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.
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.
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
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.
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 ......
Jakkass wrote: » I'm sure there are. I'm not particularly surprised that the ACLU would take such a stance either.
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.
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.
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.
kuntboy wrote: » Perhaps you would have preferred the alternative, i.e. dictatorships backed by the USSR,.
kuntboy wrote: » ......like Cuba. Then you could have had events like the Cuban missile crisis again and again.
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?
brandon_flowers wrote: » Also remember that Vladimir Putin is a nut-job. Obama is not.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Jeboa Safari wrote: » Why didn't he then? He obviously knew he couldn't.
