World Politics

Page 288 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Darryl Webster said:
Loving the open minded debate peeps, lets just keep as off topic as we can eh?
Question: Does the CIA under orders from the Whitehouse Admin get involved in illigal ( under International Convention) activities to destabalise the internal governance of Soverign States?

Yes or No answer will do fine.
wat? :confused: nooblar alert
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
Loving the open minded debate peeps, lets just keep as off topic as we can eh?
Question: Does the CIA under orders from the Whitehouse Admin get involved in illigal ( under International Convention) activities to destabalise the internal governance of Soverign States?

Yes or No answer will do fine.
Yes..duh............................
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Does the British government? Does the German government? Does The Chinese government? Does the Russian government? Does the Iranian government?

Unless I am mistaken, this game is played by a lot of heavy hitters. Sure, we do it. So, yes.
TFF wins the prize. Everybody who can does what they can. Some better than others, all with their own interests at heart. Does it make it right? No. Does it make it the smart thing to do? Probably, unfortunately.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
TFF wins the prize. Everybody who can does what they can. Some better than others, all with their own interests at heart. Does it make it right? No. Does it make it the smart thing to do? Probably, unfortunately.

"Their own interests" is a good point of discussion..In many cases "their own interests" surely doesn't mean the national interests of the interferER but the interests of a very small few. The consequences of destabilizing another country in the interests of a private party is likely to NOT be in the best interests of the interferer nation.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
redtreviso said:
"Their own interests" is a good point of discussion..In many cases "their own interests" surely doesn't mean the national interests of the interferER but the interests of a very small few. The consequences of destabilizing another country in the interests of a private party is likely to NOT be in the best interests of the interferer nation.
Well lets call it the best interests of the ruling class. That may mean slightly different things in different countries, but it's not usually that far apart.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Well lets call it the best interests of the ruling class. That may mean slightly different things in different countries, but it's not usually that far apart.
It could be very far apart,,,it could be as far apart as far is. Like say a few of the BFEE get a percentage of a pipeline deal via some personal arrangement with some Arbian gulf puppet..In return the BFEE's country gets absolutely nothing but open ended military obligations and ill will..
 
Darryl Webster said:
Loving the open minded debate peeps, lets just keep as off topic as we can eh?
Question: Does the CIA under orders from the Whitehouse Admin get involved in illigal ( under International Convention) activities to destabalise the internal governance of Soverign States?

Yes or No answer will do fine.
Yes, certainly it has: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Ecuador, Chile, Honduras, to name those which come immediately to mind. Is that the case with Libya? Don't know.
 
Hugh Januss said:
TFF wins the prize. Everybody who can does what they can. Some better than others, all with their own interests at heart. Does it make it right? No. Does it make it the smart thing to do? Probably, unfortunately.
The US has dropped the rest of the field in this, it must be admitted, with a sensational performance. At 1:30 arrives Britain, followed by Israel at 1:38, followed by Russia and China at 3:40. Germany crosses the line at 5:10 from the winner.
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
Ignorance regarding what subject? What type of personal experience have you had that had US toops showing ingnorance and bigotry? In and out of the university?
History and local cultures. Giving upper officials and troops from USO tours of Rome. We have a mormon in a key position mediating between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Need I say more?
 
So, did anyone make it through Obama's speech? I was pretty disappointed by it. It seemed like a lot of canned speak. He said pretty much identically what I said he would.

In Andrew Bacevich's new book, Washington Rules he notes that if you look as the Washington warfare machine, you'll find that every US President from Truman to Bush II advocated a similar global control policy, and despite Obama's rhetoric before getting into office, his policies are pretty much identical. He was quickly sucked right into the vacuum. Tonight's rationalization proved that to me. Bacevich calls it the "Path to Permanent War". I find his analysis very compelling. Being a former US Army Colonel, plus a Ph.D in American diplomatic history adds credence to his words.

Fascinating how that despite our massive debt, recession, and all else, Defense spending is untouchable according to Bacevich. Defense is now a larger part of the budget than any time during the entire Cold War, including the Korean and Viet Nam wars. This is despite the fact we have no major nemesis, like the old Soviet Union. What are we doing with our "Defense"? It seems nation building, by murdering innocent citizens and controlling their oil for our consumption, all under the guise of moral leadership.

Perhaps most fascinating was the tongue tied response from John Boner and the GOP. Strange how this action by Obama is a near carbon copy of what they have been advocating for two decades, and yet they utter words crafted to criticize Obama and tying him to any ill in the decision.

Neoconservativism at it's finest. Whatever undisclosed location he happens to be dwelling in these days, Dick Cheney should be proud.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Well it seems no one here denying American Admin involvement in Ilegal activities in Soverign State affairs but few would like to dwell on it.
Not that I should need to explain but when I say "American " I do NOT mean your average American. Almost without fail Americans I`ve met have been amongst the most genuine , open and sincere people I`ve had the pleasure to meet. As in the UK and I`ve little doupt most of the world, your Leadership most certainly isnt representative of your people.
The fact that other nations, UK, France, Israil,Italy etc get involved in the same Ilegal activities is no defence and I comdemn all countries that do so but the fact is no other Nation does it to the degree of America and other nations are often mere bit players in the Admins grand charade of driving towards One World policing and regulation.
For the world to ever realy move on to a more stable, sustainable place the "Revolution" the Globe realy needs to happen is in America. Till then your admins...whatever "Brand" they claim to be will continue to brutalise far to many people in the name of "freedom" and we move ever closer to a total ecological catastophy of biblical proportions all in the name of private
profit for a very few.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BNY_9alJrc&feature=player_embedded#at=326
 
Aug 16, 2009
401
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
So, did anyone make it through Obama's speech? I was pretty disappointed by it. It seemed like a lot of canned speak. He said pretty much identically what I said he would.

In Andrew Bacevich's new book, Washington Rules he notes that if you look as the Washington warfare machine, you'll find that every US President from Truman to Bush II advocated a similar global control policy, and despite Obama's rhetoric before getting into office, his policies are pretty much identical. He was quickly sucked right into the vacuum. Tonight's rationalization proved that to me. Bacevich calls it the "Path to Permanent War". I find his analysis very compelling. Being a former US Army Colonel, plus a Ph.D in American diplomatic history adds credence to his words.

Fascinating how that despite our massive debt, recession, and all else, Defense spending is untouchable according to Bacevich. Defense is now a larger part of the budget than any time during the entire Cold War, including the Korean and Viet Nam wars. This is despite the fact we have no major nemesis, like the old Soviet Union. What are we doing with our "Defense"? It seems nation building, by murdering innocent citizens and controlling their oil for our consumption, all under the guise of moral leadership.

Perhaps most fascinating was the tongue tied response from John Boner and the GOP. Strange how this action by Obama is a near carbon copy of what they have been advocating for two decades, and yet they utter words crafted to criticize Obama and tying him to any ill in the decision.

Neoconservativism at it's finest. Whatever undisclosed location he happens to be dwelling in these days, Dick Cheney should be proud.

I don't think you understand what a Neoconservative is and you certainly don't know the Neocon view of what the US's role in Libya ought to be.

Neocons would prefer to see guys like Mubarak and Qadafi stay in power. Ultimately they are user friendly to Israel, they are secular and they keep the radical Muslims in check. If you don't believe me then go read what that Victor Davis Hanson is writing on his site.

Which is a pretty stupid point of view when you consider Libya was already the World's # 3 provider of foreign fighters to the various fights going on around the world. It's not like Libya could get any worse.

Personally I believe that we're better off with a democratic Middle East even if it isn't composed of puppet states.

But I am sick and tired of wasting blood and treasure that cause. Giving any sort of aid to the Middle East is like giving money to a bum on the street. You get nothing in return.
 
rhubroma said:
The US has dropped the rest of the field in this, it must be admitted, with a sensational performance. At 1:30 arrives Britain, followed by Israel at 1:38, followed by Russia and China at 3:40. Germany crosses the line at 5:10 from the winner.
America is worse at destabilizing states than Russia? And Britain and Israel ahead of Russia and China. Far ahead even. Where did these expert figures come from:rolleyes:
 
The Hitch said:
America is worse at destabilizing states than Russia? And Britain and Israel ahead of Russia and China. Far ahead even. Where did these expert figures come from:rolleyes:
If you take into consideration the states once behind the Iron Curtain, then I suppose the Russians were pretty up there with America, though only during the Cold War. Today's Russia, however, is decidedly on the rebound.

If you consider Western Europe (particularly Italy and West Germany), the Middle East, Central and South America, South Asia and the Pacific states during this period and continuing after, then I think as far as the forces of globalization go and the state interference that has more profoundly shaped the world of today, then I'd wager to state that the US comes out on top, and not by an indifferent margin. I mean it comes with the winner's (not loser's) territory, doesn't it?

Britain and Israel have worked in close ties with the US throughout the period and, as far as Britain specifically goes, one should also consider the history of the colonies till the 1960's (ditto for France). Whereas Israel has played an active role with its Knesset in penetrating into the affairs of the Arab world from the Maghreb to the Caspian see since its foundation.

On the China account, I think we're only at the beginning. On tomorrow's stage, however, they will probably take back time on Britain and Israel and during the third week should be giving America a run for the money.

Of course this is how I interpret the race. :p

PS. Your Polish background, with respect to Russia, has no doubt colored your interpretation of the same race.
 
Aug 16, 2009
401
0
0
rhubroma said:
If you take into consideration the states once behind the Iron Curtain, then I suppose the Russians were pretty up there with America, though only during the Cold War. Today's Russia, however, is decidedly on the rebound.

If you consider Western Europe (particularly Italy and West Germany), the Middle East, Central and South America, South Asia and the Pacific states during this period and continuing after, then I think as far as the forces of globalization go and the state interference that has more profoundly shaped the world of today, then I'd wager to state that the US comes out on top, and not by an indifferent margin. I mean it comes with the winner's (not loser's) territory, doesn't it?

Britain and Israel have worked in close ties with the US throughout the period and, as far as Britain specifically goes, one should also consider the history of the colonies till the 1960's. Whereas Israel has played an active role with its Knesset in penetrating into the affairs of the Arab world from the Maghreb to the Caspian see since its foundation.

On the China account, I think we're only at the beginning. On tomorrow's stage, however, they will probably take back time on Britain and Israel and during the third week should be giving America a run for the money.

Of course this is how I interpret the race. :p

PS. Your Polish background, with respect to Russia, has no doubt colored your interpretation of the same race.

Yeah Russia, these days. They are one of the good guys. That's a really transparent and righteous state. Definitely on the rebound.:rolleyes:
 
Astana1 said:
Yeah Russia, these days. They are one of the good guys. That's a really transparent and righteous state. Definitely on the rebound.:rolleyes:
Thanks for the enlightened remarks. :eek:

I meant on the rebound, in the sense of Great Russia once again becoming, or trying to become since Putin, the image of a real superpower it once was during the Cold War up till the "fall" of the communism.

During the 90's Russia lost its empire and the forces of its international weight were modified accordingly. This was at the same moment of the (America's) global triumph of capitalism.

Some intellectuals in the States even theorized that history itself was about to "come to an end", where the spread of democracy and the free-market economy would become an inevitable providential destiny for the entire planet.

We now see that they were wrong. The only thing that seems remarkable now, is how short-lived the period of euphoria and triumphalist sentiment actually was.
 
rhubroma said:
If you take into consideration the states once behind the Iron Curtain, then I suppose the Russians were pretty up there with America, though only during the Cold War. Today's Russia, however, is decidedly on the rebound.

If you consider Western Europe (particularly Italy and West Germany), the Middle East, Central and South America, South Asia and the Pacific states during this period and continuing after, then I think as far as the forces of globalization go and the state interference that has more profoundly shaped the world of today, then I'd wager to state that the US comes out on top, and not by an indifferent margin. I mean it comes with the winner's (not loser's) territory, doesn't it?

Britain and Israel have worked in close ties with the US throughout the period and, as far as Britain specifically goes, one should also consider the history of the colonies till the 1960's (ditto for France). Whereas Israel has played an active role with its Knesset in penetrating into the affairs of the Arab world from the Maghreb to the Caspian see since its foundation.

On the China account, I think we're only at the beginning. On tomorrow's stage, however, they will probably take back time on Britain and Israel and during the third week should be giving America a run for the money.

Of course this is how I interpret the race. :p

PS. Your Polish background, with respect to Russia, has no doubt colored your interpretation of the same race.

So wait. You look at the US Israel and Britain, since forever, but Russia only in recent years???

How about we look at the last 90 years for Japan vs the last 20 years for the US. Conclusion- Japan is far more dangerous than the US:rolleyes:

I dont care what period you look at last 100 years, last 50 years last 10 years. The US nor any of its allies come close to what Russia does. Not even close.

Russia never went on the wane. They started right where they left off. It took them 5 years to start a full scale conflict where the actions of Russian soldiers make the US look like humanitarians.

Even if you were to count something like America sending troops to Haiti to help repair earthquake damage as a full scale military invasion (as Chavez did) the US still doesnt come close to interfering in other countries affaris like Russia does.

Also France has a far worse history than Britain ever had. then again, france doesnt have a "special relationship" with the US, so maybe that clouds your judgment.
 
Aug 16, 2009
401
0
0
rhubroma said:
Thanks for the enlightened remarks. :eek:

I meant on the rebound, in the sense of Great Russia once again becoming, or trying to become since Putin, the image of a real superpower it once was during the Cold War up till the "fall" of the communism.

During the 90's Russia lost its empire and the forces of its international weight were modified accordingly. This was at the same moment of the (America's) global triumph of capitalism.

Some intellectuals in the States even theorized that history itself was about to "come to an end", where the spread of democracy and the free-market economy would become an inevitable providential destiny for the entire planet.

We now see that they were wrong. The only thing that seems remarkable now, is how short-lived the period of euphoria and triumphalist sentiment actually was.
I'm not familiar with your posting style, so when I read your statement that Russia was on "the rebound" I thought you meant that Russia was now on it's way to becoming some sort of moral superpower. I didn't detect the subtle sarcasm in terms of saying that Russia was catching up in the global race to destabilize as many states as possible.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
rhubroma said:
History and local cultures. Giving upper officials and troops from USO tours of Rome. We have a mormon in a key position mediating between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Need I say more?
You should say more but your not. So you are saying that every “troop” as you call them are ignorant to history and local culture? You actually gave USO tours of Rome? You must be on an approved US government list to do that. I guess you have some stroke in Rome. In my opinion your “ignorant and bigot” comments are wrong with regards to all “troops”.
That “Mormon” comment could be viewed as crossing the line don’t you think? What happens if that millionaire Romney gets elected as President or vice president? Will this make you lose your mind?
 
Astana1 said:
I'm not familiar with your posting style, so when I read your statement that Russia was on "the rebound" I thought you meant that Russia was now on it's way to becoming some sort of moral superpower. I didn't detect the subtle sarcasm in terms of saying that Russia was catching up in the global race to destabilize as many states as possible.
Yep, that about sums it up.
 
Aug 16, 2009
401
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
You should say more but your not. So you are saying that every “troop” as you call them are ignorant to history and local culture? You actually gave USO tours of Rome? You must be on an approved US government list to do that. I guess you have some stroke in Rome. In my opinion your “ignorant and bigot” comments are wrong with regards to all “troops”.
That “Mormon” comment could be viewed as crossing the line don’t you think? What happens if that millionaire Romney gets elected as President or vice president? Will this make you lose your mind?

I read back through this thread and saw this comment and it irked me as well. The Mormon comment is clearly a bigoted one. The rest is just anectodotal BS evidence used to generalize an entire population.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
rhubroma said:
Thanks for the enlightened remarks. :eek:

I meant on the rebound, in the sense of Great Russia once again becoming, or trying to become since Putin, the image of a real superpower it once was during the Cold War up till the "fall" of the communism.

During the 90's Russia lost its empire and the forces of its international weight were modified accordingly. This was at the same moment of the (America's) global triumph of capitalism.

Some intellectuals in the States even theorized that history itself was about to "come to an end", where the spread of democracy and the free-market economy would become an inevitable providential destiny for the entire planet.

We now see that they were wrong. The only thing that seems remarkable now, is how short-lived the period of euphoria and triumphalist sentiment actually was.
You do not have to be “enlightened” to have comments or opinions. :)
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
You should say more but your not. So you are saying that every “troop” as you call them are ignorant to history and local culture? You actually gave USO tours of Rome? You must be on an approved US government list to do that. I guess you have some stroke in Rome. In my opinion your “ignorant and bigot” comments are wrong with regards to all “troops”.
That “Mormon” comment could be viewed as crossing the line don’t you think? What happens if that millionaire Romney gets elected as President or vice president? Will this make you lose your mind?
No not every soldier, however, and especially since Vietnam, let us say that many, if not most, have an inadequate preparation to be even capable of appreciating the nuances and customs of the local societies in which they are placed. I have been told for example that our forces in Iraq refer to the local masses simply as "the idiots."

Yet you don't want soldiers being too sensitive about anything, correct? Lest they not be capable of doing their jobs without asking too many moral questions. In other words, you don't want the armed forces made up of questioning and critical souls that tend to see things in a myriad assemblage of gray shades.

This kind of makes it difficult when engaging in wars that "aren't" really wars, but code names like Enduring Freedom, for which the objective is to merely effect a regime change and set up the transition toward the new State; in terms of having people on the ground who are good soldiers and conscious guests of the culture with a vested interest in the local populations. Especially when a part of that population either wants you to go home right away or else dead. The Afghanistan stories, thus, in no way surprised me.

Well the Mormon comment was actually quite tame, because it is merely frightful that the army has placed the guy in Israel to study the possible solutions that our government hopes will likely determine the fate of the Palestinians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
S Non-Cycling Discussions 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS