|
|
On October 23 2012 22:48 ThomasjServo wrote:
Did anyone else feel that Romney's position on Syria, specifically that the US should be party (in an "organizational capacity," to use his words), to installing a government that is friendly to the US, was eerily similar to the position of the US with regards to the Contras in Nicaragua?
Personally I want my country to have as little to do with "nation building" as possible. I have never condoned or thought practices of the Cold War of installing governments across the globe was a good or right option, though I understand the context in which those policies were pursued. I thought this plan in particular demonstrated an antiquated sense of America's role in the world.
What he's suggesting is I think slightly closer to what we did in Afghanistan against the Soviets than what we did in Nicaragua. He didn't seem to be suggesting long-term nation-building or future involvement beyond friendly relations; simply finding a way to coordinate reliable rebels and then giving them weapons.
Whether that's a good idea or not, well, America has a short memory.
|
On October 23 2012 23:11 Lephex2.0 wrote:
please americans, vote obama.
sincerely, the world
Thankfully, Americans have shown some stubbornness with complying with international opinion. Considering the state of the EU and others, even the enlightened democracies of Europe don't have perfect insight on how to govern. And lest we be very ethnocentric about the high Obama poll numbers abroad, Obama remains deeply unpopular in Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and others. No thanks, pleading world. Romney in today's Rasmussen poll leads 50-46 (+-3) and Obama can only lay claim to 237/270 electoral votes (Romney 235/270), coming down to 7 states which are tossups. My guy's not doin too shabby in the nation that votes for American presidents.
Our newspapers were plastered with the news of the death of our ambassador. That put at least Middle East foreign policy center-stage, that having been the only one killed in the last 30 years through two wars in the Middle East. But yeah yeah ignorant Americans blah blah blah.
|
On October 23 2012 15:55 Lmui wrote:http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdfNo idea about the reliability of the source. It's one of the top posts on reddit though and if we take the results inside at face value which, considering the ease of doublechecking/verifying the results seems fair, it's rather alarming to me as a canadian that there's no secondary independent verification method of electronic voting machines. Show nested quote +Back in February 2012 during the South Carolina primaries, a keen observer noted that Republican
candidate Mitt Romney had an unusual gain of votes in larger precincts. Analysts noted this effect
violated expected statistics. Specifically, the percentage of votes in each precinct strangely increased as
a function of precinct size (vote tally). The vote gain is correlated to precinct size, not the precinct
location, be it in cities or rural areas. This anomaly is not apparent in other elections that don’t include
Republican candidates. In 2008, Mitt Romney had the benefit of this anomaly and then the gain
switched to John McCain once Romney exited the campaign. The Democrat Party elections we looked
at don’t show this problem. The reproduction method near the bottom is pretty straightforward but it's pretty scary that it's even possible for something like this to occur. Before posting, I'd hope that you'd read through the first 17 pages of the pdf (~5-8 minutes of reading, max, you can skip the methodology if you'd like) Edit: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11wryn/the_greatest_case_of_election_fraud_ever_to_occur/The reddit link. The second post summarized it pretty well + Show Spoiler +They studied the precinct reports on vote distribution and discovered that the larger the precinct (block of voters) the larger the percentage Romney was receiving during the primaries in this election cycle and the last. They show very nicely that this is unusual, does not happen on it's own, and is very specific (in candidate) and very broad (in where it crops up)
Without getting in to the depth of why this is not explained by anything other than fraud (that's a lot of the paper) let me just simply say this:
This anomaly was only seen with one republican at a time.
It was only seen with Romney in 2008 until McCain got the Republican nomination, and then it switched to him.
It only shows up with precincts with electronic voting or centralized tabulating machines.
It appears extremely well behaved and predictable mathematically, ie a software program.
The evidence points towards some entity flipping a portion of the votes cast or tabulated electronically towards a chosen candidate. My opinion is that the republicans have done enough this election cycle that's been in the legal grey area as far as election fraud is concerned. There's no telling how widespread it is on a larger scale though.
I think posting this at the time of night I did meant that this got buried a bit deeper than I'd like. It's some research into serious voting abnormalities and possible election fraud that's happening on massive scales in areas with electronic and/or centralized tabulation. Essentially, in larger precincts, some incoming votes seemingly get switched to a different candidate and this switching is pretty strongly correlated with precinct size.
|
On October 24 2012 00:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 23:11 Lephex2.0 wrote:
please americans, vote obama.
sincerely, the world Thankfully, Americans have shown some stubbornness with complying with international opinion. Considering the state of the EU and others, even the enlightened democracies of Europe don't have perfect insight on how to govern. And lest we be very ethnocentric about the high Obama poll numbers abroad, Obama remains deeply unpopular in Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and others. No thanks, pleading world. Romney in today's Rasmussen poll leads 50-46 (+-3) and Obama can only lay claim to 237/270 electoral votes (Romney 235/270), coming down to 7 states which are tossups. My guy's not doin too shabby in the nation that votes for American presidents. Our newspapers were plastered with the news of the death of our ambassador. That put at least Middle East foreign policy center-stage, that having been the only one killed in the last 30 years through two wars in the Middle East. But yeah yeah ignorant Americans blah blah blah.
Romney's favorability ratings after accusing Ahmadinejad of genocide aren't going to be much better.
Edit: Rasmussen is also the least accurate "big" pollster out there, no matter what election you look at.
|
On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct.
Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets.
|
On October 24 2012 00:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 22:48 ThomasjServo wrote:
Did anyone else feel that Romney's position on Syria, specifically that the US should be party (in an "organizational capacity," to use his words), to installing a government that is friendly to the US, was eerily similar to the position of the US with regards to the Contras in Nicaragua?
Personally I want my country to have as little to do with "nation building" as possible. I have never condoned or thought practices of the Cold War of installing governments across the globe was a good or right option, though I understand the context in which those policies were pursued. I thought this plan in particular demonstrated an antiquated sense of America's role in the world. What he's suggesting is I think slightly closer to what we did in Afghanistan against the Soviets than what we did in Nicaragua. He didn't seem to be suggesting long-term nation-building or future involvement beyond friendly relations; simply finding a way to coordinate reliable rebels and then giving them weapons. Whether that's a good idea or not, well, America has a short memory.
That is another great example as well, perhaps more directly correlated to the Syrian situation.
|
On October 24 2012 00:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:11 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2012 23:11 Lephex2.0 wrote:
please americans, vote obama.
sincerely, the world Thankfully, Americans have shown some stubbornness with complying with international opinion. Considering the state of the EU and others, even the enlightened democracies of Europe don't have perfect insight on how to govern. And lest we be very ethnocentric about the high Obama poll numbers abroad, Obama remains deeply unpopular in Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and others. No thanks, pleading world. Romney in today's Rasmussen poll leads 50-46 (+-3) and Obama can only lay claim to 237/270 electoral votes (Romney 235/270), coming down to 7 states which are tossups. My guy's not doin too shabby in the nation that votes for American presidents. Our newspapers were plastered with the news of the death of our ambassador. That put at least Middle East foreign policy center-stage, that having been the only one killed in the last 30 years through two wars in the Middle East. But yeah yeah ignorant Americans blah blah blah. Romney's favorability ratings after accusing Ahmadinejad of genocide aren't going to be much better. Edit: Rasmussen is also the least accurate "big" pollster out there, no matter what election you look at.
Gallup has Romney ahead of Obama as well.
|
On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets.
Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel.
The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though.
|
On October 24 2012 00:22 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 24 2012 00:11 Danglars wrote:On October 23 2012 23:11 Lephex2.0 wrote:
please americans, vote obama.
sincerely, the world Thankfully, Americans have shown some stubbornness with complying with international opinion. Considering the state of the EU and others, even the enlightened democracies of Europe don't have perfect insight on how to govern. And lest we be very ethnocentric about the high Obama poll numbers abroad, Obama remains deeply unpopular in Mexico, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and others. No thanks, pleading world. Romney in today's Rasmussen poll leads 50-46 (+-3) and Obama can only lay claim to 237/270 electoral votes (Romney 235/270), coming down to 7 states which are tossups. My guy's not doin too shabby in the nation that votes for American presidents. Our newspapers were plastered with the news of the death of our ambassador. That put at least Middle East foreign policy center-stage, that having been the only one killed in the last 30 years through two wars in the Middle East. But yeah yeah ignorant Americans blah blah blah. Romney's favorability ratings after accusing Ahmadinejad of genocide aren't going to be much better. Edit: Rasmussen is also the least accurate "big" pollster out there, no matter what election you look at. Gallup has Romney ahead of Obama as well.
Gallup 1) doesn't do state polls and 2) is historically inaccurate as an outlier. Both of which we've discussed before.
|
On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though.
In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood.
|
On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood.
Funny, people who were going full messianic few years ago now prefer dictatorship than democracy when they are not happy with the outcomes of elections.
|
On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood.
Dude, america doesn't dictate other countries remember?
+ Show Spoiler +it's sarcasm, in case there are any romanis here
|
On October 24 2012 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. Funny, people who were going full messianic few years ago now prefer dictatorship than democracy when they are not happy with the outcomes of elections.
I'm pretty sure all of those Egyptians who thought they would get a secular, capitalist, and democratic government are not happy with the outcomes of the elections as well. Also, the elections were reportedly rife with electoral fraud, which throws their validity into question.
|
On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood.
See and thats the bit where the rest of the world facepalms.
Yes i would rather have a democratically chosen government that isnt willing to dance to your every tune then a dictator who murdered his own people. Oh no but there Muslims. they must be the scum of the earth...
We dont get to chose who rules America. You dont get to chose who rules the rest of the world.
|
On October 24 2012 00:50 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. Funny, people who were going full messianic few years ago now prefer dictatorship than democracy when they are not happy with the outcomes of elections. I'm pretty sure all of those Egyptians who thought they would get a secular, capitalist, and democratic government are not happy with the outcomes of the elections as well. Also, the elections were reportedly rife with electoral fraud, which throws their validity into question.
I don't think it was a particularly smart move for Egyptians to vote in the Muslim Brotherhood, but that's who they've democratically elected. America is NOT in the business of fixing foreign elections. We just have to deal with it.
And the Muslim Brotherhood haven't imposed a Islamic theocracy or done anything radical... yet.
|
Wow that whole "vote flipping" thing is really scary.
I only have one question: why there are larger and smaller 'precints'? Could it be that the larger correspond to densely populated areas (ie cities) and the smaller ones to rural areas? Could explain the difference (even though then I'd expect the Democrats to be stronger in largely populated areas versus Republicans strong in the countryside).
It's really interesting, thanks!
|
On October 24 2012 00:50 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. Funny, people who were going full messianic few years ago now prefer dictatorship than democracy when they are not happy with the outcomes of elections. I'm pretty sure all of those Egyptians who thought they would get a secular, capitalist, and democratic government are not happy with the outcomes of the elections as well. Also, the elections were reportedly rife with electoral fraud, which throws their validity into question.
Just checking, but you weren't the one saying earlier that the left is full of people convinced they know what's best for everyone right? Because you're pretty much suggesting America knows what's best for everyone in the world, which seems to just be the former on a larger scale.
|
On October 24 2012 00:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. See and thats the bit where the rest of the world facepalms. Yes i would rather have a democratically chosen government that isnt willing to dance to your every tune then a dictator who murdered his own people. Oh no but there Muslims. they must be the scum of the earth... We dont get to chose who rules America. You dont get to chose who rules the rest of the world.
Egypt under Mubarak wasn't that bad. Now Egypt is on the verge of a civil war between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy in an Islamist country like Egypt is like three wolves and a chicken on what to have for dinner. Even if the elections were free and fair (which they weren't), a major aspect of a truly democratic country is respect for the rights of the minority, which is non-existent in the new Egypt.
|
Obama supporters remind me of me in 2008. Not believing the polls. Not recognizing that it wasn't going to go the way I wanted.
|
On October 24 2012 00:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:50 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2012 00:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:29 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 24 2012 00:19 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:39 DownOnMyNiece wrote:On October 23 2012 23:26 ThomasjServo wrote:On October 23 2012 23:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Well, I think the idea is that we should help them so that they will like us and then have a democracy that likes us. Outwardly that is the idea without a doubt, historically though the support that has been lent to these groups by the US specifically has not yielded the desired results. Historically speaking, the US-involvement in finances and war has brought an entire continent to a captitalist, pro-USA democratic paradise when it could just as easily been a communist hell-hole. There have been success stories to be certain, and in many respects some of the states Cold War policies did affect positive democratic change. I should have been more specific about states where there were contentions by proxy with the USSR and the Soviet model for Communism relative to other examples, you are correct. Most, if not all, of the states that America helped and didn't become democratic were NOT (or were not going to be) democratic if we didn't intervene. For instance, I don't think anyone really expect Afghanistan to turn into a first-world capitalist democracy after we helped them overthrow the Soviets. Contextually speaking, the idea of our intervention in Afghanistan was not establishing democracy rather it was making the Soviet military effort much more difficult. From the vague nature of Romney's statement it is difficult if not impossible to extrapolate what his intentions would be beyond providing some level of support for Syrian rebels while not directly involving US military personnel. The implication from both candidates does seem to be that the US would be more involved in the post conflict Syrian affairs than we were in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That kind of hardware/technical support that Romney seems to be in favor of providing is very similar to the role we played with Afghan fighters during that conflict though. In which case, why not support a stable and secular government, democratic or otherwise? I would rather have Syria be more like Egypt under Mubarak than Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. Funny, people who were going full messianic few years ago now prefer dictatorship than democracy when they are not happy with the outcomes of elections. I'm pretty sure all of those Egyptians who thought they would get a secular, capitalist, and democratic government are not happy with the outcomes of the elections as well. Also, the elections were reportedly rife with electoral fraud, which throws their validity into question. Just checking, but you weren't the one saying earlier that the left is full of people convinced they know what's best for everyone right? Because you're pretty much suggesting America knows what's best for everyone in the world, which seems to just be the former on a larger scale.
I'm not saying "America is so smart we know how to govern foreign countries best," I'm saying that we should put our interests first and fore-most. And most of the time a stable (and often times pro-American) authoritarian regime is better than a unstable (and often times anti-American) "democratic" regime. If the people are better off under the pro-American regime, then that's just the icing on the cake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
