Count Zero

You don’t know more than me. You think you do because you believe US propaganda, and only US propaganda. You take it at face value and get sanctimonious about people who actually do know more than you.

I don’t think it was a mistake. I think the UN should have occupied Libya after Gaddafi fell.

Cause that would go so well. It went well for Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan. I mean hell, name one American occupation that has gone well. The only ones I can think of are Japan and Germany. Both of which notably never really punished the financial elites in those countries for their crimes. But that is a distraction. Can you name me an American Occupation that didn’t result in horrific war crimes, or resulted in a stable government in the last 80 years?

This is why some of the others are calling you a monster.

Also, and I know pre-emptively you’ll ignore this and call it a conspiracy theory, but to be pedantic, Sarkozy didn’t need more money, he already had it. It was to destroy the documentation for the money that he had already received. It was to destroy the evidence.

I’d also love to see your blood thirst be applied evenly, because it isn’t. Frankly, the worst country in the world by basically every metric, we’re perfectly fine with. Specifically Saudi Arabia.

Same to you, bud, same to you.

Why do you think France, under the leadership of Sarkozy, largely led the initial effort against Libya?

This isn’t, as you say, a US led mistake. Also, the treatment of the franco-sphere areas of Africa are extremely horrible. France is not a country you want to be a colony of.

You don’t have to justify the murderous actions of another countries empire.

Where did the Illegal campaign financing come from?

That wasn’t a complaint. Or, I guess it was? You’re non-monogamous, you like Peter Watts. In every post, except the political, we have a lot in common. But, fuck, the politics are not just a small difference. It’s like when someone you dislike likes all the things you do. :/

Post hog?

Goddammit, you use the cow’s opinion, moo joke.

Don’t worry, I just read your insane foreign policy opinions in other threads. You’re insane. You want to start WW3.

A top to bottom American Imperialist who justifies every foreign policy position America has ever taken, no matter how evil.

Even the ones that committed those foreign policy blunders have publicly admitted were wrong. Obama publicly admitted he regretted the US’s role in the Libyan war.

Why is Sarkozy in jail again?

If you knew things, you’d know that people of the left also think liberal (not lib) is an insult, coming from a completely different place. Look up the ‘Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.’ origin if you actually want to learn something.

You’d also know that every Sunni fundamentalist group during that time period between 1990-2003 had to claim that. You’d also know that those Foreign Nationals were basically all Saudi Arabian, functioning as a first wave to try and claim the territory for Saudi Arabia, because a large chunk of Saudi Arabia was scheduled to be given back to Yemen from a 99 year lease. You’d also know that the Saudi Arabians had, in the early part of that time period just commited a pogrom against the Shia in Najran who were very excited about the prospect of rejoining a Shia majority country. And that the vast majority of the people of Yemen are Shia. You’d also know that the civil war came about specifically because the Saudis took over the government in Sanaa to, at least in part, keep the land and the people of Yemen were extremely unhappy about this.

Fuck man, the Houthi fought against the few groups of AQAP that did still exist harder than the US did.

I did click on that link. It’s the same standard bullshit written by people who have never been to Yemen. I also looked at the citations used. That was written by people who have never been there, mostly to retroactively justify Americas fucked up foreign policy.

I’m done responding to someone that unquestioningly justifies the intentional bombing of a 16 year old and an 8 year old US citizens. Because it was legal (It wasn’t.)

I wasn’t talking about him, I was talking about his two children. Whom were absolutely not members of Al-Qaeda.

Remember, under Obama, the definition of being a terrorist was that you were male, over 14, and you were killed by the U.S.
Being a civilian in the Afghan/Yemen war was a privilege only women were afforded.

Finally, it wasn’t Al-Qaeda. I will excuse this one, because you wouldn’t know it based on US reporting unless you specifically interested in the Yemeni conflict. The genocide we assisted in perpetrating in Yemen against the people of Yemen who would not/did not ally themselves, and never would with Al-Qaeda for religious reasons. The US did what it did in Yemen under the auspices of the AUMF. Which has, as the one limiting factor, that force be used against countries with an Al-Qaeda presence. Nevermind that they were the ones we were arming and backing in Syria. Nevermind that they didn’t REALLY exist in Yemen, and the few that did were imported by ‘us’ (Saudi Arabia, not the US), and the houthi did fight quite hard against them, and certainly not in the area this individual was killed. Nevermind that the Yemeni ‘Government’ that was forced in by Saudi Arabia was not accepted as the legit government of the majority of the Yemeni people (hence the reason for the ‘civil war’. We had to say they did to give the assistance that Saudi Arabia was demanding. The Yemeni ‘government’ was literally of puppet of Saudi Arabia that any sane person wouldn’t listen to. They accused everyone of being Al-Qaeda because, as puppets of Saudi Arabia, they had explicit instructions on what to say to allow the US to continue supporting their puppet regime. You won’t find this in the wikipedia article, by the by, this actually required some thought, analysis, and paying attention to the situation when it was happening.

And no, it was not approved twice by congress. Unless you are again counting the AUMF. which seems a pretty big stretch. That law wasn’t written addressing the assassination of US citizens, does not explicitly state anywhere that it can be used for those purposes. Instead, Obama used the law in a way it was written to do something he wanted to do. I.E. he used powers not explicitly given to him to accomplish his goals. Huh. Imagine if his goals were to help workers.

Give me a definition of imperial that we don’t fit then. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the internal inconsistencies in the definition you give.

I want Biden to use power to help the people, and not the financier owners of the rail companies that exist to siphon of America’s productivity like parasites. Because, frankly, there are far less bounds of the office than you are implying. This appeal to notional bounds is what Democrats always do to justify their feckless helplessness when it comes to helping their constituency.

Fuck, you’re the definition of ‘Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.’

The precedent had been set that the US president can assassinate US Citizens without trial or judicial overview, right?

You know who set that precedent, right? That it wasn’t Trump, and there was no talk of impeaching the president that set that precedent, right?

We have a fucking imperialist presidency for the same reason people hated Trump (not a fan, or a right winger, before you accuse me of that.) People hated Trump for violating the norms of the office. Most of the powers Presidents have now are based on executive orders and precedent from previous presidents, not, you know, by actual laws. I am exaggerating for effect here somewhat, but not a lot. But violating norms is not a crime, especially when you don’t have clear laws delineating what a president can and can’t do. And it apparently isn’t a broken norm to assassinate US citizens without a trial. I don’t know how you don’t consider that an imperial presidency. Or, you’re just younger then 40 and haven’t been paying attention.

If norms are all that define a position, and you have one side breaking the norms, and the other side following them and whining to a non-existent hall monitor that the other side is breaking, not the rules but the norms, then you get what we have now.

Justifying Democratic presidents not using power they absolutely have because of subsection 6 of paragraph 5 is just a self righteous way to justify why they didn’t fight for you when the time came.

We’ve had an imperial presidency since at least bush. If you’d cared enough to pay attention recently, you’d know that legal precedent has already occurred to give the president almost any power they want.

Calling that Trumpian either shows your age, or how long you’ve cared about this.

Incrementalism is an intentional tactic used by liberals to explain why they can’t undo the things the right wing does, and to explain why they can’t change things themselves when they are in power.

Liberalism is a fucking disease.

EDIT: Congress sure as shit wasn’t required to fuck over all the air traffic controllers. Funny that. Congress is never required to fuck over workers, but it is always an excuse as to why we can’t do things for the workers.

Then maybe we shouldn’t have allowed the railway companies to try and fuck them over into suicide schedules for profit.

Or, and I’m just spitballing here, if the rail companies are that important then maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to be run for profit. If they’re that critical, maybe they should be GASP nationalized.

Maybe you should be angry at the financiers that bought the companies and forced the workers to run suicide schedules for forcing the workers into a position where they started to feel like they had to strike to have normal human lives.

You’re blaming the victims here.

Jesus, You’re like a ChatGPT bot.

Given your prolific posting in this thread, the bullshit about not wanting a FSD vehicle yourself ‘because you like driving’, and the frankly intentional misreading of what I write as a direct response to what you’re saying, I have to ask how long you’ve been in the employ of some car manufacturer?

Also, I’m sick of your patronizing tone:

I think the issue here is that you like many other people seem to imagine that because a system is called “full self driving” it literally means that. As if it’s either fully human controlled or fully AI controlled and there’s no inbetween. No, this is just overly simplified black and white thinking that misses all the nuances about the subject.

I have an educational background in mathematics, and I’m fairly certain I understand the math of Neural Networks better than you do. I also am aware of their shortcomings.

I hate people that assume that people that disagree with them are paid or bots. But when you make as many intentional bad-faith arguments combined with your asshole patronizing tone, I can’t help but believe that you’re a fucking paid astro-turfing asshole.

That’s a moved goalpost, and you know it.

If liability is forced on them, that is a huge difference from them voluntarily accepting responsibility. That is what would indicate that they trusted the service they provided.

Is the company legally liable for the actions of the self driving car? If no, then they don’t trust the vehicles.

What charges would apply against a human that delayed an emergency vehicle and caused someone to die?

I’m using a bangle js 2

Don’t forget delta chat.

What two groups of people invaded Cambodia to remove Pol Pot, again?

What were the political ideologies of the two groups that did so?