World's Worst Terrorists?
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
First of all i'm not talking to SunTzu - B2 until he is sober. Keep your fascism to yourself.
WW2 was practicaly over when the A-bomb was dropped. It was unecessary sick test.
USA did take a large part in war, without question. History can't lie. But if there weren't for Soviet Union you would all be speaking german. Why Normandy happened in 1944.? Why not before?
Of course, who cares about 10-20 million commie causalties...
Very humane. So stop talking about abandoning south vientamese or kuwaitians. That was pure cruel interest.
"But it was 125 years ago, and America stands for different things now. "
In court, every crime can grow old except the war crime. You thought us that.
"And choosing the US as a target for murder is obvious. We dont give in to tyranny, like the kind used by Al-Quaida, the Taliban and other groups/governments that are evil. Without the
US they could spread their evil at will"
Haha. Brave cowboys on white horses. "Evil empire" they used to call USSR. Everything that is not aprooved by USA is evil and has to be destroyed. They are evil because they told you that on CNN. There are always two sides of a medal. Try to see them both.
"They picked the wrong people to kill."
Thats true. People in WTC have done nothing to deserve it. They could have flown a little better and hit Air Force One.
It it obvious USA is playing part of world policeman, ever since USSR dissolved. Policy is "Either our way or no way". That can be very irritating. Breaking the Kyoto and Anti ballistic agreement i find direct attack on my health by USA. You might be the world's Superpower but don't act like you're the only one.
WW2 was practicaly over when the A-bomb was dropped. It was unecessary sick test.
USA did take a large part in war, without question. History can't lie. But if there weren't for Soviet Union you would all be speaking german. Why Normandy happened in 1944.? Why not before?
Of course, who cares about 10-20 million commie causalties...
Very humane. So stop talking about abandoning south vientamese or kuwaitians. That was pure cruel interest.
"But it was 125 years ago, and America stands for different things now. "
In court, every crime can grow old except the war crime. You thought us that.
"And choosing the US as a target for murder is obvious. We dont give in to tyranny, like the kind used by Al-Quaida, the Taliban and other groups/governments that are evil. Without the
US they could spread their evil at will"
Haha. Brave cowboys on white horses. "Evil empire" they used to call USSR. Everything that is not aprooved by USA is evil and has to be destroyed. They are evil because they told you that on CNN. There are always two sides of a medal. Try to see them both.
"They picked the wrong people to kill."
Thats true. People in WTC have done nothing to deserve it. They could have flown a little better and hit Air Force One.
It it obvious USA is playing part of world policeman, ever since USSR dissolved. Policy is "Either our way or no way". That can be very irritating. Breaking the Kyoto and Anti ballistic agreement i find direct attack on my health by USA. You might be the world's Superpower but don't act like you're the only one.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Bill Gates with his Awful Operating System, whadda mess!
EEEK!
EEEK!
Wow, I love how those non-conformists conform to the non-conformist group, and go off yelling about all sorts of things that they have no idea about. It would be much simpler to have "idiot" tatooed on their forehead and their mouths stitched shut.
Ok, the US took over large territories and killed off the original inhabitants. Yah, so they were just doing what everybody else had done before them. Those people living there had probably killed off another group in order to gain that territory. Just like Russia with Siberia, the Turks with the Middle East, the Indo-Europeans with the early Bronze-age Greece. This is how things were for thousands of years all over the globe by all people. Now is different. We are aware of different countries and their cultures, and work as a global community to preserve these existing groups, regardless of what may have happened in millenia passed. When Germany invaded its neighbors in the world wars, when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, when Serbia invaded Bosnia, and many other times, countries outside the area of conflict have come in to help. Now there have been times when outside intervention didn't take place or when it took a while to get started, and these all have reasons: maybe the other countries weren't in a position to effectively intervene with political, economic, or social problems of their own, maybe the leaders of those countries didn't think it was in their country's best interest, and on and on. The world is a complicated place, but let me tell you, No country is inherently evil, including the US and Iraq. Sometimes the leaders of the countries will do bad things with their power, and this has happened in both of the above examples. However, because of the greater freedom of the people in democracies, their greater extent of knowledge about what is happening, and their greater control over their country, these bad occurances happen much less. The more countries that become democracies the less leaders will be able to do bad things with their power, so until we think of a better system we are right in encouraging non-democratic countries to become democratic. Whether this be economically like with China, or militarily like in Afghanistan, the change is for the good, and this opinion is shared by all democratic countries, hence the coalition that has been built to help change Afghanistan.
Now to address other topics brought up in this thread:
Using the atomic bombs in Japan was necessary to end the war. They were fanatically opposed to surrender, and it would have cost a quarter million American lives to try to take the country by conventional means.
The US was not the only country to help liberate Kuwait
. Granted the idea of Iraq taking over and controlling the oil production there did spur the outside countries to get going faster, even if the oil was not an issue these countries still would have attacked in order to preserve the identity of Kuwait and its culture. Now there can be examples brought up that demonstrate where nobody intervened, like in Rwanda, but there are reasonable explanations for these, not just some global evil US plot. In the case of Rwanda, what led to nobody sending in help was started by Belgian troops withdrawing, which caused a political domino effect that I will not go into the details of for a lack of time.
Combatting the USSR is also a very complicated issue. The whole thing started with the USSR keeping all the territory it liberated during WW2, rather than granting them the autonomy they had prior to the German takeover. This led to the spread of their "communism", which was actually despotism, and the removal of the freedom those citizens had originally enjoyed. Also, by being dictators, the leaders in the USSR were free to abuse their power and do things that had detrimental effects to countless people. Now on the US side not all the leaders were perfect, but since the US was a democracy they couldn't get away with nearly as much as their counterparts in the USSR. Also, now that many of the things they did have been made public, it will be just that much more difficult for future leaders of the US to do the same sorts of things.
On to Vietnam. The US got involved in Vietnam by responding to a request from their ally: France. The citizens of the US agreed to the war because it was about preserving the freedom of South Vietnam, whether or not it was a free country, it was an independent country with its own identity. Some political leaders in the US abused their power to get the war started, and then tried to control the war themselves rather then letting military leaders control it, leading to a long drawn-out war. Eventually, due to the freedom of the people in a democracy such as the US, the government was forced to quit the war by their own citizens, even when they could have won. This just shows how when leaders in a democracy do something bad, the people can correct it. Today, people are aware of what those leaders did, and hence are watching the conflict in Afghanistan carefully, and will watch future conflicts carefully as well, rather than succumb to the blind patriotism that prevailed following WW2. While there is patriotism today, it does not stop the media and people in general from criticising the government like in the past. This shows another benefit of a free democracy: the ability for a country and its people to learn from and be educated about the past, so they won't make the same mistakes in the future.
Next time somebody decides to blindly disagree with the global majority just to try to sound different, even though in their stupidity they are sounding just like the rest of their groupies, do some research first on the topics. Then maybe you'll realise why the majority agree with the current policies of the democratic countries.
Ok, the US took over large territories and killed off the original inhabitants. Yah, so they were just doing what everybody else had done before them. Those people living there had probably killed off another group in order to gain that territory. Just like Russia with Siberia, the Turks with the Middle East, the Indo-Europeans with the early Bronze-age Greece. This is how things were for thousands of years all over the globe by all people. Now is different. We are aware of different countries and their cultures, and work as a global community to preserve these existing groups, regardless of what may have happened in millenia passed. When Germany invaded its neighbors in the world wars, when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, when Serbia invaded Bosnia, and many other times, countries outside the area of conflict have come in to help. Now there have been times when outside intervention didn't take place or when it took a while to get started, and these all have reasons: maybe the other countries weren't in a position to effectively intervene with political, economic, or social problems of their own, maybe the leaders of those countries didn't think it was in their country's best interest, and on and on. The world is a complicated place, but let me tell you, No country is inherently evil, including the US and Iraq. Sometimes the leaders of the countries will do bad things with their power, and this has happened in both of the above examples. However, because of the greater freedom of the people in democracies, their greater extent of knowledge about what is happening, and their greater control over their country, these bad occurances happen much less. The more countries that become democracies the less leaders will be able to do bad things with their power, so until we think of a better system we are right in encouraging non-democratic countries to become democratic. Whether this be economically like with China, or militarily like in Afghanistan, the change is for the good, and this opinion is shared by all democratic countries, hence the coalition that has been built to help change Afghanistan.
Now to address other topics brought up in this thread:
Using the atomic bombs in Japan was necessary to end the war. They were fanatically opposed to surrender, and it would have cost a quarter million American lives to try to take the country by conventional means.
The US was not the only country to help liberate Kuwait
. Granted the idea of Iraq taking over and controlling the oil production there did spur the outside countries to get going faster, even if the oil was not an issue these countries still would have attacked in order to preserve the identity of Kuwait and its culture. Now there can be examples brought up that demonstrate where nobody intervened, like in Rwanda, but there are reasonable explanations for these, not just some global evil US plot. In the case of Rwanda, what led to nobody sending in help was started by Belgian troops withdrawing, which caused a political domino effect that I will not go into the details of for a lack of time. Combatting the USSR is also a very complicated issue. The whole thing started with the USSR keeping all the territory it liberated during WW2, rather than granting them the autonomy they had prior to the German takeover. This led to the spread of their "communism", which was actually despotism, and the removal of the freedom those citizens had originally enjoyed. Also, by being dictators, the leaders in the USSR were free to abuse their power and do things that had detrimental effects to countless people. Now on the US side not all the leaders were perfect, but since the US was a democracy they couldn't get away with nearly as much as their counterparts in the USSR. Also, now that many of the things they did have been made public, it will be just that much more difficult for future leaders of the US to do the same sorts of things.
On to Vietnam. The US got involved in Vietnam by responding to a request from their ally: France. The citizens of the US agreed to the war because it was about preserving the freedom of South Vietnam, whether or not it was a free country, it was an independent country with its own identity. Some political leaders in the US abused their power to get the war started, and then tried to control the war themselves rather then letting military leaders control it, leading to a long drawn-out war. Eventually, due to the freedom of the people in a democracy such as the US, the government was forced to quit the war by their own citizens, even when they could have won. This just shows how when leaders in a democracy do something bad, the people can correct it. Today, people are aware of what those leaders did, and hence are watching the conflict in Afghanistan carefully, and will watch future conflicts carefully as well, rather than succumb to the blind patriotism that prevailed following WW2. While there is patriotism today, it does not stop the media and people in general from criticising the government like in the past. This shows another benefit of a free democracy: the ability for a country and its people to learn from and be educated about the past, so they won't make the same mistakes in the future.
Next time somebody decides to blindly disagree with the global majority just to try to sound different, even though in their stupidity they are sounding just like the rest of their groupies, do some research first on the topics. Then maybe you'll realise why the majority agree with the current policies of the democratic countries.
Originally posted by SunTzu
The Kyoto Treaty does not have our interest in mind. so we threw it out the door. Go Bush!
But it has the interest of the world in mind. Good to know where the US stands on the interests of our future.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
No more personal attacks on another poster, Soyuz.
That is not permitted here.
And keep this in mind, "I am the law, and you'd better believe it"
Non-sense.
The Japanese had no intentions of EVER surrendering, it would have taken an invasion of Japan with millions of US losses (3 million for Kyushu alone) and tens of millions of Japanese civillian and military losses.
What is sick is that most people try to launch revisionist histories today, and think so little of the tremendous amount of deaths that would have been incurred without the atomic attacks.
That's called not seeing the forest for the trees.
It also provided one third of all food for Soviet armies. 50% of soviet uniforms, 90% of Soviet trucks, 20% of all petrolium products, the list is endless.
Without the USA, YOU would all be dead and burried, we would still be standing, and central europe would be a radiation zone(the A-bomb was intended for Hitler originally, the USA would have used it on Germany if needed)
It took that long for the USA and Britain to build up supplies, train forces, and build weapons for a cross channel invasion.
The Sacrifice of the Russian people to destroy facsism shall never be forgotten.
Those are complex issues I won't deal with here.
And rightfully so.
The USSR spraed misery and suffering across the world, there is no deneying it.
That is just a silly statement.
Ha Ha, you tell him to open his eyes, than accuse him of being a lemimng!
Amazing.
Sound advice, you would do well to follow it.
Never again post such a statement, or you will be banned from this place.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Soyuz wins the Troll Poster Of The Year Award for 2001 and all subsequent years. Of course, the TPTY Award was my idea twenty seconds ago...so you only get one award.
RedWolf
Deity
Too bad that France was fighting an illegal war of occupation. They were a colonial power trying to reclaim their previously conquered territory.
(Not sure what I hate more - capitalism or colonialism. They both involve greed and the exploitation of another group of people)
The Vietnamese had enough and were throwing their opressors out of their country. (Except for the people that had much to gain from the status quo... the corrupt South Vietnamese politicians and military officers were in many cases aiding and abetting the Viet Cong)
France had many problems after WW2, and if the communist countries of China and the USSR hadn't started funding the opposition to France in Vietnam, then other countries would have pressured France into giving up their former territories like the other former colonial powers were doing at the time. Even if France had wanted to keep Indo-China, it would have been impossible in the new era. Once China and the USSR began funding North Vietnam, then it became a conflict over stopping the spread of their influence over Southeast Asia. If that area had become dictatorial puppits of the USSR, then any chance for their freedom would have been lost.
adamsj
Gaint Hobbit!
The IRA would be my opinion, but now it is only the "Real IRA" are being unpeaceful!
Ok, a little spam/troll/comment (and I want to believe that this is a creative comment)
round from me:
if any country would be forced into it. So Bush can scrap the deal, if he wants and/or
he sees the contract someway bad.
stupid and forgot half of the facts. And I said often, there are exceptions.
It was really necessary to end the war. There were other options to end war, but this was the simplest and the best.
"One death is a tragedy. Million deaths is a statistic" -Iosef 'Stalin'
In 125 years the USA has changed a LOT. And it is absurd to punish grand-children of guilties.
Wow you discovered it! Such a new thing!
Oh, and it's now time for Graeme's sooo genius signature:
- Don't take anything I say seriosly ; Except the serious stuff
(EDIT: Quote stuff)
round from me:
The decision was straight from arse, but Kyoto treatment would not also workOriginally posted by SunTzu
The Kyoto Treaty does not have our interest in mind. so we threw it out the door. Go Bush!
if any country would be forced into it. So Bush can scrap the deal, if he wants and/or
he sees the contract someway bad.
Yes it is, but it's still operational, so if Russia wants to keep the contract open, you cannot disagree.
Can you? It seems that you cannot.
There's no reason to get offensive. Except if ur angry. People who are angry, are often
stupid and forgot half of the facts. And I said often, there are exceptions.
Test? Yes. Sick? Naaah. Unecessary? Never.
It was really necessary to end the war. There were other options to end war, but this was the simplest and the best.
No we wouldn't. We would be dead.
This is something really stupid. Why ww2 ended 1945, why not before?
Lets again play that cliché from Operation Flashpoint:
"One death is a tragedy. Million deaths is a statistic" -Iosef 'Stalin'
By that time, the court -matter will be more like a matter of reveange.
In 125 years the USA has changed a LOT. And it is absurd to punish grand-children of guilties.
I agree, most heartfeatluethruerth.
You don't answer creatively by using old rhetorics.
Purely opinion, no comments.
Wow you discovered it! Such a new thing! Oh, and it's now time for Graeme's sooo genius signature:
- Don't take anything I say seriosly ; Except the serious stuff
(EDIT: Quote stuff)
BigBirdZ28
Fundamentalist in a Z28
I dont think this fair to have this poll without including Israelie leaders.
Translated from a news article (summary, not word by word).
Two studies one from the UN and another independent have published the following. The genocide was planed at the lasted of the fall of 1992(the murders was committed 1994). A half of a million machetes were imported and distributed in good time. Diplomats in Rwanda knew about that the radio was talking about that the people should get ready to the final extinction of the Tutsi people. Still money was given to the regime and France supported it military, this military support was even given after the genocide had begun. After pressure from the US and France the UN withdraw two weeks into the genocide the small force of UN-troops that were in Rwanda. Most of the forces involved have however said to be sorry about it, but not France.
So you might causation who stood behind Bagosora, the corneal accused of being the leader of the genocide.
Two studies one from the UN and another independent have published the following. The genocide was planed at the lasted of the fall of 1992(the murders was committed 1994). A half of a million machetes were imported and distributed in good time. Diplomats in Rwanda knew about that the radio was talking about that the people should get ready to the final extinction of the Tutsi people. Still money was given to the regime and France supported it military, this military support was even given after the genocide had begun. After pressure from the US and France the UN withdraw two weeks into the genocide the small force of UN-troops that were in Rwanda. Most of the forces involved have however said to be sorry about it, but not France.
So you might causation who stood behind Bagosora, the corneal accused of being the leader of the genocide.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
On the Kyoto Accord:
The US never ratified it, as it was unduly restrictive on the US economy. Since the US did not ratify it, it was never binding upon the US, and therefore the US cannot be accused of violating it.
On the ABM treaty:
The US signed and ratified this treaty with the USSR. A treaty is valid while the two parties that signed it exist. Please point on a current world map the the USSR. You can't? Oh, well. Then I guess the ABM treaty is so much toliet paper, isn't it?
The US never ratified it, as it was unduly restrictive on the US economy. Since the US did not ratify it, it was never binding upon the US, and therefore the US cannot be accused of violating it.
On the ABM treaty:
The US signed and ratified this treaty with the USSR. A treaty is valid while the two parties that signed it exist. Please point on a current world map the the USSR. You can't? Oh, well. Then I guess the ABM treaty is so much toliet paper, isn't it?
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Maybe, but I hope the USA will sell the rest of the world low-price oxygen tanks whn your precious industry ruins the quality of our air.
Typical of the USA.
"Make money now, Screw the future!"
Disgusting.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Yeah, us capitalist nations sure did screw up the environment good.
Thank God for Cuba and North Korea protecting the O-zone layer!
Thank God for Cuba and North Korea protecting the O-zone layer!
