View Poll Results: What force does the American Empire have on the world?

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • Wholly Benevolent

    3 6.25%
  • Rather Benevolent

    15 31.25%
  • Hardly Benevolent

    5 10.42%
  • Not one way or the other

    2 4.17%
  • Slightly Malevolent

    3 6.25%
  • Malevolent

    3 6.25%
  • Very Malevolent

    3 6.25%
  • America is not an Empire

    14 29.17%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I did not make any mention of financial aid but simply said support. There are ways to provide support that don't involve money.
    Ya all aid would have required funding, funding wasn't authorized until 1979.

    Actually they say there was no direct military assistance. After the invasion there were CIA agents on the ground helping to arm them.
    Actually they say that lethal weapondry was not sent until after the Soviet invasion.

    I am not sure what your point is because as I stated the Soviets had some presence there for decades. We didn't particularly care until it looked like we could give them one hell of quagmire.
    We were aiding Communist rebels, your claim was that this aid prompted the Soviets to invade, this is a lie because a) at the time we started providing financial aid they already had troops on the ground, and b) at the time weapons were sent to the Mujahadeen the Soviets had already begun the formal invasion.


    Really? You believe that and believe that the Soviets were 100% confident this was the case and did not think that it could cause similar uprising within the Soviet Union among its Muslim population?
    Did the Soviets ever claim a potential Muslim uprising as a raison de'tre for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

    The Soviet Union does border Afghanistan.
    Again so what?

    No, plain and simply, because it wasn't an invasion. South Vietnam was separate from North Vietnam and troops were committed there in considerable numbers. What we did was a massive expansion of the conflict and was not motivated by anything specific done by the Soviets.
    Understood the U.S. is responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because the U.S. funded the Mujahadeen, but the Soviet Union is not responsible for the U.S. invasion of Vietnam because the Soviet Union funded the Vietnamese communists. What we did was invade South Vietnam to defend an allied government from Soviet funded and armed Communist rebels. It's the exact same situation.

    Lol, sorry. I was gonna say we knew the Soviet Union was more likely to invade as a result.
    As a result of what? Arms were not sent until after the invasion, funding was not authorized until the Soviets had already sent in their troops.

    What outside international observers?
    The United Nations.

  2. #52
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Ya all aid would have required funding, funding wasn't authorized until 1979.
    Please think about these things for a second. The authorization was for providing financial aid and non-military supplies. The CIA already had funding to do other things as part of its normal operations and those normal operations would include providing some form of non-financial aid to groups or individuals in certain countries.

    Actually they say that lethal weapondry was not sent until after the Soviet invasion.
    Hey, I watched it and that is not what they said.

    We were aiding Communist rebels, your claim was that this aid prompted the Soviets to invade, this is a lie because a) at the time we started providing financial aid they already had troops on the ground, and b) at the time weapons were sent to the Mujahadeen the Soviets had already begun the formal invasion.
    Like I said the Soviets had been in Afghanistan long before there was an insurgency. They invaded because of the instability brought on by said insurgency. We played a part in that instability.

    Did the Soviets ever claim a potential Muslim uprising as a raison de'tre for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
    Openly? I don't know, but it was something they were deeply worried about especially since there was a large Muslim population in the parts of the Soviet Union bordering Afghanistan and you have to remember the Islamic Revolution in Iran was around this time as well. Hell, given the evidence the U.S. intentionally threw the Shah to the wolves, they were probably right to think the U.S. was inciting Islamic rebellions to destabilize their country.

    Again so what?
    Meaning an insurrection on their immediate border is more of a threat than some war half a world away.

    Understood the U.S. is responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because the U.S. funded the Mujahadeen, but the Soviet Union is not responsible for the U.S. invasion of Vietnam because the Soviet Union funded the Vietnamese communists. What we did was invade South Vietnam to defend an allied government from Soviet funded and armed Communist rebels. It's the exact same situation.
    Not, it really isn't the exact same situation. The Soviets had been aiding them directly for years and we had been involved for years as well. It was just one of countless proxy wars raging throughout the world. The U.S. chose that war and was not lured in by any means.

    As a result of what? Arms were not sent until after the invasion, funding was not authorized until the Soviets had already sent in their troops.
    You keep repeating yourself like a broken record and I keep having to remind that the Soviets had troops there for decades. They did provide some very limited additional support before the invasion, but not nearly enough to be relevant to the fight against the insurgency.

    The United Nations.
    I suppose you are right. They do have some people there, of course the vast majority of the people watching the elections are domestic or from the U.S. So far they have only commented on the actual voting process, which is only one element of a fair election. There are many ways to manipulate the vote.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Please think about these things for a second. The authorization was for providing financial aid and non-military supplies. The CIA already had funding to do other things as part of its normal operations and those normal operations would include providing some form of non-financial aid to groups or individuals in certain countries.
    Prove it. Both Gates and Zbigniew assert that aid of any sort to the Mujahadeen did not begin until 1979, the historical records are open so if there was financing prior to 1979 then by all means prove it. Oh and FYI a google cache of a book from 1991 missing the page in question =/= proof of anything.

    Hey, I watched it and that is not what they said.
    Hey I found it and watched it and that is exactly what they said.

    Like I said the Soviets had been in Afghanistan long before there was an insurgency. They invaded because of the instability brought on by said insurgency. We played a part in that instability.
    Openly?
    At all.

    I don't know, but it was something they were deeply worried about
    Prove it.

    especially since there was a large Muslim population in the parts of the Soviet Union bordering Afghanistan and you have to remember the Islamic Revolution in Iran was around this time as well. Hell, given the evidence the U.S. intentionally threw the Shah to the wolves, they were probably right to think the U.S. was inciting Islamic rebellions to destabilize their country.
    Oh so now the U.S. supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

    Meaning an insurrection on their immediate border is more of a threat than some war half a world away.
    How so? What does geography have to do with anything? Were the Mujahadeen threatening the Soviets? Were they conducting operations outside Afghanistan? Anyways I take it you support the U.S. support of Somoza because of the insurrection of the Soviet backed Sandinistas right?

    Not, it really isn't the exact same situation.
    Yes it really is.

    The Soviets had been aiding them directly for years and we had been involved for years as well.
    That aid was not being used to finance a Communist insurrection in the south for years.

    It was just one of countless proxy wars raging throughout the world. The U.S. chose that war and was not lured in by any means.
    The Soviets lured the United States by providing assistance to the Communist insurrection in the South. Unlike the U.S. in relations to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan the Soviets actually were providing arms to the Communists in the South who were working under the direction of the Communists in the North, whereas, the U.S. didn't begin providing arms until after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.


    You keep repeating yourself like a broken record and I keep having to remind that the Soviets had troops there for decades.
    So then by your logic they were inducing U.S. support for the Mujahadeen for decades. Anyways prove it.

    They did provide some very limited additional support before the invasion, but not nearly enough to be relevant to the fight against the insurgency.
    They provided combat special operations forces prior to the formal invasion. They had already invaded Afghanistan prior to the U.S. suppplying the Mujahadeen with weapons.

    I suppose you are right. They do have some people there, of course the vast majority of the people watching the elections are domestic or from the U.S.
    Prove it.

    So far they have only commented on the actual voting process, which is only one element of a fair election. There are many ways to manipulate the vote.

    The Iraqi elections have been certified as free and fair by independent international observers. Next.

  4. #54
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Oh so now the U.S. supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
    Some believed they should give up on the Shah and use the Islamic movement to destabilize the Soviet Union and there is evidence indicating we abandoned the Shah and let the whole thing play out.

    How so? What does geography have to do with anything? Were the Mujahadeen threatening the Soviets? Were they conducting operations outside Afghanistan?
    Geography has everything to do with it. Would you seriously suggest the U.S. should sit on its hand if Mexico's government was on the verge of collapse?

    Anyways I take it you support the U.S. support of Somoza because of the insurrection of the Soviet backed Sandinistas right?
    Understanding why a country does something is not the same as supporting it.

    That aid was not being used to finance a Communist insurrection in the south for years.
    Uh, yeah it was.

    The Soviets lured the United States by providing assistance to the Communist insurrection in the South.
    There is exactly zero evidence of that and it is a completely absurd suggestion.

    So then by your logic they were inducing U.S. support for the Mujahadeen for decades. Anyways prove it.
    I'm not gonna baby you. Look for yourself.

    Prove it.
    Oh for ****'s sake, look for yourself!

    The Iraqi elections have been certified as free and fair by independent international observers.
    The U.N. from what I can gather had very little in the way of personnel and as such there is no reason to believe they are even capable of making a fair judgment.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Some believed they should give up on the Shah and use the Islamic movement to destabilize the Soviet Union and there is evidence indicating we abandoned the Shah and let the whole thing play out.
    Now we're responsible for the overthrow of the Shah. Anything else you want to blame on the U.S. while we're at it?
    Geography has everything to do with it. Would you seriously suggest the U.S. should sit on its hand if Mexico's government was on the verge of collapse?
    Would you seriously assert that the Communist insurgency currently taking place in Mexico is casus belli for a U.S. invasion of Mexico?

    Understanding why a country does something is not the same as supporting it.
    So then the Soviets caused the U.S. support of Somoza during the Communist insurrection then?

    Uh, yeah it was.
    Uh, "the peoples war" using the VC was not approved until 1959 long after U.S. troops began operating in Vietnam under the Eisenhower administration.

    There is exactly zero evidence of that and it is a completely absurd suggestion.
    So the Soviets didn't fund and arm a Communist insurrection in South Vietnam which lured the U.S. into an invasion of Vietnam? I get it though, the U.S. finance of anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the Soviet finance and arming of a pro-Communist insurrection in South Vietnam did not cause the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. Good to know that your hypocrisy knows no limits.

    I'm not gonna baby you. Look for yourself.
    The U.S. had troops in Vietnam for decades, thus the Soviets are responsible for luring the U.S. into the Vietnamese conflict.

    Oh for ****'s sake, look for yourself!


    The U.N. from what I can gather had very little in the way of personnel and as such there is no reason to believe they are even capable of making a fair judgment.
    From what I can gather is the Iraqi elections have been certified as free and fair by the United Nations. Now according to you that certification of validity doesn't matter because the supposedly used some domestic workers.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 06-23-10 at 12:15 AM.

  6. #56
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Now we're responsible for the overthrow of the Shah. Anything else you want to blame on the U.S. while we're at it?
    I am not blaming the U.S., but there is evidence that we provided some support to the groups opposing the Shah and that at least some officials in the Carter Administration supported the Shah's overthrow by radicals as a means of destabilizing the Soviet Union.

    Would you seriously assert that the Communist insurgency currently taking place in Mexico is casus belli for a U.S. invasion of Mexico?
    That depends, are you suggesting the Zapatistas are as serious a threat to Mexico's stability as the mujahideen were to Afghanistan's?

    So then the Soviets caused the U.S. support of Somoza during the Communist insurrection then?
    What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, the U.S. and Soviet Union had proxy wars all the time. The U.S. was trying to encircle the Soviet Union and the USSR was trying to establish some greater presence in our backyard. With Afghanistan we are talking about the U.S. providing aid explicitly in the hopes the Soviets would invade. Prove the Soviets made similar calculations in any of these instances and then we can talk.

    Uh, "the peoples war" using the VC was not approved until 1959 long after U.S. troops began operating in Vietnam under the Eisenhower administration.
    They were providing aid long before that.

    So the Soviets didn't fund and arm a Communist insurrection in South Vietnam which lured the U.S. into an invasion of Vietnam? I get it though, the U.S. finance of anti-Communist forces in Afghanistan caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the Soviet finance and arming of a pro-Communist insurrection in South Vietnam did not cause the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. Good to know that your hypocrisy knows no limits.
    There is no hypocrisy, because they are completely different situations. The Soviets had no reason to think their aid would spark an invasion or that it would result in a catastrophic defeat for the U.S. Also, the U.S. was not lured into any invasion because it acted primarily out of an interest entirely separate from any interest in Vietnam's stability. I think the U.S. may have been at least partly lured into the most recent War in Iraq by Iran, but the Soviets had no clear reason to want the U.S. launching a massive military attack. They had no reason to think the result would be any different from the Korean War, which would be against their interests.

    From what I can gather is the Iraqi elections have been certified as free and fair by the United Nations. Now according to you that certification of validity doesn't matter because the supposedly used some domestic workers.
    It wasn't supposedly used some domestic workers. Most of the people monitoring the elections were from Iraq and foreign observes were mostly from the U.S. and U.S. organizations. The IHEC, Iraq's electoral commission, was set up the occupation government and though having some U.N. involvement with nearly every member being Iraqi and the groups supporting mainly being U.S. organizations including USAID which has historically been used by the CIA and currently is used by the NED, which took up the task of supporting U.S. control and influence in other countries.

    Considering the IHEC banned hundreds of candidates, including members of the government, their ability to fairly judge the election is questionable and the meager involvement there makes me think they do not have much pull in observing the actual vote either. Also neglect is that by supporting Maliki's crackdown on dissent the U.S. is tainting the elections in yet another manner.

    Elections are not just about a secure vote, but a free press, free speech, and freedom to run for office. Denying these may greatly reduce or even eliminate the need for fraud. For instance, Russia doesn't need to rig elections because they come pre-rigged thanks to the media's undying devotion to the State.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I am not blaming the U.S., but there is evidence that we provided some support to the groups opposing the Shah and that at least some officials in the Carter Administration supported the Shah's overthrow by radicals as a means of destabilizing the Soviet Union.
    No you're not blaming the U.S. only stating that the overthrow of the Shah was part of the U.S.'s secret evil plan.

    That depends, are you suggesting the Zapatistas are as serious a threat to Mexico's stability as the mujahideen were to Afghanistan's?
    Yes they are a serious threat, moreover, Mexican terrorists routinely come onto the U.S. side of the border and murder U.S. citizens, so it seems that we have more justification for an invasion of Mexico than the Soviets had for the invasion of the Soviet Union.

    What the hell are you talking about? Seriously, the U.S. and Soviet Union had proxy wars all the time. The U.S. was trying to encircle the Soviet Union and the USSR was trying to establish some greater presence in our backyard. With Afghanistan we are talking about the U.S. providing aid explicitly in the hopes the Soviets would invade. Prove the Soviets made similar calculations in any of these instances and then we can talk.
    I understand the Soviet financial aid to the Mujahadeen caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the Soviet financial and military aid to the V.C. did not cause the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. It all makes perfect sense, the U.S. is the only country on the planet responsible for its own actions.


    They were providing aid long before that.
    And yet there was not a guerilla war in the South until 1959.

    There is no hypocrisy, because they are completely different situations. The Soviets had no reason to think their aid would spark an invasion or that it would result in a catastrophic defeat for the U.S. Also, the U.S. was not lured into any invasion because it acted primarily out of an interest entirely separate from any interest in Vietnam's stability. I think the U.S. may have been at least partly lured into the most recent War in Iraq by Iran, but the Soviets had no clear reason to want the U.S. launching a massive military attack. They had no reason to think the result would be any different from the Korean War, which would be against their interests.
    Completely different situations, totally and completely different, as the U.S. funding of the Mujahadeen caused the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, yet the Soviets funding and arming the V.C. did not cause the U.S. to invade Vietnam. I understand they are completely different situations which did not involve the exact same actions of both countries involved. Completely different.


    It wasn't supposedly used some domestic workers. Most of the people monitoring the elections were from Iraq and foreign observes were mostly from the U.S. and U.S. organizations. The IHEC, Iraq's electoral commission, was set up the occupation government and though having some U.N. involvement with nearly every member being Iraqi and the groups supporting mainly being U.S. organizations including USAID which has historically been used by the CIA and currently is used by the NED, which took up the task of supporting U.S. control and influence in other countries.
    The United Nations sent their own people to help monitor the elections.

    Considering the IHEC banned hundreds of candidates, including members of the government,
    You mean ****ing Baathists?

    their ability to fairly judge the election is questionable and the meager involvement there makes me think they do not have much pull in observing the actual vote either. Also neglect is that by supporting Maliki's crackdown on dissent the U.S. is tainting the elections in yet another manner.

    Elections are not just about a secure vote, but a free press, free speech, and freedom to run for office. Denying these may greatly reduce or even eliminate the need for fraud. For instance, Russia doesn't need to rig elections because they come pre-rigged thanks to the media's undying devotion to the State.
    Sorry sport independent election monitors and public opinion polls back up the findings of the IHEC and the United Nations. The Iraqi elections have been certified as free and fair by independent international observers, any assertion to the contrary is a lie.

  8. #58
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    No you're not blaming the U.S. only stating that the overthrow of the Shah was part of the U.S.'s secret evil plan.
    Actually I'm just saying there are some people in the Carter Administration who thought there should be support for them and evidence we did offer some support, though I haven't looked into it enough to know exactly whether this resulted in any sort of plan.

    Yes they are a serious threat, moreover, Mexican terrorists routinely come onto the U.S. side of the border and murder U.S. citizens, so it seems that we have more justification for an invasion of Mexico than the Soviets had for the invasion of the Soviet Union.
    Huh? Are you talking about the drug cartels? They're communist?

    I understand the Soviet financial aid to the Mujahadeen caused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but the Soviet financial and military aid to the V.C. did not cause the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. It all makes perfect sense, the U.S. is the only country on the planet responsible for its own actions.
    I told you clearly that there is a major difference between the two situations. Unless you can somehow point out that the Soviets aided Vietnamese insurgents hoping to incite a massive U.S. invasion that would drag the U.S. into a horrific quagmire then we're done here.

    And yet there was not a guerilla war in the South until 1959.
    So we are talking about South Vietnam here, even though the U.S. justified the build-up of troops on the basis of a provoked attack by North Vietnam?

    Completely different situations, totally and completely different, as the U.S. funding of the Mujahadeen caused the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, yet the Soviets funding and arming the V.C. did not cause the U.S. to invade Vietnam. I understand they are completely different situations which did not involve the exact same actions of both countries involved. Completely different.
    They are completely different situations for reason I have explained in some detail.

    The United Nations sent their own people to help monitor the elections.
    They did send people, but apparently they didn't send many.

    You mean ****ing Baathists?
    Some had been members of the party at some point in life. One of the people banned left the party in the 70's yet he was banned from running for re-election this year. Hell, Iyad Allawi was a member of the Ba'ath Party and we appointed him as the leader of Iraq a few years back! The sitting Iraqi Defense Minister was actually imprisoned for seven years and got banned for re-election. Do you really think that's justified? Some were members of Allawi's alliance, which was threatening to get a lot more votes than Maliki's group. It is obvious to anyone without blinders on that this was about keeping threatening candidates from running against the government.

    Sorry sport independent election monitors and public opinion polls back up the findings of the IHEC and the United Nations. The Iraqi elections have been certified as free and fair by independent international observers, any assertion to the contrary is a lie.
    They claimed there was no fraud and their presence and ability to monitor the elections wasn't nearly enough to comment on the entire process. Hell, the fact the UN is part of the IHEC that banned clearly legitimate candidates for clearly illegitimate reasons is enough reason to doubt their objectivity, assuming the U.N. representatives are from an actual neutral party.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    [QUOTE=Demon of Light;1058819713]Actually I'm just saying there are some people in the Carter Administration who thought there should be support for them and evidence we did offer some support, though I haven't looked into it enough to know exactly whether this resulted in any sort of plan.


    Huh? Are you talking about the drug cartels? They're communist?
    No they're not communist but they're terrorists, narco-terrorists to be exact.

    I told you clearly that there is a major difference between the two situations. Unless you can somehow point out that the Soviets aided Vietnamese insurgents hoping to incite a massive U.S. invasion that would drag the U.S. into a horrific quagmire then we're done here.
    So even though the actions were exactly the same the situations are completely different. Gotcha.

    So we are talking about South Vietnam here, even though the U.S. justified the build-up of troops on the basis of a provoked attack by North Vietnam?
    The large build up of troops didn't start until after the North began the "peoples war" in 1959.

    They are completely different situations for reason I have explained in some detail.


    They did send people, but apparently they didn't send many.
    And yet their findings are confirmed by opinion polls and independent poll watchers.

    Some had been members of the party at some point in life. One of the people banned left the party in the 70's yet he was banned from running for re-election this year. Hell, Iyad Allawi was a member of the Ba'ath Party and we appointed him as the leader of Iraq a few years back! The sitting Iraqi Defense Minister was actually imprisoned for seven years and got banned for re-election. Do you really think that's justified? Some were members of Allawi's alliance, which was threatening to get a lot more votes than Maliki's group. It is obvious to anyone without blinders on that this was about keeping threatening candidates from running against the government.
    This has what to do with the previous elections being free and fair. You are talking about two candidates who are banned from these elections but were obviously allowed to run before. FYI sovereignty has been granted back to the Iraqi government what they do is a reflection on them not on us.

    They claimed there was no fraud and their presence and ability to monitor the elections wasn't nearly enough to comment on the entire process. Hell, the fact the UN is part of the IHEC that banned clearly legitimate candidates for clearly illegitimate reasons
    The U.N. was sent to assist the IHEC. Which legitimate candidates were banned from the elections which were certified as free and fair?

    is enough reason to doubt their objectivity, assuming the U.N. representatives are from an actual neutral party.
    Yes yes the UN is now not to be considered an independent international observer. Once again their findings are backed up by independent monitors and public opinion surveys.

  10. #60
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    No they're not communist but they're terrorists, narco-terrorists to be exact.
    Oh, I see, you claimed the Zapatistas were a serious threat then the cartels were also a threat. Of course, the Zapatistas aren't a serious threat in the slightest. As for the cartels, I really wouldn't call them terrorists since they seem primarily to act in the same manner as typical criminal organizations, though they're a lot more brutal than others.

    So even though the actions were exactly the same the situations are completely different.
    The actions weren't the same either and most importantly there is no indication the motives were the same. The U.S. intervened in Vietnam for entirely differents and the Soviets aided insurgents for entirely different reasons.

    The large build up of troops didn't start until after the North began the "peoples war" in 1959.
    It doesn't particularly matter honestly. Hell, we were actually beginning to pull out under Kennedy.

    And yet their findings are confirmed by opinion polls and independent poll watchers.
    What opinions polls exactly?

    This has what to do with the previous elections being free and fair. You are talking about two candidates who are banned from these elections but were obviously allowed to run before. FYI sovereignty has been granted back to the Iraqi government what they do is a reflection on them not on us.
    What are you talking about? We were discussing the most recent elections!

    The U.N. was sent to assist the IHEC. Which legitimate candidates were banned from the elections which were certified as free and fair?
    The one in 2010 is the only one where UN observers were present in any number. There were no observers in 2005.

    Yes yes the UN is now not to be considered an independent international observer. Once again their findings are backed up by independent monitors and public opinion surveys.
    When they allow such candidates to get banned, yes I question their ability to be an independent observer.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •