Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

CIA thread

Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 12:45:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

I don't know all to much about international realism though, so I may be completely wrong.
Websterremembered
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:08:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

they are good because they change and in-body a fear that keeps order in this nation. Other nations fear the power their knowledge represents and the authority they wield. They may be part of the system and thus bad in the eyes of some but they untimely are servants of order and thus good.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 1:43:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Their not suppose to be morally superior, their suppose to technologically, informationally, and efficiently superior.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 11:52:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 1:08:57 PM, Websterremembered wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

they are good because they change and in-body a fear that keeps order in this nation. Other nations fear the power their knowledge represents and the authority they wield. They may be part of the system and thus bad in the eyes of some but they untimely are servants of order and thus good.

Their sole purpose is to cause DISORDER. They topple governments, sponsor terrorism and create chaos in order to benefit the US and only the US.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets. All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could. If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 12:05:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets. All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could. If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Didnt you just previously state (in your last post) that the CIA is there to benefit the US?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ultra
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am probably biased being that I am family friends with George Tenet, but I for one am able to stand up for the CIA (for the most part).

Im not going to go into too much detail right now, but you need to understand that 98% of what the CIA does is not only successful, but absolutely necessary. Sure, they've done some bad things, but its not fair to just pick out the bad things without also acknowledging the good things that they do.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 4:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets.

The United States is at the end of the day mainly if only responsibility for it's own citizens. If coups were necessary, then they are justified. Also, that is not a lot of the sh!t they've done. The CIA has been involved in a lot more than simply overthrowing governments. They are intelligence gatherers. Would you prefer to keep the United States in the dark when it comes to knowing about the world?

All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and

in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could.

Wait...so you are saying that in the height of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union were not supposed to vie for strategic areas? It's more complicated then you make it out to be. Simply put, there were major pro-Soviet politicians in Kabul. The United States supported the opposition groups, and then the Soviet Union invaded. Either way the Soviet military would have been involved in Afghanistan (Afghanistan becomes communist --> USSR satellite --> stationing of Soviet military forces in Afghanistan.)

If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Alright.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 7:37:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 4:04:45 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets.

The United States is at the end of the day mainly if only responsibility for it's own citizens. If coups were necessary, then they are justified. Also, that is not a lot of the sh!t they've done. The CIA has been involved in a lot more than simply overthrowing governments. They are intelligence gatherers. Would you prefer to keep the United States in the dark when it comes to knowing about the world?


THEY WEREN'T NECESSARY!!!

Guatemala= US sponsored genocide of Natives Americans in the 1980s. 200,000 were murdered. Had absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet Union.

Nicaragua= US run terrorist army sent in to create chaos to make socialist democratic government look incompetent in the 1980s. 40,000 were murdered. The Soviets liked Nicaragua, but the government itself posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to the US.

El Salvador= US run military government and deaths squads terrorize it's own citizens in the 1980s. 75,000 were murdered. Nothing to do with the Soviets.

Indonesia= US helps Indonesian government carry out racial and political genocide in the 1960s. 800,000 were murdered. Nothing to do with the Soviets.

And we don't need the CIA to be the sole gatherer of intelligence. You can't assert that the US knowing more about what's going on= good when you look at what the CIA actually DOES with the information that they gather.

All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and


in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could.

Wait...so you are saying that in the height of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union were not supposed to vie for strategic areas? It's more complicated then you make it out to be. Simply put, there were major pro-Soviet politicians in Kabul. The United States supported the opposition groups, and then the Soviet Union invaded. Either way the Soviet military would have been involved in Afghanistan (Afghanistan becomes communist --> USSR satellite --> stationing of Soviet military forces in Afghanistan.)


My point was that the fight would not have been brought to Afghanistan had the CIA not been there, but you're right in the respect that the Soviets would have just struck somewhere else.

If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Alright.

Alright indeed.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 7:39:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 12:05:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets. All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could. If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Didnt you just previously state (in your last post) that the CIA is there to benefit the US?

Yes, and in the short term they do. But the long term blowback causes America nothing but grief. So really, the CIA benefits nobody.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 7:42:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:02:43 PM, Ultra wrote:
I am probably biased being that I am family friends with George Tenet, but I for one am able to stand up for the CIA (for the most part).

Im not going to go into too much detail right now, but you need to understand that 98% of what the CIA does is not only successful, but absolutely necessary. Sure, they've done some bad things, but its not fair to just pick out the bad things without also acknowledging the good things that they do.

Before I start rambling and spelling out lists of CIA funded genocides and mass murders, could you give me a few examples of good things that they have done?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 8:41:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 7:42:53 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/17/2012 3:02:43 PM, Ultra wrote:
I am probably biased being that I am family friends with George Tenet, but I for one am able to stand up for the CIA (for the most part).

Im not going to go into too much detail right now, but you need to understand that 98% of what the CIA does is not only successful, but absolutely necessary. Sure, they've done some bad things, but its not fair to just pick out the bad things without also acknowledging the good things that they do.

Before I start rambling and spelling out lists of CIA funded genocides and mass murders, could you give me a few examples of good things that they have done?

What I'm saying is, you can't accuse me of just picking out the bad things if you have no good things to offer. How could it be possible that all of the good things that the CIA have done are still classified and yet all of their horrific operations are public knowledge? If anything it should be assumed that the bad things that we know about are only a fraction of the bad things that happened, whereas the CIA should have an easy time gaining credibility by admitting it's positive exploits.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:22:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 7:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/17/2012 12:05:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets. All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could. If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Didnt you just previously state (in your last post) that the CIA is there to benefit the US?

Yes, and in the short term they do. But the long term blowback causes America nothing but grief. So really, the CIA benefits nobody.

that's absurd from an analysis point of view. It makes no sense why they would do such actions in the first place. Who benefits? What are the goals?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:49:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:22:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 7:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/17/2012 12:05:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets. All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could. If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Didnt you just previously state (in your last post) that the CIA is there to benefit the US?

Yes, and in the short term they do. But the long term blowback causes America nothing but grief. So really, the CIA benefits nobody.

that's absurd from an analysis point of view. It makes no sense why they would do such actions in the first place. Who benefits? What are the goals?

Yes I agree that it's absurd. The goal is to protect American economic interests and to further American hegemony. It's bad for the average citizens of the US who have to deal with the terrorism that results from it, but good for our leaders who get to expand their influence over the world... starting to make sense?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:02:43 PM, Ultra wrote:
I am probably biased being that I am family friends with George Tenet, but I for one am able to stand up for the CIA (for the most part).

Im not going to go into too much detail right now, but you need to understand that 98% of what the CIA does is not only successful, but absolutely necessary. Sure, they've done some bad things, but its not fair to just pick out the bad things without also acknowledging the good things that they do.

Tell you what, I'll give you a bad thing, you give me a good thing and we'll go until one of us runs out

Bad thing 1
Iran-Contra
Selling arms to Iran through Israel despite an arms embargo in order to fund the Nicaraguan Contras which was prohibited by congress.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 4:08:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/15/2012 1:43:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Their not suppose to be morally superior, their suppose to technologically, informationally, and efficiently superior.

They're*

Which is still grammatically incorrect because the CIA is an agency, so it should be referred to as 'it'.

It (the CIA) is not...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 4:17:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:49:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:22:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 7:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/17/2012 12:05:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets. All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could. If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Didnt you just previously state (in your last post) that the CIA is there to benefit the US?

Yes, and in the short term they do. But the long term blowback causes America nothing but grief. So really, the CIA benefits nobody.

that's absurd from an analysis point of view. It makes no sense why they would do such actions in the first place. Who benefits? What are the goals?

Yes I agree that it's absurd. The goal is to protect American economic interests and to further American hegemony.

It's bad for the average citizens of the US who have to deal with the terrorism that results from it, but good for our leaders who get to expand their influence over the world... starting to make sense?

Except the leaders are only elected for a few years, so there's no real incentive to have their power expanded. It would just go to someone else.

Also US economic interest = American interest. However, the US economy grows when other economies grow as well. This is due to the effect of other nations new technological developments, ideas, and trade that occurs.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 4:37:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You could argue the CIA is good when it comes to maintaining an empire without admitting we have an empire.
Middle eastern leaders realize they get to control their country so long as it benefits the US. As soon as they step out of line they can count on a coup or something to up end them.
Plus we don't have to pay the CIA as much, since they fund their own expeditions with drug and gun money...90% of the worlds illegal opiates come out of Afghanistan and we have to be in that country to protect our freedoms? C'mon. That's billions of dollars the American govt. isn't getting a piece of, of course we'll use American troops to protect poppy fields.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 4:49:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 4:17:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:49:49 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:22:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 7:39:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/17/2012 12:05:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 11:56:40 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/15/2012 12:44:19 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/12/2012 2:25:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/11/2012 9:52:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/4/2012 11:35:00 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
This is obviously just an excuse for me to vent my hilariously focused rage, but I invite anyone who thinks that the CIA is in any sense 'good' to step up to the plate and explain yourself so that I can proceed to beat you with the bat.

They are good for the United States Government :P and they are good at toppling other country's governments. They are very good at carrying out covert intelligence missions. As well as training commandos. So they are good at a lot of things :P

You're right as far as good=efficiency goes. I should have clarified, but I meant good=moral and/or ethical or just generally having a positive effect on anything.

So they are good at something ^.^ Awesome!

They have a positive effect in the short term, and I would not exactly say it was a bad thing to have the CIA vs the KGB during the Cold War (the USA needed intelligence on the USSR during that time.) Morally, the CIA is a governmental entity (not an individual person) so saying whether they are moral/ethical or not is much more difficult. But, if international realism is held to be true, the international realm is anarchic and a government's responsibility is mainly to their own people, not the people of other nations, thus if the CIA is working for the benefit of the Untied States, we can hold them to be moral and ethical.

You can still judge an agency by it's actions, and it has acted in an unquestionably rotten manner. The problem with justifying them with international realism is that a lot of the sh!t that they did (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia) did not actually do anything to combat the Soviets. All that it did was put tyrants in power and lead to racial and political genocides in places where there was never a legitimate Soviet presence to begin with, and in other places like Afghanistan, the CIA was there first and the Soviets only went there because they thought that the US would take over the country before they could. If anything the CIA has made the world worse for the US, what with all of the terrorism that their operations cause.

Didnt you just previously state (in your last post) that the CIA is there to benefit the US?

Yes, and in the short term they do. But the long term blowback causes America nothing but grief. So really, the CIA benefits nobody.

that's absurd from an analysis point of view. It makes no sense why they would do such actions in the first place. Who benefits? What are the goals?

Yes I agree that it's absurd. The goal is to protect American economic interests and to further American hegemony.


It's bad for the average citizens of the US who have to deal with the terrorism that results from it, but good for our leaders who get to expand their influence over the world... starting to make sense?

Except the leaders are only elected for a few years, so there's no real incentive to have their power expanded. It would just go to someone else.


The government overall does not shift that radically from one president to the next.

Look, you're asking me to explain the mentality behind people who I firmly believe are ignorant, cynical, warmongerers. You're not going to get an answer that seems completely logical. The point is that for the time that they are in office, they do what they can to expand the government's influence.

Also US economic interest = American interest. However, the US economy grows when other economies grow as well. This is due to the effect of other nations new technological developments, ideas, and trade that occurs.

Not exactly. US economic interest in this case= Procuring the natural resources of third world countries. The only people or groups that benefit from third world countries being turned into cooperative dictatorships so that their governments will hand over natural resources for next to nothing at the expense of their own citizens are the American companies that receive those resources.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 6:51:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 4:08:36 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/15/2012 1:43:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Their not suppose to be morally superior, their suppose to technologically, informationally, and efficiently superior.

They're*

Which is still grammatically incorrect because the CIA is an agency, so it should be referred to as 'it'.

It (the CIA) is not...

Oh, go fvck yourself.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:19:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 4:08:36 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/15/2012 1:43:13 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Their not suppose to be morally superior, their suppose to technologically, informationally, and efficiently superior.

They're*

Which is still grammatically incorrect because the CIA is an agency, so it should be referred to as 'it'.

It (the CIA) is not...
No, that's babble. A plurality of something, such as an organization of people, can be referred to as a plural term. For example, a football team can be referred to as "they." This counts for CIA too. It's impersonal.