U.S. Foreign Policy

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:.

Truth is never criminal.

Falsity is always criminal. An oath under God to support falsity is blasphemy.
OK then the truth was that Saddam tortured children to coerse their parents into submission to his will, Therefore those that were against his over throw by Bush are criminal in their denials of the truth.



.


definitely

Doc, nobody is against Bush overthrowing Saddam, nobody

point was why CIA installed Saddam in the first place


Gm6EH5YRONc


.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Doc wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Truth is never criminal.

Falsity is always criminal. An oath under God to support falsity is blasphemy.
OK then the truth was that Saddam tortured children to coerse their parents into submission to his will, Therefore those that were against his over throw by Bush are criminal in their denials of the truth.

IE it is all in the eye of the beholder PERIOD. :D
No. Bush I decided to leave Saddam in power because it served US interests. Cheney spoke publicly saying it was a good idea.

The idea to remove Saddam came after he stated he would sell his oil for other than U.S. Dollars. This is why we had the second gulf war. Again, Cheney made a public 180 immediately after Saddam's proclamation and announced Saddam had to be removed using the lie of WMD.

The second Iraq war was all about the petrodollar. If the U.S. had any concern for Iraqi children we would not have "shocked and awed" so many to death.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:.

Truth is never criminal.

Falsity is always criminal. An oath under God to support falsity is blasphemy.
OK then the truth was that Saddam tortured children to coerse their parents into submission to his will, Therefore those that were against his over throw by Bush are criminal in their denials of the truth.
.


definitely

Doc, nobody is against Bush overthrowing Saddam, nobody

point was why CIA installed Saddam in the first place
The real irony is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus ... e_to_power
Many foreign countries opposed Qasim, particularly after he threatened to invade Kuwait. In February 1960, the CIA created an unrelated plan to oust Qasim by giving him a poisoned handkerchief, although it may have been aborted.[23]
Gm6EH5YRONc
.[/quote]

Yeah you are right instead of sending Rumsfeld on a diplomatic mission we should have just sent some nukes :roll:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Doc wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Truth is never criminal.

Falsity is always criminal. An oath under God to support falsity is blasphemy.
OK then the truth was that Saddam tortured children to coerse their parents into submission to his will, Therefore those that were against his over throw by Bush are criminal in their denials of the truth.

IE it is all in the eye of the beholder PERIOD. :D
No. Bush I decided to leave Saddam in power because it served US interests. Cheney spoke publicly saying it was a good idea.

The idea to remove Saddam came after he stated he would sell his oil for other than U.S. Dollars. This is why we had the second gulf war. Again, Cheney made a public 180 immediately after Saddam's proclamation and announced Saddam had to be removed using the lie of WMD.

The second Iraq war was all about the petrodollar. If the U.S. had any concern for Iraqi children we would not have "shocked and awed" so many to death.
Everyone imagined that Saddam would not survive long in power after the first gulf war. That someone more "likable" could rise up and replace him. Not removing him directly meant that the Saudis would not get angry about his removal. Then 10 years later Saddam was still in power.

Saddam could not trade oil for Petro dollars or anything else because he was not allowed to export oil except under the UN oil for bribes program. At the time no politician in Europe would take Euros or any other currency instead of dollars.

"Shock and Awe" was one military operation. It is highly doubtful that any Iraqi children were in the central government buildings when they were destroyed by missiles. The point was not to kill people. IF it was the plans to destroy those buildings would not have been announced prior to the missiles hitting them.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

In any case, everything on the right path, happy ending, fOR IRAN

Saddam AND America, both, out of Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia, back to DaDi

(former) CIA special agent, Ossama, no more

Taleban, f*cked

(former CIA but now Iranian agent) Karzai now (probably with Iranian wink) nixing American military stay.

Mubarak done

Al Saud (and Amirs & Kings) next in line

Turkey got the message, hands away from Assad unless "greater Kurdistan here we come"

Turkey sayin F.U to Mosche

Natanyahoo out Tzipi Livni in

"Greater Persia", here we come


All thanks to America

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Again there is nothing that Snowden said that surprises me.
Me either. Are you happy about it? Or do you just feel powerless to do anything to prevent it via your democratic or legal systems?
My feelings are very mixed. No one elected Snowden I consider him a traitor. However I have been pro-privacy as long as I can remember.
Who elected the NSA to spy on their Internet habits and listen to their phone calls? Who did Snowden "betray" the US to?
Elected official representatives.
In your view the appointees of elected representatives also have a democratic mandate? And you also believe that your representatives are empowered by your constitution to appoint people to spy on every aspect of your private life?

Snowden is a vigilante.
Telling people facts is vigilantism? The Cold War really poisoned America's soul.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by noddy »

the more interesting bit about snowden is how few westerners actually care about the mass privacy intrusion.

im totally resigned to it, i do see it as the consequence of the technology and impossible to avoid so as much as i want privacy i have to give up on it because im not prepared to kill for it.

doubleplus good.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

noddy wrote:.

the more interesting bit about snowden is how few westerners actually care about the mass privacy intrusion.

im totally resigned to it, i do see it as the consequence of the technology and impossible to avoid so as much as i want privacy i have to give up on it because im not prepared to kill for it.

doubleplus good.

.


It is obvious, no matter where, nobody wants their privacy spied on

Obvious too, due to technology available and becoming more and more intrusive, there's nowhere to hide from government intrusion in ones privacy

Only Question remaining, is, whether governments who credit themselves representing "we the people" should use available technology to intrude into ones privacy .. or .. in contrary, those who represent "we the people" have a FIDUCIARY DUTY to make sure "we the people's" privacy is respected (instead of they infringing upon)

Issue now seems 2B, those arguing they represent "we the people" saying to "we the people" F.U.

G_D knows what next those ELITE would say to "we the people"


.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Ibrahim »

noddy wrote:the more interesting bit about snowden is how few westerners actually care about the mass privacy intrusion.

im totally resigned to it, i do see it as the consequence of the technology and impossible to avoid so as much as i want privacy i have to give up on it because im not prepared to kill for it.

doubleplus good.
I understand that approach and basically share it. What I don't understand is then reviling Snowden or whistleblowers generally. Bradley/Chelsea Manning is an even more important source of information about the misconduct of American forces, but I understand people hating her because some people have vested interests in that issue.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by noddy »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
noddy wrote:.

the more interesting bit about snowden is how few westerners actually care about the mass privacy intrusion.

im totally resigned to it, i do see it as the consequence of the technology and impossible to avoid so as much as i want privacy i have to give up on it because im not prepared to kill for it.

doubleplus good.

.


It is obvious, no matter where, nobody wants their privacy spied on

Obvious too, due to technology available and becoming more and more intrusive, there's nowhere to hide from government intrusion in ones privacy

Only Question remaining, is, whether governments who credit themselves representing "we the people" should use available technology to intrude into ones privacy .. or .. in contrary, those who represent "we the people" have a FIDUCIARY DUTY to make sure "we the people's" privacy is respected (instead of they infringing upon)

Issue now seems 2B, those arguing they represent "we the people" saying to "we the people" F.U.

G_D knows what next those ELITE would say to "we the people"


.
why is this virtual privacy important suddenly when *actual* privacy in the real physical world has dissipated without a trace, what is snowden actually saying that means anything ?

facial recognitin video cameras on every street corner,fees and licenses with recorded paper trails for nearly every human activity, stop and search powers for all policeman in all situations, random car checks and searches, sneek n peek and swat teams for all houses, groping and orifice probing at borders, i could go on for quite a while yet.

oh noes, someones watching the internet aswell.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

noddy wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:
noddy wrote:.

the more interesting bit about snowden is how few westerners actually care about the mass privacy intrusion.

im totally resigned to it, i do see it as the consequence of the technology and impossible to avoid so as much as i want privacy i have to give up on it because im not prepared to kill for it.

doubleplus good.

.


It is obvious, no matter where, nobody wants their privacy spied on

Obvious too, due to technology available and becoming more and more intrusive, there's nowhere to hide from government intrusion in ones privacy

Only Question remaining, is, whether governments who credit themselves representing "we the people" should use available technology to intrude into ones privacy .. or .. in contrary, those who represent "we the people" have a FIDUCIARY DUTY to make sure "we the people's" privacy is respected (instead of they infringing upon)

Issue now seems 2B, those arguing they represent "we the people" saying to "we the people" F.U.

G_D knows what next those ELITE would say to "we the people"


.
why is this virtual privacy important suddenly when *actual* privacy in the real physical world has dissipated without a trace, what is snowden actually saying that means anything ?

facial recognitin video cameras on every street corner,fees and licenses with recorded paper trails for nearly every human activity, stop and search powers for all policeman in all situations, random car checks and searches, sneek n peek and swat teams for all houses, groping and orifice probing at borders, i could go on for quite a while yet.

oh noes, someones watching the internet aswell.

.


noddy, you have a very valid point

In most Western public places, roads, highway, traffic lights, buildings and and, you are watched 24/7 .. with your cell phone on, your Telcom knows 24/7 where you are with inches, paying with credit card (now, Europe making difficult any payment by cash) they know what you spend money on and where and when .. basically, THEY have profile of you better than you knowing yourself

All the above came CREEPING on us .. bit by bit they stuck in our as*s

Snowden is now the hay braking the camel back

This thing will morph to a revolt against all the above

Either "we the people" don't care being shafted, or people will rise up

we will see

.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
noddy wrote:the more interesting bit about snowden is how few westerners actually care about the mass privacy intrusion.

im totally resigned to it, i do see it as the consequence of the technology and impossible to avoid so as much as i want privacy i have to give up on it because im not prepared to kill for it.

doubleplus good.
I understand that approach and basically share it. What I don't understand is then reviling Snowden or whistleblowers generally.
So who exactly "reviled whistle blowers generally" Ibrahim?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by noddy »

Heracleum Persicum wrote: noddy, you have a very valid point

In most Western public places, roads, highway, traffic lights, buildings and and, you are watched 24/7 .. with your cell phone on, your Telcom knows 24/7 where you are with inches, paying with credit card (now, Europe making difficult any payment by cash) they know what you spend money on and where and when .. basically, THEY have profile of you better than you knowing yourself

All the above came CREEPING on us .. bit by bit they stuck in our as*s

Snowden is now the hay braking the camel back

This thing will morph to a revolt against all the above

Either "we the people" don't care being shafted, or people will rise up

we will see

.
no straw will break the camel because their are too many different camels sharing the load.

everyone in the west is scared of some other group and generally speaking is quite happy with all the intrusion aslong as they believe the powers that be are focused on the other group and not theirs.

dont listen to the nonsense about freedom and crap, that hasnt been true for many generations now, westerners are sheltered, scared and childish and the thought of society being less controlling is absolutely terrifying to them.

they worship their fears like a god and call it progress.

every single one of these intrusions has some horror story of druggies or terrorists or pedophiles or nasty capialists or dole bludgers that caused the rules to change and its going to have to get a lot lot worse before they stop trying to fix everything with more government control.

for now, the authoritarian viewpoints in the progressive and conservative world are the dominant voices and anyone speaking up for freedom or personal liberty is laughed at as a loony.

if you want freedom, move to a third world country or live with the rednecks :)
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

noddy wrote:.

if you want freedom, move to a third world country ..

.

2B honest, never felt so free as when I lived in Iran .. absolutly free, ABSOLUTLY


.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by noddy »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
noddy wrote:.

if you want freedom, move to a third world country ..

.

2B honest, never felt so free as when I lived in Iran .. absolutly free, ABSOLUTLY


.
be careful what you wish for when you want iran to normalise into the international community and modernise :)
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Corruption Perceptions Index 2013


very interesting site


.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


Corruption Perceptions Index 2013


very interesting site .
It was. I saw it when it first came out back in I think 2003 or so.. The problem with it is the results are purely subjective as the title of the report inherently states.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


Corruption Perceptions Index 2013


very interesting site .
It was. I saw it when it first came out back in I think 2003 or so.. The problem with it is the results are purely subjective as the title of the report inherently states.

.

Understanding of that "perception" is wrong

IMO, in West, many of that what westerners (and probably that site) considers as "corruption" is institutionalized

Bil Clinton did not own anything, Zero net worth, when he entered White House .. now he worth $ 100+ million .. did he invent something ? ? did he
had a DotCom startup/IPO, NO .. what does Bill or Giuliani say that worth 100 grand a pop, nothin .. that 100 grand is bribe for services rendered when back in office .. considering this, the chart would look "other way round"

.
Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:
Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


Corruption Perceptions Index 2013


very interesting site .
It was. I saw it when it first came out back in I think 2003 or so.. The problem with it is the results are purely subjective as the title of the report inherently states.

.

Understanding of that "perception" is wrong

IMO, in West, many of that what westerners (and probably that site) considers as "corruption" is institutionalized

Bil Clinton did not own anything, Zero net worth, when he entered White House .. now he worth $ 100+ million .. did he invent something ? ? did he
had a DotCom startup/IPO, NO .. what does Bill or Giuliani say that is a worth 100 grand a pope, nothin .. that 100 grand is bribe for services rendered when back in office .. considering this, the chart would look "other way round"
.
I think you said you went to college in Germany. I guess even if you went in Canada or the US you would never heard of this. Back around the begining of the 20th century there was a crime wave reported in NYC newspapers. But crime actually had not increased. What happened is reporters from rival newspapers were in a contest to see who could report the most sensational crime stories.

Teddy Roosevelt was the Police commissioner of NYC at the time and was upset about the perception that crime had increased so much on his watch. So he asked one of the reporters what was going on. and was told that since the police crime report logs were publicly available in the police HQ it was easy for that reporter and the others to report every crime story that happened. So they were where they were not before. SO the logs were put behind a counter where there was not public access and the crime wave ended.

Lincoln Steffens told that story in his auto-biography.

Corruption is very hard to quantify. One place corruption laws are enforce where in another they are not. But when they are enforced they get more publicity and there fore the perception is created that there is more corruption when in other locals there is likely more but no one hears about it. Like I said the transparency report is strictly subjective.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by noddy »

impossible to judge things on the amount of corruption because corruption is so rampant in most human societies.

the trick is the ability to get things done *without* corruption and on this metric the west has traditionally been a tad more reliable than many, provided your not attempting to compete with a big oligopoly in the communications/media aspects of life.

some might put medical/farming/transport in that grouping due to the barriers to entry that have evolved over the last few decades.

back on topic, US foreign policy as it affects me is heavily debatable for being free trade versus locking in corporate interests, australia got screwed imho and didnt get free trade or fair competition on our primary exports but we did get to enforce american ip and copyright laws.. which is nice...
ultracrepidarian
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
noddy wrote:the more interesting bit about snowden is how few westerners actually care about the mass privacy intrusion.

im totally resigned to it, i do see it as the consequence of the technology and impossible to avoid so as much as i want privacy i have to give up on it because im not prepared to kill for it.

doubleplus good.
I understand that approach and basically share it. What I don't understand is then reviling Snowden or whistleblowers generally.
So who exactly "reviled whistle blowers generally" Ibrahim?

You just said Snowden was a "traitor." If your views on Snowden or Manning are positive then say so.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:"Shock and Awe" was one military operation. It is highly doubtful that any Iraqi children were in the central government buildings when they were destroyed by missiles.
It is highly doubtful that "collateral damage" (i.e. the killing of civilians) did not occur during the "shock and awe" operation.


The Iraq Body Count project calculated 7,400 Iraqi civilians directly killed by US forces during the war.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Based on what? Your childish faith in the %100 accuracy of US missiles pumped into Iraq at the outset of that pointless conflict?
Oh so emotional of you.
Yeah, citing casualty statistics was pretty emotional of me.

Then why did you go to the trouble of snipping it out?
It takes more time to correct the large blocks in which you've screwed up the quote function than it does to excise the redundant or repetitive portions of your posts.


Ibrahim wrote:Why are you calling the Muslim Brotherhood my "friends" and why are you saying they killed tens of thousands in response to a thread about US foreign policy in the context of civilians killed by the US military in Iraq? Can it be because you're a racist and a moron and can't think of any coherent defense for your absurd positions?
You are the one that is always defending them where ever they are found.
I oppose the mass murder of civilians by the Egyptian military, and correct falsehoods used to defend the mass murder of civilians. But you didn't explain why you brought this up in a conversation about US foreign policy and the killing of civilians by US soldiers in Iraq. It seem like another one of your "don't call me racist" racist slurs you reflexively resort to when you can't defend your irrational or false claims. Off topic, based only prejudice, and a distraction from your own failed and dishonest arguments.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
:roll:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Post Reply