Political Crossfire Forums

[Paladin]

Medius wrote: Paladin wrote: Thank you! :)

No problem, I think you have to respect everyone's viewpoint to engage in a fruitful debate.

When it comes to conspiracy theories I am purposefully on the fence. Right now the evidence that points to conspiracies could be attributed to a group of people or a random progression of policy due to some systematic malfunction. Either way, the results are dangerous, so I don't care so much whether it is a shadowy group of people or not. If we limit the power of those in charge, it limits their ability to purposefully or accidentally cause damage to our country.

Paladin wrote:
We have pretty good relations with Japan! And South Korea. And the Philippines. And all of Europe (if we can stretch the reconstruction).

Strategic Layouts at the least would be achieved.

I'm not fully up to speed on the Phillipines.

Japan is a bit unique in that they were defeated and surrendered in what (in my opinion) was the last real war. While we assisted them to rebuild their government, it was still a voluntary response to a situation that they knew was out of their control.

South Korea was fighting for their freedom when the United States intervened on their behalf. While we drove the war, it was to retain a freedom that they already wanted to keep. America did not initiate the revolution.

Basically, I think the primary difference is that the people must be willing and ready to adopt whatever government is being installed. For a democracy this is especially important as non-participation will ensure a return to dictatorial control. If the people of Iraq had initiated a significant rebellion and we had stepped in to help, then it would be a different story. Instead, we stepped in and acted as the rebellion and simply tossed the reigns back to those who were not yet at the point of accepting responsibility for their own futures. Not only that, but we did so in such a way that many of these people aren't sure whether to be happy with the result or be angry at America for taking such liberties with their own lives.

I agree with you. At the same time, which intelligence system is to say whether dissent is high enough to allow for intervention? The CIA? The free Media? Need there be open rebellion? How much of the populous must be directly involved? Would you say the Kurds are a large enough population?

Setting up a case democracy though allows for continued talks, etc. etc.

I personally favor the good ol' isolationist US of A. Foreign Policy wise. Let economics carry in the winds of public disgression and freedom.

[Norrin Radd]

Paladin wrote: Medius wrote: Paladin wrote: Thank you! :)

No problem, I think you have to respect everyone's viewpoint to engage in a fruitful debate.

When it comes to conspiracy theories I am purposefully on the fence. Right now the evidence that points to conspiracies could be attributed to a group of people or a random progression of policy due to some systematic malfunction. Either way, the results are dangerous, so I don't care so much whether it is a shadowy group of people or not. If we limit the power of those in charge, it limits their ability to purposefully or accidentally cause damage to our country.

Paladin wrote:
We have pretty good relations with Japan! And South Korea. And the Philippines. And all of Europe (if we can stretch the reconstruction).

Strategic Layouts at the least would be achieved.

I'm not fully up to speed on the Phillipines.

Japan is a bit unique in that they were defeated and surrendered in what (in my opinion) was the last real war. While we assisted them to rebuild their government, it was still a voluntary response to a situation that they knew was out of their control.

South Korea was fighting for their freedom when the United States intervened on their behalf. While we drove the war, it was to retain a freedom that they already wanted to keep. America did not initiate the revolution.

Basically, I think the primary difference is that the people must be willing and ready to adopt whatever government is being installed. For a democracy this is especially important as non-participation will ensure a return to dictatorial control. If the people of Iraq had initiated a significant rebellion and we had stepped in to help, then it would be a different story. Instead, we stepped in and acted as the rebellion and simply tossed the reigns back to those who were not yet at the point of accepting responsibility for their own futures. Not only that, but we did so in such a way that many of these people aren't sure whether to be happy with the result or be angry at America for taking such liberties with their own lives.

I agree with you. At the same time, which intelligence system is to say whether dissent is high enough to allow for intervention? The CIA? The free Media? Need there be open rebellion? How much of the populous must be directly involved? Would you say the Kurds are a large enough population?

Setting up a case democracy though allows for continued talks, etc. etc.

I personally favor the good ol' isolationist US of A. Foreign Policy wise. Let economics carry in the winds of public disgression and freedom.

I agree. But it may be too late to become isolationist. We have meddled for so long, in the affairs of other countries, that if we were to become isolationist now it might do more harm than good. I would settle for a reduction in our meddling, but as long as the two major parties stay in power, nothing will change.

In the 1950's the Reece Committee was set up by Congress to investigate foundations and their influence on government. The final report was basically a whitewash, but later the chief council, Rene Wormser, wrote a book titled "Foundations: Their Power and Influence"

From that book.........

"It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported organization of any substance which has not favored the U.N. or similar global schemes; fantastically heavy foreign aid at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling in the colonial affairs of other nations; and American military commitments over the globe. This was comparatively easy to accomplish because there was no organized or foundation-supported opposition. The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reached far into government, policy-making circles of Congress, and State Department". Pg 200-01