I like Sidney

Richardvanles said:
Other things.
Policy of Hegemong throughout the world by military means if necessary.
Quite open about whether it was deemed as fair or not it was irrelevant and how it was achieved as it justified the means of promoting the American vision of democracy and power throughout the world and taking up arms against any country who oppose their goals.
I bet the original website is archived somewhere.
Click to expand...
Basically anything and everything was game as long as it achieved its goals.
Taking no prisoners, it really was jaw dropping stuff passed off as normal.
 
Richardvanles said:
Other things.
Policy of Hegemong throughout the world by military means if necessary.
Quite open about whether it was deemed as fair or not it was irrelevant and how it was achieved as it justified the means of promoting the American vision of democracy and power throughout the world and taking up arms against any country who oppose their goals.
I bet the original website is archived somewhere.
Click to expand...
A policy of hegemony isn't an goal, it's a policy. If hegemony was the goal, has it been achieved?

Either way, that's one other thing. What were the other goals?
 
'A policy of hegemony isn't an goal, it's a policy.'

It could be a goal, if the person writing felt that the policy wasn't currently in place and that it was desirable.

But don't mind me. Carry on
 
It seems you can get away with lying and even slander in the US or making up stuff withe no evidence whatsoever. The would be dictator is a fine example of this the problem is he's a lot stupider because of his narcissistic outlook than his boss Putin and most other dictators.
 
RegiRoka said:
'A policy of hegemony isn't an goal, it's a policy.'

It could be a goal, if the person writing felt that the policy wasn't currently in place and that it was desirable.

But don't mind me. Carry on
Click to expand...
The goal could be to formulate a policy on something, although it would be odd to state the actual content of that policy ahead of the formulation process. (It's not a very ambitious goal, either, especially for a group apparently bent on hegemony and what-have-you.) But I don't think that is what was intended. I think the suggestion was that hegemony was the goal.
 
SteveYork said:
The goal could be to formulate a policy on something, although it would be odd to state the actual content of that policy ahead of the formulation process. (It's not a very ambitious goal, either, especially for a group apparently bent on hegemony and what-have-you.) But I don't think that is what was intended. I think the suggestion was that hegemony was the goal.
Click to expand...
I guess reading about their aims and quite openly showing no morality into how they intend to achieve them and then watching it unfold in front of you makes you view it a little differently as opposed to reading about it years later and attempting to select a theory in hindsight.
 
Richardvanles said:
I guess reading about their aims and quite openly showing no morality into how they intend to achieve them and then watching it unfold in front of you makes you view it a little differently as opposed to reading about it years later and attempting to select a theory in hindsight.
Click to expand...
So can you tell me about their aims and then we can see how they unfolded? We've mentioned disrupting the Middle East and getting compliant leadership there (I think it would be very generous to say that was half achieved), and we've got hegemony throughout the world, which I think would be hard to argue as achieved. Anything else? Their hit rate doesn't seem great so far.
 
SteveYork said:
So can you tell me about their aims and then we can see how they unfolded? We've mentioned disrupting the Middle East and getting compliant leadership there (I think it would be very generous to say that was half achieved), and we've got hegemony throughout the world, which I think would be hard to argue as achieved. Anything else? Their hit rate doesn't seem great so far.
Click to expand...
Their hit rate was 10's of thousands through bombing and murdering. Maybe not great to you. Maybe it's the colour of their skin that makes it not so great. But to normal folk, you know, not sociopaths it's a massive hit rate.
 
Richardvanles said:
Their hit rate was 10's of thousands through bombing and murdering. Maybe not great to you. Maybe it's the colour of their skin that makes it not so great. But to normal folk, you know, not sociopaths it's a massive hit rate.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you know that I was referring to the hit rate in relation to the proportion of their goals that were achieved. I don't know for sure whether your response is facetious, diversionary or a genuine misunderstanding of what I am saying.

Incidentally '10s of thousands' isn't a hit rate, it's a number. You need a denominator to calculate a rate.

Anyway, to return to the question I was asking: what were their goals, other than the ones we've already teased out (assuming we are sticking with those)?
 
SteveYork said:
Well, I think you know that I was referring to the hit rate in relation to the proportion of their goals that were achieved. I don't know for sure whether your response is facetious, diversionary or a genuine misunderstanding of what I am saying.

Incidentally '10s of thousands' isn't a hit rate, it's a number. You need a denominator to calculate a rate.

Anyway, to return to the question I was asking: what were their goals, other than the ones we've already teased out (assuming we are sticking with those)?
Click to expand...
Steve never mind playing the dumbass games. Its out there. It represents an opinion a world view. It got itself right into government, not that that matters, cuz you can go and watch interviews with a retired general backing it up as it came down to him in the Pentagon. Behind the scenes its still there. Do you think it went away? Goals are one thing, but the getting there is the messy job, and you think what has happened since that idea was published doesnt in many ways look like an attempt to reach those goals?
Like I said, stop playing the dumbass games.
 
One of the witnesses in Sidney Powell’s new Michigan lawsuit says in a declaration he thinks there’s something fishy about election returns in Edison County, MI. Thing is, there is no Edison County in Michigan. https://t.co/yZfDWMAFSP
 
sabredunce said:
Steve is a long-timer.

However, I find him guilty of committing the crime of dropping grammar smack on fellow posters.
Along with 'jump through hoops for me', his credibility suffers. :(
Click to expand...
Did I commit that crime? Hope not - don't approve of it - apologies if so.

Mind you I'm not sure I think much of this judicial process, guilty without benefit of a hearing and a trial. It's one thing to police the forum but another to try and convict us ;-)
 
RubberDoug said:
Steve never mind playing the dumbass games. Its out there. It represents an opinion a world view. It got itself right into government, not that that matters, cuz you can go and watch interviews with a retired general backing it up as it came down to him in the Pentagon. Behind the scenes its still there. Do you think it went away? Goals are one thing, but the getting there is the messy job, and you think what has happened since that idea was published doesnt in many ways look like an attempt to reach those goals?
Like I said, stop playing the dumbass games.
Click to expand...
OK well not everyone likes everyone else's approach. I like precision, focus and logical argument. I don't care so much for sweeping statements, allusion to slightly mysterious or obscure movements/organisations, or directions to "just do the research". I'm as interested in why someone has the view they have - how they have come to that position - as in the view or position themselves. I don't see it as hoops as much as trying to illuminate the evidence, thought process and logic. It's just a way of saying "please show your working".
 
SteveYork said:
OK well not everyone likes everyone else's approach. I like precision, focus and logical argument. I don't care so much for sweeping statements, allusion to slightly mysterious or obscure movements/organisations, or directions to "just do the research". I'm as interested in why someone has the view they have - how they have come to that position - as in the view or position themselves. I don't see it as hoops as much as trying to illuminate the evidence, thought process and logic. It's just a way of saying "please show your working".
Click to expand...
Of course if they don’t have any evidence, thought process and logic then it’s a bit tricky for them to illuminate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top