Jewish Terrorism

[Mika-El]

The weighing of evidence is indeed part of the process of corroboration--not authentication. A jury can't weigh evidence before it's admitted. Corroboration goes to weight, not admissibility. Once the evidence is admitted, the jury may give it little or no weight because they don't find it credible, but an unprejudiced juror will not simply refuse to weigh it because they don't like what it says. That's what you're doing here.



The proof is known to the Wikileaks staff, just as it was known to Washington Post editors in the Watergate case. If that's good enough to impeach a president, it's good enough for a conversation on a message board.

You again talk around the point. You can't weigh the veracity or reasonableness of evidence if you can't first prove it exists.

It is absurd to state evidence can be considered as reasonable when you can't even prove it exists as a fact.

In the OJ case there was no doubt the glove existed. That was a material fact. It then was determined relevant by the jury.

in your case you rely on alleged evidence but have never proven it exists. Neither has the article.

The proof is known to Wikileaks staff? Really. And how do you know that? You spoke with them and examined the evidence they received?

Please don't tell me or anyone else to make such assumptions. I don't believe in Santa Claus either by the way simply because you might say so or for that matter the fact Lindsay Lohan has herpes.

Spare me the as absurdity of being told I must accept uncorroborated heresay as credible. Next you will tell me at 54 its reasonable for me to wear a speedo in public.

Gevalt.

 

[Winston Smith]

You again talk around the point. You can't weigh the veracity or reasonableness of evidence if you can't first prove it exists.

It is absurd to state evidence can be considered as reasonable when you can't even prove it exists as a fact.

In the OJ case there was no doubt the glove existed. That was a material fact. It then was determined relevant by the jury.

in your case you rely on alleged evidence but have never proven it exists. Neither has the article.

The proof is known to Wikileaks staff? Really. And how do you know that? You spoke with them and examined the evidence they received?

Please don't tell me or anyone else to make such assumptions. I don't believe in Santa Claus either by the way simply because you might say so or for that matter the fact Lindsay Lohan has herpes.

Spare me the as absurdity of being told I must accept uncorroborated heresay as credible. Next you will tell me at 54 its reasonable for me to wear a speedo in public.

Gevalt.

I'm not talking around the point. I'm simply trying to remind you of the difference between corroboration and authentication. OJ's jury knew the glove existed. They determined, based on corroboration, whether it was OJ's. Neither of these things has anything to do with authentication. The authentication question was whether it was the glove found at the crime scene. For that, the court accepted the word of the prosecution via its witness, which made it relevant. The jury had no part in determining relevance.

Hearsay is yet another issue. If you want to apply the hearsay rule outside the courtroom, I can understand why you wouldn't trust Wikileaks, the Washington Post, or anything else. Just make sure you never cite another newspaper for the facts it reports, because they all report hearsay.

 

[deltabtry]

Bottom line, choose a side and defend it.

 

[MSgt]

I love the wikileak warriors. I find it fascinating how people seem to have assumed that perfect moral behavior and powder puff girls have made us secure over the decades. And now that they have a window peak into the real world they assume to know it all. Idiots. Turn on American Idol and eat another Ho Ho.

 

[Winston Smith]

I love the wikileak warriors. I find it fascinating how people seem to have assumed that perfect moral behavior and powder puff girls have made us secure over the decades. And now that they have a window peak into the real world they assume to know it all. Idiots. Turn on American Idol and eat another Ho Ho.

How exactly do you think terrorist attacks on American politicians or Palestinian villagers make us more secure?

 

[MSgt]

How exactly do you think terrorist attacks on American politicians or Palestinian villagers make us more secure?

Oh, I'm talking about all wikileak warriors in general from thread to thread. In this particular instance, who knows. I don't really know the full story of these matter do I? What I will add is that since we are a nation full of the world's populations, it stands to reason that some would venture back into their native lands and fight along side or for their ethnic tribes. Labeling America as an "exporter of terrorism" for the deceitful purpose to re-define us is just dishonest and pathetic though. It alleviates all true exporters of terrorism and pats them on the head. Much like our politicians who want to publicly question national voting polls who give every third world nation an excuse to refuse democratic elections in their own countries.

America is a nation. It not only is a power, but the only true superpower. It's successes in wars and dampening the fires of potential wars has never come without it's imperfections. We live in a world full of twists and turns and ever changing plots. This Wikileak garbage is irresponsible and merely ignites hatreds, resentments, and doubts in the hearts of the ignorant who already only need a sliver of information to declare their perfect clarity into matters that are above them. The way I see it, you live in a small focused insignificant world like the rest of us. We all have an idea of what is important to us without any regard to what might be important to thousands or millions of others around us. And since we can't see what is important to others we assume that only our sense of stressed importance matters.

Quite honestly, i couldn't make heads or tails from your article. But thejoke of these type articles is that it speaks tothe reader as if it has discovered some horrible unheard of secret. We just went through a Cold War where we competed with a rival who employed every dirty deed in the book. We kept up with them, which is why we have aperiod of history where we employed dictators, seated dictators, encouraged some coups, and financed rebels against enemy governments. But like I stated, name one nation that has risen without dealing inthe underhanded from time to time. I accept that imperfection is a condition for building empire and making me safe and happy. And that some times that imperfection results in our government watchdogs pulling back on the reigns of the over zealous.

I'm not sure what you are wanting this article to mean. What American politician was attacked and by who? What Palestinians were attacked and by who?

 

[Mika-El]

You are once again trying to lecture me on the law with an absurd statement, i.e., "the jury had no part in determining relevance". Of course they did. The only time the glove becomes relevant is when its first deemed admissable and then introduced to the jury and the jury then determines if its relevant or not. It first has to be deemed admissable based on one set of rules. It then is determined in terms of relevance to guilt by the jury. Please don't lecture me on the law o.k.?

The courts have rules of admissability for evidence. If the evidence passes those rules, the evidence is then determined by the decision maker as relevant or not in terms of guilt or proving a point. Whether evidence is admissable and whether its relevant are not synomous. Using your logic the moment something is admissable its relevant to the decision. Of course not.

Back to the thread, and the actual point, you produced an article quoting an alleged CIA spokesperson. That alleged CIA spokesperson has not been proven to exist nor has he provided any substance or documentation for the alleged opinion he gave which was simply that, a subjective baseless opinion. You have no idea whether this alleged spokesperson exists let alone works for the CIA let alone was planting false information. For all you know he could have been a Mossad agent. Lol.

This kind of information you rely on is yellow or shlock journalism. No it is not credible and the fact that people like you find it credible just goes to show people like you believe what they read without it being proven provided no doubt it conforms with your already formed opinion. I doubt you would be quoting the same mysterious spokesperson if he was stating pro Israeli comments now would you? Lol no you would be the first to question them.

Now trying to engage me in semantics as to authenticity and corroboration let alone the rules of admissability of evidence is pointless. After 30 years of teaching law thanks I have it figured out.

Do me a favour, if you want to lecture people on the law go find out what the difference between the word admissable and inadmissable is. Admissability determines what can then be considered by a jury or judge as relevant or not as to the final decision. You are trying to suggest the moment evidence is admissable its relevant to the decision. No it is not. It simply is deemed acceptable to be considered relevant or not. Whether its relevant or not still depends on the Judge or Jury's interpretation of it.

Try the talk around and semantics with someone else.

By the way the shlock alleged CIA spokesperson was Lindsay Lohan. Reliable sources told me that.

Now let's get back to discussing politics and if you want to go to law school, first resist the urge to lecture on the law of evidence until you at least take the rules of evidence course.

 

[MSgt]

This kind of information you rely on is yellow or shock journalism.

Exactly. With even CNN and FOX providing half truths, deceits, and no follow ups on their over dramatized stories, "shock journalism" has become the norm. This is why I continue to advocate books for people who truly wish to understand the world. Looking for accuracy and complete truths from Wikileaks (the Internet soap opera of the day) is like reading a pamphlet in a doctor's office and then declaring your wisdom on surgery.

 

[Winston Smith]

You are once again trying to lecture me on the law with an absurd statement, i.e., "the jury had no part in determining relevance". Of course they did. The only time the glove becomes relevant is when its first deemed admissable and then introduced to the jury and the jury then determines if its relevant or not. It first has to be deemed admissable based on one set of rules. It then is determined in terms of relevance to guilt by the jury. Please don't lecture me on the law o.k.?

The courts have rules of admissability for evidence. If the evidence passes those rules, the evidence is then determined by the decision maker as relevant or not in terms of guilt or proving a point. Whether evidence is admissable and whether its relevant are not synomous. Using your logic the moment something is admissable its relevant to the decision. Of course not.

Back to the thread, and the actual point, you produced an article quoting an alleged CIA spokesperson. That alleged CIA spokesperson has not been proven to exist nor has he provided any substance or documentation for the alleged opinion he gave which was simply that, a subjective baseless opinion. You have no idea whether this alleged spokesperson exists let alone works for the CIA let alone was planting false information. For all you know he could have been a Mossad agent. Lol.

This kind of information you rely on is yellow or shlock journalism. No it is not credible and the fact that people like you find it credible just goes to show people like you believe what they read without it being proven provided no doubt it conforms with your already formed opinion. I doubt you would be quoting the same mysterious spokesperson if he was stating pro Israeli comments now would you? Lol no you would be the first to question them.

Now trying to engage me in semantics as to authenticity and corroboration let alone the rules of admissability of evidence is pointless. After 30 years of teaching law thanks I have it figured out.

Do me a favour, if you want to lecture people on the law go find out what the difference between the word admissable and inadmissable is. Admissability determines what can then be considered by a jury or judge as relevant or not as to the final decision. You are trying to suggest the moment evidence is admissable its relevant to the decision. No it is not. It simply is deemed acceptable to be considered relevant or not. Whether its relevant or not still depends on the Judge or Jury's interpretation of it.

Try the talk around and semantics with someone else.

By the way the shlock alleged CIA spokesperson was Lindsay Lohan. Reliable sources told me that.

Now let's get back to discussing politics and if you want to go to law school, first resist the urge to lecture on the law of evidence until you at least take the rules of evidence course.

It's up to you whether you want to talk about relevance in the technical sense or in some general sense that you've yet to define. I was under the impression that you were talking about it in the legal sense. If so, refer to FRE 402. Evidence that is not relevant is not admitted for consideration in the first place. By definition, the jury has nothing to do with this determination.

 

[Winston Smith]

Oh, I'm talking about all wikileak warriors in general from thread to thread. In this particular instance, who knows. I don't really know the full story of these matter do I?

No, but maybe you could ask Mika. He's apparently read the first paragraph.

What I will add is that since we are a nation full of the world's populations, it stands to reason that some would venture back into their native lands and fight along side or for their ethnic tribes. Labeling America as an "exporter of terrorism" for the deceitful purpose to re-define us is just dishonest and pathetic though. It alleviates all true exporters of terrorism and pats them on the head. Much like our politicians who want to publicly question national voting polls who give every third world nation an excuse to refuse democratic elections in their own countries.

America is a nation. It not only is a power, but the only true superpower. It's successes in wars and dampening the fires of potential wars has never come without it's imperfections. We live in a world full of twists and turns and ever changing plots. This Wikileak garbage is irresponsible and merely ignites hatreds, resentments, and doubts in the hearts of the ignorant who already only need a sliver of information to declare their perfect clarity into matters that are above them. The way I see it, you live in a small focused insignificant world like the rest of us. We all have an idea of what is important to us without any regard to what might be important to thousands or millions of others around us. And since we can't see what is important to others we assume that only our sense of stressed importance matters.

Quite honestly, i couldn't make heads or tails from your article. But thejoke of these type articles is that it speaks tothe reader as if it has discovered some horrible unheard of secret. We just went through a Cold War where we competed with a rival who employed every dirty deed in the book. We kept up with them, which is why we have aperiod of history where we employed dictators, seated dictators, encouraged some coups, and financed rebels against enemy governments. But like I stated, name one nation that has risen without dealing inthe underhanded from time to time. I accept that imperfection is a condition for building empire and making me safe and happy. And that some times that imperfection results in our government watchdogs pulling back on the reigns of the over zealous.

I'm not sure what you are wanting this article to mean. What American politician was attacked and by who? What Palestinians were attacked and by who?

Aside from the fact that America does officially support terrorism, for example currently in Iran, it's still fair to call it an unofficial exporter in the same way that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are. In either case, I don't agree that our quest for "power" makes us more secure. I think it only makes us more enemies.

 

[MSgt]

No, but maybe you could ask Mika. He's apparently read the first paragraph.

Well, see, this is exactly what I was writing about. I (and you) am supposed to know what is going on because you got your hands on a single misleading article? The author obviously has an agenda the way he (Joshua Holland) chose his careful words. Here is the first paragraph....

The United States has a long and rich history of exporting terrorism abroad, according to a CIA memo released by Wikileaks on Wednesday. After noting several incidents in which American Muslims launched much-discussed attacks abroad, the analysts warned, “less attention has been paid to homegrown terrorism… exported overseas” by non-Muslim groups....

I read your article. Despite the misleading first paragraph, which implies that terrorism is American sponsered just like any Iranian or Arab state, the jist of it is that people inside America have historically gone back to father/mother land and fought along side their countrymen whether they be terrorists, rebels, or whatever. They sometimes comefrom organizations inside the U.S. whoknock on doors forcharity tofund their agendas abroad. I don't see how this merits some eye opening insight into the obvious. Even during World War II, plenty of Germans went back to fight against the allies. So what is so shocking that Jews have gone back to stand by Israel or Muslims have funded their terrorist organizations from charities in the U.S. or some Irish have done the same for their IRA? For all you know, some of your charity over the years may have found its way into the terrorist accounts that led up to 9/11. Be angry about it, but don't pretend to be shocked.

But c'mon Winston. Your thread title is "Jewish Terrorism" for a reason. With the plethora of terrorism that is hijacking airplanes, shooting up Olympics, destroying metropolitan buildings, targetting school busses, plotting against European nations.....you fix on Jews?

Aside from the fact that America does officially support terrorism, for example currently in Iran, it's still fair to call it an unofficial exporter in the same way that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are. In either case, I don't agree that our quest for "power" makes us more secure. I think it only makes us more enemies.

This is entirely naive. America has always supported coups or rebellions against governments that are not aligned with us just lkike any other globalized government. The difference between us and them is that we don't train terrorist to slaughter civilians by way of policy. This doesn't mean that sometimes our "contractors" in foreign countries don't misbehave, but that's the price of doing business. But why is it shocking? Even we high and mighty Americans employed some terror tactics here and there during our Revolutionary War and even during our Civil War. **** happens. You see, the choice on many occassion is to choose to side with the governments like "Iran" or to side with those who seek democracy under these oppressive governments, which will sometimes employ less than honorable methods. It's not as simple as pretending that we have a third option, because most of the hatred in the Middle East is projected in the wrong place anyway. Any quest for "power" or rise in "empire" is going to make enemies whether you want them or not. Consider this...

1) A Spanish government lost power and prestige against America in the Spanish-American War.

2) A German government lost power and prestige twice due to American interference in European affairs.

3) After having to be liberated by American forces, France went on to hold grudge over our defying their imperial move in the Suez War. (Read up on de Gaulle's contagious venom)

4) Half of the world was victim to anti-American rhetoric under theSoviets during the Cold War. This included the Middle East where trust had to be eventually earned as the Soviets proved untrustworthy.

5) And with every radical and extremist group in the Middle East blaming all their cultural woes on foriegn American devils and the Jewish devil in their midst, Arab and Shia governments are all too happy to allow the venom as long as it directs away from them.

That's a whole lot of global resentment ("Hate" just isn't an accurate word) directed towards us, simply because we chose sides and placed the comforts of isolationalism behind us. In the end, it dod build our "empire" and power. You don't want enemies? Don't pick a side. You don't want multi-layered power, prestige, and the prosperity to compete with everybody? Grab some bench and get out of the game. But how secure were we when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? We were still isolationalists. History has proven that oursecurity depends on the health of foreign regions. Our sense of democracy and freedom has always been about addressing the global fronts across theoceans. From the Barbary Pirates Wars, through the World Wars, through the Cold War, and onto Middle Eastern tribal conflict and religious fanaticism, our security depends on our ability to reach out and address local problems away from our shores. That's power and that's security. It also means that we are forced to choose sides. As powerful as the Japanese, Germans, and Soviets were, one could argue that we would have far fewer enemies had we chosen the other side. But we didn't. We have chosen the rough road for our beliefs and way of life. And this road is destined to ruin every dastardly oppressive and brutal regime in the world.

 

[Winston Smith]

I read your article. Despite the misleading first paragraph, which implies that terrorism is American sponsered just like any Iranian or Arab state, the jist of it is that people inside America have historically gone back to father/mother land and fought along side their countrymen whether they be terrorists, rebels, or whatever. They sometimes comefrom organizations inside the U.S. whoknock on doors forcharity tofund their agendas abroad. I don't see how this merits some eye opening insight into the obvious.

So, which is it? Misleading or obvious?

But c'mon Winston. Your thread title is "Jewish Terrorism" for a reason. With the plethora of terrorism that is hijacking airplanes, shooting up Olympics, destroying metropolitan buildings, targetting school busses, plotting against European nations.....you fix on Jews?

What's your point?

This is entirely naive. America has always supported coups or rebellions against governments that are not aligned with us just lkike any other globalized government. The difference between us and them is that we don't train terrorist to slaughter civilians by way of policy.

That is indeed naive.

That's a whole lot of global resentment ("Hate" just isn't an accurate word) directed towards us, simply because we chose sides and placed the comforts of isolationalism behind us. In the end, it dod build our "empire" and power. You don't want enemies? Don't pick a side. You don't want multi-layered power, prestige, and the prosperity to compete with everybody? Grab some bench and get out of the game.

The idea that the prosperity of capitalist societies depends on imperial expansion is an erroneous theory with its origins in Marxism. It started out as a critique and only later became a blueprint.

But how secure were we when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? We were still isolationalists.

Far from it. We were deeply involved with Japan's war in China.

History has proven that oursecurity depends on the health of foreign regions. Our sense of democracy and freedom has always been about addressing the global fronts across theoceans.

On the contrary, the idea of fighting global wars across the oceans was anathema to the Founders.

From the Barbary Pirates Wars, through the World Wars, through the Cold War, and onto Middle Eastern tribal conflict and religious fanaticism, our security depends on our ability to reach out and address local problems away from our shores.

We did what was necessary to get the Barbary pirates off our backs. We didn't take sides or get involved in North African affairs. France did, and they're paying the price to this day.

That's power and that's security.

Security, no. Power, maybe, but it's only the power to plunder, and it comes at a great cost.

It also means that we are forced to choose sides. As powerful as the Japanese, Germans, and Soviets were, one could argue that we would have far fewer enemies had we chosen the other side. But we didn't. We have chosen the rough road for our beliefs and way of life. And this road is destined to ruin every dastardly oppressive and brutal regime in the world.

It has nurtured many of those oppressive regimes, and it's destined to turn our own regime into one of them. This is the inevitable result of constant war, as the Founders understood.

 

[Winston Smith]

@MSgt

Apologies if my posts sound curt. Don't mean to be rude, just have limited time. Thanks for your points.

 

[MSgt]

So, which is it? Misleading or obvious?

The article starts out misleading by attempting to portray the American government as employing terror upon enemies. But as you read the article his words change and begin stating the obvious, which is that ethnic groups in America have loyalties abroad. I still don't know what you are trying to get out of this article.

What's your point?

I think you know my point.

That is indeed naive.

Well, unlike yourself, 18 years in the Marine Corps has placed me in contact with a lot of things abroad. You really aren't basing your opinions on anything substantial or real. Hollywood story lines, dramatized novels, and a hint of imperfection in certian government policies or actions doesn't get you far. America has no policy for the expressed training of terrorist to kill civilians and nothing in your imagination can change that.

The idea that the prosperity of capitalist societies depends on imperial expansion is an erroneous theory with its origins in Marxism. It started out as a critique and only later became a blueprint.

One cannot expand a company into a nation that does not accept capitalism. What this means is that "imperial" expansion does allow for further prosperity. The spread of democracy and liberty does allow for wider power. I don't care what you want to orginiate this to, but the common sense is clear. You think our policy to spread democracy has been solely about helping the world? Inthe end, it's our way of life we secure and strengthen. It has been proven that oil deals with democracies are far more healthier than oil deals with dictators. And this is just an example among an endless supply.

Far from it. We were deeply involved with Japan's war in China.

Well, we had envoys over in Europe too, so the **** what? Despite our activities abroad since the Barbary Pirates Wars, our policies were one of isolationalism or "non-interventionism" if you prefer that word. World War I was an exception to our policies and when World War II rolled around, our people still wanted nothing to do with activity abroad. This is why for both wars, Europeans criticize us for being "late" to their mess.

On the contrary, the idea of fighting global wars across the oceans was anathema to the Founders.

Do you miss these points on purpose? The founders have nothng to do with what I stated. I don't care what they believed in a time when American's greatest concern was what tree to chop down for fire wood. IT IS A FACT OF OUR HISTORY, that our security rests on the health of foriegn regions. Do I really have to spend time on these simple matters?

1) The Barbary Pirates Wars was about securing a free path for our shipping goods through the Mediteranean, while Europeans were content paying them ransoms and bribes.

2) World War I threatened our trades and eventually we went to set things right.

3) World War II threatened our trades and eventually we went to set things right.

4) The Cold War saw trades all over the globe threatened and the stronger communism became the weaker democracy and capitalism became. And since Germany's chief complaint for losing the war was a lack of oil, allowing the Soviet Union to have complete control over oil fields was threatening.

In all cases and so much more, our lifestyles were threatened because foriegn regions were in trouble. We venture out, correct, and secure not only for them, but for us.

We did what was necessary to get the Barbary pirates off our backs. We didn't take sides or get involved in North African affairs. France did, and they're paying the price to this day.

Oh, and why would we do this? Was the region unhealthy and therefore threatening our security and well being? And how much do we really get involved with the governing of other people? We are not as involved as you imagine. When we choose sides, its with the governments.

Security, no. Power, maybe, but it's only the power to plunder, and it comes at a great cost.

Security yes. History is against you. And what plundering? If you are trying to steer this absurd discussion we are having towards oil then wake up. No one has plundered a thing. Everything has been bought and paid for and our deals are with foreign governments. You have voiced your opposition to getting involved with how they govern so let's not pretend that you care about their citizens as we write the checks. Everything comes with a cost. Deal with it or get out of the game. Personally, Ibelieve we can go ahead and abandon some of this game now. But I just pull triggers and fix communications.

It has nurtured many of those oppressive regimes, and it's destined to turn our own regime into one of them. This is the inevitable result of constant war, as the Founders understood.

Why don't you get off the founders nuts and join me in a real conversation. It wasn't until this moment I realized what you keep doing in your replies. The founders also believed in slavery and female imprisonment. The founders have rotted away and have nothing to do with this world anymore. Their day is gone. You "foundamentalists" remind of our enemy who wants to turn the Islamic civilization back in time before modernization.

The Cold War was an exception. We did nurture a few. We did install a few. But that was an era where we faced an enemy that very much embraced moral depravity and we had to play his game. That era is over. Some oppressive regimes out there still get our business. Shall we invade? Deny ourselves the business that will jjust go to our enemies and make them strong against us? We don't live in a black and white world where the correct and "right" decision is always easy or even available.

 

[MSgt]

@MSgt

Apologies if my posts sound curt. Don't mean to be rude, just have limited time. Thanks for your points.

Your posts weren't curt. They were just shallow in response and argumentative. You need to get off the "Founding Fathers" BS. They may have different ideas about how to secure this nation if American pioneering, Pearl Harbor, economic globalization, a moon trip, and 9/11 was in their history. Times change. Invoking a ghost or two as some sort of wise sage for how to fix things that they have no experience with is entirely radical.

 

[Winston Smith]

The American government does use terror, establish dictatorships, and steal resources. That's not "capitalism." It is plunder. Far from "spreading democracy," as you call it, we've suppressed democracy whenever it stood in the way of certain privileged business interests.

I bring up the Founders because you keep saying we've always been involved in fighting battles and spreading our values around the world. On the other hand you also say we were isolationist until WWII, so I guess you don't really think that's true. Again, which way do you want to argue?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do business with regimes that are less than perfect. But what we actually do is undermine or attack countries with democratic tendencies and install client regimes that are often worse than the ones they replace. We used to do it in the name of fighting communism. Now we do it in the name of fighting terrorism. It was bogus then, and it's bogus now. It's always been about oil.

 

[MSgt]

The American government does use terror, establish dictatorships, and steal resources.

1) All governments use "terror" at times so why is America supposed to do different? Our interests above all. Welcome to life as the sole remaining super power. We played the game better than the rest and with the stigma of being a good nation because moral depravtiy has been the exception to our rules.

2) America has established no dictator since the Cold War, which is why the Cold War was our exception to moral depravity.

3) America steals no resource and you would be hard pressed to prove that foreign governments haven't gotten their checks. Or does the oil belong to the extremists?

There is no plunder. And suppressing the very few specific democracies was a Cold War event. Like your "Founding Fathers" bit, update your calender.

I bring up the Founders because you keep saying we've always been involved in fighting battles and spreading our values around the world.

I never stated this. I stated that we have involved ourselves with dealing with unhealthy regions since the Barbary Pirates Wars to protect our interests and securites back home. Values had nothing to do with it. You get confused, which is why I keep having to state things over and over and explain the commom sense parts.

On the other hand you also say we were isolationist until WWII, so I guess you don't really think that's true. Again, which way do you want to argue?

You need to understand something. "I" don't claim these things. History does. My point has been and contuinues to be very clear. Despite Barbary Pirates Wars and such, we had been isolationalists since our beginning up to the Cold War....

In the wake of the First World War, the isolationist tendencies of US foreign policy were in full force.
United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I continue to produce the proof or evidence that contradicts your opinions on matters, which defies the history. Just let the grandstanding go.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do business with regimes that are less than perfect. But what we actually do is undermine or attack countries with democratic tendencies and install client regimes that are often worse than the ones they replace.

Noooo...that's not what we do. That's what we have "done" and now that Cold War era is over. Do you even know when the last time we did such a thing?

We used to do it in the name of fighting communism. Now we do it in the name of fighting terrorism.

So disrupting democracies in the making was bad during the Cold War, but ridding ourselves of our Tali-Ban and Hussein Cold War left overs and installing their democracies makes us wrong too? Figure it out.

It's always been about oil.

Who gives a ****? Oil through a dictator or oil through democracy? Figure it out.

 

[donsutherland1]

The American government does use terror, establish dictatorships, and steal resources...

we actually do is undermine or attack countries with democratic tendencies and install client regimes that are often worse than the ones they replace. We used to do it in the name of fighting communism. Now we do it in the name of fighting terrorism. It was bogus then, and it's bogus now. It's always been about oil.

I don't know how you define "steal" resources, so I won't comment on that issue.

At the same time, it should be noted that foreign policy is not and never has been a messianic crusade wholly about spreading idealistic enlightened values. Foreign policy is focused on a nation's interests. In advancing and sustaining those interests, a nation often has to make tradeoffs. Constraints and limits e.g., the balance of power, are real. Therefore, a nation must seek an adequate balance between serving its vital/critical interests and advancing its ideals. While there can and often is overlap between interests and ideals, there can also be contradictions.

The Cold War presented a classic example of where conflicts between interests and ideals existed in select areas. While the U.S. ultimately aimed to promote freedom and democratic governance, its national security needs required that it develop friendly/functional relationships with some unsavory regimes to help it maintain a balance of power against the Soviet Union and its allies. One cannot pretend that regimes in Iran, Indonesia, etc. were democratic and liberal. Yet, circumstances forced the U.S. to deal with reasonably reliable authoritarian regimes, with the understanding that risks were associated with such choices, in a larger strategy of safeguarding the sphere of freedom.

At the same time, foreign policy has to be sufficiently flexible to seize opportunities that might arise e.g., opportunities for conciliation. The U.S. outreach to China in the early 1970s offers one such example. Presidents Gorbachev's and Reagan's summits during the 1980s provided another example.

Finally, as nations are human institutions and humans lack perfection, it goes without saying that not every policy choice made by the U.S. was a wise one. Moreover, some U.S. partners were responsible for abuses that offend American ideals.

 

[Winston Smith]

1) All governments use "terror" at times so why is America supposed to do different? Our interests above all. Welcome to life as the sole remaining super power. We played the game better than the rest and with the stigma of being a good nation because moral depravtiy has been the exception to our rules.

2) America has established no dictator since the Cold War, which is why the Cold War was our exception to moral depravity.

3) America steals no resource and you would be hard pressed to prove that foreign governments haven't gotten their checks. Or does the oil belong to the extremists?

There is no plunder. And suppressing the very few specific democracies was a Cold War event. Like your "Founding Fathers" bit, update your calender.



I never stated this. I stated that we have involved ourselves with dealing with unhealthy regions since the Barbary Pirates Wars to protect our interests and securites back home. Values had nothing to do with it. You get confused, which is why I keep having to state things over and over and explain the commom sense parts.



You need to understand something. "I" don't claim these things. History does. My point has been and contuinues to be very clear. Despite Barbary Pirates Wars and such, we had been isolationalists since our beginning up to the Cold War....



I continue to produce the proof or evidence that contradicts your opinions on matters, which defies the history. Just let the grandstanding go.




Noooo...that's not what we do. That's what we have "done" and now that Cold War era is over. Do you even know when the last time we did such a thing?



So disrupting democracies in the making was bad during the Cold War, but ridding ourselves of our Tali-Ban and Hussein Cold War left overs and installing their democracies makes us wrong too? Figure it out.



Who gives a ****? Oil through a dictator or oil through democracy? Figure it out.

You're the one who seems to have been ignoring events since the Cold War. We went into Iraq and established a supposedly democratic government, but we never allowed it to function as such. We interfered with it, sometimes violently, whenever it didn't go along with our agenda. And the disagreements were almost always about oil rights. Sure, we allow our client states to receive their checks. But that's only after making sure all the jobs and contracts go to Americans. The puppets get enough to keep them fat and happy, and they turn around and spend a good bit of it on American weapons so they can crush anyone who opposes them. That's how economic colonialism works, Cold War or not. Meanwhile, we're supporting terrorist groups in Iran and getting ready to try the same thing over there. The idea that we're promoting democracy really has no basis in anything except the speeches you hear on TV.

Your claim that we were isolationists until the Cold War is oversimplified and misleading. As the last paragraph of your Wiki article points out, Roosevelt actively put us on the path to involvement in WWII. Public sentiment may have been isolationist, but as a matter of policy it was our decision to enter the war.

 

[Winston Smith]

I don't know how you define "steal" resources, so I won't comment on that issue.

At the same time, it should be noted that foreign policy is not and never has been a messianic crusade wholly about spreading idealistic enlightened values. Foreign policy is focused on a nation's interests. In advancing and sustaining those interests, a nation often has to make tradeoffs. Constraints and limits e.g., the balance of power, are real. Therefore, a nation must seek an adequate balance between serving its vital/critical interests and advancing its ideals. While there can and often is overlap between interests and ideals, there can also be contradictions.

The Cold War presented a classic example of where conflicts between interests and ideals existed in select areas. While the U.S. ultimately aimed to promote freedom and democratic governance, its national security needs required that it develop friendly/functional relationships with some unsavory regimes to help it maintain a balance of power against the Soviet Union and its allies. One cannot pretend that regimes in Iran, Indonesia, etc. were democratic and liberal. Yet, circumstances forced the U.S. to deal with reasonably reliable authoritarian regimes, with the understanding that risks were associated with such choices, in a larger strategy of safeguarding the sphere of freedom.

At the same time, foreign policy has to be sufficiently flexible to seize opportunities that might arise e.g., opportunities for conciliation. The U.S. outreach to China in the early 1970s offers one such example. Presidents Gorbachev's and Reagan's summits during the 1980s provided another example.

Finally, as nations are human institutions and humans lack perfection, it goes without saying that not every policy choice made by the U.S. was a wise one. Moreover, some U.S. partners were responsible for abuses that offend American ideals.

We've always dealt with unsavory regimes. That doesn't mean we must actively favor them. We were by no means "forced" to deal with the authoritarian regime in Iran. We chose to establish it, and to turn back the clock on several decades of democratic progress, based on a Cold War rationale that was entirely bogus.

 

[Mika-El]

1-Yes, I think you are being touchy.
2-As for any nefarious covert agenda you may think I have, I'm sorry if you were genuinely offended. If on the other hand you're just cynically playing the anti-Semite card like so many in this forum do, I have no respect for that.

In regards to 1, then again maybe the reason you think I am being touchy is because you are touchy. Being 54 I was brought up to believe men should kill, punch or tackle each other and shake hands but that was about it. The only men allowed to touch each other were Italians and they are in a special category because they have nice cars and Sophia Loren and other beautiful women and the ones who kiss each other look like Teamsters Union representatives who kiss each other a lot but also look mean.
Also don't ask me about Greek or Turkish men given their history with steam baths and wrestling. You want demonstrative try my dog. Me no. Ask my wife. She thinks I need to learn how to hug people. If I wanted that I would join Hare Krishne.

In regards to 2, your agenda lol is far from nefarious just anti Israeli which is your prefect right and no I did not suggest you are an anti-semite based on what you have stated. There is insufficient context to indicate that from you in your word and no I do not raise that challenge and allegation unless there is specific context for it.

Your inference though that I use the anti-semite card for anyone who criticizes Israel is funny. Give me credit to take the time to explain the context of anything I challenge as hateful against Jews and not just Israelis. If and when I feel someone is using Israel debates as deliberate pretense to incite hatred against Jews I will be clear on why I challenge that. No I and Israeli supporters do not simply raise the anti-semitic card because you want to criticize Israel. Why would I? Are you suggesting Jews or Israelis don't criticize Israeli policies? Lol, spend a day in Israel and see if you can find an Israeli that agrees with their government on anything.

However yes, the word 'Jewish terrorist" when discussing Middle East politics engages in an exercise of making comments that allegedly go to criticizing Israeli state policies but in fact casts negative general stereotypes on many Jews and Zionists and Israelis and I am touchy about that the way Christians are touchy when they are smeered negatively because certain Christians are violent fundamentalists or how Muslims or Arabs hate it when everyone assumes they are terrorists.

None of us like stereotypes.

However you have acknowledged the point I was making and I yours and no I am not intending to do anything but challenge you in healthy debate . Nefarious no. Nefarious I associate with people who have long waxed mustaches and tie people to train tracks.

 

[Winston Smith]

In regards to 1, then again maybe the reason you think I am being touchy is because you are touchy. Being 54 I was brought up to believe men should kill, punch or tackle each other and shake hands but that was about it. The only men allowed to touch each other were Italians and they are in a special category because they have nice cars and Sophia Loren and other beautiful women and the ones who kiss each other look like Teamsters Union representatives who kiss each other a lot but also look mean.
Also don't ask me about Greek or Turkish men given their history with steam baths and wrestling. You want demonstrative try my dog. Me no. Ask my wife. She thinks I need to learn how to hug people. If I wanted that I would join Hare Krishne.

In regards to 2, your agent is far from nefarious just anti Israeli and no I did not suggest you are an anti-semite. There is unsufficient context to indicate that from you in your words. However yes, the word 'Jewish terrorist" wh en discussing Middle East politics engages in an exercise of making comments that allegedly go to criticizing Israeli state policies but in fact casts negative general stereotypes on many Jews and Zionists and Israelis and I am touchy about that the way Christians are touchy when they are smeered because certain Christians are violent and fundamentalist or how Muslims or Arabs hate it when everyone assumes they are terrorists.

None of us like stereotypes. However you have acknowledged the point I was making and I yours and no I am not intending to do anything but challenge you in healthy debate . Nefarious no. Nefarious I associate with people who have long waxed mustaches and tie people to train tracks.

Fair enough.

 

[Mika-El]

Fair enough.

Now you are being nice. Stop it. Lol. Keep debating. I enjoyed it!

 

[donsutherland1]

We've always dealt with unsavory regimes. That doesn't mean we must actively favor them. We were by no means "forced" to deal with the authoritarian regime in Iran. We chose to establish it, and to turn back the clock on several decades of democratic progress, based on a Cold War rationale that was entirely bogus.

Winston Smith,

I created a new thread to deal with the issues you have raised, as the topic is large enough to warrant a thread of its own. It can be found at:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/inter...als-tradeoffs-choices-etc.html#post1059037659

 

[MSgt]

You're the one who seems to have been ignoring events since the Cold War. We went into Iraq and established a supposedly democratic government.......

I'm not ignoring anything. Iraq was about ending that containment mission. Iraqis freely went to "booths" and voted for their politicians. For the first time in history, Arabs actually voted on the laws that would govern them. Try as you may to **** all over the United Stated of America, this happened before the entire world's eyes. What this means is that your accusation that this is a "supposed" democracy is ignorant and dishonest and there is no way you can pretend otherwise to anybody that has at least an elementary school education.

The fact is that Cold War behavior has not extended beyond the fall of the Berlin Wall (unless we count allowing Saddam Hussein his power in 1991). We ended our decrepit UN containment mission in 2003. The economic issues of Iraq have nothing to do with installing Cold War dictators. In fact, Saddam Hussein was one of "our" Cold War dictators and we took responsibility for it by taking him out. It is true that Cheney and Rumsfeld got entirely stupid with the contracts. However, Iraqis have voted time and again. Hussein was not replaced by another handy, dandy dictator.

Supporting rebels in nations (Iran) that are defying their tyrants is exactly what we have always done in history and what we are supposed to do. You see, encouraging them to fight for their own rights and solving their own problems is entirely favorable to our direct military involvement. If some finance and some intel helps them create democracy for themselves, then it is win/win. Or shall we wait until later and just launch our military into Iran?

Your claim that we were isolationists until the Cold War is oversimplified and misleading.

I gave you the simplest link I could think of. Again, it is not "my" claim. It is the historical claim and you simply don't matter enough to the world to change that fact. Here let me give it to you again......

In the wake of the First World War, the isolationist tendencies of US foreign policy were in full force. United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was our isolationalist sentiments and policies that kept us out of Europe's war until 1944. Perhaps you are confused about isolationalism and think that it is supposed to be more literal than it is?