GameBanshee Forums

Anyone care to make a definition of "rogue state" and try that out for size on the board?

A rogue state, as applied by America, is a nation that is a threat to the world, sponsors criminal or terrorist acts, has little respect for international law, and, of course, refuses the mindlessly follow the orders of the masters of the world, the US. The conditions for being a "rogue state" apply to every smaller nation, but the US, and it's allies, are naturally exempt. If the applied definition of a "rogue state" is turned around on the US itself, it's clear it fits every relevant requirement.

Originally posted by mediev


A rogue state, as applied by America, is a nation that is a threat to the world, sponsors criminal or terrorist acts, has little respect for international law, and, of course, refuses the mindlessly follow the orders of the masters of the world, the US. The conditions for being a "rogue state" apply to every smaller nation, but the US, and it's allies, are naturally exempt. If the applied definition of a "rogue state" is turned around on the US itself, it's clear it fits every relevant requirement.

Um...what do you consider to be a "relevant requirement." I'm guessing that you're not including "refuses to mindlessly follow the orders of . . . the US." Am I rightt?

Um...what do you consider to be a "relevant requirement." I'm guessing that you're not including "refuses to mindlessly follow the orders of . . . the US." Am I rightt?

Yes.

Originally posted by Beldin
I follow no political doctrine but mine: (Allignment: )Neutral Good with chaotic tendencies

I like this, as this is the same as I do.

(And my allignment happens to be True Neutral with Chaotic Evil Tendencies. )

Originally posted by mediev


A rogue state, as applied by America, is a nation that is a threat to the world, sponsors criminal or terrorist acts, has little respect for international law, and, of course, refuses the mindlessly follow the orders of the masters of the world, the US. The conditions for being a "rogue state" apply to every smaller nation, but the US, and it's allies, are naturally exempt. If the applied definition of a "rogue state" is turned around on the US itself, it's clear it fits every relevant requirement.

Would the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China qualify for this honor, as well?

Yes, I've researched the subject a great deal, especially since I, as has been plainly visible this entire thread, based it on my interpretation of a Bush TV statement! If an organisation has been designed to expose third world citizens to the "goodness" of America, what are their available means?

Have you done any research into the goals and modus operandi of the Peace Corps? Without blinders, I mean. Looking at it from its inception, under Shriver, through the kinds of activities the Peace Corps sponsors, to the specific villages it has visited. I think you haven't, and that you would be very surprised to discover (if you checked) that many of the villages thus helped were in nations either neutral or hostile to the US politically. The Peace Corps never changed that government attitude. It wasn't designed to do that. I invite you to read more on it, provided you leave all political preconceptions behind.

Would the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China qualify for this honor, as well?

Though this is largely irrelevant and an attempt to force any discussion away from the real "evil empire", the USSR could hardly be considered a threat to the world, as it was a force of international stability and supported various progressive movements globally.

I think you haven't, and that you would be very surprised to discover (if you checked) that many of the villages thus helped were in nations either neutral or hostile to the US politically.

Affirming what I've already said.

The Peace Corps never changed that government attitude. It wasn't designed to do that.

I never said the Peace Corps would try to mold government policies (which is often redundant) but, as I already said, to "nullify anti-american sentiment" in the population.

Though this is largely irrelevant and an attempt to force any discussion away from the real "evil empire", the USSR could hardly be considered a threat to the world, as it was a force of international stability and supported various progressive movements globally.

Oh, that's delightful! Can I start a new thread with this, entitled Soviet Union: Friend to Humanity? I mean it.

"Friend to humanity" is pushing it, but it's clear that the Union served as a force of political stability to counter American aggression in many parts of the world. It forced American policy makers to restrain their efforts to terrorise and crush democracy overseas, lest the Soviet Union intervene.

Originally posted by mediev
"Friend to humanity" is pushing it, but it's clear that the Union served as a force of political stability to counter American aggression in many parts of the world. It forced American policy makers to restrain their efforts to terrorise and crush democracy overseas, lest the Soviet Union intervene.

I assume you have no objection, since you've voiced none after asking my question. In that case, I'll start up a thread entitled The Soviet Union, and begin with your quote. You're welcome to maintain that line, there, provided you remain within the forum rules.

Please do Fable-this should be interesting.

While I agree with some of what Mediev is saying, I'd hardly call the Soviet Union a "force of international stability". It was simply acting in it's own best interests to the detriment of others, much as Dubyah is doing with the US now.

I'm strictly Chaotic Neutral, myself.

Originally posted by mediev
I never said the Peace Corps would try to mold government policies (which is often redundant) but, as I already said, to "nullify anti-american sentiment" in the population.

Grant it, I'm likely to know even less than most about the Peace Corps and other things like that, but I wonder, how are do they "nullify anti-american sentiment"? Are they over there "killing them with kindness"? If so, that's absolutely horrid. How dare the US send people to be nice to countries that are neutral or hostile to us. Such blatant kindness and peace-seeking actions! How dare they!

I honestly mean no offense. This is just what I'm seeing in your statements. Have fun replying to my comments.

While I agree with some of what Mediev is saying, I'd hardly call the Soviet Union a "force of international stability". It was simply acting in it's own best interests to the detriment of others, much as Dubyah is doing with the US now.

Yes, it was acting in the interests of it's ruling bureacraucy, but the American fear of applying "too much" genocide or terror lest the Russians become involved--which is disagreeable to both sides--deterred the worst of US violence, thus creating "international stability".

Grant it, I'm likely to know even less than most about the Peace Corps and other things like that, but I wonder, how are do they "nullify anti-american sentiment"? Are they over there "killing them with kindness"? If so, that's absolutely horrid. How dare the US send people to be nice to countries that are neutral or hostile to us.

Well the point is the objectives (destroying "anti-americanism", though this totalitarian paradigm is more often applied to domestic dissidents) are reached through means of propaganda, spreading false information on American objectives or aid to so-and-so in the region throughout the populations with which they work.

Originally posted by mediev
"Friend to humanity" is pushing it, but it's clear that the Union served as a force of political stability to counter American aggression in many parts of the world. It forced American policy makers to restrain their efforts to terrorise and crush democracy overseas, lest the Soviet Union intervene.

So you are suggesting that the Soviet Union is a proponent of Democracy? Don't make me laugh! Who had a political leader that placed millions of people in horrific work camps? Who had his Secret Service kill many of his political enemies so that he would remain in power with plenty of support? What 'Union' trapped many countries into support by the threat of violence in the Warsaw Pact. What country threatened and carried out massive retaliatory and horrifice enforcement of it's tyranny by rolling in the tanks? Who setup puppet Communist govenrnments in other countries so they kept control?

The Soviet Union is in no way a force for Democracy. Not only was a 'fair' form of goverment not allowed, it was also put completely out of the minds of it's citizens with massive propaganda. Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed Mediev? Do you realise the living conditions that were forced upon people who didn't want to follow Communism? They were exiled to Siberia, imprisoned or shot. Does that happen in America if you don't agree with Democracy? No, you will only be placed in prison if you take active 'measures' against the Democratic system.

I think you either blinded by propaganda or you have no idea of the way that people were treated in Soviet Russia. Understand this, they had 60 years trying to force a regime on people, trying to make it work. It didn't in Russia, they only way they were a force for political stability was that they forced the countries that were in easy reach to become Communist run.

So you are suggesting that the Soviet Union is a proponent of Democracy?

How does stating that the USSR "forced American policy makers to restrain their efforts to terrorise and crush democracy overseas" imply that the USSR itself is internally free and "democratic"? The simple, and blazingly obvious answer, is it doesn't, and I never made such a claim--the majority of your post seems less like furthering discussion of America as a "rogue state" and more on violently raving against the USSR, which you can do in the "The Soviet Union" thread. An example of your largely sensantionalist statements:

Not only was a 'fair' form of goverment not allowed, it was also put completely out of the minds of it's citizens with massive propaganda.

The "people's democracy" practiced in the "Soviet" republics was not fundamentally different from the American system of "democracy"; "people's democracy" even allowed free elections--though, like America, these "free" elections are largely irrelevant, as basic decisions on societal affairs are kept out of the public arena, and power is placed in the hands of societal elites. Now take the issue of "propaganda", in which this sphere America has always surpassed the Russians; more than half of the USSR's populations continually subscribed to underground political newspapers, which is, of course, a condition more or less unbelievable after a brief overlook of American information control, which is, again, invested entirely in the elite sectors.

As for the statements on exile and imprisonment, feel free to raise the issue in the Soviet Union thread, as I don't want to split the discussion into two threads.

And yes. I'm "brainwashed by propaganda", the only thinkable condition for anyone who defies the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy.

Originally posted by Nippy


Who setup puppet Communist govenrnments in other countries so they kept control?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Does that happen in America if you don't agree with Democracy? No, you will only be placed in prison if you take active 'measures' against the Democratic system.

Nippy. Two opition , or you are blinded and brainwashed too or you itentionally hide some facts.
You are comparing USSR from the cold war with USA now? USA in the cold war, hunt in capital punition the comunist. The military dictatorship performed by USA in Brasil, and the rest of America Latine I point as the most sadly and terryble period of brasilian hystory, but the Dictatorship in Peru was even more terrible.

This thread was supposed to be about rogue states. It was not supposed to be about the Soviet Union, and that's one of the reasons I started a thread under that name--and mentioned it, above. But since it seems impossible to keep it on target--at least for now--it's closed, just as Sleep promised it would be under those conditions.