|
|
On October 23 2012 23:27 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 21:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama stomped the debate and looked powerful and presidential. Though nobody cares about foreign policy.
I still have no idea how Romneys going to balance the budget without triggering a recession. I learned alot from this post. It could explain why manny people outside america are not particulary found of the usa. (personally i like the usa btw, dont want to bash, this is just an observation since i realy find this post verry remarkable) The usa goes to war all over the world, wars with manny innocent victems, and wars wich lead to great suffering without particulary improving the situation for the people there after the war is over All in the name of free world and democracy your country does this. And the response of the people in america is "we dont care for it " Well: seeing how much impact usa,s foreign policy has on people all over the world: Maybe you should start caring. Romney: You cant balance the budget, the budget is not meant to be balanced, to manny people profit from it beeing unbalanced nor does it have to be balanced btw The budget deficit is just an accounting isue. Its not real, its virtual monney, owned for 90% to an organisation who created it out of thin air. It is just used to control the amount of monney in circulation/inflation. The fed owns 90% of all usa debt, they could in theory just say: "we scrap that debt" and noone in the world would notice a difference (beside from massive inflation) The only recent president who managed to get a surplus on the budget was clinton, but that was only due to the massive boom the economy got from the devolopment of the internet. Annyway:to balance the budget without storming the usa into recession there realy is only one option. Cut your military expenses, or simply increase the monney suply by other means then government spending. Knowing romney ,he will probably choose for the later. Balancing the budget is not needed at all though, what is needed is a reform of the monetary system.
The Fed owns $1.6T of treasuries out of $16T - that's 10% not 90%. The Fed simply doesn't fund the deficit, nor is the deficit the same as monetary policy.
|
On October 24 2012 00:58 Darknat wrote:
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.
Unfortunately the Obama supporters may have a point, it's extremely possible that Romney will win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college.
|
On October 24 2012 00:55 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:51 Gorsameth 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. 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.
You realise Egypt under Mubarak was bad enough to get the people out on the street despite very real threats of being shot by there own military?
If that isnt a GIANT indication of an unacceptable situation i dont know what your smoking.
PS. your comments about how America should strive for a pro-America goverment in the world instead of a democratic one is the reason most of the middle east wants to fly planes into your buildings.
|
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.
Stating something confidently does not make it so. Look at Afghanistan before the war. It had potential to be much more liberal than it has been with Taliban rule and Al-Queda. Look at the horrible dictators the US has supported covertly in Latin American and countries like Iran in the past. We have shot ourselves in the foot so many times.
|
On October 23 2012 23:50 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 23:11 Lephex2.0 wrote:
please americans, vote obama.
sincerely, the world European socialists telling me to vote for a socialist candidate make me (and most Americans) far-less likely to vote for them. You should have endorsed Romney, then it would have the intended affect.
I'm pretty sure you'll have to motivate yourself better than this to not look insane. Because right now it reads like a conspiray takeover by very extreme and dangerous elements which have already taken over Europe and dragged it down the shitter.
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.
Which brings me to this post. Apart from the EMU experiment (of which national policy isn't a part, meaning your criticism is misguided) where national governments have not been able to control their governments through a central bank or other national measures the real problem has been liberalization. I'm just going to sit back in my comfortable chair here in Sweden and keep observing though. Feels good.
On October 24 2012 00:58 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:54 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You're just the worst kind of person aren't you?
|
On October 24 2012 00:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:55 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:51 Gorsameth 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. 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. You realise Egypt under Mubarak was bad enough to get the people out on the street despite very real threats of being shot by there own military? If that isnt a GIANT indication of an unacceptable situation i dont know what your smoking.
I'd be willing to wager that the day-to-day life of the ordinary Egyptian citizen wasn't as bad as you might like to think it was. The fact that the Mubarak regime refused to use lethal force against the protestors like many other regimes in the region did should be proof enough of that.
|
On October 24 2012 00:58 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:54 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
From a political standpoint, Americans should expect that our interests are represented first by our government. As the French should their government, Egyptians their government. I think there is a marked gap between establishing a democracy for the sake of democracy, which are the motives which are given through the general media here in the US and installing democracy for our own interest.
It is a point of hypocrisy which bugs me more so than most. Not expecting the latter is as unreasonable as believing the first set of motives. It is a tight rope to walk to say the least.
|
On October 24 2012 00:58 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:54 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You directly mentioned Egyptians not being happy with the way things turned out and that they would have preferred a dictator. If that's not saying you know better than them despite them choosing a different course of action, what is?
Edit: Not to mention that this is entirely counter to the mission American exceptionalism gives our country, which you so enthusiastic bashed Obama on yesterday.
|
On October 24 2012 01:01 Windd 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. Stating something confidently does not make it so. Look at Afghanistan before the war. It had potential to be much more liberal than it has been with Taliban rule and Al-Queda. Look at the horrible dictators the US has supported covertly in Latin American and countries like Iran in the past. We have shot ourselves in the foot so many times.
That's actually pretty interesting, thanks for sharing. Afghanistan was having problems that had nothing to do with America. The people of Afghanistan overthrew that 'liberal' government with the Saur Revolution and then the Soviets invaded. That hopeful 'liberal' Afghanistan died not by the hands of America or even by the Soviets, but at the hands of their own people.
|
On October 24 2012 01:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:58 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:54 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You directly mentioned Egyptians not being happy with the way things turned out and that they would have preferred a dictator. If that's not saying you know better than them despite them choosing a different course of action, what is? Edit: Not to mention that this is entirely counter to the mission American exceptionalism gives our country, which you so enthusiastic bashed Obama on yesterday.
They (the more liberal elements of the Egyptian Revolution) would have most likely preferred a truly democratic state. However, if you ask them a few years from now (or possibly even right now), they'd probably tell you they would have rather had NDP and Mubarak back in charge than the current (Muslim Brotherhood) in charge.
|
On October 24 2012 01:13 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 01:01 Windd 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. Stating something confidently does not make it so. Look at Afghanistan before the war. It had potential to be much more liberal than it has been with Taliban rule and Al-Queda. Look at the horrible dictators the US has supported covertly in Latin American and countries like Iran in the past. We have shot ourselves in the foot so many times. That's actually pretty interesting, thanks for sharing. Afghanistan was having problems that had nothing to do with America. The people of Afghanistan overthrew that 'liberal' government with the Saur Revolution and then the Soviets invaded. That hopeful 'liberal' Afghanistan died not by the hands of America or even by the Soviets, but at the hands of their own people.
The PDPA were almost certainly supported by the Soviets; the odds that the USSR didn't play a role in that military coup are not very high.
|
|
|
On October 24 2012 01:22 ziggurat wrote:Interesting story breaking about Obama selling cocaine while he was in university. Also interesting that the Romney campaign is refusing to touch it. To me this is to Romney's credit, and is at odds with everyone on here claiming that he'll say anything to win. The story is probably not true, of course, but apparently the guy is willing to take a polygraph so who knows? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/president-obama-sold-cocaine-college-trump-charges-republicans-rejectMaybe this is the big story that Trump said he would be announcing tomorrow.
Very credible source you have there.
|
On October 24 2012 01:22 ziggurat wrote:Interesting story breaking about Obama selling cocaine while he was in university. Also interesting that the Romney campaign is refusing to touch it. To me this is to Romney's credit, and is at odds with everyone on here claiming that he'll say anything to win. The story is probably not true, of course, but apparently the guy is willing to take a polygraph so who knows? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/president-obama-sold-cocaine-college-trump-charges-republicans-rejectMaybe this is the big story that Trump said he would be announcing tomorrow.
I would not be surprised if the refusal was made precisely for generating that impression, especially if they believed there'd be enough exposure from another source (cough Trump cough). We'll see if it can emerge from the gossip mags and holds up to actual reporters.
|
On October 24 2012 01:22 ziggurat wrote:Interesting story breaking about Obama selling cocaine while he was in university. Also interesting that the Romney campaign is refusing to touch it. To me this is to Romney's credit, and is at odds with everyone on here claiming that he'll say anything to win. The story is probably not true, of course, but apparently the guy is willing to take a polygraph so who knows? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/president-obama-sold-cocaine-college-trump-charges-republicans-rejectMaybe this is the big story that Trump said he would be announcing tomorrow.
Obama already admitted to using drugs in college, so even if this is true, it probably won't hurt his campaign. Besides, there are so many horrible things Obama has said and done over the years, many of which trump selling cocaine.
|
On October 24 2012 01:03 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 00:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2012 00:55 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:51 Gorsameth 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:
[quote]
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. You realise Egypt under Mubarak was bad enough to get the people out on the street despite very real threats of being shot by there own military? If that isnt a GIANT indication of an unacceptable situation i dont know what your smoking. I'd be willing to wager that the day-to-day life of the ordinary Egyptian citizen wasn't as bad as you might like to think it was. The fact that the Mubarak regime refused to use lethal force against the protestors like many other regimes in the region did should be proof enough of that.
Actually he ordered them to be shot and the military refused.
|
On October 24 2012 01:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 01:03 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2012 00:55 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 00:51 Gorsameth 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:
[quote]
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. You realise Egypt under Mubarak was bad enough to get the people out on the street despite very real threats of being shot by there own military? If that isnt a GIANT indication of an unacceptable situation i dont know what your smoking. I'd be willing to wager that the day-to-day life of the ordinary Egyptian citizen wasn't as bad as you might like to think it was. The fact that the Mubarak regime refused to use lethal force against the protestors like many other regimes in the region did should be proof enough of that. Actually he ordered them to be shot and the military refused.
Oh, my mistake, sorry.
|
On October 24 2012 00:54 Ender985 wrote:
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!
A precinct is a general area which constitutes a particular polling area. The size of the precinct is somewhat arbitrary and can encompass a small amount of people in an urban environment and a large amount of people in a rural area.
|
On October 24 2012 01:28 Swazi Spring wrote:Obama already admitted to using drugs in college, so even if this is true, it probably won't hurt his campaign. Besides, there are so many horrible things Obama has said and done over the years, many of which trump selling cocaine.
Sorry, but Obama is not a true follower of the lamb of christ if he is selling coke. Jesus wrote on the stone tablets he gave to moses that using mind altering substances is blasphemy and that anyone who engages in mind altering practices or buys products deriven from petroleum will be banished to the darkest realms of hell with satan (and his dominion).
Coke is an evil drug because it promotes sex, and sex promotes hatred. Hatred promotes jealousy and jealousy promotes the republican party. Most people prefer pepsi over coke anyway, so i'm voting for Obama.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 24 2012 01:46 KING CHARLIE :D wrote:
Sorry, but Obama is not a true follower of the lamb of christ if he is selling coke. Jesus wrote on the stone tablets he gave to moses
On October 24 2012 01:46 KING CHARLIE :D wrote:
Jesus wrote on the stone tablets he gave to moses
On October 24 2012 01:46 KING CHARLIE :D wrote:
Jesus gave to moses
Spoken as a true man of the Church!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
