Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
12357…20

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    sxt
    Registered Users Posts: 2,735 ✭✭✭sxt


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    The US is no where near as bad as some of the middle eastern nations. I find it hard to understand the Irish dislike for America, often ignoring anything bad about other nations just to bash the US

    ...1.2 million iraqi people killed in an illegal war....


  • Options
    #123
    bobblepuzzle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭bobblepuzzle


    johnmcdnl wrote: »
    America is the biggest rogue state in the world trying to force their values on every country that tries to stand up to oppose them in anyways...

    they try to westernise every country in the world and have no one bar america in their interests... look at all the wars over oil and whatever in the world...

    what's the last war that they haven't stuck their noses into...

    they think they have some kind of moral superiority over the rest of the world and that what's good for america is good for the world...

    just be happy america isn't a muslim country that would try to force sharia law on the world.... at least our morals are somewhat similar to theirs like the rest of europe


    america is the biggest rogue nation in the world if you ask me

    Please enlighten us with your knowledge of the previous wars (prior to Afghanistan and Iraq)? Also define for us how those wars came to be? (might want to read a bit of history)


  • Options
    #124
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    Saul-Goode9 wrote: »
    Agreed, but I still think Isreal is more extremist towards terrorism. They are a lot more protective of their 'promised land', than the US

    True, but it's hard to ignore or tolerate the terrorism when it's purpose is to destroy their tiny nation.


  • Options
    #125
    Washington Irving
    Registered Users Posts: 7,066 ✭✭✭Washington Irving


    galwayrush wrote: »
    True, but it's hard to ignore or tolerate the terrorism when it's purpose is to destroy their tiny nation.

    Good point. They are more extreme, but have more right to be. If that makes any sense?


  • Options
    #126
    yank_in_eire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭yank_in_eire


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    it seems carvaggio is largely unaware of the catalogue of crimes committed by us governments over the years (or rather, by individuals within their government). i can only assume this is the reason he is incredulous that Irish people could be critical of America.

    he must not have heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, supporting death squads and dictators in central america, ousting democratic governments in south america, supporting muslim extremist, whilst turning a blind eye to their persecution of women and burning of schools, because it was politically convenient to do so at the time.

    yet despite all these things, we still have people on this thread portraying them as a knight in shining armour motivated by benevolent aims to spread democracy and freedom.
    the other day someone was justifying the Iraq war on the basis that Saddam was a a bad man. well what about all the dictators that America were only to happy to support over the last fifty years because they were amenable to american interests? it seems saddam's crime was not to be a dictator, but rather one who turned against his former ally- yes that's right carvaggio Saddam was at once stage was a US ally. if he had only played along, like Mubarak and Karimov, he'd probably have been left alone.

    so when you consider all these things the depiction of America as the crusading hero, who, when they invade or interfere in other countries, are motivated by noble ideals of spreading freedom and alleviating suffering is pure twaddle.

    the criteria for intervention is whether a country has any possible strategic value. If so, then it seems that everything from covert operations to the outright use of overwhelming force is fair game. If it is not, indifference is usually the order of the day.

    if it was otherwise then the likes of Mugabe, Taylor and Afwerki would have been removed by force.


  • Options
    #128
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    sxt wrote: »
    ...1.2 million iraqi people killed in an illegal war....

    Where are you getting them figures from? Also how many were at the hands of the US?


  • Options
    #129
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    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!

    LOL, and if those extremist Muslims take over, we'll have no Beer, **** that...........


  • Options
    #130
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sxt
    ...1.2 million iraqi people killed in an illegal war....

    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Where are you getting them figures from? Also how many were at the hands of the US?

    Those figures confuse me as well, Quite a lot of that number were more than likely killed by their own people,also Sadam wasn't too nice to the Kurds, I wonder how many would have died if Sadam was ignored when he invaded Kuwait and carried on?


  • Options
    #131
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    Whats Legal about entering wars with 2 contries on the other side of the world One of which was based on false claims (WMDS) where all they've suceeded to do is destroy both countries kill and "detain" many innocent people and thus turning many their children to terrorism because of their hate of americans.

    Once they leave Iraq a civil war is going to break out.

    Afganistan is another vietnam.

    So basically all they have suceeded to is Glamourise Terrorism and turn the entire middle east against them

    Im not anti american, my grandparents were american but this blind Patriotism and the believe that your doing some good out there is the exact reason why many people think America is full of Gun-toting Idiots


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    RMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    Quote I heard before which sums it up well.

    "Terrorism is the war of the poor, war is the terrorism of the wealthy".


  • Options
    #133
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Personally, even if the US is regarded as belligerent, if one looks at it as a nation, arguably it goes further in respect to civil liberties than other similar nations.


  • Options
    #134
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    I'd be more inclined to say they are agressive about their sense of patriotism and national security.

    They don't tend to get stuck in unless 1 of the following occurs;

    1) Threat of the spread of comuinism.
    2) A direct attack has been made on them.

    Other then point 1, they have never instigated wars with other countries. I wouldnt refer to them as warlike, but do agree that they are agressive.

    The facts contradict you, considering that Iraq did neither of the above.


  • Options
    #135
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The facts contradict you, considering that Iraq did neither of the above.

    Niether did afghanistan. the 9/11 hijackers were mainly saudi and bin laden is also saudi


  • Options
    #136
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    Putting aside the War vs Terrorism debate, America's prevailing goal, and one I can't help but admire is simple: Deal swift and fast.

    America: "Fvck with us, I dare ye."
    Some Middle Easterns: "We'll blow up two of your buildings."
    America: "Don't say we didn't warn ye."

    <Nine years later and a smouldering ember which was once the heart of Middle eastern civilisation>

    Iran: "Hey so about those nukes, pfft lets let bygones be bygones, ... have you lost weight??"

    North korea: "Wha'? I didn't say anthin'. Here, I found this wanderin' around somewhere. <hands over a few spies.> Wha?"

    And as for the argument about being, or (guffaw) not being under America's protection. See how you'd feel if China called the shots.


  • Options
    #137
    seawolf145
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭seawolf145


    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!

    you mean after the japanese kicked the ****e out of us at pearl harbour


  • Options
    #138
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    NTMK wrote: »
    Niether did afghanistan. the 9/11 hijackers were mainly saudi and bin laden is also saudi

    Their nationality isn't really that relevant. It was an Afghanistan based organistation that carried out the attacks.


  • Options
    #139
    davyjose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,287 ✭✭✭davyjose


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The facts contradict you, considering that Iraq did neither of the above.

    Irrelevant.

    Iraq 1 was a fcuk up, and from an American perspective, they were let off the hook.
    This, again from a US perspective, made the Middle Easterns brazen.

    Eleven years after the first Iraq war: the excuse to right a wrong arose, and America made their position clearer (as I stated above): don't fcuk with us.

    Think about it. Would you feel as confident about attacking America today, as you would have ten years ago? No chance.

    TBH it goes beyond oil. America don't really need oil yet. They have a lot. It's about power -- America used the 9/11 bombings to assert theirs, and it has worked.


  • Options
    #140
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    seawolf145 wrote: »
    you mean after the japanese kicked the ****e out of us at pearl harbour

    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.


  • Options
    #141
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    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!
    Yeah, when most of the combatants were already either dead or war weary.
    Gute Nacht


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    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!

    Er no, I thank Russia.


  • Options
    #143
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    sock puppet wrote: »
    Their nationality isn't really that relevant. It was an Afghanistan based organistation that carried out the attacks.

    its also based in
    Somalia
    Turkey
    Saudi
    Yemen
    Pakistan
    Libya
    Egypt
    and many others

    so would it be okay for America to invade all these countries aswell?


  • Options
    #144
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    Er no, I thank Russia.

    And dare I say, I don't think many of us are endorsing Soviet Russia's legacy, which arguably was worse than that of the nation they ended up playing a role in freeing (half of).

    I don't think one could soberly say that the legacy of the USA is worse than that of the former Soviet Russia, and the current North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on.


  • Options
    #145
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    And dare I say, I don't think many of us are endorsing Soviet Russia's legacy, which arguably was worse than that of the nation they ended up playing a role in freeing (half of).

    I don't think one could soberly say that the legacy of the USA is worse than that of the former Soviet Russia, and the current North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on.

    I'm not here to argue who's worse. I'm just pointing out to the Americans who watch Hollywood films and think they swooped in to save us from the Nazis, when Russia actually crushed the Germans.


  • Options
    #146
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    the other day someone was justifying the Iraq war on the basis that Saddam was a a bad man. well what about all the dictators that America were only to happy to support over the last fifty years because they were amenable to american interests?

    One of the interesting things is that the Soviet Union has slipped down the memory hole, airbrushed out of history like a picture of Trotsky at the 56th Comintern.

    The US supported Dictators, sometimes naievly, because the Soviet Union and China supported other Dictators. Worse Dictators in most cases. And were, themselves, run by dictators.

    Had the US removed itself from Europe at the end of WWII - which would have been in it's tradition, it was founded by people who wanted to get off this blood thirsty continent and have nothing to do with it - the old world would have been communist. And with no competing political or economic system in Europe ( or most of EurAsia) the middle East and Africa would have fallen like dominoes.

    Possilby the Islands may have survived if we asked the yanks in prompto.

    To that we owe them our eternal gratitude.

    frankly, were I american in the 1980's I would have pulled out and removed the nuclear shield from Europe rather than listen to sh*te.
    Er no, I thank Russia.

    I thank the Americans for supplying the Russians and then fighting to contain them.

    ( The Russians as major allies of the Nazis is another fact, not quite down the memory hole, but almost forgotten. We are supposed to be thankful that the Soviet Empire which was happen to carve up Europe with it's German allies at the start of the war fought the Nazis when - and only when - it was invaded, something which earned that ugly vile puss ridden empire half of Europe. Real Heroes)


  • Options
    #147
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    NTMK wrote: »
    its also based in
    Somalia
    Turkey
    Saudi
    Yemen
    Pakistan
    Libya
    Egypt
    and many others

    so would it be okay for America to invade all these countries aswell?

    What a ridiculous argument. Al Qaeda are fighting against the Pakistani government while they were supported by the Afghan government. Can you really not see the distinction?

    The US didn't just invade Afghanistan either. They gave the Taliban the chance to give up the heads of Al Qaeda which the Taliban refused.


  • Options
    #148
    King Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭King Felix


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Personally, even if the US is regarded as belligerent, if one looks at it as a nation, arguably it goes further in respect to civil liberties than other similar nations.

    Did you miss out on the Patriot Act, the Drug Wars, the interest that must be paid back to the Federal Reserve, no welfare system etc?


  • Options
    #149
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    Rabble Rabble wrote: »

    ( The Russians as major allies of the Nazis is another fact, not quite down the memory hole, but almost forgotten. We are supposed to be thankful that the Soviet Empire which was happen to carve up Europe with it's German allies at the start of the war fought the Nazis when - and only when - it was invaded, something which earned that ugly vile puss ridden empire half of Europe. )

    No they weren't. They signed a non-aggression pact which is totally different. Allies usually don't have to make written agreements not to attack each other every 10 years.


  • Options
    #150
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    King Felix wrote: »
    Did you miss out on the Patriot Act, the Drug Wars, the interest that must be paid back to the Federal Reserve, no welfare system etc?

    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    sock puppet wrote: »
    No they weren't. They signed a non-aggression pact which is totally different. Allies usually don't have to make written agreements not to attack each other every 10 years.


    A non-agression pact does not normally also entail the mutual invasion and agreed carving up of another country. The Soviets were more co-ordinated members of the Axis than Japan, who never helped the Germans open up two fronts ( by attacking Russia from the East, for instance), as Russia did with Poland.

    Germany and it's Soviet Allies attacked Poland at the same time ( no British war declared on the Soviets, note). And the Soviet Union aided the Germans with equipment until the Germans invaded.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement