Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

Agent Ferris · Jun 22, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light · Jun 22, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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.

Agent Ferris · Jun 22, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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. :roll:

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.

Demon of Light · Jun 22, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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.

Agent Ferris · Jun 22, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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. :roll:

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. :roll:

Demon of Light · Jun 23, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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. :roll:

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.

Agent Ferris · Jun 23, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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. :roll:

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. :roll:

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.

Demon of Light · Jun 23, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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.

Agent Ferris · Jun 23, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Yes yes the UN is now not to be considered an independent international observer. :roll: Once again their findings are backed up by independent monitors and public opinion surveys.

Demon of Light · Jun 23, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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. :roll: 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.

BmanMcfly · Jun 24, 2010

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.

Tubub · Jun 24, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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?

spud_meister · Jun 24, 2010

Tubub said:
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

Agent Ferris · Jun 24, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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. :roll:

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?

Demon of Light · Jun 24, 2010

Tubub said:
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.

Agent Ferris said:
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.

Agent Ferris · Jun 24, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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. :roll:

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.

kaya'08 · Jun 24, 2010

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.

Tubub · Jun 24, 2010

spud_meister said:
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.

Tubub · Jun 24, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light said:
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.

mac · Jun 24, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light · Jun 25, 2010

Agent Ferris said:
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.

I certainly wouldn't use the deceitful, politically-charged definitions of the U.S. government. The root of the word is key. Terrorism implies terror. A few definitions I would favor:

"criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public"

- League of Nations' 1937 Convention for the prevention and punishment of Terrorism

"1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:

(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss,

when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."

- Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism

These are not perfect, but still closer to a fair definition of terrorism. Specifically the target of terrorism is not just the people directly affected by the attack, but instead a much larger group. Killing police and military for trying to crack down on your criminal activities is not terrorism regardless of the means by which it is carried out. Killing civilians in exceedingly brutal ways for threatening your criminal activities is also not terrorism.

In essence the motive is just as important as the means and effect. From what I can see the Mexican cartels are largely driven by financial motives and there is no ideological element to their activities. Also, they do not seem intended to induce a state of terror among civilians as a mean of persuading the government. Their activities are more like suppression of dissent. Pablo Escobar was explicitly seeking to induce a state of terror as a way of keeping the government from continuing their campaign against the government.

Acts against the State are a little more complicated as far as labeling them terrorism. The motive here matters most of all. Blowing up a plane with major officials of the state on board might kill many civilians and induce a state of terror, but if this is part of a general campaign against the government itself then it would not be terrorism.

In times of war excessive military force would not be the same as terrorism because the nature of the attack is to achieve a strategic or tactical advantage. Inducing a state of terror through such means has obvious benefits in such cases with most countries claiming it as an attempt to "demoralize" the population of the opposing party. However, this has limits as well. The state of terror would generally be motivated by the substantial damage inflicted by military action or substantial risk of damage. Small-scale attacks implemented to create a general terror would not be included.

At the same time the terms terrorist and terrorist organization should not be assigned to anyone who engages in terrorism. The main issue is that terrorism defines the scope of an individual or organization's activities. An organization like al-Qaeda whose chief purpose is to create and incite terror through singular acts of mass destruction is a classic terrorist organization. If terrorism is not an organization's chief mode of operation then it cannot be fairly labeled a terrorist organization. For instance, I would consider Hamas to have once been a terrorist organization as its chief mode of operation was acts of terrorism, but as of late it has shifted to more conventional military tactics, which to me suggests they would no longer be a terrorist organization.

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.

Except the actions were not the same and, importantly, neither were the motives.

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.

I did not say he was pulling back the whole time. In fact, I specifically said he had begun withdrawing.

The insurgency in the south was not even approved until 1959.

It was approved before that, however the level of insurgency from 1959 onwards was not.

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.

You shouldn't just defer to the declaration of an organization. If it is clear they had a poor basis for their position then you should openly question it. Looking at this information, and in light of other issues around the election, it seems this was not a free or fair election.

kaya'08 said:
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.

The U.S. government espouses such values, but so do countless other countries and many of them do not live up to it, especially in their actions overseas. Where the U.S. government has actually imposed elections they have actively sought to manipulate the process in their favor. Also, I think you misjudge China. China's rooted in democratic values, but like many other developing countries has simply not been able to flesh these out though it is actively advancing. Of course, I do not believe it will look like Western democracy, but in a good way in that it will find ways to address failings in Western democracy.

Also, China's attitude in war and diplomacy suggest they will in general be a more moral actor in the world.

Tubub said:
"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.

No, that is not terrorism. Killing members of the government to dissuade the government from a crackdown is typical of a criminal organization.

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.

Working with terrorists does not make one a terrorist. Also, terrorizing people to crush dissent is not terrorism. That would be oppression.

Yet you don't have any evidence to prove that point.

I'm not the one who needs to provide evidence. To claim the Soviets aiding communist groups in Vietnam and the U.S. invading is the same as the U.S. aiding anti-communist groups and the Soviets invading without regard to the motive of either country in each case is just absurd.

The U.S. invaded for different reasons than the Soviets and I have yet to see anything suggesting the Soviets aided groups for the same reason as the U.S. For the U.S. it was not simply a matter of waging a proxy war, but creating a situation that would suck the Soviet Union into an unwinnable war and inadvertently destabilize the Soviet Union itself. There is no way the Soviets could have thought their support for the communist insurgency in Vietnam would have had any effect on stability in the United States and there was little reason for them to suspect their support would suck us into the conflict and cause us to suffer a strategic failure.

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.

It is a matter of historical record that he was doing just that.

I don't like the U.N. either, but I think for much different reasons than you.

I don't know about that.

Is the American Empire a Benevolent force for the World?

What force does the American Empire have on the world?

Wholly Benevolent

Rather Benevolent

Hardly Benevolent

Not one way or the other

Slightly Malevolent

Malevolent

Very Malevolent

America is not an Empire

Bohemian Revolutionary

Bohemian Revolutionary

Bohemian Revolutionary

Bohemian Revolutionary

Bohemian Revolutionary

Well-known member

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Bohemian Revolutionary

Well-known member

Well-known member

Bohemian Revolutionary