France

France Warned of Neo-Conservative Influence and the Folly of Intervention

France's foreign affairs minister in the run up to the Iraq War warns his country of its present intervention in Mali

|

je ne pense pas

As noted on Reason 24/7, Dominique de Villepin, who was France's foreign minister from 2002 to 2004 (and later the prime minister), warned of the folly of France's ongoing military intervention in Mali in an op-ed published over the weekend. Villepin, of course, was one of the most outspoken opponents of America's invasion of Iraq, becoming the face of what Donald Rumsfeld termed "Old Europe" in the run up to that war. While Villepin may have set the tone of principled non-intervention, later revelations showed that official French opposition to the war may have been based on a much narrower self-interest, namely the lucratively corrupt Oil-for-Food program. Regardless, outside of opposition to the Iraq War, France is hardly a non-interventionist country, especially when it comes to Africa, a continent on which France operated as a colonial power until the latter part of the 20th century.

Nevertheless, in his op-ed Villepin asks: "How has the neo-conservative virus been able to infect our outlook?" He sees in the French intervention in Mali shades of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. "We will be fighting blind without any reason for actually going to war," he writes, pointing out that keeping the Islamists from running rough-shod over the southern portion of the country, helping Mali's army recapture the north and hunting down elements of Al-Qaeda are all "completely separate war aims." Perhaps most importantly, Villepin applied the principle of blowback, writing that "these wars are a cog. Each creates the conditions for the next." Sort of how the French-backed Western intervention in Libya caused the current crisis in Mali. You can read the op-ed in the original French here.

P.S. If you had Saturday in your office pool on when France would ask the U.S. for help in its foray into Mali, you won.

NEXT: Venezuelan Officials Says Chavez is Conscious

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Perhaps most importantly, Villepin applied the principle of blowback

    The principle of what? I’ve never heard that term before.

    1. The term ‘blowback’ is a word used by pacifists, libertarians, and other pussies who actually believe that if you go around acting like a bully, someone might kick you in the nuts.
      They don’t understand if you never intend to be kicked in the nuts, you can do all the bullying you want and no one will kick you in the nuts.
      Damn libertarians are such pussies.

      1. Let me ask you a question, sarcasmic: Have you ever seen a cosmotarian drink a glass of water?

        1. I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a cosmotarian, let alone one drinking something.

          1. Frou frou mixed drinks, that’s what they drink, isn’t it? Never water? On no account will a cosmotarian ever drink water, and not without good reason. sarcasmic, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this Earth’s surface is water. Why, do you realize that 70 percent of you is water? And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.

            Are you beginning to understand?

            1. Sure, dude. Whatever you say.

            2. I do not fear women,but I do… deny them my essence.

              1. Dammit. womencosmotarians

            3. Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation? Fluoridation of water?

            4. Water? Like from the toilet?

          2. Probably because you live in Real America, not in the Orange Line Bubble.

        2. Water? Never touch the stuff. Fish fuck in it.

  2. In a place like France, with its appalling history, when someone says “Neo Conservative”, they are really saying “Jews”. Seriously, what does the term have to do with the wisdom of intervening in Mali? Nothing. If Villepin resorts to using the term, says he doesn’t have any convincing arguments to make or at least doesn’t think his actual arguments are convincing.

    1. Seriously? Not wanting to invade other countries = Antisemitic?

      1. No, but a corrupt French politician can definitely be anti-Semitic.

      2. Don’t argue, Brandon. He knows it’s just antisemitism even when there’s no evidence it’s antisemitism.

      3. So when a Socialist intervenes in an old colony it is “neocon” of him? How about it is just plain old fashioned French meddling.

        1. That’s pretty neocon, yes. If the idea had debuted during the colonialist era, they’d be the first to support continuation of those colonies as a way to democratize the world.

        2. I didn’t say it was neoconservative. I was just surprised that John couldn’t come up with something better than “Not wanting to invade another country = anti semite.” Neoconservative and antisemitic are not binary, LTC. Everything is not one or the other of those. Although jumping straight into the ad hominem is reminiscent of the neoconservative reaction to basically any criticism of our foreign adventures from 2002-2006.

          1. I’m more addressing the point of the article, I suppose – “neocon” supposes a crusade to spread democracy – part Wilsonian, part Boooooshian. This is simply France throwing its weight around its old colony, by a Socialist government that just wants to keep its client in the ‘ami’ category of states.

    2. And with that, ladies and gents, John officially jumped the shark.

  3. Perhaps most importantly, Villepin applied the principle of blowback, writing that “these wars are a cog. Each creates the conditions for the next.”

    So the Ismalists currently in Mali mean no harm to France and will never attack France if left alone? If this is the case, I would like to see some proof.

    1. The Islamists in Mali seem pretty intent on capturing Mali.

      1. … and then what? Have they said they will just stop with Mali? Is that what Islamists say, just give this country and we’re not commit another 9/11 or London or Madrid?

        1. I seem to recall another time in history when troops were committed to prevent a domino from falling.

          If I remember correctly it didn’t go so well.

          1. You’re right. Vietnam is still a one party communist state today.

            1. Nope, no thanks to us. It wasn’t an American-led war that did it, that’s for sure.

              1. Oh, it’s definitely thanks to us. We left South Vietnam wide open.

                1. Our intervention helped make it better! Not. Vietnam today is going down the same road as China: economic and political liberalization. And not a bit of it is thanks to American wars of intervention.

                  1. And they’re going down the liberty road! Really? Has Vietnam progressed as far as say Taiwan or South Korea where we also propped up pro-free market dictatorships?

        2. Yes, civil war is ALWAYS followed by trying to attack nations on another continent. I’d like to see some evidence they actually plan to attack France, or any other European nation for that matter.

          1. They’ve said they plan to attack France. They’re using Ed Krayewski’s line of thinking, i.e. “if you hit us while we’re hitting these people, we will hit you back”.

            1. They’ve said they plan to attack France

              You mean after France has started sending troops into Mali? You’re absolutely right, blowback must just be a myth.

              1. France has been at this for decades with little ‘blowback’. So yeah it’s basically a myth.

                These Islamists had already taken French nationals hostage, so much for ‘they would’ve left France alone’ talking point.

                1. So yeah it’s basically a myth.

                  When France says they’ll send troops to Mali, and Malian Islamists say they’ll attack France for it? Yes that’s blowback you idiot.

                  These Islamists had already taken French nationals hostage, so much for ‘they would’ve left France alone’ talking point.

                  First I’d like a cite please, I haven’t seen that before. Is this in Mali? The only mention of hostages I can find is about Somalia, on the other side of the continent.

                  1. Seven workers for French firm Areva were seized in northern Niger in 2010, and three have since been released. Two other French citizens were taken hostage in Mali in November.

                    Seized by AQIM which is part of the Islamist insurrection of Mali. FACTPWND

                    http://ca.reuters.com/article/…..9Z20121020

                    I guess you’re right about blowback: France’s attack on the savages is bb for the savages attacking le French. It is almost always the uncivilized savage that strike first.

                    1. Ok, that’s not something to do with Mali specifically, just Africa in general. What does an invasion of Mali have to do with the taking of the hostages? Hostage situations are best dealt with by a rescue operation, not a full-scale war; and France’s professed reasons for declaring war have nothing to do with the French hostages in Mali.

                      So the invasion has nothing to do with the hostages, yet you act as if it does.

                    2. You know, except for the 70 years of forced colonization.

              2. No, dude, they’ve said well before any French troops were in France. And they haven’t been saying it just about France.

        3. Dominos, bitches

      2. The Islamists in Mali seem pretty intent on capturing Mali.

        Today, Mali, tomorrow, France. Wednesday, Belgium.

        1. Sure, then they can take on the Germans. And I think we all know how the Germans treat Semites.

        2. Thursday, the United States. Red Dawn was right, they just got the invaders wrong! Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, and Oliver North need to get their pirate-radio network started asap.

    2. Do you have ANY evidence they plan to attack France? If your argument is “they might do it” provide some evidence please, rather than asking for proof that something doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a negative, John.

      1. They’ve said it.

        Watch this from a journalist living in Africa. He talks about how violent Islamists in Mali are a threat to western Europe

        http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/10579

        1. You are correct. I admit I was wrong about Malian hostility toward France. But as above, you DO realize this is in response to France deciding to send troops to Mali, right? Their response is the essence of blowback. If you want to claim they would have attacked France anyway, please provide evidence of that.

          1. No, they threatened France way before France intervened.

            Watch the bloggingheads.tv video.

      2. Islamists are among the few groups actually willing to follow through on acts of violence. They first say it, hoping that the fear of violence will be enough to force compliance on whomever is offending their sensibilities at the moment. But they are not always inclined to stop there.

        1. “….follow through on threats of violence.”

    3. It’s Global Caliphate or bust for these guys.
      They’re amibitious and crazy and rollin’ into a dusty shithole near you.

  4. P.S. If you had Saturday in your office pool on when France would ask the U.S. for help in its foray into Mali, you won.

    Damn, off by a day. It’s always the people who don’t pay attention to the regular season and guess based on mascots that win.

    1. “We believe they are planning to beumb New Yark.”

      “Did you say ‘beumb’?”

      “Yes, beumb.”

      “What does it mean to beumb?”

      “Beumb you imbecile! Blow up! BOOM!”

      “Oh, Bomb,”

      “Yes, beumb.”

      1. Hotel Clerk: [Clouseau rings the bell for service] Yes?
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: Do you have for me the ‘massage’?
        Hotel Clerk: Oh. You want a massage, ey?
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: If you have one for me, yes.
        Hotel Clerk: Here. Why don’t you try Tokyo Lil at the end of the block. Ask for Passionflower Shirley, the Yokohama Butterfly.
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: And why should I do that?
        Hotel Clerk: Well, you want a massage, don’t you?
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: Yes, but I want it from you.
        Hotel Clerk: Sir, I don’t give massages.
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: But you gave me one early this morning.
        Hotel Clerk: Sir, you’re mistaken.
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: Look! Don’t you try the tricks anglais with me, Monsieur. I receieved a ‘massage’ this morning from Inspector Quinlan of the Yard of Scotland.
        Hotel Clerk: The massage!
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: And it was you that gave it to me.
        Hotel Clerk: Message.
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: What?
        Hotel Clerk: You mean message.
        Insp. Jacques Clouseau: Look, I know what I mean, you lunatic. Now do you, or do you not have for me, the ‘massage’?
        Hotel Clerk: No, Sir. For you, there is no massage.

  5. I think that France is playing Neo-Empire not Neo-Conservatism. Ever since the French have officially given up their empire they have been playing a Neo-Empire game in the area. Their companies are heavily involved in their old colonies and the French government whether left or right have supported this with troops.

    1. Which makes it even more ridiculas that they want to blame American NeoCons for their policies. They can’t do that to our NeoCons. Only we can do that to our NeoCons.

      1. Dey r takin r jerbs (criticizing)!

  6. Huzzah for France! Their head is no longer up their ass. Fuck all Islamists and may the good people of the world kill off all the violent ones.

    Liberty!

    1. They should drop 10,000 Airborne troopers out in some remote valley hundreds of miles from supply lines. The rebels will be totally pwnd.

    2. Fortunately the violent ones are easy to distinguish from 25,000 feet. And once they’ve been blown up, their family and friends will probably be glad they’re gone.

      1. No doubt. That’s probably why France has boots on the ground.

        Don’t put non-violence before liberty friend. Remember, it’s live free or die.

        1. Exactly how does bombing Mali militants make the French people more free?

          1. Read it again, idiot. He said “Live free or die

            1. Oh, now I get it. The Mali militants are not living free, therefor they must be killed. That makes sense.

          2. There is a pre-set and finite limit of jihadists. Since blowback is just a pacisifst illusion, once we kill all those existing jihadists, the rest of the Muslim world will love us. And any collateral damage along the way is no big deal. If you bomb a school or a hospital or wedding or a funeral, the only people that will get mad were already militants in the first place. Otherwise they wouldn’t be mad, right? Truly peace-loving people don’t care if your murder their children.

            AIRTIGHT LOGIC!

            1. the rest of the Muslim world will love us.

              Malians sure love France. They were jubilant at the arrival of French troops.

              1. And they all live happily ever after.

                THE END

          3. Well it keeps the French citizens in Mali free. Mali isn’t just inhabited by Malians.

            .. and keeps radical violent Islam farther away from mainland France.

            1. AIRTIGHT LOGIC!

              1. More like Airtight Grannies 3, NutraSweet.

                1. Didn’t you win an award for that one, Epi? It was some of your best work.

                  1. Thanks, Hugh, I’m very proud of that one. You have no idea how hard it was finding such slutty 80-year-olds.

                    1. You have no idea how hard it was finding such slutty 80-year-olds.

                      Considering the spread of venereal diseases in nursing homes since the arrival of the boner pill, I wouldn’t think it would be that difficult.

              2. So you’re cool with violent Islamists destroying Timbuktu and killing women for being women? And then sitting around and planning ways to run a suicide bomb attack in Toulouse?

                1. So you’re cool with violent Islamists destroying Timbuktu and killing women for being women? And then sitting around and planning ways to run a suicide bomb attack in Toulouse?

                  Not. My. Problem.

                  1. Yeah, I get it. You don’t care about liberty or other human beings. 😉

                    1. I prefer to care from a safe distance.

                      Seriously though, policing the world is expensive. Don’t do it at all, or do the old-fashioned thing and loot the fuckers. Make them pay for their freedom. Policing the world with deficit spending is just plain stupid.

                    2. This one is one the French account….so far.

                    3. This one is one the French account….so far.

                      Exactly.

                    4. Then you should be happy at France’s involvement in Mali cause it isn’t the U.S.’s involvement in Mali.

                      I agree with you the U.S. can’t and shouldn’t do it alone. The U.S. should spend a less on defense, just not so much to the point to where we have to ask another country for transport planes that can fly.

                    5. I agree with you the U.S. can’t and shouldn’t do it alone.

                      Shouldn’t do it alone? Try shouldn’t do it at all.

                    6. This isn’t our fight…yet. And I don’t see how the French could drag us in, unless, maybe, dronez!

                    7. This isn’t our fight…yet. And I don’t see how the French could drag us in, unless, maybe, dronez!

                      You mean like this.

                    8. sarcasmic,

                      Try shouldn’t do it at all.

                      Like I said, you don’t really care about liberty or other human beings.

                      How such logic will keep you free forever I do not understand.

                    9. Ah yes… because caring involves using the nation state to rain death and destruction.

                      I guess because we libertarians oppose gun control you will argue we don’t care about the victims of the Newtown massacre, Lyle.

                    10. tarran,

                      You certainly don’t give a shit about what Islamists do some people.

                      Not everyone can afford to own a gun and need people who do to help. 🙂

                      Go France, go!

                    11. Like I said, you don’t really care about liberty or other human beings.

                      How such logic will keep you free forever I do not understand.

                      Tell you what. When they can get it right here, we’ll discuss bombing other countries into a state of liberty. Fair?

                    12. “get it right”… I don’t know what that means.

                      But I do believe in helping people who are working on their liberty from people who will most certainly end it.

                      Fuck Timbuktu! That’s the new libertarian motto I guess.

  7. Canada gets sucked in.

    Canada will provide one RCAF C-17 transport aircraft in a non-combat role to support the operations of its allies in Mali for a week, the Harper government announced Monday morning in a press release.

    1. Go Canada, go!!! Down with liberty hating violent Islamists.

      Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!

      1. You think the native Malian population is going to look at intervention from the West as “liberty”? Do you think they’ll greet us with little girls holding flowers?

        No. They’ll just be another in the long line of populations in Africa and Asia that are ungrateful for the blood we spill and the money we spend. They will howl about “Crusaders” and “Jews” occupying their land.

        If the people of Mali wanted liberty, they would have taken arms to create a culture that nutures it a long time ago.

        1. Malians were jubilant at the arrival of the French soldiers.

          1. This… and the Western Europeans there too. 😉

        2. From the West? Isn’t France East of Mali? Or do I have my African shitholes mixed up?

        3. Do you think Malians enjoy being killed and mutilated by violent Islamists? Do you think they like the destruction in Timbuktu?

          God damn you’re ignorant… just like Ed Krayewski.

          Dude should be fired for his anti-liberty policy positions.

      2. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        1. I swear I’ve seen Lyle post here before, so I have to wonder whether he’s trolling or just genuinely retarded.

          1. This is the same shtick he always has.

          2. That’s the same thing I say to myself after I read each and every one of your posts man.

            Liberty!

          3. His WAR BONER is very hard.

            1. Watch out then, I may just cluster-bomb your hair.

            2. And yet he’s posting here instead of taking up his rifle and running out to collect jihadist scalps.

              Odd that.

              1. Ooooooh… and promoting anti-liberty policies online is just as courageous.

                You go gurl.

              2. He has to fight the battle for hearts and minds, Hugh. Fighting the WAR BONER battle is for 19-year-old kids. He’s very brave.

                1. … and Episiarcch is brave too. How difficult is it to say online that war is bad and killing bad.

                  Oh my god the bravery!!!

            3. So’s mine, and the French are rubbing it off for free! No American involvement required! Yay!

              1. And to what end, exactly?

          4. He’s just that stupid and/or blind.

            1. I think you’re stupid and blind. And I think you’re immoral and uncaring, and super duper naive.

              1. So, trolling then?

                1. He strikes me as more of a failed student of the S. Colbert method.

                2. What’s trolling?

                  I post on Reason all the time if that helps you out.

                  1. Disagreeing with Noninterventionist Faith = trolling

                    1. Yeah, it’s the progressive defense of “you can’t say that here”.

                    2. War is an extraordinary government act, in both the limiting of freedoms, the loss of life, and the burning of treasure and property.

                      Extraordinary acts require extraordinary justifications. The idea that someone, somewhere in Mali might maybe one day possibly attack France is not even a justification, let alone an extraordinary one.

                    3. Of course it is if they’re planning to suicide attack a train station or blow up the Eiffel Tower.

                      It’s not like violent Islamists haven’t done this kind of stuff before. You know, these kinds of extraordinary acts.

                    4. Who are they? What is your proof of the existence of these plans? Who are the culprits? Do you even have a scintilla of evidence that a war in Mali will prevent these invented horrors of yours?

                    5. They be al Qaeda and like minded violent Islamists. There be evidence galore.

                      http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/10579

    2. Did their plane work? The Brits mysteriously couldn’t get their one contributed plane off the ground.

      1. This is a great example of not spending enough on Defense. Haha.

      2. A proud day for the RAF, to be sure.

    3. Well a Dem is in the White House so it is okay.

  8. P.S. If you had Saturday in your office pool on when France would ask the U.S. for help in its foray into Mali, you won.

    I had Sunday for their surrender.

    *ducks*

  9. Hey Ed Krayewski… did France expect blowback from black Frenchman in France when it intervened in Cote de Ivoire several years ago?

    Why weren’t they worried about blowback? Why didn’t that intervention setup up the next blowback? Why Ed, why Ed. You’re so smart and knowledgeable you must a good answer.

    1. Considering a plurality of the Ivory Coast is Muslim, I’m not sure that helps your point.

      1. That’s even better. Why wasn’t a blowback expected? I think it was the kind of Muslims in the Ivory Coast.

        How dare you equate all Muslims to violent Islamists. 🙂

        1. You have dared question The Faith of Noninterventionism. For that you must be punished.

          1. The neocon butthurt is strong in here.

            1. It always is, dude. Their WAR BONERS are sore and they have blueballs.

            2. The irony.

              Their WAR BONERS are sore and they have blueballs.

              Since I’m not a neocon, not a problemo for me. Between Mali and Syria my balls are not blue. Rather drained.

              1. Cyto, you couldn’t have made a worse response to that if you’d tried. If this was pre-registration I’d suspect someone used your name and posted that to make fun of you.

                1. If this was pre-registration I’d suspect someone used your name and posted that to make fun of you.

                  Sometimes honesty just shocks you like that.

          2. I hate to be vulgar but they can all suck a dick… especially Ed Krayewski. What an idiot and immoral human being this guy is.

            1. Krayewski has dared question The Faith of Interventionism. Thus he is TEH EVULZ

              1. No he’s just against liberty and immoral.

                1. The Faith of Interventionism brooks no dissent! Down with the heretic!

                  1. It’s really odd that some libertarians are more worried about “interventionism” than liberty.

                    Can’t see the forest through the trees I guess.

                    1. You’re right Lyle! We need to understand that the only way to save the forest from blight is to burn it down!

                      Gosh! It all makes sense!

                      In fact, I think I’ll go out and shoot a couple of Democrat and Republican politicians right now! They hate freedom so there’s no way it’ll be counterproductive!

                    2. Really, we’re burning the whole forest down. It’s that why we manufacture precision guided bombs?

                    3. tarran,

                      You’re always free to go out and shoot a couple of Democrat and Republican politicians. Just like violent Islamists are free to sack and burn Timbuktu.

                      Yeah, lets just get out of the way of that kind of freedom.

                      What we were doing to stop Japan from bombing Pearl Harbor? How dare we stop them.

                    4. Oh, I’m sorry? Are you admitting that killing people who hate freedom is sometimes counterproductive Lyle?

                      Why don’t you care about *my* liberty, Lyle?

                    5. tarran,

                      Oh I care about your liberty man, but if you’re going use your liberty to harm others and to take their liberty away… then I’m not going to care about you’re liberty and will work very hard to stop you, which will probably mean killing you.

                      That’s what would happen to you if you decided to start killing elected congressmen right? At the very least you’d be imprisoned right?

                    6. Wow, you do realize those French bombs will be hitting liberty hating human beings like the ones I propose shooting, right?

                      Perhaps you haven’t grown up enough to realize that life isn’t like a Michael Bay movie where there are lots of explosions but nobody get hurt.

                    7. Tarran,

                      Haha… yeah, you’re right, elected U.S. officials are just like liberty hating violent Islamists.

                      … and I know exactly what exploding ordnance does to people. And it does hurt.

  10. Hey Ed Krayewski… did France expect blowback from black Frenchman in France when it intervened in Cote de Ivoire several years ago?

    Why weren’t they worried about blowback? Why didn’t that intervention setup up the next blowback? Why Ed, why Ed. You’re so smart and knowledgeable you must a good answer.

  11. The Mali Army runs away , while the local people have no means to resist the Islamists. Why is that exactly?

      1. I noticed CNN Mobile was doing it’s part to keep the aw ban dream alive. I go to their site this morning and they have a large picture of an AR at the top of the screen with an anti-NRA article attached. Went back later and they had the same picture at the top but with a different anti-NRA article attached. Glad to see they’re still such objective “journalists”.

  12. This isn’t “neocon” – The French were more than happy to sit out of Iraq and leave Afghanistan – this is meddling in an old colony. Sure, the tricolor may have been lowered at one time in the past, but they had their fingers crossed and muttered “we’ll be back when it suits us” about Mali, Ivory Coast, etc. This is just good old fashioned, thuggish, perceived national interest pushing. They may be calculating right, they may be figuring wrong, but it sure isn’t some Wilsonian democracy pushing expedition. THIS. IS. FRANCE.

    1. Well, it’s not like France has ever mistreated anyone in West Africa or anything.

      1. Only at all times, in all ways. They were even more dreadful in Central Africa. Between them and the Belgians, it was enough to even make colonial Germans puke.

  13. I know it’s too much to ask for an honest argument from peaceniks, but can Reason knock it off with the ‘Libyan intervention lead to Malian insurrection’ lie? Yes, the former made the latter worse but Mali wasin trouble long before the Libyan intervention.

    1. Yes, the former made the latter worse…

      This is all you needed to say, Cyto. the non-interventionist “peaceniks” were right. The rest of your post is exactly the same as the people who still say the economy would be worse without government intervention.

      1. No it isn’t and no it isn’t. Sorry words have meaning and I am a stickler for accuracy.

        1. I am a stickler for accuracy.

          Heh.

  14. If you had Saturday in your office pool on when France would ask the U.S. for help in its foray into Mali, you won.

    Gee, helping the French out of an ill conceived foray into another country where they were a one time colonial power: what could possibly go wrong?

    1. AQ Kong? Nah, pho is haram, in’it?

    2. Who ordered Dominos?

  15. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bro…..rises.html

    Even in an evening gown, which can make even homely women attractive, Lena Dunham is still a fat skank. For the love of God, she puts lie to the entire myth that Hollywood is for attractive people.

    1. Let’s sit around the fire and listen again to Episiarch tell the hilarious tale of how much he likes Girls. It gets me every time.

      1. That show is horrible. I can’t figure it out. Dunham is ugly, a bit dirty, completely unappealing and devoid of writing talent. She seems to be proof that a deal with the Devil is apparently an option.

        1. “That show is horrible. I can’t figure it out.”

          What’s to figure out? Dunham did that lose your virginity to Obama UTube. That’s why she’s their current fave. She can milk that for several years. Same reason Tina Fey got all of those accolades immediately after her Palin schtick. She was winning awards left and right after that. She’s funny, but she’s not that damn funny. Neither women are talented enough to get the kind of recognition Hollywood has bestowed upon them.

      2. I just watched the season premiere last night, Donald Glover is on the show now. It was good. Am I hilarious yet?

        1. Not hilarious just someone with deeply disturbed tastes in television.

          1. Everything about Epi is deeply disturbing, why wouldn’t his taste in entertainment be?

            1. Fuck, I would think you guys would expect it! What am I, fucking predictable now?

              1. What am I, fucking predictable now?

                A Clockwork Dildo

          2. Epi once said good things about Shaggy 2 Dope and also admits to owning many of Robin Williams’ movies.

            From those two factoids the inference that he has really messed up tastes is quite reasonable.

            1. Epi once said good things about Shaggy 2 Dope and also admits to owning many of Robin Williams’ movies.

              I just had a Pillowpants moment over here.

            2. Big Money Rustlas is either a work of consummate genius or appalling atrocity. And I can’t figure out which.

              1. See! See! He did it again!

              2. I just watched a few minutes of it on youtube. I vote genius.

                1. To tell you the truth, and after watching one of their MST3K-style video watching sessions, I’m actually leaning toward genius. And that scares the shit out of me.

                  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..lown_Posse

                    They must be geniuses. There’s no other explanation.

          1. Then I have achieved my objectives.

      3. You are a cruel man…. please keep it up.

    2. Ew.

      That said, I am open to the possibility that Epi is correct and she’s a comic genius trolling hipsters. I’m not about to watch the damn show to find out, but it could be true.

      1. I sometimes think the same about David Foster Wallace. But then I go with the simple explanation that he just was a horrible writer.

        1. If he killed himself for the sake of trolling, then he is quite a hero.

          1. Maybe so. I think he realized that he was nothing but the worst sort of workshop fiction writer and would never be anything more than an ironic joke on that kind of writing.

      2. She’s actually trolling herself to a certain degree, which is why I like it. Don’t think that she doesn’t make herself look like a loser all the time. Because she does.

        People need to separate their hate for an artist’s politics from the person’s work. Some people are obviously incapable of doing that, but the only person they hurt is themselves because they deny themselves some enjoyment.

        1. Exactly. I mean, sure, Hitler did some bad things, but come on, Mein Kampf is a masterpiece of erotic literature.

        2. I can see that. It is funny how she gets such a pass from feminists. The first time I watched that show I thought it was one of the most misogynistic things I had ever seen. The women on that show confirm every single awful stereotype men have about women. If you really enjoy hating women, that is the show for you.

          1. Well, you know me, John: all misogyny and women hate all the time.

            1. That’s why you watch The View, too, isn’t it?

              1. Are you sure you want to antagonize me like this, T? It’s one thing to criticize my watching of Girls. But The View?!? You go too far, sir. Too far!

                1. Criticize? I merely try to understand your motivations, so that I may avoid them.

                2. Girls is great. It’s like watching a scab pull itself off.

                  It explores the giant gap between what these character are saying they want and what they actually want. It’s a harsh funhouse mirror.

                  1. See, that’s why spiteful fucks such as ourselves like the show, but that isn’t the reason that other people like the show.

                    Other people identify with those people. Think about that.

                    Look at Dunham’s intent:

                    “I sort of object to the notion that characters have to be likable,” Dunham said when Guthrie brought up the criticism that the main “Girls” (Hannah, Marnie, Jessa and Shoshanna) are self-involved and entitled. “I don’t like most of my friends, I love them. And that’s the same way I feel about most of the characters I write.”

                    1. So? What do you care what we watch? This is as inane as the fat/thin sarcasmic/John war.

                    2. Well, it relates to Episiarch’s assessment of the show as ‘good’, which it isn’t.

                      Girls is four female characters who are as likable as Nancy on Weeds, with less going on.

                    3. Basically, Randian has a deontological view of the value of entertainment – that the author had to have the right goals in making it for it to be good.

                      Episiarch is being a consequentialist, arguing that if he enjoys it (or in the case of Warty experiencing the crude Hasturian analog of enjoyment) that it is good, regardless of the author’s intentions.

                      Episiarch would be correct, except that he has awful taste; the stuff he likes is awful from both a consequentialist and deontological paradigm.

                    4. “…but when tarran spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and faggy to them.”

                    5. Oh, I’m sorry, is the discussion getting to intellectual for the doctor of library science? Like anyone needs a doctorate to know how to put books away based on their Dewey number.

                    6. Master of Library Science. As in “I own you, bitch.”

                    7. So you’ve contributed nothing new to the field of putting books away in shelves?

        3. I can separate her politics from her art. The problem is she can’t.

          1. Have you actually watched the show? Because it sure as hell sounds like you haven’t.

            1. Yes, I have. The problem is that you aren’t sufficiently steeped enough in smug Brooklynite Lady Politics to know that Girls is just one more iteration of the Culture War.

              1. Well maybe I need more steeping! Remember, I was a Manhattanite. Brooklynites are like ants to me.

                1. To be just a little more clear, I think that Girls gets the benefit of the doubt from people who think these characters are just rankly horrible and therefore the show is funny, but I can feel that isn’t (or at least wasn’t – if they’ve come to embrace it then good for them for knowing where dinner comes from) the intent of Apatow or Dunam.

              2. I don’t think wars iterate. WARS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

                1. Sure, I spent 9 months in the Third Iteration War. I came back with a bad case of ennui and a slightly damage sense of irony. The VA offered 10% disability, but I couldn’t be bothered to do the paperwork.

                  1. i=0
                    while 1
                    war(i)
                    i=i+1
                    end

                  2. You survived the Third Iteration War, but were unprepared for the Forth Derivative Peace.

                    1. Unfortunately, you are right. Hence you may find me at the bottom of the 25th Avenue off ramp from the Eastbound I290/Eisenhower Expressway with a sign “Math Impaired Vet, please help. God Bless.”

                    2. Forth Derivative

                      GO FORTH AND LEARN TO SPELL! OH SNAP!

                2. I don’t think wars iterate. WARS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY

                  YES THEY DO!

    3. John would fuck her.

      1. Not even with your dick. And unlike you, I find women attractive.

        1. Normally Ms Hilton does nothing for me, but she looks pretty good here.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..erson.html

          John pron!
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..feast.html

          1. Those are not humans. Sorry, I leave the bestiality to you. As long as it is consensual, have fun.

            1. This is why John likes to hang around in restaurant basements.

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..erson.html

              1. Why can’t you just go with the flow and start liking women like the rest of us? Or liking someone. You don’t have join any particular team, just join one.

              2. The problem Sarcasmic is that not all women look like that.

                Some look like this

                http://www.pickywallpapers.com…../download/

                But in your work, that woman is a cow and might as well weigh 400. That is no way to live son.

                1. Meh. I’ll take this one home (assuming the wife ain’t there of course).

                  http://www.pickywallpapers.com…..d-picture/

  16. The real hypocrisy was France’s invasion of the Ivory Coast in 2002, just months before the invasion of Iraq.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F….._Civil_War

    The thing about France is, I don’t they feel compelled to remake the countries they invade in their image of democracy and freedom. They’ve been through the colonial thing, and that may have gone worse for them than it did for any other European colonial power.

    You can make a lot of mistakes and not pay much of a price for it, so long as you don’t feel compelled to stay. America can’t do that. Once a critical mass of our people die on the ground there, any attempt to withdraw without first achieving total victory is seen as a betrayal of all those dead and wounded soldiers. The French love their soldiers too; it’s just that they’ve also been through the wringer with Algeria, etc.

    If our enemies understood us better (and understood that the more Americans you kill, the harder it is for us to leave), then maybe they’d do things differently? Maybe we’d have been out of Afghanistan and Iraq years ago.

  17. On the plus side for the Frogs, I don’t see 2REP going native and threatening to take over the French government if Mali turns out to be a clusterfuck and they bail.

  18. If neocons are reformed trotskyists, why is he shocked that a socialist government would go neocon?

    1. So you are saying the sole reason a country like France would push into a fight in its old colony is because they have gone “neocon”? That seems a bit over-inclusive of motivations. Why not good old patron-peon intervention? Why not distraction from troubles at home? Why not protection of one of a series of former colonies that they feel guilty about? Hell, maybe Hollende took a huge bribe to do it – who knows? But assuming anytime any state in NATO or “the West” or whatever intervenes it is some sort of “neocon” impulse is too much.

      How would you classify Australia’s actions in the Solomons or East Timor?

      1. How would you classify Australia’s actions in the Solomons or East Timor?

        In keeping with national stereotypes: drunken brawling.

      2. I think they’re probably worried about Domino Theory.

        I think they’re probably worried that if Mali goes, it may spread to elsewhere in the former French colonies, and they’d rather nip in the bud than have to deal with a regional conflict.

        Must suck to be them!

  19. Fuck all this geopolitical bullshit y’all are spouting. It’s clearly Michael Palin’s fault. Every country he visits goes to shit – Nepal, Tunisia, Pakistan, Libya, Mali. The guy is a one-man destruction force.

    1. Can we send him to Persia?

    2. Look, let him go back in there and face the peril.

      1. But isn’t it too perilous?

      2. Mali is Gorges (of Eternal Peril)?

  20. a continent on which France operated as a colonial power until the latter part of the 20th century.

    Excuse me? This is the continent on which France still operates as a colonial power. From 1960 to 2006, France launched 37 major military operations in Francophone sub-Saharan Africa.

    Which is also why it’s ridiculous to pretend this intervention has anything to do with “neo-conservative influence”. This is the French just being the colonial rulers they are.

    1. Thanks for that, I was trying, not very successfully to say just that.

  21. Yeah I don’t like it that “neocon” seems to have become a catch-all term for foreign interventionism when colonialism and “humanitarian” intervention long predate the neocons. Where Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and FDR neocons?

    I also find it really annoying that the 1941 Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran ignored when that was the event that installed Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to the Iranian throne not the 1953 coup.

  22. Also I remember Justin Raimondo complaining about the Democrats becoming “neoconized” which I thought was ridiculous since the Neocons were disgruntled Dems in the first place and the fact that the Democratic Party has never in its entire history been particularily “anti-war.”

  23. So Lyle, if we don’t support a powerful central government sending its military (which it finances through taxation, which obviously means people being forced to pay for it against their will) all over the world to bomb the world until “democracy” takes root, we hate liberty?

    1. I don’t know what you mean by “bomb the world until “democracy” takes root”.

      I think we’re talking about Mali. So you better put in the context we’re talking about.

      You you think it’s supporting liberty is to sit back and let Islamists destroy Timbuktu and boss the people there around? Burying your head up your twat is supporting liberty?

      1. I agree with you, but it’s pretty much hopeless to argue with pacifists.

        1. For whatever reason, on the subject of foreign policy, most libertarians think with their hearts….not their heads. Maybe it fills a psychological need, I dunno.

        2. I’m not a pacifist. Seriously, that word has essentially come to mean “anyone who opposes a war I support.” And it has nothing to do with thinking with the heart. It has to be with having a consistent philosophy. I think the US government is an incompetent, corrupt entity. Why would I trust them with the task of liberating the world? Why would I trust them to run a campaign as vague and endless as the “War on Terror” in the manner they have? Why would I support forcibly taxing people to pay for adventures that do nothing to enhance security?

      2. “I think we’re talking about Mali. So you better put in the context we’re talking about.”

        Let’s not pretend this is an isolated conversation.

        “You you think it’s supporting liberty is to sit back and let Islamists destroy Timbuktu and boss the people there around? Burying your head up your twat is supporting liberty?”

        It must be nice to have such a simplistic view of the world where everything can be summed up as the Evil Islamists vs. The Good Guys, led by America. It’s not the job of the US government to liberate the world through warfare. Nor are they capable of such a task.

        1. Haha… Is America leading in Mali? No, them dudes are going to die at the hands of a Frenchman or a European.

          Standing up to these jackasses is as simplistic as standing up the KKK. It’s just the right thing to do, anywhere and everywhere. As a libertarian you’d stand up to the KKK wouldn’t you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.