you read into that that my position was that the best course of action for the US is to do that which would instigate immoral activity on the part of the Russians. — Hanover

Talk of "reading into"... Perhaps you can quote where I said that of your post?

No, what you're frankly out to do is continuously reiterate your narrative that you have some special understanding of the situation that somehow evades everyone else and so you stomp your feet around like that should make us better believe you. — Hanover

Except I don't have any special insight. My sources are fucking TIME magazine. And basic reporting, say, of the European refugee crisis. None of this is special, not one bit. It only seems special in the face of the vomitus regurgitation of US propaganda talking points regularly and dutifully reproduced by participants in this thread. Your post just happened to be one among a long line of many that has tried to reduce and downplay American culpability by reducing world politics to some morality play for children with some help of metaphysical categories employed only by the most seasoned 18th century romantics.

Do not confuse the inconvenince of what I say with your ability to screen it out of consideration because it does not fit the approved script you run by.

Except I've said about the mistakes like the Kosovo war and of course leaving Ukraine hanging dry with promises of NATO membership in the distant future. Or how stupid the post-Cold War era "New NATO" thinking was and how only now, after 2014 and 24th of February this year NATO has found itself again. — ssu

Uh huh. And I've said Russia's invasion is brutal, unjustified and criminal. That didn't seem to be enough either.

The mere mention that when a country annexes parts of another, it's main objective isn't to stop the enlargement of a third party international organization seems to be blasphemy for some. — ssu

Again, as the record of this thread shows, it's not "the mere mention" at all, it's the relentless suffocation of absolutely every single mention of NATO, America, Nazis, literally anything that isn't an unending stream of righteous condemnation.

No one is objecting to 'the mere mention' of Russia's culpability. Its taken for granted. What's being objected to is the facile denial of any other angle whatsoever.

Ukraine faces a choice, has done since the war started, between submitting to some form of Russian demands or getting the aid it needs to repel Russia and thereby submit to American/European economic demands down the line. There's simply no argument about the fact of that choice. So when discussing what Ukraine might, or ought to, do, ignoring the consequences of one of the options is puerile

Moral responsibility rests not with the every actor along the causal chain, but upon the actor who interrupts that causal chain with a specific intentional act resulting in the specific bad act. — Hanover

And why on earth, after 246 pages, would we still be discussing moral responsibility? Is anyone still having trouble working out the morality here? If America's foreign policy approach was instrumental in making a brutal war more likely than it otherwise would have been, then we need to shout that from the rooftops, because it needs to stop such an approach immediately, lest it make conditions for another brutal war more likely. We don't, as seems to be happening here, want to hush it up lest it seem as if we're not apportioning the correct amount of moral condemnation. I realise coming from an Englishman of a certain generation, this is clichéd, but we needn't all wear our heart on our sleeve all the time.

I just discovered that people all over the world know about Sesame St. — frank

Sesame Street is the best thing to come out of America, ever.

Sesame Street is the best thing to come out of America, ever. — Olivier5

Jim Henson is like Jesus in the the states

Jim Henson is like Jesus in the the states — Merkwurdichliebe

I had to look him up, and yet I owe him hours of laughter. Genius.

@Streetlight Propagandized fucking morons in March 2022: "Go Putin! Kill all the Nazis in Ukraine!"

Well we should kill all Nazis everywhere, and probably all their sympathizers and PR men too, and while it's clear that Putin isn't the guy for the job, I'm not sure that direct US taxpayer funding jibes with that project either.

One fun way of running Nazi PR is to pretend that they're not really a problem in Ukraine.

we should kill all Nazis everywhere — Streetlight

And rape their women. Like that we shall be Nazi too.

Hey you probably shouldn't express your rape fantasies in public. And why 'their women'? There are plenty of independent women Nazis that don't need to be owned by no Nazi man. Your sexism is unbecoming.

I just discovered that people all over the world know about Sesame St.

Mind blown.

That’s not the half of it. I was brought up on Tom and Jerry, Banana Splits, Whacky Races, etc etc.

:100: :up:

This is the actual reality. There are so few participating on this forum, that single opinions effect where the discussion goes and what points are made.

This has been an absolute disaster for Russia and it's becoming more clear as the war goes on. It's the end times for Putin. What he can now basically do is just try to hold on to his power and survive.

But this war isn't like Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union, it's becoming more like the Russo-Japanese war was to the Russian Empire. Or could become like that.

Back then Czar Nicholas had been told by his advisors that the Japanese would not dare to challenge Russia militarily, even after negotiations between the two powers had collapsed (as Russia had rejected Japan's deal, offering to cede control of Manchuria). Back then when the war started, many in Russia believed that it would be a victorious war that would improve the domestic and foreign standing of the Czar. That wasn't what happened. A revolution happened.

This has been an absolute disaster for Russia and it's becoming more clear as the war goes on. It's the end times for Putin. What he can now basically do is just try to hold on to his power and survive. — ssu

That and nukes. It's the only possible way for him to do anything. So everything hangs on how supportive or indoctrinated his surrounding staff is. If he gets to a point where he just wants the world to burn for all the shit that hit the Russian fan, then we can only hope there are no degenerate idiots carrying out his orders and instead it's the last straw for them to remove him.

A revolution happened. — ssu

Which is why I believe it is a real possibility. Depending on how bad things get for Russia moving on from the current low point, there's definitely a point when the people have had enough and if the people and military/police start to align in their critique of Putin and his minions, instead of being against each other, then that's the point things start to change.

All I'm saying that "Stand with Somalia" with the Somali flag in the background isn't interpreted the way you think. At least the twitter handle @StandWSomalia is pro-Goverment, supporting the new government that was happy to get back US support. Earlier government wasn't happy about Trump pulling away the meager resources.





And of course those who stand against US assistance in Somalia have different flags. :snicker:

What's that? You're selective about which murderous scum you like to flag-wave for? Yeah, I thought so. And considering those who fly the other flag are a US creation anyway, I'm not sure your color dilettantism matters.

That wasn't what happened. A revolution happened. — ssu

Not immediately successful, but yes.

I agree that it is also a question of holding on to outdated worldviews. The Belarusian president said a few days ago that "By definition, Russia cannot lose this war." That made me laugh. "By definition" stands for: "In my fossilized world view".

"Stand with Somalia" with the Somali flag in the background isn't interpreted the way you think. At least the twitter handle StandWSomalia is pro-Goverment — ssu

Hang on, let me get this straight. (Ignoring the fact that the whole issue of flags came up as a reaction to their facile use...but that's clearly beyond you) You're saying that using a Somali flag doesn't actually show solidarity for the Somali people (likely now to be murdered in their hundreds as 'collateral damage')...because of a Twitter handle...?

No...correction...because of a Twitter handle and the fact that you found a picture on the internet of some badges?

Learn what flags mean, for starters.

And considering those who fly the other flag are a US creation anyway, — Streetlight

Actually it would be an interesting topic of how much of the emergence of jihadist organizations is a direct consequence because of the "War on Terror" itself, but I'm not sure if your genuinely willing or interested in the discussion being something else than your rants.

@frank said it so well four months ago on this thread:

StreetlightX is deranged as usual. — frank

Somalia does not actually exist. As a nation, it's been a fiction since 1992. I know, i've been there. Somaliland does exist, and so does Puntland. And then there's this unruled area in the South which folks call South-Central.

Learn what flags mean, for starters. — ssu

I know quite well what flags mean. I just figured it'd be less important than supporting genocidal regimes. But I know you've got a thing for colors.

Actually it would be an interesting topic of how much of the emergence of jihadist organizations is a direct consequence because of the "War on Terror" itself — ssu

Well, it's a simple 'all of it', but I know this is a fuzzy topic for you because you like to defend superpowers and their holocausts.

Oh go back to fantasizing about rape.

A national flag is usually the government of the country. It's used by the government in charge. The Somali government is happy to see American troops in Somalia.

Could it be more clear?

The Somali government is happy to see American troops in Somalia. — ssu

Imagine if someone took seriously the idea that the Russian invasion is OK because the people they invaded are happy to see Russian troops in Ukraine.

They would be rightly be called an apologist for mass suffering.

Could it be more clear?

A national flag is usually the government of the country. It's used by the government in charge. The Somali government is happy to see American troops in Somalia. — ssu

Gods! People fly little Ukrainian flags because the media told them it would make a good virtue signal to cover up their otherwise moral degeneracy whilst they sit back in their armchairs and do fuck all else to help. The US have just launched a 'Special Operation' in Somalia which will, without doubt - based on past record - kill hundreds of innocent Somalis. No one is flying a Somali flag. That's the issue we're talking about. I very much doubt the reason for that is that the population as a whole has a better grasp of vexillology than I do.

Well, it's a simple 'all of it', but I know this is a fuzzy topic for you because you like to defend superpowers and their holocausts. — Streetlight

Actually not 'all of it' as muslim extremism has happened far earlier too and there's for example Algeria.

The US hasn't been involved in Algeria and Algeria saw one of the most bloodiest civil wars. It also shows that also Algerian military junta could use extremist fractions (the GIA) to divide the opposition. Hence when the Islamic opposition tried to get France to start negotiations, what do you know, GIA attacks French airliners. There are allegations of Algerian forces posing as the GIA and carrying on attrocities. And finally when the opposition laid down it's arms, the GIA suddenly simply vanished out of existence.

But that's for a different thread...

Somalis that I've talked to long for the times of Siad Barre. Again someone you wouldn't be in favour.

Actually not 'all of it' as muslim extremism has happened far earlier too and there's for example Algeria — ssu

Well that was a war on terror conducted by the French. Who deserved every dead Frenchman killed by an Algerian.

No one is flying a Somali flag — Isaac

Because doing so is pro-American. :lol:

Somalis that I've talked to long for the times of Siad Barre. Again someone you wouldn't be in favour. — ssu

The relevance being...?

As I said, the internal politics of Somalia are completely irrelevant to the point.

US military involvement will cause casualties (it always does).

People fly flags of a country to virtue signal their concern for the population of that country (regardless of their vexillological knowledge).

No one is doing so in response to this immanent threat to Somali lives because Somalis are non-european and the threat comes from American recklessness.

That is the entire sum total of the point being made. It's the same point being made throughout this thread.

People aren't less dead when they're victims of callous disregard than they are when they're victims of brutal aggression.

People aren't less poor when they've had their livelihoods wrecked by complex financial instruments than they are when they've had their livelihoods wrecked by tyrannical government.

People aren't less in jail when they've been jailed because systematic racism constrains their life choices than they are jailed because an oppressive regime bans their newspaper.

...and so on.

All the while our concern for others is guided by some Hollywood concept of good guys and bad guys, life will not improve for those on the lowest rungs, we merely swap the cause of their oppression.

But clearly this is the wrong place for any such complexity, being reserved for schoolchildren gloating over the sight of a bully being told off.

I just like the implication that displaying a literal other country's flag implies American support. It is a wonderful encapsulation of imperialist arrogance. I hope alot of American soldiers die in Somalia (again). Just as I hope a great deal of Russian soldiers die in Ukraine.

I just like the implication that displaying a literal other country's flag implies American support. — Streetlight

Good. Because it does. :lol:

It's always good fun too to remember why the US was in Somalia last time:

The truth slipped out when the Los Angeles Times (January 18, 1993) reported that “Four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.” The story notes that “nearly two-thirds of Somalia” was allocated to “the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia’s pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown.” The companies are “well positioned to pursue Somalia’s most promising potential oil reserve the moment the nation is pacified.” The article reports that “aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts, and several prominent Somalis” believed that “President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia, at least in part,” to protect corporate oil’s investments there.

Government officials and oil industry representatives insisted there was no link. Still, Conoco (owned by Du Pont), actively cooperated in the military operation by permitting its Mogadishu offices to be transformed into a U.S. embassy and military headquarters. The U.S. government actually rented the offices from Conoco. So U.S. taxpayers were paying for the troops in Somalia to protect Conoco’s interests, and they were paying the corporation for the privilege of doing so. The Times article continues:

[T]he close relationship between Conoco and the U.S. intervention force has left many Somalis and foreign development experts deeply troubled by the blurry line between the U.S. government and the large oil company. . . . “It’s left everyone thinking the big question here isn’t famine relief but oil—whether the oil concessions granted under Siad Barre will be transferred if and when peace is restored,” [one expert on Somalia] said.“It’s potentially worth billions of dollars, and believe me, that’s what the whole game is starting to look like.”

The intervention was treated as a humanitarian undertaking and then as a nation-building operation. U.S. and UN troops fought pitched battles, killing several thousand Somalis, in attempts to hunt down a “warlord” deemed too independent-minded. One did not have to be a Marxist to suspect that Washington’s goal was to set up a comprador order, not unlike the deposed Siad Barre regime, that would be serviceable to Western investors. — Parenti, Against Empire

Those oil fields are of course still around. So yeah, more dead American soldiers would be excellent. As excellent as dead Russian soldiers.