Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation?

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

The prohibition of drugs is a reasonable restriction on the basis of harm in a society. Drugs don't only harm individuals, but harm entire societies. That said, you will be pleased to hear that California have a proposition for the November ballot on the legalisation of cannabis.

There are those who contend that prohibition does more damage to society than the effects of drugs on users.

Here's a link from the ACLU outlining the issues with prohibition with reard to civil liberties.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-war-new-jim-crow

As for welfare system, the US clearly isn't a welfare State. It's a free market capitalist system with very little regulation. Some people mightn't like this, but it certainly doesn't mean that the US doesn't endorse civil liberties above and beyond many other states, and in some respects any other states. I don't know a single country that respects free speech as much as the USA. Our laws fade in comparison, just take a read of the Public Order Act of 1994.

Patriot Act - I'm not saying that the US is a perfect State. I'm saying that the US goes above and beyond Ireland and other countries in many respects. It would be unfair and unreasonable to say otherwise. As for monitoring internet traffic & phone systems, in respect to suspected terrorists I'm not all that opposed I must say particularly if it saves lives. I'm not in agreement with tapping phones, or internet without a decent reason though.

Uses of the Patriot Act for reasons nothing to do with international terrorism...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act

Civil liberties in the U.S. are being eroded more and more as evidenced above. If you want civil liberties look at Canada which is what the American Dream or myth is suposed to be.

xxtuggbaxx

When you look at this topic ,you have to look beyond your race, religion and political allegiance, is the difference in between a retaliatory strike and destroying the infrastructure of an entire nation. We can not restrict terrosizm only with AMerica but I conceive her as the most devil.. And most importantly why do you ask question as NATION??If There is a terorist in america,It is not nation(Of course There are a lot of people supporting goverment’s invades ) it is goverment.I have a lot of friend from America but they never support goverment's invades.. If you America invadeS Afganistan,Irak and helps Israil for Palestin It is not only The malevolent of America..I am not stupid..If you look Middle East and afganistan policy of America,she has a sea of allies and they are all Arab Leaders..Lubnan king,Arabistan king,Taliban (claming themselves bringer of Islam and Prophet Mohammad(PBUH)...They cooperate with America for their invesment in American Banks..and they sold their honour,soul and humanity to America.I don’t need to trace a course of action like looking beyond I can find out America’s actions in my own country.And of course nothing happens America..The victims of these action are the childrenof Afganistan,Iraq,Palestine an of course innocent children of Israel.God bless them..

philologos

King Felix wrote: »

There are those who contend that prohibition does more damage to society than the effects of drugs on users.

Here's a link from the ACLU outlining the issues with prohibition with regard to civil liberties.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/drug-war-new-jim-crow

I'm sure there are. I'm not particularly surprised that the ACLU would take such a stance either.

I'm open to new ideas that ensure that as few people take drugs as is humanly possible asides from prohibition. The possibilities seem limited on consideration though.

King Felix wrote: »

Civil liberties in the U.S. are being eroded more and more as evidenced above. If you want civil liberties look at Canada which is what the American Dream or myth is suposed to be.

The US is an example of a constitution strong country (funnily enough quite similar to ours in implication, but different in its wording) which argues strongly for peoples liberties and as a result of being a constitution strong country has serious limits on where the State can go in terms of peoples liberties.

Funnily enough it is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution that makes it awfully difficult to apply gun control for that very reason.

I don't know all that much about the Canadian system, but if I am correct, it isn't a Constitution strong country as the USA and Ireland are (albeit in differing ways). The US not only provides a framework of civil liberties for the present, but ensures that people cannot legislatively undermine these with ease in the future. The same is not true of constitutionally weak countries.

Nodin

kuntboy wrote: »

All you America bashers would do well to remember that without them, the armies of the one of the worst regimes in history, the USSR, would have marched across Europe imposing their version of "freedom". They and other brutal dictatorships such ......

Didn't the US sponsor and back the dictatorships in Chile, Guatamala, Argentina, Nicaragua, Indonesia and the death squads of El Salvador etc?

Didn't the US use its veto to protect Apartheid South Africa for years?

Theres two of them in it.

King Felix

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm sure there are. I'm not particularly surprised that the ACLU would take such a stance either.

Why wouldn't they? It's the Civil Liberties Union.

[/quote]I'm open to new ideas that ensure that as few people take drugs as is humanly possible asides from prohibition. The possibilities seem limited on consideration though.
[/quote]Or just allow people the liberty to engage in personal rsonsibility.

The US is an example of a constitution strong country (funnily enough quite similar to ours in implication, but different in its wording) which argues strongly for peoples liberties and as a result of being a constitution strong country has serious limits on where the State can go in terms of peoples liberties.

It used to be until the Patriot Act came along.

Have alook at the Constitution V The Patriot Act...http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

Of couse some of these were already eroded by the War On Drugs.

Here's the Constitution of Canada...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

Laois_Man

I've read the first 4 pages of this thread and I've seen people attempt to justify the war on Iraq by saying Iraq harboured Al Quieda and therefore deserved to be attacked. But has anyone pointed out that it was the American's themselves who CREATED the Taliban\Al Quieda under the Regean administration? Hillary Clinton is the first senior US politician to have the balls (ironically) to admit this since it became uncool to do so. Maybe the US should attack itself too?

Secondly. The US invaded Afghanistan 3 years almost to day day before Sept 11 - on the exact day Bill Clinton was impeached on the Lewinsky scandal. So to say 9\11 was an unprovoked attack is more of the usual propaganda.

kuntboy

Nodin wrote: »

Didn't the US sponsor and back the dictatorships in Chile, Guatamala, Argentina, Nicaragua, Indonesia and the death squads of El Salvador etc?

Didn't the US use its veto to protect Apartheid South Africa for years?

Theres two of them in it.

Perhaps you would have preferred the alternative, i.e. dictatorships backed by the USSR, like Cuba. Then you could have had events like the Cuban missile crisis again and again.

sock puppet

Laois_Man wrote: »

Secondly. The US invaded Afghanistan 3 years almost to day day before Sept 11 - on the exact day Bill Clinton was impeached on the Lewinsky scandal. So to say 9\11 was an unprovoked attack is more of the usual propaganda.

Christ. That is one of the most disingenous things that's been said on this thread. Or have you completely blanked the US embassy bombings from your mind?

Nodin

kuntboy wrote: »

Perhaps you would have preferred the alternative, i.e. dictatorships backed by the USSR,.

No, I'd prefer people to live out their lives without fear of being dragged off by a death squad. Why do you think there was only two alternatives?

kuntboy wrote: »

......like Cuba. Then you could have had events like the Cuban missile crisis again and again.

Castro arose because of the US backed Batista regime. Why didn't the US stay out of it? Why always go in on the side of the oppressor?

Laois_Man

sock puppet wrote: »

Christ. That is one of the most disingenous things that's been said on this thread. Or have you completely blanked the US embassy bombings from your mind?

What. Ya mean the bombings carried out by the EGYPTIAN Islamic Jihad organization as revenge for the torture of it's members 2 months earlier?

We can go back as far as you like. It all comes back to America!

Nodin

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Also remember that Vladimir Putin is a nut-job. Obama is not.

Vlad? Bastard maybe, but certainly not a nut.

gizmo

That's it, AH has finally done it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY

But so as not to appear rude, I'll answer the question. No of course I don't think they're the most extreme Terrorist nation in the world.

dvpower

yank_in_eire wrote: »

HA! What a bunch of pussies. You're all speaking English instead of German or Japanese because the US manned up and "got 'er done". Go USA!

The good old USA. They paid a heavy price for our right to be arseholes:rolleyes:

dsmythy

When it comes to superpowers, it's better the devil you know. The grass is not always greener folks.

sock puppet

Laois_Man wrote: »

What. Ya mean the bombings carried out by the EGYPTIAN Islamic Jihad organization as revenge for the torture of it's members 2 months earlier?

We can go back as far as you like. It all comes back to America!

Yes the bombings that were planned by Bin Laden who was based in Afghanistan at the time. Also a few cruise missiles launched into terrorist camps hardly qualifies as an invasion either.

Norwayviking

sock puppet wrote: »

Given that it was a surprise attack it hardly qualifies as kicking the ****e out of anyone. It's akin to running up to someone bigger than you, hitting them and then running away. They also failed to destroy any American aircraft carriers which were at sea at the time. Not really what you'd call a resounding victory.

Its called tactics in military terms

The Mad Hatter

The US doesn't terrorise the peoples it attacks, it shocks and awes them.

This is an important distinction, like the difference between enhanced interrogation and torture.

Norwayviking

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The US doesn't terrorise the peoples it attacks, it shocks and awes them.

This is an important distinction, like the difference between enhanced interrogation and torture.

Meaning that i am bigger and stronger than you,and have more friends than you(NATO) so dont f..k with me?

nacho libre

Nodin wrote: »

Didn't the US sponsor and back the dictatorships in Chile, Guatamala, Argentina, Nicaragua, Indonesia and the death squads of El Salvador etc?

Didn't the US use its veto to protect Apartheid South Africa for years?

Theres two of them in it.

ah but you see theres a context for these things and if there isn't the default position is the otherside were far worse.

just imagine if a criminal, who raped someone, pleaded that his crime should be overlooked, because someone else murdered someone or carried out multiple rapes.

Rabble Rabble

Nodin wrote: »

No, I'd prefer people to live out their lives without fear of being dragged off by a death squad. Why do you think there was only two alternatives?



Castro arose because of the US backed Batista regime. Why didn't the US stay out of it? Why always go in on the side of the oppressor?

In the cold war there were two alternatives. I have always wondered whether the US should have threatened to pull out of Europe.

There used to be very strong anti-American protests in Soeul. Now that the US is over stretched the protests have died down. A more Machievelian superpower would have, during the cold war, withdrawn it's protection from some minor European country and announced that the Soviet Union could invade at will.

Pour encourager les autres.

spaceman67

Thank and pray for USA if not USA ,all of you would speak RUSSIAN today and eat your potatoes

The Highwayman

yank_in_eire wrote: »

HA! What a bunch of pussies. You're all speaking English instead of German or Japanese because the US manned up and "got 'er done". Go USA!

Ah yes the good auld american/hollywood version of history.

If you knew the first thing about WWII which from your above post it is obvious you dont.

First off Germany fielded up to 200 divisions against the red army and between 40 - 50 on the western front.

Huge defeats againt the Russians at:

Moscow and Rostov: Autumn 1941 where the Wehrmacht were pushed back from the gates of Moscow.

Stalingrad: Winter 1942 with the total loss of the 6th army

Kursk: Summer 1943 the largest tank battle in history and the failure of “Operation Citadel” broke the Wehrmacht.

From there on the Germans were on the back foot and the red army juggernaut was on the roll. Although the German high command did win some tactical victorys they were on the defence for the rest of the war.

Germany was a defeated army as early as the winter 42/43 as per some of their own high command so the fact the the american get involved in June '44 (late once again) made little if any difference.
America lost 440,000 troops in the war. Russia lost 28 - 30,000,000 troops and civilians, the eastern front on its own was the largest war in history so the little american outing did little to change the outcome of the war.

If Stalin had decided to keep going in 1945 then he would have wiped the floor with the american and british troops on mainland europe. I often think of Stalin and Khrushchev sitting back after the war thinking why they didnt do it. Leaving Ireland the smallest outpost in the soviet eimpire.

So only for Russian temperance we would not be speaking German but Russian. Nothing to do with the americans FFS

Manic Moran

Germany was a defeated army as early as the winter 42/43 as per some of their own high command so the fact the the american get involved in June '44 (late once again) made little if any difference.

Minor detail, the US got involved in Nov 42.

If Stalin had decided to keep going in 1945 then he would have wiped the floor with the american and british troops on mainland europe.

Not so sure about that. The USSR was fairly dependant on American and British equipment to sustain its war effort. There's a reason that a lot of post-war Soviet gear looked like they were based on Studebakers... They were Studebakers! Bear in mind that some in the Western Allies believed that they should continue onto Moscow themselves, they wouldn't be saying that if they thought that they had no chance of winning.

NTM

Laois_Man

sock puppet wrote: »

Yes the bombings that were planned by Bin Laden who was based in Afghanistan at the time. Also a few cruise missiles launched into terrorist camps hardly qualifies as an invasion either.

Invasion. Whatever. You're debating semantics and swerving the point now so what's the point. I'll leave you to it!

ricero

The Highwayman wrote: »

Ah yes the good auld american/hollywood version of history.

If you knew the first thing about WWII which from your above post it is obvious you dont.

First off Germany fielded up to 200 divisions against the red army and between 40 - 50 on the western front.

Huge defeats againt the Russians at:

Moscow and Rostov: Autumn 1941 where the Wehrmacht were pushed back from the gates of Moscow.

Stalingrad: Winter 1942 with the total loss of the 6th army

Kursk: Summer 1943 the largest tank battle in history and the failure of “Operation Citadel” broke the Wehrmacht.

From there on the Germans were on the back foot and the red army juggernaut was on the roll. Although the German high command did win some tactical victorys they were on the defence for the rest of the war.

Germany was a defeated army as early as the winter 42/43 as per some of their own high command so the fact the the american get involved in June '44 (late once again) made little if any difference.
America lost 440,000 troops in the war. Russia lost 28 - 30,000,000 troops and civilians, the eastern front on its own was the largest war in history so the little american outing did little to change the outcome of the war.

If Stalin had decided to keep going in 1945 then he would have wiped the floor with the american and british troops on mainland europe. I often think of Stalin and Khrushchev sitting back after the war thinking why they didnt do it. Leaving Ireland the smallest outpost in the soviet eimpire.

So only for Russian temperance we would not be speaking German but Russian. Nothing to do with the americans FFS

so true its so naive and incompetent to think the usa won ww2 although they did play a part it was the red army of russia that defeated hitler and the third reich.

speaking of the third reich theirs things the americans have done that would of even make hitler shudder.

Nodin

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

In the cold war there were two alternatives. I have always wondered whether the US should have threatened to pull out of Europe.

There used to be very strong anti-American protests in Soeul..

....because S Korea used be a dictatorship, backed by the US.......

The Highwayman

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

We see this argument all the time, but you seem to be ignorant of the fact that the States and Russia were involved in the COLD WAR at the time, and both were sponsoring various groups around the world to push each others aims and ideologies.

Osama was an even bigger **** for turning his back on those that supported, funded and trained him in the past, especially after the Russians left Afghanistan.

I am more than aware of american sponsorship if brutal governments and dictators during the cold war and today. Funding and supporting administrations whos ideals are the polar opposite to the ideals america drones on about being the bed rock of its culture. Oh the irony!

I find it even more ironic that an american would use the word 'ignorant' when talking to someone about foreign policy. Psst kettle this is pot, your black....

So you train and fund Bin Laden and the mujahideen fighters to expell a foreign invader but you dont understand why he fights to expell a foreign invader. Hmmmm ...... thats why people scoff at american foreign policy(if there is one).

America is like a lumbering bully throwing punches not thinking of why it does it or ever considering the consequences of its actions. Then it sulks when nobody comes to its birthday party, and nobody is surprised when its its early twentys comes out as gay.

So 'Cmdr Kean' are you in the military of just a frustrated call of duty player?

The Highwayman

Manic Moran wrote: »

Minor detail, the US got involved in Nov 42.

Yeah they did but aircraft and crew hardly compare to the numbers and hardwear that were in the field on the eastern front.

Not so sure about that. The USSR was fairly dependant on American and British equipment to sustain its war effort. There's a reason that a lot of post-war Soviet gear looked like they were based on Studebakers... They were Studebakers! Bear in mind that some in the Western Allies believed that they should continue onto Moscow themselves, they wouldn't be saying that if they thought that they had no chance of winning.

NTM

After Stalin moved Russian industery east of the Ural's the war effort built unhindered, Allied equipment was landed in places like Archangel and did help the war effort. Russian built T34 and KV2 were all home made as was the Katyusha rocket launcher system which were instrumental in victory.

Jeboa Safari

The Highwayman wrote: »

If Stalin had decided to keep going in 1945 then he would have wiped the floor with the american and british troops on mainland europe. I often think of Stalin and Khrushchev sitting back after the war thinking why they didnt do it. Leaving Ireland the smallest outpost in the soviet eimpire.

So only for Russian temperance we would not be speaking German but Russian. Nothing to do with the americans FFS

Why didn't he then? He obviously knew he couldn't.

The Highwayman

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Why didn't he then? He obviously knew he couldn't.

Who knows maybe after 5 years and 30 million lives he didnt have the stomach for it

With allied appeasement and the total control of eastern europe behind the 'Iron curtain' forming a buffer zone he didnt feel the need for it.

Being slightly behind in the nuclear race and knowing that war would be fought on american soil not european.

Or maybe Stalin sense of honor(yeah your right not likely) he didnt want to attack his allies.

Stalin had the brutal battle hardened power of 20 armies(aprox 2.6 million men), 6,300 tanks and 8,500 aircraft in the field at the end of the war. They had began to wind down war production months before. Even if the allies could match the Russians with producing equipment they could not keep up with man power.

My reason to bring up this point was because an american said if it were not for them then we would all be speaking german, my point is we were closer to speaking russian than german.

We could hypothesis for ever as to weather the red army would have beaten or lost to the allies if people like Patton had had his way and fought on. My point was about america not being the force that defeated the Wehrmacht.