perception of reality.

Edit: Think about what being socially conservative, but fiscally liberal means. You mean like huge tax cut and subsidies to the rich, while healthcare and social programs get cut? Because, that’s what it means... People support M4A, as a social issue... the problem has always been the liberal spending.

That comment is a joke on 30 rock:



- - - Updated - - -

If your simple definition of Neo-Fash is, "They want Universal Health Care and don't believe in Open Borders", well shit, that is the vast majority of any given country.

No, it’s believing that their opponent wants open borders, that is key to the fascist pipe line... Most Americans don’t buy it... most voters didn’t even buy it... just Trump and Tim Pool supporters...

[Shalcker]

No shit... Russia invaded Ukraine to save the Russian speakers.

Given trajectory Ukraine taken after Maidan, intervention was absolutely warranted. And still is.

Current Ukrainian government heavily relies on far-right organizations to serve as their enforcers.

[Felya]

Given trajectory Ukraine taken after Maidan, intervention was absolutely warranted. And still is.

Current Ukrainian government heavily relies on far-right organizations to serve as their enforcers.

I’m sorry... what? From your own link:

This coalition won a combined 2.15% of the nationwide electoral list vote, but ultimately failed to win any seat in the Verkhovna Rada.

As you said... saving Russian speakers in Ukraine, is the same lie as Bush’s WMDs. That’s my point... something you agreed with just a post ago...