If not us, who?

[Denny Crane]

France, of course.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Surely there's more to this thread...

 

[Denny Crane]

Mali, Algeria.

Americans held hostage in Algeria.

 

[Eastoff]

Alegerians to the rescue!... sort of...

 

[Eastoff]

Yeah... about that rescue effort...

 

[Denny Crane]

Brian asked the question, "if not us, who?"

We get to see what happens when it's not us. In this case.

France is fighting Al Qaeda, so it must be ok. I mean, we're turning into France, right? The French haven't surrendered, which is a good sign.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Right, this is what happens when we don't invade a country? Because AQIM would have been super okay with the US invading Mali but not France?

 

[Denny Crane]

Brian suggests (to me) that we have the moral authority to be the world's policeman. Maxiep suggests to me that if we leave a void, someone else will step in and we won't like it.

I'm happy to stay out of Mali and leave those people alone as long as they leave us alone. If the French want to go fight 'em, I'm happy to watch from the sideline.

I am suggesting, though, that we have people in power who seem to emulate France at every turn. Oddly, the French attack one of its colonies now that they have a socialist in power. I don't see the imminent threat to France from the Muslims in Mali. Looks like a civil war to me.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Brian suggests (to me) that we have the moral authority to be the world's policeman. Maxiep suggests to me that if we leave a void, someone else will step in and we won't like it.

Wow. Those are both ridiculous statements.

 

[oldguy]

I'll bet it is all caused by an offensive YouTube video.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow. Those are both ridiculous statements.

I'll let them defend those positions. Or not

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll be it is all caused by an offensive YouTube video.

Go Blazers

Bush's fault.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Bush's fault.

If you're talking about Bush Sr., you may have a point.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you're talking about Bush Sr., you may have a point.

Bush's fault is the #1 overused excuse. Tired of hearing it. The buck stops where?

Youtube video is a pretty poor excuse, too.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Bush's fault is the #1 overused excuse. Tired of hearing it. The buck stops where?

Youtube video is a pretty poor excuse, too.

"Bush's fault" hasn't been an excuse for a while, at least on this board. Oh wait, every one of you conservatives shouts it out whenever anything may be able to be traced to before the current president. If you're tired of hearing it, stop saying it. Duh.

Obviously nobody cares why these things happen. It's easier to use this as an excuse to deride the French, Obama or Muslims. I've studied AQIM, colonial history in North Africa and the Sahel, and specifically Algeria. I'd love to actually discuss what's going on, but this forum is just too much of a cluster fuck. It almost makes me miss academia.

 

[Denny Crane]

"Bush's fault" hasn't been an excuse for a while, at least on this board. Oh wait, every one of you conservatives shouts it out whenever anything may be able to be traced to before the current president. If you're tired of hearing it, stop saying it. Duh.

I checked. "Bush's fault" appears in 5,000+ threads on S2. Maybe a few hundred are by conservatives.

Obviously nobody cares why these things happen. It's easier to use this as an excuse to deride the French, Obama or Muslims. I've studied AQIM, colonial history in North Africa and the Sahel, and specifically Algeria. I'd love to actually discuss what's going on, but this forum is just too much of a cluster fuck. It almost makes me miss academia.

I guess I derided the French by pointing out they haven't surrendered yet? That's a joke, son.

And I'm not at all defending the position of conservatives - I mentioned two by name here and suggest they defend their own position. Mine is to stay the hell out of it.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Brian suggests (to me) that we have the moral authority to be the world's policeman. Maxiep suggests to me that if we leave a void, someone else will step in and we won't like it.

Colonialists have colonial attitudes. Not shocking.

I'm happy to stay out of Mali and leave those people alone as long as they leave us alone. If the French want to go fight 'em, I'm happy to watch from the sideline.

I pretty much agree. Though Mali is an economic partner with many in the west. They belong to the WTO, and they've signed deals with the WB and IMF. You can see why the west wouldn't want them to fall to Islamic rebels.

I am suggesting, though, that we have people in power who seem to emulate France at every turn.

If you're conflating centrist liberalism with full-blown European socialism, that's stupid. Or maybe you're calling Obama an unwashed surrender monkey, I'm not sure.

Oddly, the French attack one of its colonies now that they have a socialist in power. I don't see the imminent threat to France from the Muslims in Mali. Looks like a civil war to me.

Weird, it's almost like "socialist" might not have the exact definition you think it does.

It does look like a civil war, and it kind of is, kind of not. The west really only got involved once the Islamist rebels (many non-Malians trained by Afghans and Pakistanis) started imposing Sharia law. See, back in summer of 2012, the Tuaregs up north started rebelling and calling for their own autonomous state. The west doesn't give a shit about that, obviously, since where they live is basically 100% Saharan desert. The Tuaregs get the ever-eager al-Qaeda wannabes involved, and after the coup d'etat, the Islamists go nuts with Sharia law and whatnot in all the major cities that have since fallen. Now that the west's economic investment is threatened by some guldurn moslems, we get involved.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I checked. "Bush's fault" appears in 5,000+ threads on S2. Maybe a few hundred are by conservatives.

If you feel like doing even more research, check the dates on the posts.

Also, context is very important in knowing if this phrase is being used seriously or in jest. Also, just the phrase "Bush's fault" will likely leave out many other instances of potentially blaming Bush. I suggest you make a spread sheet of all the OT threads since S2's inception and then get in contact with an out-of-work corpus linguist.

 

[Denny Crane]

From what I see, the French don't like the momentum and trajectory the rebels are taking. If Algeria falls, too, then the Islamists are just across the pond from France.

If we're pushing to be a European style social democracy, I'd expect the socialists to be pacifists.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you feel like doing even more research, check the dates on the posts.

Also, context is very important in knowing if this phrase is being used seriously or in jest. Also, just the phrase "Bush's fault" will likely leave out many other instances of potentially blaming Bush. I suggest you make a spread sheet of all the OT threads since S2's inception and then get in contact with an out-of-work corpus linguist.

Blah blah. People robotically repeat what their guy says.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=17356548

 

[Denny Crane]

Serious question.

How do you undo colonialism? It's not like you can just put that genie back in the bottle. You could have decades or centuries of terrible living conditions for the people left behind. "Sorry, my bad!"?

 

[MARIS61]

Serious question.

How do you undo colonialism? It's not like you can just put that genie back in the bottle. You could have decades or centuries of terrible living conditions for the people left behind. "Sorry, my bad!"?

Centuries of terrible living conditions for the people left behind? LOL.

Try the end of slavery for the people left alone.

You seem to think people in repressed countries are stupid and incapable of advancing their society without a "Big Brother" from the west.

Here at home you promote the opposite political desires.

 

[mook]

Interesting article that puts the draw down in Afghanistan, current foreign policy, and the Mali situation in context: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/avoiding-wars-never-end

The United States cannot fight a war against radical Islamism and win, and it certainly cannot be the sole actor in a war waged primarily in the Eastern Hemisphere. This is why the French intervention in Mali is particularly interesting. France retains interests in its former colonial empire in Africa, and Mali is at the geographic center of these interests. To the north of Mali is Algeria, where France has significant energy investments; to the east of Mali is Niger, where France has a significant stake in the mining of mineral resources, particularly uranium; and to the south of Mali is Ivory Coast, where France plays a major role in cocoa production. The future of Mali matters to France far more than it matters to the United States.

What is most interesting is the absence of the United States in the fight, even if it is providing intelligence and other support, such as mobilizing ground forces from other African countries. The United States is not acting as if this is its fight; it is acting as if this is the fight of an ally, whom it might help in extremis, but not in a time when U.S. assistance is unnecessary. And if the French can't mount an effective operation in Mali, then little help can be given.

This changing approach is also evident in Syria, where the United States has systematically avoided anything beyond limited and covert assistance, and Libya, where the United States intervened after the French and British launched an attack they could not sustain. That was, I believe, a turning point, given the unsatisfactory outcome there. Rather than accepting a broad commitment against radical Islamism everywhere, the United States is allowing the burden to shift to powers that have direct interests in these areas.

Reversing a strategy is difficult. It is uncomfortable for any power to acknowledge that it has overreached, which the United States did both in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even more difficult to acknowledge that the goals set by President George W. Bush in Iraq and Obama in Afghanistan lacked coherence. But clearly the war has run its course, and what is difficult is also obvious. We are not going to eliminate the threat of radical Islamism. The commitment of force to an unattainable goal twists national strategy out of shape and changes the fabric of domestic life. Obviously, overwatch must be in place against the emergence of an organization like al Qaeda, with global reach, sophisticated operatives and operational discipline. But this is very different from responding to jihadists in Mali, where the United States has limited interests and fewer resources.

Accepting an ongoing threat is also difficult. Mitigating the threat of an enemy rather than defeating the enemy outright goes against an impulse. But it is not something alien to American strategy. The United States is involved in the world, and it can't follow the founders' dictum of staying out of European struggles. But the United States has the option of following U.S. strategy in the two world wars. The United States was patient, accepted risks and shifted the burden to others, and when it acted, it acted out of necessity, with clearly defined goals matched by capabilities. Waiting until there is no choice but to go to war is not isolationism. Allowing others to carry the primary risk is not disengagement. Waging wars that are finite is not irresponsible.

The greatest danger of war is what it can do to one's own society, changing the obligations of citizens and reshaping their rights. The United States has always done this during wars, but those wars would always end. Fighting a war that cannot end reshapes domestic life permanently. A strategy that compels engagement everywhere will exhaust a country. No empire can survive the imperative of permanent, unwinnable warfare. It is fascinating to watch the French deal with Mali. It is even more fascinating to watch the United States wishing them well and mostly staying out of it. It has taken about 10 years, but here we can see the American system stabilize itself by mitigating the threats that can't be eliminated and refusing to be drawn into fights it can let others handle.

 

[Denny Crane]

Centuries of terrible living conditions for the people left behind? LOL.

Try the end of slavery for the people left alone.

You seem to think people in repressed countries are stupid and incapable of advancing their society without a "Big Brother" from the west.

Here at home you promote the opposite political desires.

I think the imperial nations upon withdrawing from their colonies drew arbitrary borders and made (literally) kings of arbitrary persons.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Blah blah. People robotically repeat what their guy says.

Blaming Bush out dates the Obama administration. And what if Biden (or Obama) isn't "their guy?" Really, I think you've got it opposite. I don't think the Obama administration would publicly blame Bush unless their base didn't already do so.

From what I see, the French don't like the momentum and trajectory the rebels are taking. If Algeria falls, too, then the Islamists are just across the pond from France.

France isn't intervening because the they're afraid of Algeria "falling." Algeria has been brimming with extremists and fighting since the late eighties. If anything, the conflict in Mali is going to help their situation. Most of these fighters are most likely coming to Mali from Algeria.

If we're pushing to be a European style social democracy, I'd expect the socialists to be pacifists.

Good thing we're not.

Serious question.

How do you undo colonialism? It's not like you can just put that genie back in the bottle. You could have decades or centuries of terrible living conditions for the people left behind. "Sorry, my bad!"?

Nobody really knows right now. The first step should be to stop being colonialists. This is difficult with the globalized trade and banking systems the way they are. The way we conduct business is inherently colonial. "Development" and "modernization" are the calling cards of neocolonialism.

I think the imperial nations upon withdrawing from their colonies drew arbitrary borders and made (literally) kings of arbitrary persons.

They did indeed. However, those persons were not arbitrary. The colonial powers had more foresight than that. Especially France. Sure, they don't own Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia anymore, but the people who were left in power have made sure that the #1 business partner are the French.

 

[jlprk]

Serious question.

How do you undo colonialism? It's not like you can just put that genie back in the bottle. You could have decades or centuries of terrible living conditions for the people left behind. "Sorry, my bad!"?

Khadaffi and Saddam succeeded at reversing colonialism, which is why the West hated them. The current turmoil across the Arab world is 20 times what it was before Bush turned the place upside-down. It's the fault of not only him, but all you warmonger Bush fanboys.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Khadaffi and Saddam succeeded at reversing colonialism, which is why the West hated them. The current turmoil across the Arab world is 20 times what it was before Bush turned the place upside-down. It's the fault of not only him, but all you warmonger Bush fanboys.

Qaddafi and Hussein did not "reverse" colonialism, if that's something you can even do. They, along with many other Arab despots, made it a constant and salient factor in the minds of their constituents. Anything that went wrong in the county was due to foreign intervention. Qaddafi in particular set up virtual shrines to American meddling and blamed France and Italy over and over again for his own failings. When Libyan Berbers demanded to be recognized (Qaddafi's own mother was a Berber), he said in a speech that there were no such things as Berbers, that they are a fictitious culture hatched by "the colonizers" to divide and conquer the Arabs in North Africa. This kind of attitude saturates the Arab world today, and even very well-read and forward thinking people fear being colonized by the west.

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't use the word "reverse" but "undo."

"Undo" suggests putting things back the way they were or as they now should be. Or some sort of reparations that leaves the people there feeling made whole and not harboring resentment towards the empire.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I didn't use the word "reverse" but "undo."

"Undo" suggests putting things back the way they were or as they now should be. Or some sort of reparations that leaves the people there feeling made whole and not harboring resentment towards the empire.

Well, there's no way of getting things back the way they were now that almost the entire world is playing along with "free" trade. Colonialism is about money, and the money has changed hands. No one is giving it back.

But, if you're talking about the people and their culture, well, good luck with that too. You mentioned some kind of reparations, but really, what could soothe years and years of subjugation? Many colonialists (maybe some on this very forum) might suggest that by "developing" these nations and letting them participate in free trade, the colonizers are somehow paying their dues. However, the former colonies somehow always end up getting the shit end of the deal. When the people notice that and say something, what happens? Secret police, repressive actions, censored media, etc. All done by a government to its people, with the financial support of the former colonizers. So, yeah, resentment is going to be a difficult thing to curtail.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think you get those bad things (Secret police, repressive actions, censored media, etc.) when the government in power can only stay in power through those means.

You ask what could sooth years and years of subjugation? Money isn't enough, IMO. A stop to the bad actions now is a start, and going forward you have to prove you care.