DXP Survivor 2 Part 2

This topic was created in the Miscellaneous forum by StoicGoat on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 and has 232 replies.
You are on page out of 5 | Reverse Order
The topic of the new first debate follows below. All players are starting with a score of zero. Audience and players are welcome to comment in this or the audience thread.
Players: you can treat this as a marathon, but you are not required to do so. You will be judged on how well you stake your position, defend it against attack, and empirically support it. Remember that although there are no formal teams, you are free to form whatever public or covert alliances you see fit.
The debate will end 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds after the time stamp on this post.
Good luck!
The United States has wielded its military supremacy to act as world police since the end of the Cold War and, arguably, even longer. Is the assumption of this ???office?? by the United States appropriate given that the US exists, for all intents and purposes, as a representative democracy?
If Americans expect to maintain the right to direct the governance of their own affairs, by what divine right do they claim the prerogative to direct those of others? Is the policing activity of which Americans have been guilty the past several decades, at a minimum, hypocritical? Why/why not?
*tips hat to Seraph for topic idea*
details
Just to aid discussion:

George Washington and his farewell address warning against foreign alliances.
Monroe Doctrine
laissez-faire
Aparthied
World War I
World War II
Vietnam
details
Posted by xdimplez
i thought the US was a republic, not a democracy
heres my reference
"The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[% ]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable."
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
so its hard for me to answer the first question. i derno what to say man


It might be better defined as a Democratic Republic
details
Posted by xdimplez
i thought the US was a republic, not a democracy
heres my reference
"The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[% ]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable."
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
so its hard for me to answer the first question. i derno what to say man


Given that several of you commented similarly, I would like to emphasize that I spoke very, very carefully.
details
The United States has wielded its military supremacy to act as world police since the end of the Cold War and, arguably, even longer. Is the assumption of this ???office?? by the United States appropriate given that the US exists, for all intents and purposes, as a representative democracy?
If you are a country of super power and you use it to defend other nations....'defend' snicker..... then it is appropiate. The united states is a republic Stoic just so you know ^.^
If Americans expect to maintain the right to direct the governance of their own affairs, by what divine right do they claim the prerogative to direct those of others?
This is of course wrong. I do not believe the US tries to impose it's own governance on other nations.
Is the policing activity of which Americans have been guilty the past several decades, at a minimum, hypocritical? Why/why not?
Guilty? You say it like we are being convicted of a felony or something. You do realize a lot of times people are begging for the US to do something right? I mean we are dammed if we do dammed if we don't. IF the US does not come to the aid of nations under severe human rights violations...they scream where is the US? IF the US does go everyone around the world says the US are opportunists and take advantage of weaker countries yet you ask the people of the country the US went to defend and they all say "thank you". Furthermore we give away money to countries like we shit it out our ass and is everywhere in the streets around here.
sadly this what a recent pole has found
WASHINGTON - The world public rejects the U.S. role as a world leader, but still wants the United States to do its share in multilateral efforts and does not support a U.S. withdrawal from international affairs, says a poll released Wednesday.The survey respondents see the United States as an unreliable "world policeman", but views are split on whether the superpower should reduce its overseas military bases.
The people of the United States generally agreed with the rest of the world that their country should not remain the world's pre-eminent leader or global cop, and prefer that it play a more cooperative role in multilateral efforts to address world problems.
https://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/19/617
So is it appropriate for the US to continue ...maybe we shouldn't you fucking ungrateful pieces of shit!!!
details
Posted by feb16aqua
NYAA: the US does in fact impose it's own governance on other nations. We are the main promoters of democracy worldwide.
Promoting Democracy and Human Rights
Americans have complex attitudes about the idea of promoting democracy. A majority thinks that promoting democracy should be a goal of US foreign policy. However there is a reluctance to make democracy promotion a central theme in US foreign policy and an opposition to using military force or the threat of military force to that end. At the same time Americans do feel a moral obligation to promote democracy and there is substantial support for cooperative methods for promoting democracy and for working through the United Nations. A modest majority favors promoting democracy in friendly authoritarian countries even if it may lead to unfriendly governments; large majorities do favor putting diplomatic and public pressure on governments to respect human rights.
In general, a majority thinks that promoting democracy should be a goal of US foreign policy, but not a top priority. For several decades the Chicago Council has asked how important the goal of "helping to being a democratic form of government to other nations" should be for US foreign policy. A large majority-between 70 and 80% --have consistently said that it is important. Most recently in July 2006 74% said it was important. However the number saying that it is "very important" has never been more than one in three and most recently was only 17% .
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/overview/us_role/democracy.cfm


There is a difference between promoting and Imposing feb
definition of promote
1.Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
2.Give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness.
definition of impose
1.Force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place: "the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them".
2.Forcibly put (a restriction) in place: "sanctions imposed"
details
Posted by Purrrr
Posted by StoicGoat
The topic of the new first debate follows below. All players are starting with a score of zero. Audience and players are welcome to comment in this or the audience thread.
Players: you can treat this as a marathon, but you are not required to do so. You will be judged on how well you stake your position, defend it against attack, and empirically support it. Remember that although there are no formal teams, you are free to form whatever public or covert alliances you see fit.
The debate will end 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds after the time stamp on this post.
Good luck!
The United States has wielded its military supremacy to act as world police since the end of the Cold War and, arguably, even longer. Is the assumption of this ???office?? by the United States appropriate given that the US exists, for all intents and purposes, as a representative democracy?
If Americans expect to maintain the right to direct the governance of their own affairs, by what divine right do they claim the prerogative to direct those of others? Is the policing activity of which Americans have been guilty the past several decades, at a minimum, hypocritical? Why/why not?
*tips hat to Seraph for topic idea*



Holy loaded questions, Batnan!
click to expand


The first round seemed so tame...
Big Grin
details
Posted by feb16aqua

Ok. We impose too then, and with reason.

After World War II, the western powers, turned (West) Germany into a successful multi-party democracy and the United States governed Japan directly for a number of years before turning it into a successful, if not exactly multi-party, democracy. Likewise NATO action against Serbia largely moved that nation towards a more democratic and pro-Western future.
http://munph.edublogs.org/2011archive/briefing-paper-8/



You do realize that most of the countries in this link are countries ruled by dictators that have severely abused human rights... so we intervened and promoted our way of governance. Furthermore a lot times there is a shift in the society as a whole towards dictatorships too. Do you see us attempting to 'impose' democracy in other non democratic countries that are not severely abusing human rights?
China...communist...and successful. Are we 'imposing' democracy on china?
details
Well a pretty hectic topic I'll give you that... I feel like I can't participate because I'm not really American. But then this topic is just asking Americans to be generalised and stereotyped in the nation that is the US.
details
Posted by Purrrr

Are future questions going to be like this? It's not a fair or appropriate debate question at all.


The future questions remain undecided at the present time, so I am unable to answer your question.
Why do you think it unfair and inappropriate? The ideal debate topic for a venue and purpose such as this is one
- for which there is no definite "right" answer;
- that has at least two "sides" from which a debater might choose;
- for which ample information is readily available with which debaters might inform themselves and defend their chosen position;
- that readily lends itself to polarization, without being inflammatory; and
- which is of a sufficiently general nature that no debater is likely to be found at a gross innate disadvantage to his/her fellow debaters.
There might be a few (possibly many) other valid considerations, but those are the major ones I was attempting to satisfy in choosing the current topic.
details
Posted by aquasnoz
Well a pretty hectic topic I'll give you that... I feel like I can't participate because I'm not really American. But then this topic is just asking Americans to be generalised and stereotyped in the nation that is the US.

Your nationality is completely irrelevant to the topic...unless you choose to make it so. The topic pertains to US foreign policy, which is of international significance and well-reported throughout the Western world. Jump right in smile
details
I disagree with the US having any intentions of acting as world police. Infact my view is that the US has always acted out of its own best interest which was apparent in the Spanish War which placed them on the world map. US has always believed in neurality which was evidently so in WW1 but again out of financial interest they were forced to participate. WW2 was nothing short of self defense given the attack on Pearl Harbour and the rest was set in stone which ultimately gave them the title of 'world police'.
The truth is when the world was in ruins the world leaders congregated to discuss a global solution, the US having experiencing the Great Depression proposed a great solution and it stuck. Intentionally or not the world leaders all agreed which irreparably gave US dominance in power as the world rebuilds.
But that's history let's look at some of the more 'recent' example. No doubt the situation with Iraq isn't foreign to most of you, it certainly isn't foreign to us in Australia. They inevitably painted a target on themselves by publicly funding a war effort. It may have been on good faith but ultimately it is a form of hypocrisy by allowing another country to utilise the means of destruction. Apparently they didn't learn after sending brothers Fat Man and Little Boy to war.
Funny enough there's a repeating motif. The US seemingly don't want to interfere often funds these war efforts (which I will leave the intentions out of the argument), when the world was in turmoil they had the power to lift it back up. During the events of 9/11 there was a similar global impact, it's easy to say it was just the US fighting against terrorism but again it was a global agenda. I say those who are usually willing to act are also the ones to eb crucified first. There's no possible solution for a victory given the history of the US.
I won't dissect as to what Americans expect because the question itself, "Is the policing activity of which Americans have been guilty the past several decades, at a minimum, hypocritical? Why/why not?" is already generalising the population. On that sir I will not comment.
details
ahh typos never make a good argument smile
details
No worries. The Grammar Nazis have been granted an extended vacation. smile
details
Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
I submit a clarification on the US's intentions about "financial interest" in regards to WW1. German submarines in the North Atlantic were attacking merchant and passenger vessels destined for American shores disrupting trade lines and killing innocent civilians. Entry into the first world war could also be chalked up to self-defense.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/WWI
The Iraq war could also be argued as a means of self-defense as Al-Qaeda agencies responsible for the 9/11 attacks were active in the area. However, I will not argue that our prolonged presence is nothing more than an expensive and unnecessary occupation of the region from which we should withdraw.


I beg to differ. The Federal Reserve created in 1913 made it possible for WW1 to occur whether the US intended it or not. Directly or indirectly they were already involved. They remained neutral and funded both forces until the attack which again aids my original argument.
The support for Iraq and involvements lasted long before the events of 9/11. It was fundamentally a disagreement and the extremist views of Iran. Which I stated previously it was a global agenda for a form of world peace and the US acted on it for its own self interests for the alliance with Iraq.
details
it really is an interesting read Secrets of the Federal Reserve
details
To add to the case about global agena let's think about the UN for a second. Have a read of this article UN holds power of US military.
I find it ironic, just read this snippet:
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers


My argument stands, whether the US intended it or not they've managed to put themselves in this position. It seriously may have been a genuine approach for conformity on a global scale but unfortunately it's failing miserably.
details
Posted by StoicGoat
Players: you can treat this as a marathon, but you are not required to do so. You will be judged on how well you stake your position, defend it against attack, and empirically support it. Remember that although there are no formal teams, you are free to form whatever public or covert alliances you see fit.
The United States has wielded its military supremacy to act as world police since the end of the Cold War and, arguably, even longer. Is the assumption of this ???office?? by the United States appropriate given that the US exists, for all intents and purposes, as a representative democracy?
If Americans expect to maintain the right to direct the governance of their own affairs, by what divine right do they claim the prerogative to direct those of others? Is the policing activity of which Americans have been guilty the past several decades, at a minimum, hypocritical? Why/why not?



Posted by Purrrr
The problem is the wording of the question. The question also indicates "guilt," and both paragraphs are littered with personal opinions as opposed to objective questions.


I am unable to see where I indicated that agreeing with the premises presented in the topic was required.
Posted by Purrrr
If someone were to argue "yes, it's appropriate because _______" after reading the first paragraph, they'd have no choice but to contradict themselves when answering the questions in the 2nd paragraph. Basically, you're forced to pick the "no, it's inappropriate/also hypocritical" side.
click to expand


One of the fundamental functions of the topic is to facilitate the individual debaters' selection and defense of their chosen position. The topic is written precisely to promote this end, and it appears to accomplish this objective rather well, don't you agree?
I can offer no further explanation without compromising the debate. I will only re-emphasize that I spoke very, very carefully.
details
Posted by Jahlia
So I didn't have the address the other arguments then? But should I? I'm just idling here :p

I can't tell you what you should or shouldn't do - that wouldn't be fair to the others. You could ask for advice from the other debaters, but bear in mind that they are technically your competition and do not necessarily have your best interests at heart. You might ask for advice on the audience thread, although much of the same caution applies there, as well.

details
Posted by DeeGee

Ha! the topic itself is not even worthy of debating, for it is simply not true and a topic suggested by an outsider, that has no idea what he's talking.



+1
details
Posted by MzSag
The question is biased as fuck, imo.


+1
details
Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It's a Republic. The confusion comes from our Democratic voting system.


+1
details
Posted by aquasnoz
Well a pretty hectic topic I'll give you that... I feel like I can't participate because I'm not really American. But then this topic is just asking Americans to be generalised and stereotyped in the nation that is the US.


+1
details
Posted by seraph
The topic is neither true nor false, DG. The question points to one or more assumptions. Those can be true or false. You can debate those or formulate your own position and use that as a platform from which to address, or attack, other positions. Further, this question is one that has been in public and scholarly discourse for years, if not decades. It isn't pulled out of the clear blue sky with no basis in reality.
The topic is one that actually affects outsiders directly. It is in fact even more appropriate for an outsider to suggest it. Or would my statements be more legitimate if I were Afghani or Iraqi?
If you agree with US foreign adventuring (and its political and economic costs, both at home and abroad), then argue for it. smile
If you agree that the collective costs to date of Iraq/Afghan war, which is now in the area of $ 4 trillion by some estimates, were and are worth it, then argue for it. smile


At least she didn't run and quit
Posted by seraph
There's a question as to whether I'll have the time to put into the remainder of the game. Probably not. I can stick around, but it wouldn't feel right when others are contributing.


Posted by seraph
I'm out.
smile
click to expand

details
Posted by xygeneration
Seraph are you back in the game?


+1 @ another observation
details
Posted by seraph
I'm not in the game, but if you want to address my remarks as a jump-off point, then that's excellent.



details
Posted by DeeGee
I will have enough to deal with when jihail/Dazed steps in.



+1 Sad
details
You just play your game no matter what...Winking
details
Well feb16 believe it or not the events that transpired did in fact place the US in the most powerful position in the world that has no precedent. Really if you are to look back there's no record of near total influence on such a global scale which is why the US has been considered THE superpower post Cold War era.
This is why I think this topic is past a casual debate or can people even fathom what it would be like when this superpower dissolves? Isn't so much as inciting anarchy but the possibility is there. This is where I disagree with you on whether or not it's a question of US assuming that power the fact is that at the most fragile moments the US was the only capable nation and it's been ingrained ever since.
When the Atlantic Charter was drawn they did put themselves in that position intentionally or not. It maybe have only applied to the immediate Allied Forces at the time but it grew to be the United Nations. Then there's a catch-22, even when a unity exists the individual nations (I'll use China vs Japan) as an example here start disputes and try to enlist help of the US. In one way or another given the US influential power whatever peace they try to create incites hatred and warfare and I think that's the cruelest joke of all.
details
Posted by feb16aqua
Posted by NotYourAverageAquarius
Do you see us attempting to 'impose' democracy in other non democratic countries that are not severely abusing human rights?
China...communist...and successful. Are we 'imposing' democracy on china?


China can be referred to as a cloak and dagger ally for the US right now, and with the strength of its dependence and symbiotic relationship with China...I'll put it like : we're not messing with them. You don't shit where you eat.
click to expand


Oh yeah? Well explain Cuba. Why has the US done nothing to impose democracy on very close neighbor who is apparently a dicatorships?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is important to reveal that one result of the Castro regime is that there have not been free fair elections in Cuba for 54 years, during the time Castro has been in power.
Most often, especially in the media, Fidel Castro and in more recent years Raul Castro, are referred to as ???President?? Castro. It is very important to distinguish and clarify how one becomes ???president?? in the Castro regime, because in democracies, presidents are freely elected by the country??s citizens. And thus, for people who have lived their entire lives in a democratic country, they may assume that when a leader of a country is referred to as ???president??, he or she was freely elected by the country??s citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth in the case of the Castro brothers in Cuba.
Even though Castro is often referred to as ???President??, he is, in fact, a brutal dictator who implements having a police state, and remains in power by suppressing and persecuting all people who have, or he suspects have ideas that are different than his egregiously unjust ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cubauncensored.com/what-type-of-government-does-cuba-have/
details
Furthermore North Korea is Communist and threatening to build Nuclear weapons do we impose democracy on them? Why don't we I mean then we wouldn't have to worry about Nukes anymore right?
details
^just on that note I don't think it's a failure of recognition but a CLEAR recognition but SPECIFICALLY to Al-Queada which muddled things even more in the spirit of freedom and we all witnessed that... I certainly can't forget this speech.
< width="420" height="315" ="http:
details
god damn it soz feb16 that was to mellymel lol
details
Posted by feb16aqua
Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

China is not our ally. They began subsidizing our economic debt because a strong dollar is beneficial to their manufacturing industry as we readily buy goods from them. And at this point, they're more or less trapped into continuing the trend because without the current debt structure the American economy would collapse entirely and bring a good bit of the rest of the world with us.
It could also be argued that North Korea's threats to the US are by Chinese proxy as they are allied.


Yes, they are our ally. An ally is:
A state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose, typically by treaty.
Combine or unite a resource or commodity with (another) for mutual benefit.
Essentially they're our bankers and they manufacture everything we buy thanks to trade deregulation and hunger for the dollar.


click to expand


Alliances between any two or group of countries are not simple. There are legal agreements, ideological considerations and national interests.
There are central Asian nations which have very complex relationships - for example Kazakhstan, which belongs to the Russian dominated CSTO, the Chinese dominated SCO and has a NATO IPAP. It will play to all three as its interests and the situation changes.
Also there is a big difference between military allies and political allies. Socialist Chile may work against the United States on global political issues but is a major military ally for its own security reasons. Reality gets really strange with situations like Pakistan and Yemen.
This list: Military Allies of the United States

NATO Members
Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
details
here is a link to the official NATO site for all members in case you want proof
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm
details
I already stated my belief feb16. The US drive for economic success and hunger for that continual development inevitably landed them on the world map and therefore the series of events that coined them the world superpower.
As to why the US didn't impede on CUBA it was rather simple, they didn't care too much while they had a trading relations but once Castro inspired a sense of democracy the US would've looked by by intervening and the incited propaganda by Castro himself would've made the US look doubly as bad. They simply just cut all relations with Cuba during that period.
Our presence in the Middle East I think I just posted the video to. It's a War on Terror that became far too exhausting.
Also I have to ask you what you meant by what was known.
So with due respect Feb16 I'll ask you the same question, what is your stance? Tell me about that bigger picture.
details
Posted by feb16aqua
Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

And we're so far in debt with them that at our current pace it is mathematically impossible to pay off the loan. You know what happens when you can't repay a bank loan? They take your house, your car, and anything else they can get their hands on. With China though it's more like a loan shark than an actual bank. They won't stop at repossession. They'll come to break our knees with baseball bats.
There's a much larger picture to look at here. China is not our a friend in any way.


It's a mutually beneficial exclusive relationship. An understanding if you will. You wash my hand and I'll wash yours. They're not coming to collect anything. They need us just as much as we need them.
US national debt is over: $ 16,000,000,000,000 . This money will NEVER be paid back. There are many people who believe in an elaborate banking scheme / conspiracy involving individuals like the rockefellers. It's all a game of who holds what over who: a power struggle if you will.
click to expand


Yes Vulcan but they are. NO feb they are using their ownership of our debt as a means to gain control of US land and businesses. It is actually quite brilliant if you think about since they are requiring the US to guarantee there loans with equity and essentially that is what the Chinese are doing buying up realestate in the form of equaty. Think of the US as one big business and the Chinese as investors who are buying the US convertable bonds that can later be converted into stocks if you will.....meaning they will have owners equity interest in the US.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That is part of a evolving proposal Beijing has been developing quietly since 2009 to convert more than $ 1 trillion of US debt it owns into equity.
Under the plan, China would own US business,U.S. infrastructure and U.S. high-value land, all with a U.S. government guarantee against loss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/china-poised-to-play-debt-card-for-u-s-land/
details
Oh my so my typos and I said OUR existence lol! You know when it's almost sleepy time for me!
Before I do nod off I will say. If the assumption is that the US had known then aren't they deserving of that superpower to have carefully conceived this plan and carefully disguised it as a form of Peace?
As to the Agenda on Moral Accountability I guess it depends on how you view it because I truly believe it is relative. Say for argument sake You were a strong supporter for the Axis Force or the Soviet Union for that matter or pro-Communism. Would you hold the actions of the US morally accountable?
details
ugh I mean our presence. Terribly sorry.
details
Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
Posted by feb16aqua
Posted by TheMoodyVulcan

And we're so far in debt with them that at our current pace it is mathematically impossible to pay off the loan. You know what happens when you can't repay a bank loan? They take your house, your car, and anything else they can get their hands on. With China though it's more like a loan shark than an actual bank. They won't stop at repossession. They'll come to break our knees with baseball bats.
There's a much larger picture to look at here. China is not our a friend in any way.


It's a mutually beneficial exclusive relationship. An understanding if you will. You wash my hand and I'll wash yours. They're not coming to collect anything. They need us just as much as we need them.
US national debt is over: $ 16,000,000,000,000 . This money will NEVER be paid back. There are many people who believe in an elaborate banking scheme / conspiracy involving individuals like the rockefellers. It's all a game of who holds what over who: a power struggle if you will.


"There are many people who believe in an elaborate banking scheme / conspiracy involving individuals like the rockefellers."
They believe that because it's true. I referenced it during the first debate--the LIBOR scandal. It's a very real deal.
And there may be an understanding with China for the moment but our relations are becoming more and more strained all the time. As it stands, our economy and that of much of the rest of the world is a house of cards, towering high and only being propped up by minimal supports. If something doesn't change in the immediate future, it will crash. And it will burn untold millions of people. And then where will our "understanding" be? What are we going to tell China when we can't continue to buy their goods on top of not being able to repay our debts?
click to expand


First off this debate is not about inflation scandals in BRITAIN which is where this scandal takes place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal
 But furthermore this debate is on whether or not the US is the 'World Police' and whether or not it is hypocritical, and self-serving or selfless. Whether other nations appreciate or don't appreciate the US being the quote on quote '
details
(continued)
quote on quote 'World Police' and if in fact the US being the 'World Police' is self-serving.... has this self interest benefited or not benefited other countries.
details
Posted by feb16aqua
Posted by aquasnoz
Oh my so my typos and I said OUR existence lol! You know when it's almost sleepy time for me!
Before I do nod off I will say. If the assumption is that the US had known then aren't they deserving of that superpower to have carefully conceived this plan and carefully disguised it as a form of Peace?
As to the Agenda on Moral Accountability I guess it depends on how you view it because I truly believe it is relative. Say for argument sake You were a strong supporter for the Axis Force or the Soviet Union for that matter or pro-Communism. Would you hold the actions of the US morally accountable?


Yes, they are deserving of it. And yes I do believe that there is / was a grander scheme of plotting and planning than most people are even capable of understanding or refuse to believe. People put so much faith in their government and trust so easily. Not this aqua.
And that's the question again then right there. Who holds the super power accountable?
click to expand


The answer to that is all of us! Every single one of us with our bias! But I guess again that's a romantic notion we have a direct impact as individuals. I think it's plenty clear even amongst US citizens that particular question exists. Lucky the United Nations does exist but which incurs the catch-22 I mentioned. Unless we have a singular conscious there will always be different views but if it does exists would this question ever arise? But here you see like me you asked a question that truly can't be answered.
details
Posted by TheMoodyVulcan
Posted by aquasnoz
I disagree with the US having any intentions of acting as world police. Infact my view is that the US has always acted out of its own best interest which was apparent in the Spanish War which placed them on the world map. US has always believed in neurality which was evidently so in WW1 but again out of financial interest they were forced to participate.


I submit a clarification on the US's intentions about "financial interest" in regards to WW1. German submarines in the North Atlantic were attacking merchant and passenger vessels destined for American shores disrupting trade lines and killing innocent civilians. Entry into the first world war could also be chalked up to self-defense.
click to expand


Oh yes but you are missing important facts here though such as
Many Americans were not in favor of the U.S. entering the war and wanted to remain neutral.
However, the U.S. eventually did enter the war. Do you know how the war began and why the U.S.
became a part of it?
Disagreements in Europe over territory and boundaries, among other issues, came to a head with
the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria by a Serbian zealot on June 28, 1914.
(Which was the main catalyst/issue)
Exactly one month later, war broke out. In 1915, the British passenger liner the Lusitania was
sunk by a German submarine, killing 128 Americans and further heightening tensions.
(There weren't just any civilians on that submarine oh no.. there were Americans!)
By the end of 1915, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire were battling the
Allied Powers of Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro and Japan.
In 1917, the U.S. entered the war.
Those are the reasons why the U.S. entered the war

details
I might add that none of those reasons are directly related to any financial issues as much as they are related to U.S. citizens being assassinated without justice. And the U.S. obligations to it's foreign allies. As I said the U.S. wanted to stay neutral...no one stays neutral when money is involved.
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/jb_jazz_wwi_1.html
details
Okay I'll bite the answer to your question is: Everyone and no one at the same time.
details
haha! Don't blame me for trying to sound super smart and philosophical Tongue
Well look at it this way. It's far to easy just to relate a super power to that which is some sort of a divine power. In that sense if it's the ultimate power then there needn't be someone to hold it morally accountable. Therefore the answer is no one.
But in our case the super power seems to be the US. It's a nation of people lead by an elected president by majority vote who's best interest is to act on everyone's behalf and what the country stands for. In this case everyone is accountable. Not limited to the people alive today but dare I say those who helped create the US it is today?
Even is US relinquishes this power to the UN. UN is fundamentally a committee of some sort who are acting on behalf of everyone's interest. Again then it would be everyone's fault.
It really is all relative.
details
Posted by Jahlia
It seems as if we automatically believe that we are wanted. That we automatically believe that it is our duty to interfere in other countries' affairs. Which, it is not. I also believe that it is inappropriate because it clashes with our cultural


The U.S. does not automatically believe this please.
details
Posted by aquasnoz

I beg to differ. The Federal Reserve created in 1913 made it possible for WW1 to occur whether the US intended it or not. Directly or indirectly they were already involved. They remained neutral and funded both forces until the attack which again aids my original argument.
The support for Iraq and involvements lasted long before the events of 9/11. It was fundamentally a disagreement and the extremist views of Iran. Which I stated previously it was a global agenda for a form of world peace and the US acted on it for its own self interests for the alliance with Iraq.


First off we were allies with these countries would you expect us to not lend them money?
The Federal Reserve System began operations in 1914, forcing the American people to lend the Allies twenty-five billion dollars which was not repaid, although considerable interest was paid to New York bankers. The American people were driven to make war on the German people, with whom we had no conceivable political or economic quarrel. Moreover, the United States comprised the largest nation in the world composed of Germans; almost half of its citizens were of German descent, and by a narrow margin, German had been voted down as the national language.
_________________________________________________________________________
The German Ambassador to Turkey, baron Wangeheim asked the American Ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, why the United States intended to make war in Germany. "We Americans," replied Morgenthau, speaking for the group of Harlem real estate operators of which he was the head, "are going to war for a moral principle." J.P. Morgan received the proceeds of the First Liberty Loan to pay off $ 400,000,000 which he advanced to Great Britain at the outset of the war. To cover this loan, $ 68,000,000 in notes had been issued under the provisions of the Aldrich-Vreeland Act for issuing notes against securities, the only time this provision was employed. The notes were retired as soon as the Federal Reserve Banks began operation, and replaced by Federal Reserve Notes.
During 1915 and 1916, Wilson kept faith with the bankers who had purchased the White House for him, by continuing to make loans to the Allies. His Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, protested constantly, stating that "Money is the worst of all contraband." By 1917, the Morgans and Kuhn, Loeb Company ha
details
(continued)
By 1917, the Morgans and Kuhn, Loeb Company had floated a billion and a half dollars in loans to the Allies. The bankers also financed a host of "peace" organizations which worked to get us involved in the World War. The Commission for Relief in Belgium manufactured atrocity stories against the Germans, while a Carnegie organization, The League to Enforce Peace, agitated in Washington for our entry into war. This later became the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which during the 1940s was headed by Alger Hiss. One writer* claimed that he had never seen any "peace movement" which did not end in war.
The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Walter Hines Page, complained that he could not afford the position, and was given twenty-five thousand dollars a year spending money by Cleveland H. Dodge, president of the National City Bank. H.L. Mencken openly accused Page in 1916 of being a British agent, which was unfair. Page was merely a bankers?? agent.
On March 5, 1917, Page sent a confidential letter to Wilson. "I think that the pressure of this approaching crisis has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan Financial Agency for the British and French Governments . . .
details
http://www.whale.to/b/m_ch8.html
details
First
Previous
Next
Last

Leave Your Feedback

We'd love to hear your thoughts! If you're not logged in, you can still share your feedback below. Your input helps us improve the experience for everyone. To post your own content or join the conversation, please log in or create an account.

Home Astrology Comments Forums Search

©1997-2025 dxpnet.com. All Rights Reserved.
Advertising Contact Terms of Use Privacy Policy