quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


To the best of my knowledge, the 'heaviest' weapon the British Army (no bunch of angels by any measure) used during 25 years of war in Ireland was a light machine gun. During a counter-insurgency strategy in both urban and rural theatres and not a single rocket, missile, piece of artillery, helicopter gunship, naval artillery, fighter or bomber plane was fired.

Just as a little addition to that re the IRA: they generally gave advanced warning of their targets in England. Yet they were still termed 'terrorists'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Still, we're talking about the methods by which the US is allegedly seeking control over these parts of the world. As you probably already know, the US started out as an expansionist power seeking to control much of the North American continent, which we gained mostly through force. To me, the moral implications of greed, expansionism, and imposing our will on other nations are basically the same, whether done through war, subterfuge, or diplomatic intrigue.

The primary difference is whether we want to control a territory directly under our own laws and enforcement mechanisms - or through non-American proxies and mercenaries to whom we would have to give up part of our control to. It's a risk, and we've seen numerous times where the policy has failed to maintain US control. To the best of my knowledge, the US has never lost any of its own territory to war, insurrection, or revolution. But we have lost territories where we attempted to control by proxy, such as in Iran, Cuba, and South Vietnam. So, in terms of the US taking one path or the other, the covert rule-by-proxy approach has demonstrated a higher rate of failure. Hell, we've had to invade Iraq twice in the past quarter century due to wanting to keep up appearances and make the world think that we respect Iraqi sovereignty and independence. Yet, we still don't have them under any positive control and we might have to invade again.

So, either the US government doesn't actually want control over the region, or our policies have been engineered by complete twits who have led us to a failed foreign policy and a crumbling economy here at home.

The other countries of the world have more than just the two options you outlined above. There are other major powers in this world which, if they chose to, could seriously give the US a run for its money in terms of world domination. The US is not the only game in town. And, because we've wasted so much of our resources and capital on failed policies, we're now in an overall weaker position in terms of our reputation and ability to influence the world than we were at the end of WW2. Looking at the results of how it's affected America, the policy you're referring to has already shown itself to be a failure.

And there's still no end in sight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Israel gives advance notice of air strikes but that doesn't help them with you.

I don't know what that means.

Israel drops pamphlets warning civilians of an impending air strike.
In spite of this you insist that Israel is out to bomb civilians.
Who is at fault when Hamas doesn't let the civilians leave.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

The British mainland suffered for decades from IRA attacks, Bama. We didn't fire missiles that destroyed large chunks of Northern Ireland, though. In my book, if you claim to fight terrorists, you fight terrorists, and not the ordinary people, the women and the children, who happen to live nearby. Especially not if your military is state of the art and funded to the tune of $3 billion per year from a foreign government. It's a fucking cowardly, disgusting, disgrace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


First:welcome back glad to see you again.

I think many of the clothes that others wear that seem to be u.s. are acutally made in asia. The music and starbucks may be home grown usa though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Yes, but we did set up shop in Ireland; you can't expect to set up shop in someone else's country and expect them to play by your rules.

So, let's have it right. The IRA and the Palestinians are similar organisations. I'm not saying I support either, in fact I couldn't care less if they all kill one another, but surely no one could see the IRA cause as any different to the Palestinian cause?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


To the best of my knowledge, the 'heaviest' weapon the British Army (no bunch of angels by any measure) used during 25 years of war in Ireland was a light machine gun. During a counter-insurgency strategy in both urban and rural theatres and not a single rocket, missile, piece of artillery, helicopter gunship, naval artillery, fighter or bomber plane was fired.

Just as a little addition to that re the IRA: they generally gave advanced warning of their targets in England. Yet they were still termed 'terrorists'.

The key word is generally. It was not universally true. They did not fore warn 10 Downing the day the attacked it did they?
Or anyone at the Brighton Hotel in 1984 either did they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The British mainland suffered for decades from IRA attacks, Bama. We didn't fire missiles that destroyed large chunks of Northern Ireland, though. In my book, if you claim to fight terrorists, you fight terrorists, and not the ordinary people, the women and the children, who happen to live nearby. Especially not if your military is state of the art and funded to the tune of $3 billion per year from a foreign government. It's a fucking cowardly, disgusting, disgrace.

quote:


Yes, but we did set up shop in Ireland; you can't expect to set up shop in someone else's country and expect them to play by your rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: thishereboi
There really should be some kind of award for the most arrogant bullshit posted on the forums to date.

There should be some kind of award for the ignorant cunt who only opens her mouth to change feet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

No but peons post here suggested that some might think he is out of line because he isn't following the rest you on this.

So because Peon takes a different view to me, that makes your post valid. ?

quote:


What most of us already know that if you don't have a point to make you fall back on standard insults. You are certainly predictable if nothing else.

As if you dont. You are as bad as anyone else but love to play goody two shoes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Yes, but we did set up shop in Ireland; you can't expect to set up shop in someone else's country and expect them to play by your rules.

So, let's have it right. The IRA and the Palestinians are similar organisations. I'm not saying I support either, in fact I couldn't care less if they all kill one another, but surely no one could see the IRA cause as any different to the Palestinian cause?

It is vastly different in Gaza NG. The British didnt blockade Norther Ireland and stop food supplies from getting in. The British also include the Protestants in Ulster, who under any circumstances are still true Irishman, at this point someone will mention the Plantations but lets not forget that was carried out under a Scottish King intent of uniting thee whole of the UK as one. A better analogy for the troubles would be the Sunni and Shia conflict.

Israel either need to get out of the occupied territories or start treating Palestinians as equal to Israelis, The Palestinians need to realise Israel is here to stay and debate peace acceptable to both sides. The problem is, as i have stated before, both sides are intransigent, more so now than a month ago. Lets hope the 72 hour ceasefire being talked of comes into being, at least it gives time for some cool thinking.