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 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 71

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

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

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

    To put is as simply as possible, the anglo-american world empire is as malevolent as it gets, however, it is wrapped in a veil of benevolance... it's always 'for the children', and these severe twists of logic.
    "Oh, we gotta pass medicare reform or else the racists win... you're not a racist are you?"
    "Oh, you gotta take you're shoes off because you might put bombs in your shoes... you don't want terrorists to blow up planes do you?"
    "Now we gotta scan your naked body, and copy it and distribute it, and if you're famous get you to sign you're naked scan image."
    Or on the news :
    "According to this new scientific study, 77% of the people that oppose the bailouts are closet racists and child molesters."
    I could go on....

    Think about the children.

  2. #62
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    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 criminals can't be terrorists? Sorry, that just defies all reasonable logic. Oh, and Osama Bin Laden wasn't a threat in the slightest back in 1997 either... Just another radical Islamist, nothing to worry about there.

    Latin America's Drug Cartels Giving Al Qaeda a Lift? - ABC News

    As many of these same countries are now becoming a haven for a shadowy group calling itself Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), there are growing concerns that Islamist radicals and Latin American drug cartels may be working together, both to enrich themselves and to weaken the law enforcement capability of those West African states.

    "At this point Al Qaeda in the Maghreb seems to be nothing more than just facilitators, but more and more we see evidence of them working together," says an official for the US military at the Africom command center in Stuttgart, speaking on background. But it is safe to assume, the official adds, that Al Qaeda "is profiting from the drug trafficking trade going through its areas" of the Sahara.


    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    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 Soviets went into Afghanistan in force in 1979 in order to prevent the collapse of the Communist government there. The United States sent ground troops to South Vietnam in order to prevent the collapse of the free government there. Fundamentally, the two wars are essentially the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    It doesn't particularly matter honestly. Hell, we were actually beginning to pull out under Kennedy.
    How's that?

    American troop levels in Vietnam:
    1959 760
    1960 900
    1961 3,025
    1962 11,300
    1963 16,300
    1964 23,300
    1965 184,300


    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    The one in 2010 is the only one where UN observers were present in any number. There were no observers in 2005.
    Please... fact check once in a while, especially before making bold claims.

    How Iraq's election will work / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
    Who devised Iraq's election system?

    The United Nations did most of the work on Iraq's electoral procedures, and the election is being supervised by the Independent Electoral Commission, an Iraqi group assisted by a United Nations official.
    Iraq Electoral Fact Sheet
    The electoral framework requires extensive regulations and procedures to be prepared, which will determine how the election will be administered and conducted. The UN is providing advice and support to the IECI on the elaboration of these regulations and procedures to ensure a process that meets international standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    When they allow such candidates to get banned, yes I question their ability to be an independent observer.
    Then why are we wasting time discussing whether the UN was in Iraq during the 2005 election in the first place?
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  3. #63
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,877
    Blog Entries
    8

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    The United States sent ground troops to South Vietnam in order to prevent the collapse of the free government there.
    well, no, it sent troops to prevent the collapse of an anti-communist dictatorship, it was not a free government by any stretch of the imagination
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  4. #64
    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
    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.
    You don't consider narco-terrorism to be terrorism? They murder everyone from judges to cops to military commanders to civilians who get in their way, they are terrorists, and not only to they pose a threat to the Mexican government they pose a threat to the security of the United States.
    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.
    No the actions were exactly the same except the Soviets provided more than just financial aid they provided military aid as well, the U.S. intervened for the exact same reason IE to back an anti-Communist government; whereas, the Soviets intervened to back a pro-Communist government, and the results were exactly the same, but you're right the situation was completely different.

    It doesn't particularly matter honestly.
    Yes it does matter as it competely contradicts your point.

    Hell, we were actually beginning to pull out under Kennedy.
    OMFG no we didn't, U.S. troop levels went up drammatically under Kennedy.

    What opinions polls exactly?

    Pre-election public opinion polls provide another useful indicator of the results' integrity. With a sample size of 4,000 nationwide, recent NDI tracking polls found support for Allawi's Iraqiya coalition growing steadily as the election approached and support for Maliki's State of Law coalition and the Iraqi National Alliance Shiite coalition holding at significant but lower levels. Despite Maliki's protests, it was not surprising that Iraqiya fared relatively well.

    Iraq's Election Was Free and Fair - by Leslie Campbell | Foreign Policy
    What are you talking about? We were discussing the most recent elections!
    Actually I was talking about the previous elections. But heh these elections were certified as free and fair as well

    .
    The one in 2010 is the only one where UN observers were present in any number. There were no observers in 2005.
    Yes there were, shout out to tubub.

    When they allow such candidates to get banned, yes I question their ability to be an independent observer.
    Why don't you drop a link about the candidates who were actually banned?

  5. #65
    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 Tubub View Post
    So criminals can't be terrorists? Sorry, that just defies all reasonable logic.
    That is not what I said. Terrorism by its very definition is criminal, but that does not mean every brutal criminal organization is a terrorist organization. The term is most popularly associated with Pablo Escobar whose organization bombed shopping malls. What I have read about the Mexican cartels their brutality is focused on people who threaten the organizations. There was one cartel that planned to blow up a damn, but that was apparently all about smuggling routes.

    The Soviets went into Afghanistan in force in 1979 in order to prevent the collapse of the Communist government there. The United States sent ground troops to South Vietnam in order to prevent the collapse of the free government there. Fundamentally, the two wars are essentially the same.
    No, they really aren't. If you water down the circumstances and oversimplify it you can make it seem like they are similar, but any objective analysis will show it isn't.

    How's that?
    I said beginning to pull out. Johnson reversed that move.

    Please... fact check once in a while, especially before making bold claims.
    I did and you are misunderstanding what those sources said. The U.N. has a single person on the IHEC and some staff to assist that person. They did not send observers to monitor the election.

    Then why are we wasting time discussing whether the UN was in Iraq during the 2005 election in the first place?
    I don't recall any candidates being banned in that one, though it may have happened. The issue is the U.N. knows major candidates were banned for frivolous reasons, but declares the election was free and fair all the same. When they know the process was corrupted from the start yet endorse the election all the same I can't trust what they say. The U.N. is not some centralized organization remember, some members and groups in it can be corrupted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    They murder everyone from judges to cops to military commanders to civilians who get in their way
    So do countless other criminal organizations. It is part of the business. Not every organized crime outfit is a terrorist organization. This just proves you are insanely liberal with your use of the word.

    Yes it does matter as it competely contradicts your point.
    The insurgency in the south was going on the whole time, it just ramped up in 1959. Also, like I said, Kennedy was beginning to leave despite the insurgency.

    Actually I was talking about the previous elections. But heh these elections were certified as free and fair as well
    Unfortunately I cannot find any information on exactly who the international observers for the 2010 election were, though it seems this includes people sent by the U.S. government and some 15,000 observers, not sure if they are domestic or international, were set up by USAID. I did manage to find this though:

    A high-level Iraqi report obtained by The Times details violations across the country and includes evidence of the army and police interfering directly with voting on March 7. Based on testimony compiled by three non-governmental agencies, the report says that in some Iraqi provinces “security forces were urging people to vote for a specific list”.

    Election monitors also observed “the presence of a number of security forces even within the voting hall, which sometimes hindered the movement of voters and confused them about ensuring privacy in the voting”.

    The report, which was circulated among Western officials in Baghdad this weekend, will add to the impression that Iraq’s second full parliamentary poll was not free and fair. A number of parties have made allegations of major fraud, although foreign diplomats say that at least some allegations are partisan attempts to discredit the poll by those likely to lose.

    The independent report detailing widespread irregularities was compiled by the Tammuz Organisation for Social Development, the Election Integrity Monitoring Team and Shams Network for Monitoring Elections. All three are Iraqi institutions with Western backing. They posted observers at 41,652 of the 52,000 polling stations.
    Among the most serious problems highlighted are inadequate or fraudulent electoral rolls. Observers reported “the absence of the names of thousands of voters, despite the fact that a large number of names were registered in the previous elections. This includes displaced voters and employees of the security forces”.

    Supporters of Ayad Allawi, the former Prime Minister, alleged last week that up to 250,000 members of the armed forces had been unable to vote or may have been prevented from doing so.
    In some provinces voters turned up at polling stations with identity papers for absent or dead family members and managed to cast a ballot on their behalf. Family and tribal leaders have been observed selling entire blocks of votes to parties or candidates in previous Iraqi elections.
    Source: The Times

    Why don't you drop a link about the candidates who were actually banned?
    You can find this on Wikipedia easy enough. I know you get information from there.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  6. #66
    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
    That is not what I said. Terrorism by its very definition is criminal, but that does not mean every brutal criminal organization is a terrorist organization. The term is most popularly associated with Pablo Escobar whose organization bombed shopping malls. What I have read about the Mexican cartels their brutality is focused on people who threaten the organizations. There was one cartel that planned to blow up a damn, but that was apparently all about smuggling routes.
    Pablo Escobar was a narco-terrorist. Terrorism can be defined as the unlawful use of force perpetrated by non-state or subnational actors in order to coerce or influence a government or society, the definitions usually imply the use of force against non-combatants, given that narco-terrorists in Mexico fit the definition to the letter. Terrorism isn't limited to blowing up buildings all though narco-terrorists incorporate bombings into their arsenal all of the time. How would you define terrorism. Would you define 9-11 as an act of terrorism? Something tells me that you wouldn't.


    No, they really aren't. If you water down the circumstances and oversimplify it you can make it seem like they are similar, but any objective analysis will show it isn't.
    The actions taken by both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were exactly the same except inverted in both conflicts, the results were exactly the same but inverted in both conflicts, but they weren't the same whatsoever.

    I said beginning to pull out. Johnson reversed that move.
    Troop levels increased every year Kennedy was in office, Kennedy didn't deescalate the conflict in fact he increased troop levels, and escalated the conflict and made a U.S. withdrawal impossible when he assassinated the President of South Vietnam.

    The insurgency in the south was going on the whole time, it just ramped up in 1959. Also, like I said, Kennedy was beginning to leave despite the insurgency.
    The insurgency in the south was not even approved until 1959.

    Unfortunately I cannot find any information on exactly who the international observers for the 2010 election were, though it seems this includes people sent by the U.S. government and some 15,000 observers, not sure if they are domestic or international, were set up by USAID. I did manage to find this though:



    Source: The Times



    You can find this on Wikipedia easy enough. I know you get information from there.
    I'm done with it, the Iraqi elections were certified by international observers, independent observers, Iraqi volunteers, and the results corresponded with public opinion polls taken at the time.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 06-24-10 at 07:37 PM.

  7. #67
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

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

    Seriously, the collapse of America? Firstly, an Empire is an Empire when it fits the definition of an Empire. I dont care if it "semi-fits" or if it does a half run with the definition. Thats not good enough. America is a federal republic. America will not collapse. Its just going through a rough patch and its been through much worse.

    Lastly, the world would be a worse place and a better place in other respects. Now statistically, America goes to war more than any other nation currently in existence. The removal of America will naturally divert such future conflicts - and think about all the pollution they are responsible for too. The downside? Its a major world player with two core values; Freedom. Liberty. Naturally, it feels the need to exert these values onto others, and that can only improve the world.
    The likes of China would do the opposite, and drag this planet into darker days, if it where to ever take over the reigns. So all in all, yes. The world would be much worse off without America.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 06-24-10 at 08:02 PM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  8. #68
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

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

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    well, no, it sent troops to prevent the collapse of an anti-communist dictatorship, it was not a free government by any stretch of the imagination
    We supported the overthrow of Diem in '63. After that fact, it was no longer a dictatorship "by any stretch of the imagination." Politics in the country were unbelievably volatile, but the government was still vastly more free than that of the Communists.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  9. #69
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    That is not what I said. Terrorism by its very definition is criminal, but that does not mean every brutal criminal organization is a terrorist organization.
    Actually, terrorism is inherently political but not necessarily criminal. Though, that's just semantics so whatever hah.
    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    The term is most popularly associated with Pablo Escobar whose organization bombed shopping malls. What I have read about the Mexican cartels their brutality is focused on people who threaten the organizations. There was one cartel that planned to blow up a damn, but that was apparently all about smuggling routes.
    "people who threaten the organization" is such a loose term it may as well apply to anyone, especially in the eyes of drug cartels. If you don't profit the cartel, then you're an enemy of the cartel. In order to deter people from turning against them, the cartels kill politicians and other leaders that aren't in line.That's terrorism. The cartels don't have any ideological undertone if that's what you mean, except maybe profit margins... And that's enough to push them into terrorizing people into compliance. They are terrorists in a broader sense of the word, especially since they're known to work with radical terrorist organizations like FARC and Al Qaeda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    No, they really aren't. If you water down the circumstances and oversimplify it you can make it seem like they are similar, but any objective analysis will show it isn't.
    Yet you don't have any evidence to prove that point.



    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    I said beginning to pull out. Johnson reversed that move.
    And you were wrong. Whether Kennedy would've gone as far as Johnson with escalation is debatable, but Kennedy was not pulling out any troops when he was killed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    I did and you are misunderstanding what those sources said. The U.N. has a single person on the IHEC and some staff to assist that person. They did not send observers to monitor the election.
    Other independent organizations had people in country monitoring the election in the specific manner that you're looking for Regardless, the Shia in 2005 really didn't need any hijacking because most Sunnis boycotted the election, and people voted for parties instead of people.



    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light
    I don't recall any candidates being banned in that one, though it may have happened. The issue is the U.N. knows major candidates were banned for frivolous reasons, but declares the election was free and fair all the same. When they know the process was corrupted from the start yet endorse the election all the same I can't trust what they say. The U.N. is not some centralized organization remember, some members and groups in it can be corrupted.
    I don't like the U.N. either, but I think for much different reasons than you.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  10. #70
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    That is not what I said. Terrorism by its very definition is criminal, but that does not mean every brutal criminal organization is a terrorist organization. The term is most popularly associated with Pablo Escobar whose organization bombed shopping malls. What I have read about the Mexican cartels their brutality is focused on people who threaten the organizations. There was one cartel that planned to blow up a damn, but that was apparently all about smuggling routes.
    What about the slayings of American police officers? In America. Organized crime organizations generally draw the line at targeting police and other state and federal officers.

    No, they really aren't. If you water down the circumstances and oversimplify it you can make it seem like they are similar, but any objective analysis will show it isn't.
    Yes, they really are, one war was to prop up communism, one to keep it from taking over. Considering the ideologies of the antagonists...that's the same thing.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •