As Obama Steps into Dr. Des's Imaginarium

    I had early training in the imagination of America's political class, and the hope and change all that means. Meaning, I once saw Richard Nixon in public when he came to my town, and it made a great impression on me. See, he lit an eternal flame to inspire us all. And two weeks later the city elders put it out because of some energy crisis or other. (Six Day War?)

    Since then, I've been a great admirer of politicians and their ways with words, especially when they try to stir the imagination. It's kinda like watching someone try to light their own fart for the first time - more stink and contortion than flame and explosion, but somehow you applaud the effort anyway.

    So I'm struck by one more attempt to take our wee brains to places mankind was never meant to go. (Cue John Ashcroft singing "Where Eagles Soar"). Hear the warnings of one who's been their, who pushed the veil to look in on the dark side, and came back shaking his head:

    But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power.

    Damn straight it is. That's like imagining a peanut butter and sauerkraut sandwich (a concoction I came up with after mixing a large amount of beer with equal amount of gin, though fortunately not in the same glass, just in the same stomach). But anyway, uurrrppp, I digress. What I mean is, that's like imagining pancakes without syrup, ham without eggs, rump roast without the rump.

    I mean, I wish I had the power of speech he has to express things so succinctly, and also just the cognition and forewarning and caution to warn us off the dangerous path. Just like it wasn't that long ago when a well-know politician noted,

    No one could have foreseen people flying planes into buildings.

    Which also struck me as particularly brilliant - after all, I'd seen movies of people flying planes into buildings, but I never actually visualized real people doing it. And then after 9/11, I understood why. Because it is chromosomically impossible for people to have the genetic makeup to imagine live humans flying planes into buildings. [one curious study did show it possible to imagine flying buildings into planes, but it was later shown that the author of the treatise was a French exchange student studying from bipolar disorder and too much reading of Derrida]

    So because we've been shown the limits of imaginiation and presumably hallucination, we've now drawn the obvious conclusion that if we can't imagine it, it must disappear. Ceci n'ést pas un pipe. So soon Monsieur Qaddafi will hop into his top hat for the last time, being replaced by a bouquet of flowers or a long-eared rabbit or a flower-eating rabbit. It is ordained, it is foretold. By one who knows. Of course *WE'RE* likely to still be there in 10 years, but not Qaddafi. Inch'allah.

    So for those following our adventures in Libya (who hopefully will explain to me what happened down in the comments, as I do seem to have got a bit lost in all the throes, attacks and counter-attacks, taking the port and losing it...), our no-fly zone is proceeding swimmingly.

    See, we are protecting civilians. Which is our mandate. And if we need to change the head of state to protect the civilians, well, that's peachy, as it kind of fits in with what we wanted to do anyway. But that's not why we're doing it. We just want to protect the people. No one could imagine another reason. And no one could imagine Qaddafi just sitting there in another 10 years kinda like Hussein did after Gulf War I. That would be... unimaginable, for lack of a better word. Even if it worked within our mandate, it just...defies imagination!!!

    So as I proceed back into the Imaginarium, to find a friend who seems to have gotten a trifle lost, I hope I may be excused a bit of overreach as I try to hit my own run of political wisdom. For example:

    "No one could imagine cutting off stock broker bonuses in the middle of a financial bailout."

    "It's impossible to imagine balancing the budget (or lower the runaway debt) without veering off and tackling an unrelated Social Security issue"

    "It strains the imagination to think that it's possible to invade a Mideast country and have a plan ahead of time."

    "3 out of 4 doctors say the brain is not equipped to comprehend imagining raising taxes in the middle of financial negotiations over bringing down a huge deficit."

    "It's extremely difficult to imagine why people would be upset over stripping naked and placing in solitary a treasonous soldier who released information about how corrupt the countries we're propping up are".

    So now your turn, time to pitch in and help the Imaginarium.

    "It strains the imagination to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  .

    Best answer wins Breakfast at Tiffany's if Tiffany answers her phone after a late night at the techno bar. 

    Second best - one night in Bangkok. No, not the city. The song. Listening to it over and oaver and over again. Special kudos if you can lisp the gay-lisped lines without feeling like you're 12 years old again or stuck with irritating polyester people at a retro disco.

    Third best... well, to give credit to WC Fields, "Philadelphia". And if you're not ready to die and grow a tombstone over your head, then perhaps a photo or a left-over Elton John jingle.

    So everyone, start your Imaginarium engines. And get out their and strain our credulity.

    Update: sad to say, someone suggests Obama might have exaggerated the civilian risk in Libya. And the rebels might have released a few hyperbolic press releases as well. Say it ain't so - it really wasn't Inchon and Dresden combined?

    Comments

    Home run on the contest concept, 'Bama-boy.  You got game today; no wonder you won the award.  :o)

    It strains the imagination to think that most Amurricans won't guess ours is a limited mission in Lybia and they can keep it secret that we're flying 35% of the bombing sorties.

    It's hard to believe that politicians want us to believe that the American Dream is alive except for the top 5% of us.

    It strains the imagination that we could still be captive to Big Oil after dire warnings 30 years ago.

    It's impossible to believe that so many of us give so much so that so few can eat caviar and cake.

    It twists my knickers that we are so willing to give in so easily to a bourgeoning Security State that the White House is signing on to this scary Identity Ecosystem dreck from the Chamber of Commerce. 


    (Sorry if I have the contest a bit backward...)

    Imaginarium.  Man, I love that concept; think I'll try to introduce it to my dreams tonight.  Thanks.


    Forgot: It staggers the imagination that Obama put Stanly McChrystal on the Help the Military Familes (or whatever) agency.  Staggers.the.Imagination.


    Much like what Enigo Montoya said to Vizzini -

    I don't think 'unimaginable' means what Washington thinks it means.


    It is unimaginable that the Beltway best-and-brightest imagine anything detrimental to their own narrow self-interest.

    Hence it is unimaginable that they are ever wrong, and anyone else right - since that would indicate they are not the best-and-brightest. And since they are the best-and-brightest, we can - through judicious use of Modus Tollendo Tollens - deduce that they are not wrong. And logic, as we know, constrains the imagination. QED.


    Allus got me chasin' stuff n the google, Pug.  Just in case anyone else needs...uh...help:

    "the way that denies by denying")[2] has the following argument form:

    If P, then Q.
    Not Q.
    Therefore, not P.


    QED.  Great Imaginarium; you just might win this sucker if you play up to the dude in the skirt there.


    Oh don't you worry about that argument.

    I asked and they assured me it works.


    Then the second question you might pose is: HOW THE F*CK DO THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT???

    Modus that for us.  (stardust just wants to smack 'em in the mouth.)  Sorry: One Love.  Innocent


    At least get the argument right. The Q theorem runs like this:

    If Q... then everybody else can back the fuck off. 

    And yes, that means you, O and D.

    See? Straightforward. Unassailable. And potentially... psychotically violent.


    Well, see that one is technically known as the

    Modus Collins ... after Phil Collins in reference to his famous hit - Against All Odds.

    In short - the odds are you're totally wrong but WHO THE FUCK CARES, I HAVE THIS BROKEN BOTTLE HERE FOR ANYONE WHO ...

    you get the gist...


    I'm kinda teary after that, O.

    Really.

    And damn, if that isn't one handsome man. Almost entirely hair-free.


    Ah, my momma always said that was the best song ever written...

    I think for her it had more to do with the hirsute Jeff Bridges there than Phil himself though...


    It piques the imagination that two violent football goons would fall into my Imaginarium and have a love fest over Phil Collins.


    It was not hard to imagine that I wasn't about to intrude in their doin's.... Seemed like a guy thing.


    You imply that this is Obama expressing himself. But it's a jointly prepared message bylined by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy. "But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power." Be reasonable. This is diplomatic language. Not intended to be factual.


    It strains my imagination to believe you're back. Or alive. Or intended to be factual. Whatever.

    How the hell are you? Try to include the word Florida, sandwich, tangy and old Kentucky home in your answer.


    I quit the internet, but Desider posted such a crock I had to come back.


    Well, "Des" and "crock" are not unacquainted. In fact, there are rumours that they've spent some fair ole time in close proximity. 

    That said, this was a piece signed not just by Obama, but by David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. Who have spent their entire lives lying, primping, posing and generally greasing the arses of the unwary for unhappy experiences to come. (Can I say that? Good. 'Cause I just did.) Anyhoo, they're nasty people, these two - with Obama set to one side.

    So. When they say stuff like "It would be an unconscionable betrayal." I start laughing. Hysterically. Because I can assure you that David Cameron, a privileged and boorish rah-rah-rah supporter of Maggie Thatcher at her cruellest, has NO conscience.

    What to do, what to do? Ok. This. I am going to imagine that Obama's name was forged on this little article. And that he was too busy working on the Budget to bother asking for a retraction. Because this piece of crap article, this absolutely breathtaking piece of hypocritical, history-blind, absolute tripe, is not something the President should have signed off on. For instance, just think of the wars of the last ten years and then say this. (Go on, just try):

    We're going to REBUILD THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE! (With Blackwater's help.) 

    We know from BITTER EXPERIENCE WHAT FURTHER CHAOS WOULD MEAN!!! (Because we cause chaos like nobody's business!)

    We can see a PATHWAY TO PEACE THAT PROMISES NEW HOPE! (Do we now? Really? And what the HELL does that look like? And why haven't we sighted the aforementioned path in Afghanistan or Iraq?)

    We WILL NOT REST! (Until after we've done partied our asses off, smashed everything in Libya, looted, wrecked and indebted the place. THEN we'll rest. Damn right.)

    This sort of drool can only be written, and taken seriously, by those with absolutely no sense of the history of the last ten years. By those without conscience.


    Who in their wildest imagination would believe that when I said I was gone to root out a friend lost in the Imaginarium, I would be talking about Rootman. Off on a walkabout again, Keep the women locked up, small critters restrained. 

    And to say the words you couldn't bring yourself to utter, "this crock rocks"

    I think of it like the Commitments, a rag-tag team of wannabe singers with Barry in the lead and Nick and Davie singing backup in drag. "Take me back to Paradise City, where the pols are clean and the pay is shitty..." Even that's not beyond the pale in the Imaginarium. But if Barry want's to take a smoke break, shmooze with some agent who says he can get him a side deal, no prob if Nick and Davie want to step up and take the lights, croak or croon out some ballad, fine with me. But they ain't goin' solo, no way. Won't even take over lead. That'd be like making a drummer a frontman. Even in the Imaginarium we have no way of imagining such an unlikely, unwanted possibility.


    It strains my gizzard to imagine that the Obama DOJ has flipped on its promise to NOT prosecute pot growing and dispensing in states whose voters have approved Medical Marijuana. 


    Okay, exactly where is that gizzard?

    I mean the gizzard when I was a pup was the best part of the turkey!

    And if I had 500 pounds of weed, I mean...

    Does that mean I would not be prosecuted?

    Hypothetically of course.


    Beyond imaginable is that one day my state's recent governor would be locked like a kidnapped private in a small room with a camera and be compelled to beg the band Talking Heads for mercy.


    I always said that Byrne could take Crist, didn't I? Man, Charlie looks like he got pistol-whipped.

    Laugh all you want, but when I heard that David Byrne was training for UFC 129 against St Pierre, you knew somebody was gonna get beatdown beforehand. Just a shame it was Charlie. Guy looks like he went was on the wrong of Byrne's "Organ Render." Damn.


    With reality like this, who needs medical marijuana?


    So for those following our adventures in Libya (who hopefully will explain to me what happened down in the comments, as I do seem to have got a bit lost in all the throes, attacks and counter-attacks, taking the port and losing it...), our no-fly zone is proceeding swimmingly.

    A bunch of Libyans revolted.and for a few days controlled about half the country. The French ,British and the Arab League proposed helping the rebels.We said "whatever".

    Quadaffi's forces started reoccupying the cities controlled by the rebels, whose main strong hold was Benghazi

    We joined the Arab League ,the Brits and French in requesting the  UN  to approve some sort of intervention. It did.

    Quadaffi's forces started to enter Benghazi. 

    Obama announced that we were going to be involved briefly to protect civilians and then we'd withdraw .Most bloggers here said that would never happen.      We were involved briefly, stopped the Quadaffi forces from taking Benghazi . We also stopped  the blood shed and rape that would have happened as always happens in such situations. Then withdrew.. Most bloggers here acknowledged they were wrong.  continued to say Obama was lying.

    The Republicans said Obama shouldn't have gone into Libya and had done it earlier. Also that we should be in charge of the action there and  shouldn't be involved.

    You're welcome.

     



    Most of the bloggers were just askin', there must be 50 ways to leave Moammar.

    "See we don't need a plan, Stan"

    "We just make a new gov, Luv"

    "Send Moammar to school, Fool..."

    "and set people free"

    "we just need to bomb, Tom"

    "and they'll do the rest, Jess",

    "no troops on the ground, Clown..."

    "we got it all down""

    "well Qaddafi ain't fled, Ned"

    "it seems he's ahead, Ted"

    "gotta give him some cred, Fred..."

    "he's still in control"

    "But NATO's in charge, Sarge"

    "Andt soon heads will roll, Troll"

    "And the UN's got our back, Jack"

    "Will be fixed in a day   few days   no more than a few weeks   a few months  by end of year  no more than the bit into next year   by the end of my term, Worm..."

    "you just listen to me."


    And other bloggers were noting there were other songs on the jukebox

    besides "Don't Kidyaself (didya flip yo'lip, wid 1st dib on Libya...)

    The rain in Bahrain falls mainly in the plain

    "Who needs ya? Tunisia"

    "Are you serious bout Syria? Don't weary us, deliria"

    "Jordan this"

    "Ivory Coast (is toast)"

     

     


    Before the week is out, Des will be issuing a YouTube apology to Mr. Paul Simon, I imagine.


    Brian Ferry's first in line. 


    LOL!  You'd better make sure that brain of yours works for Good more often than not.  But Zappa has a message for ya:

     

    It even has Weasels in it!!!! Must think Jesus hate him, too...


    Meanwhile a lot of people are alive in Benghazi who wouldn't have been.        


    Guess you missed my link.

    EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.

    But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.

     


    Yeah, but who could have imagined Qaddafi wouldn't commit genocide ...

    oh never mind.


    Come on, don't be shy, you were on a roll....


    It strains the imagination to think of cluster bombs being an appropriate munition for targeting armed rebels in residential neighborhoods.

    http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/04/15/libya-cluster-munitions-strike-mis...


    Yeah, completely unprecedented to drop 3 cluster munitions - boggles the imagination.

    "What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

    Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

     


    Cluster bombs aside, basically the assertion here is that had there not been the intervention, Moammar would have conducted the war in the exact manner as he is currently conducting it.  I would say such an assertion is flimsy at best.  The fact that he is using such things as cluster bombs when he knows the whole world is watching makes me think he might be a little more brutual had NATO been overhead.   


    You know, every war that comes around there are going to be mass graves, there are babies pulled off incubators, there are weapons of mass destruction and yellow cake from Africa, etc.

    And then the war ends, and we find out there was a Chelabi or Curveball or some Kuwaiti diplomat who's feeding us a load of shit, the "Remember the Maine" kind of stuff.

    And meanwhile we have the Ivory Coast a place where people are dying, Syria where protesters are disappearing off the street, and we'll not do a thing. But we have to remove Qaddafi, but we don't have to remove Assad, and didn't have to help remove Laurent Gbagbo, who'd been elected out of office - just not enough to promote UN or NATO actions. Fortunately Gbagbo has been arrested. Thanks for the inaction.

    So yeah, I'm cynical and disbelieving. 3 cluster bombs? Really. Can I compare the collateral damage of those 3 cluster bombs with however many tomahawk missiles we've fired in? Or are those "precision weapons" or "smart weapons", so civilian casualties don't count?


    Of course, when it comes to government actions, especially when the military is involved, we should all be cynical and disbelieving.  But that doesn't mean using the logic that how Libya's forces are behaving now is how they would behaved without the intervention and all the attention is, well, lame. And then to toss in the whole line of reasoning about if we're not intervening there and there, then that inherently makes this intervention wrong is just another sideshow to distract from an actual discussion about US involvement in Libya. 

    And the difference between a Tomahawk and a cluster bomb is that with cluster bomb one knows without a doubt that one is going to do serious killing of civilians.  That is why they are internationally banned.  Of course, the misery and awfulness for civilians killed by Tomahawks and the like, and for their surviving comrades, is not really lessened because the intent wasn't to pull them into the death toll.  And that is a whole matter of discussion about whether one should ever militarily intervene at all.  Because that sort of thing is always part of military interventions.  And in the case of Libya we can discuss whether we should be there, and what merits it has.  But we need to keep in mind that government officials will always not talk about these actions with a bright light on all the agendas and players involved.  There will be spin, and diplomatic speak, and etc etc, sometimes done as a means to snooker the public and sometimes done as part of the way geo-politics has to be played in order for things to keep from completely unraveling.


    Drones have been doing some pretty serious killing of civilians. We try to redefine the civilians as suspected enemy combatants shortly after, but it doesn't always work.

    No confirmation that Libya is using cluster bombs, only note of "3" from 1 source. Will wait for more proof before hyperventilating.


    But at least Obama (via Gates) told King Khalifah he could go ahead and take tanks into Bahrain to help quash those uprisings.  Now more are dying, he and Clinton have issued a 'stern warning'.

    It's at least a little unimaginable that since our foreign policy in the ME is so entwined with Israel and Likkud, that most of these uprsisings are measured by how 'Shia' or 'Sunni' they are or can be molded to keep Israel feeling 'safe'.  Poor Bahrain; too many Shia with no power, no easy inroads into the middle class, even. 

     

     


    The loyalists should pay a price for using cluster bombs and shelling the hospitals from tanks. These are war crimes. Obama has not exaggerated the danger to civilians. The article you quote is intentionally misleading. He purports to use data from Human Rights Watch, whose reports convey the opposite of what he argues. His primary reasoning is that the proportion of civilian casualties reported by the Misrata hospitals is not 50/50 split on gender, which he supposes would be the case if the targeting of civilians was indiscriminant. Because more male casualities are reported, he reasons, the regime is narrowly targeting rebels, and therefore Obama has exaggerated the civilian danger.


    It confuses the brain to think that there may be multiple purposes to this help to Libyan Rebels:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking

    Remember those StateDept. meetings with the rebels leaders?  And wondering what kinds of conversations about the future might be happening?  They formed a Central Bank last week; pretty unusual in the middle of such a civil war. 

    And now this from the Fed's data dump, and my translation of Taibbi's piece at RS:

    "Matt wants to know, as do we all, what sense it made for the Fed to bail out foreign auto makers while we’re bailing out GM and Chrysler?  Or  while borrowing money from ME nations at 3%, but give the Arab Banking Corporation of Bahrain $35 billion at a quarter of a point? 

    “Even more disturbing, the major stakeholder in the Bahrain bank is none other than the Central Bank of Libya, which owns 59 percent of the operation. In fact, the Bahrain bank just received a special exemption from the U.S. Treasury to prevent its assets from being frozen in accord with economic sanctions. That's right: Muammar Qaddafi received more than 70 loans from the Federal Reserve, along with the Real Housewives of Wall Street.”


    I can't find any statements from Human Rights Watch that match the Boston columnist's claim that they released data that Khadafy is narrowly targeting armed rebels. On the contrary, his source seems to be their April 10 release, "Libya: Government Attacks in Misrata Kill Civilians."

    The lede to this was:

    Attacks by Libyan government forces in the western city of Misrata have endangered civilians and targeted a medical clinic in violation of international law, Human Rights Watch said today.

    It strains the imagination that the Boston Globe printed such obvious disinformation.


    I read everything I could on the site that relates to Libya over the past two months. And absolutely, yes, they identify the Gaddafi forces as reportedly shelling people at clinics, using cluster bombs, etc. No question. But. While not dropping any hammers on the rebels, they not that massive amounts of Gaddafi's weaponry has tumbled, uncontrolled, into the hands of the rebels - or whoever gets there first. i.e. They point out a worrying development, not an accusation against the rebels.

    But also, they did put this rather usual paragraph in the middle of a story which was pointing out the Gaddafi forces crimes, which reads as follows, "According to Dr. Muhammad el-Fortia, who works at Misrata Hospital, medical facilities have recorded 257 people killed and 949 wounded and hospitalized since February 19, 2011. The wounded include 22 women and eight children, he said."

    It didn't spell it out, but I found the way it was just left there, bare, to be interesting. Obviously, the columnist felt this was a more important fact than the HRW reporters did. 

    Somehow, I am absolutely NOT expecting I'm going to see a clear sheet from either side in this war. People suppressed by a vicious psycho like Gaddafi, for 40+ years... who have strong tribal ties but otherwise quite weak intermediate institutions... and whose own leaders participated in and LED brutal parts of the regime... just do not seem to me to be candidates for a textbook style "clean" war.

    I'm expecting it to be brutal, both ways, and the longer it lasts, the worse it'll get. Which is why it was worrying as hell to get in in the first place, UNLESS we think we can get Gaddafi abandoned and killed/shipped out ASAP. 


    Here's a new twist from a comment at fdl by Pepe Escobar in an interview:

    "I linked to this on another Libya thread, but it really is worth listening to. Pepe Escobar being interviewed by the other Scott Horton. Short version: it’s a French op that was planned over a year ago. Sarkozy is pissed that Gaddafi canceled some military jet contracts and some other French project in Libya. It was meant to be a military coup by some defector who was whispering in Sarkozy’s ear. Turns out, other western leaders with outsized egos can do the cowboy thing to.

    Can’t easily get Gaddafi out, mess of tribes going on inside makes opposing him, whether from inside or outside problematic. Other details I’ve forgotten right now. Very informative. Of: major problems for EU bc Germany wants none of it.

    Libya part of interview begins about 30 minutes into the interview."


    I had a slight;y different take on early Libya events.  Remember when the rebels asked directly for NO foreign intervention?  Then there were transcripts of cellphone calls coming in speaking of dastardly deeds by Gadaffi forces.  No one could authenticate the calls, and then some concern began about 'who the rebel forces were'.  Next reports came that some of Gadaffi's less-than-pure forces had defected to the rebels, and soon the rebels (apparently) were asking for military aid, especially a no-fly zone.

    I did see some photos at AJE of those 'Spanish-made' bombs that were identified as cluster-bombs; and I think it was the HRC page on Libya.


    Prior uprisings in neighboring Egypt and Tunisia? Part of the French plan?


    I haven't listend to it, and couldn't find a transcript yet (faster, IMO).  Did you listen and Pepe mentioned Tunisia and Egypt? 


    I just can't hardly believe that things are even more like they are now than they were a while ago.


    A distinct lack of imagination. I could imagine even some time ago that even back then things were more like they were even at that time, and going forward I expect an escalation and harmonic convergence of things being more like they were that even defies my imagination.


    It strains the imagination to think someone could believe one could read too much Derrida.


    Trope's eatin' too many Dorritos?  Try Cheetos!


    Don't be silly, he's talking about the rapper.

    Flo-Rida's brother from Delaware....


    LOL!  I love Flo!  Boogie all night; see, Trope, Obey's right: this is the stuff Des fears will make him even Crazier!  (Well...plus Rasputina, that is...later on that one; they excite Obey too much...)

     


    if that will make him crazy, then this will make absolutely full blow bats in the belfry

    (sidenote: can't not think of Milton Berle in Ratt's video when I listen to that song above)


    Dunno; might be like Mother's Milk to Des.  Imagine kudzu growing amidst this stuff; it might approximate his mind....   ;o)

     


    For fuck's sake. German music. Please... if we're going to have melodic tribute to smallish user-friendly citrus fruit...


    German?  ye gods andlittle fishes, can't someone buy the dude a pitchpipe or an e-lec-tronic tuner?  Christ; even I have one!  Prolly unlikely anyone can tune his vocal chords or his freakin' EARS, but jeez, Obe; that was mean!  Hate to tell you how sensitive my ears are...ya gotta even be careful to gimme a kiss on the cheek too loudly or risk a stardust-cringe.

    I was thinkin' about Devilig you with Rasputina, seein' if my webcam could see get all frisky from 'em; but instead, here's some Fun Loud:  (turn it UP)

     


    Yeah, not so ... bad. But if you were looking for the magic.

     

     


    Whoa; Joan is fantastic!  How nice to be turned on to her; my stars.  Downloaded already.  Hear these guys on a Letterman I taped.  Kinda wanting to be Springstein, but they were good enough I didn't mind.

    I'll be hunting more Joan as Policewoman.  ;o)  Thank you.


    Well that's pleasant, woke from a dream and here people are bringing me songs they think will please me. 

    But this morning I'm feeling fickle, too much French fashion music, which I blame on the girls. If this doesn't haunt your day, don't know what will. (Frankly a grown man singing poetical verse about a little fruit also gives me the heebie jeebies, but guess I'm not a Shelly-ite romantic)


    Oops, think I should have left well enough alone - looks like I killed it.


    Killed the subthread, you mean?


    Damn near killed me. Good God man, don't do THAT again.


    Sorry - I'm of the Fritos tribe.


    I believe that's 'of the Fritos Ilk, son...    ;o)


    Or as I would prefer, the Fritos ilca (in the Old English tradition)


    Deleted double post.  But to comment on Obey's comment - just like us post-structuralists to read rather than listen to a rapper.


    And to quickly address this mis-conception, I never said I was against supporting the rebels.

    I was against supporting the rebels with no plan, no context, no expectations, no policy, no framework.

    So we're left listening to what could be noble comments if applied in numerous (not all) cases, but instead it comes out schtick because it's just an arbitrary action that might be done to please Sarkozy for revenge, someone for oil money, another cause they're still pissed about Lockerbie and the release of the murderer, another because they do think it will help, and so on.

    If this isn't clear enough, perhaps:

    Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!

    Dennis: (interrupting) Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a
    mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!

    Arthur: Be quiet!

    Dennis: Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!

    Arthur: SHUT UP!

    Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

    Arthur: SHUT UP! WILL YOU SHUT UP! [Grabs Dennis]

    Dennis: Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

    Arthur: SHUT UP!


    Okay, peeps; help me out on this.  I just found this piece by Pepe Escobar at AJE with a photo captioned: "Moussa Koussa meets Hu Jintao. Western intervention in Libya came after Gaddafi pledged to give major contracts to Chinese countries, replacing deals with Western companies."

    Moussa Koussa, of course, is the former Gadaffi minister who said he'd grown 'concerned' about what his boss was doing, and fled to Britain, where he was NOT granted immunity, presumably for his assumed part in the Lockerbie bombing.

    But: inside, Pepe says this:

    "What a sight. Chinese president Hu Jintao pulling a vintage John Lennon performance in Beijing and telling self-styled Arab liberator and French neo-Napoleonic president Nicolas Sarkozy to "give peace a chance" in Libya.

    The top four BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) all abstained at the voting of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. In his subtle address to Sarkozy, Hu also implied his displeasure that the African Union, which was overwhelmingly against a foreign intervention in Libya, had their proposals totally sidelined by the West.

    Only three days before UN Resolution 1973 was voted on, Gaddafi met with the ambassadors of BRICS members China, Russia and India, and told them, according to the JANA news agency: "We are ready to bring Chinese and Indian companies to replace Western ones." That may go a long way to explain the BRICS abstentions.

    It would be tempting to see the Beijing leadership merrily watching Washington walk into another open-ended quagmire in a Muslim nation  part of a Chinese grand strategy of letting the US be distracted in peripheral Muslim countries in the arc from northern Africa to Central Asia. 

    Well, it is slightly more complicated than that."

    And he goes on to explain China's situation vis a vis oil, Africa, Libya and other nations.  He looks at port cities and nations that are key to controlling the supply routes (Yemen, Bahrain, the strait of Malacca between Sumatra and the Malay peninsula), why Africa is key to China's energy strategy, yada, yada, and:

    "China also has to worry about Iran, its number two supplier (of oil and also natural gas), under severe sanctions that have shrunk its energy production.

    So it is no surprise Beijing has connected the dots between Libya being bombed and Bahrain and Yemen getting away with repression of pro-democracy protests. The 5th Fleet calls Bahrain home, and Aden, in Yemen, is the key to the Red Sea.

    Whichever the latitude, Beijing finds the Pentagon's mighty machine interfering with most of its key sources of energy; half of China's oil imports in 2011 came from MENA (Middle East/ Northern Africa). The threat is graphic, as Beijing sees it."


    And he give some look at Beijing's concern over the US trying to slide into Africa...to secure more influence.  He also includes some comments on the balkanization of Libya...

    But it all seems to be one more piece of the puzzle in the Big Picture of what we're doing in Libya. 

    Am I the only one caught off guard by this?

     



    Brazil receives lots of China aid and business, India has reasonable incentive to keep on China's good side. China of course is the C in BRIC. Russia I think supported the intervention under Medvedev - Putin has claimed it "a crusade", but I'd be surprised if Russia abstained?

    Anyway, the only big point here is that lots of countries have interest in what happens to oil countries, and there are plenty of ways around an embargo these days if you have the right friends.


    The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be.  He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier.  China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.

     

    The delegations of India, Germany and Brazil, having also abstained, equally stressed the need for peaceful resolution of the conflict and warned against unintended consequences of armed intervention.

    BRIC+ G

    More from Pepe from 'There's No Business LIke War Business' concerning Africacom:

    He said only 9 of the 22 African Union nations voted for intervention, and:

    This is Africom's first African war, conducted up to now by General Carter Ham out of his headquarters in un-African Stuttgart. Africom, as Horace Campbell, professor of African American studies and political science at Syracuse University puts it, is a scam; "fundamentally a front for US military contractors like Dyncorp, MPRI and KBR operating in Africa. US military planners who benefit from the revolving door of privatization of warfare are delighted by the opportunity to give Africom credibility under the facade of the Libyan intervention."

    Figures, I guess. 


    Latest Comments