It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USA is the world's biggest terrorist?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
For a few days now I was thinking about this, the past few decades, USA has always fought with other countries. Almost none of the countries did anything to USA but USA always came up with one reason or another to attack them. Is USA the biggest international bully of them all? Osama deserves to be killed but most of the other countries were just minding their own business right? I mean none of them have blue sea capabilities and no country has came to threaten USA with nuclear weapons until now. Comment people?

[edit on 30-9-2004 by COWlan]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
"Almost none of the countries did anything to USA but USA always came up with one reason or another to attack them..."
I don't mean to be rude, but, you're joking, right?
I'll bite: what country - or countries - have we attacked that have done nothing to us?



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by B Genki
"Almost none of the countries did anything to USA but USA always came up with one reason or another to attack them..."
I don't mean to be rude, but, you're joking, right?
I'll bite: what country - or countries - have we attacked that have done nothing to us?


afganastan

iraq

veitnam

korea
and the list can go on and on..

[edit on 30-9-2004 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 30-9-2004 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Damn - I guess our school systems are really falling apart if people don't understand why we fought in Korea and Vietnam.

TO not know why we are in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, is ignorance.

DENY IT!




posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I do admit we somewhat glorify violence in media/entertainment

As far as being the biggest terrorists...i think its a small group that pupeteers terrorism on a broad scale worldwide. I think this small group doesnt call themselves anything like USA,Russia, China, muslim,christian,democrat,republican, Illuminati etc...JUST MASTER. Who are the MASTERS? I honestly dont know.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
You are in Iraq because of your sistem needing a war (or another walve) and your sistem's administration obeying to the need.

When a drinkin' water will become a greater problem than oil, than California will attack Wisconsin and Michigan.


As per your schoolar sistem... each country in the world is trying to adapt the hystory a little bit to it's own needs to create washed brains that will belive and follow. Isn't this normal?

[edit on 30-9-2004 by An VanderVeld]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
i see where your coming from. America does have that 'big bully' attitude. think of the cold war, we had nukes aimed at us and communist were just saying 'watch your butt' and how did we respond? we aimed ours back! didn't like being told to behave did we? now we do the same thing to these third world countries and we are 'liberating' them. We can shove, but do not shove back. Although we kind of turned our heads from Cuba and Russia since the cold war, maybe all "we" need is stood up too.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
Damn - I guess our school systems are really falling apart if people don't understand why we fought in Korea and Vietnam.

TO not know why we are in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, is ignorance.

DENY IT!




we are in Iraq for what.. WMD... where tf are they..

Afganastan.. we are there why... no reason what so ever... the taliban told our governeemnt if they had hard proof that bin laden had anything remotely to do with 9/11 they would turn him in... well we took thier country over...

get a clue...


vietnam and korea.. the spread of comunism... and were has that gotten us today.. the same as it was at the beginning of those 2 wars...

hmm yes sucks your school system sucks tell them to teach the right things and we wouldnt have this issues that contradict themselves...

you know like who killed JFK.. hmmm.. lee harvey oswald right... wrong the governement did in unclasified documents states they took him out...

so dont tell me that the school system sucks we aready know that...

[edit on 30-9-2004 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Afghanistan-We invaded Afghanistan to provide Starbucks, porn DVD's and a good herion trade.

Vietnam- Business, plain and simple and to stop the constant threat of Communism

Korea- This was not MASH 4077, a battle to thrawt communism after NK invaded

Iraq- To establish a foothold in the middle east to secure the safety of our business interests

Are any of these close????

Also, since day 1 we have been a country founded on terrorist acts. If the Boston tea party occured today, our forefathers would be in a cell in Cuba.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   
AfgHanistan (you'll seem smarter if you spell correctly): The Taliban were supporting Bin Laden. That means they were helping him bomb us. The gov't. even showed the world a tape of Bin Laden talking about it. They were as guilty as he.

Iraq: Same deal. With very little internet research, you can find plenty of evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected. In addition, Saddam was firing missles at will ALMOST DAILY at U.S. and UK planes along the U.N. mandated No-Fly zone. He had broken every UN resolution. Diplomacy had been tried for 11 years. On top of that, Saddam and his two sons had actual rape rooms where they raped their own citizens. They butchered their own people, used Nerve gas (a WMD!) on their own people. C'mon, get real. Iraq needed to happen.

Vietnam: the tricky one, I'll admit. In this case, as with Korea, we weren't fighting Vietnam so much as we were fighting the USSR (albeit through a proxy). Politicians set the rules up so as to make it impossible for us to clearly win this, out of fear of a direct conflict with the USSR and their nukes. But we were fighting against (and I can't spell his name right) Kruschev (sp) who publicly stated that his USSR block would someday bury America.
Let me give you an analogy of another way I see this (and I welcome different opinions): if you see a little old lady across the street getting beat up by some thugs, all smaller than you, and you do nothing. YOU ARE CONDONING EVIL by allowing it to continue. Refusing assistance you are able to give is selfish and evil in and of itself. The Vietnamese gov't WANTED us there.

Korea: Ditto.

BTW: a bit of personal background: I've been to Iraq, and Korea. Both the Iraqi people - without exception - and the older Koreans who remember that war expressed heart-felt thanks to me for being an American and for being there to help them (I am former Army.) I'll say that part again: EVERY Iraqi I spoke with was glad we were there. Some hateful clergymen are pitting their people against us - the one's who freed them - for personal power, im my opinion.

Those are my thoughts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Korea- The UN decided to invade Korea. The US just made up the bulk of the forces because, well, we cam out on top in WWII. We defended South Korea becasue it could not do so itself and reuqested help. Also, it was to prvent the spread of Communsit influence.

Vietnam- Basically same motivations as Korea, although we fubared it up.

Iraq I- Again, basically the same as above. Kuwait requested assistance because it coudl not defend itself, we provided it. Again, we had personal motivations as well.

Afghanistan- The Northern Alliance did most of the fighting there. We just provided support.

Iraq II- You may have a point here.

Look at it this way- In the past 100 years, every war the US fought was not because we were in a direct threat, but to dismantle a threat that could become direct because those nations that were in real danger lacked the ability to defend themselves. People ask why America thinks it's the world's police. The answer is because for the past century, we basically have been.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by An VanderVeld
You are in Iraq because of your sistem needing a war (or another walve) and your sistem's administration obeying to the need.


No one cares what you think, Spam Queen. Why did you change your account? What do you know of foreign policy. Why do you reside in Italy, a nation of the coalition? Does your back hurt? What was that web site again?

[edit on 04/9/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by B Genki
AfgHanistan (you'll seem smarter if you spell correctly): The Taliban were supporting Bin Laden. That means they were helping him bomb us. The gov't. even showed the world a tape of Bin Laden talking about it. They were as guilty as he.

Iraq: Same deal. With very little internet research, you can find plenty of evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected. In addition, Saddam was firing missles at will ALMOST DAILY at U.S. and UK planes along the U.N. mandated No-Fly zone. He had broken every UN resolution. Diplomacy had been tried for 11 years. On top of that, Saddam and his two sons had actual rape rooms where they raped their own citizens. They butchered their own people, used Nerve gas (a WMD!) on their own people. C'mon, get real. Iraq needed to happen.

Vietnam: the tricky one, I'll admit. In this case, as with Korea, we weren't fighting Vietnam so much as we were fighting the USSR (albeit through a proxy). Politicians set the rules up so as to make it impossible for us to clearly win this, out of fear of a direct conflict with the USSR and their nukes. But we were fighting against (and I can't spell his name right) Kruschev (sp) who publicly stated that his USSR block would someday bury America.
Let me give you an analogy of another way I see this (and I welcome different opinions): if you see a little old lady across the street getting beat up by some thugs, all smaller than you, and you do nothing. YOU ARE CONDONING EVIL by allowing it to continue. Refusing assistance you are able to give is selfish and evil in and of itself. The Vietnamese gov't WANTED us there.

Korea: Ditto.

BTW: a bit of personal background: I've been to Iraq, and Korea. Both the Iraqi people - without exception - and the older Koreans who remember that war expressed heart-felt thanks to me for being an American and for being there to help them (I am former Army.) I'll say that part again: EVERY Iraqi I spoke with was glad we were there. Some hateful clergymen are pitting their people against us - the one's who freed them - for personal power, im my opinion.

Those are my thoughts. Tell me where you think I'm wrong.


WHO was bombing WHO? WHO ever bombed YOU?


1.Oh, you are talking about the planes? Than is not called bombing but "planeing", I guess. (cos' "they" were not bombing "you" yet since you haven't gone to war anywhere yet in that occasion, but this is not "you" anymore but your troops somewhere out of your country, baby)



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by An VanderVeld
You are in Iraq because of your sistem needing a war (or another walve) and your sistem's administration obeying to the need.


No one cares what you think, Spam Queen. Why did you change your account? What do you know of foreign policy. Why do you reside in Italy, a nation of the coalition? Does your back hurt? What was that web site again?

[edit on 04/9/30 by GradyPhilpott]



Spam Queen... That would be me. While "No one" would be you, right?
I changed my account under the request of the moderators of this forum.
What do I know about foreign policy? Stupid question, nothing of course... Residence in Italy means attacking the hipocrisy in the hearth, so call me activist, hehe! Why would my back hurt?

Oh, and the website was brain-for-grady.com, but this time sign it, ok?



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
Almost none of the countries did anything to USA but USA always came up with one reason or another to attack them. Is USA the biggest international bully of them all?


To call the US a terroist nation is beyond ignorance. We are the Humanitarian Nation. If you bothered to do some serious research, you would find that the US has never attacked a nation without just cause. And not only that, but the best thing that can happen to a nation is to lose a war to the US. Compare the fate of West Germany compared to East Germany. The fate of Japan versus the fate of Vietnam. Consider the following:



Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of
U.S. Programs and Policy


In 2004, the United States is providing some form of foreign assistance to about 150 countries. Israel and Egypt continue, as they have since the late 1970s, as the largest recipients, although Iraq, receiving over $20 billion for reconstruction activities since mid-2003, is the biggest recipient in FY2004. The importance of Latin America counter-narcotics efforts is also evident, with Bolivia, Peru, and more recently, Colombia, among the top U.S. aid recipients. The impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent use of foreign aid to support the war on terrorism is clearly seen in the country-aid allocations for FY2004.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, and Indonesia are key partners in the war on terrorism.

By nearly all measures, the amount of foreign aid provided by the United States declined for several decades but has grown in the past few years. After hitting an all time low in the mid1990s, total foreign assistance (but excluding Iraq reconstruction) for FY2003/2004, in real terms, has been larger than any two-year period since the mid-1980s. The 0.2% of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid
obligations the past two years, however, is among the smallest amounts in the last half-century. The United States is the largest international economic aid donor in dollar terms but is the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated as a percent of gross national income.

[]

Iraq Reconstruction Funding

The U.S. assistance program to Iraq the largest aid initiative since the 1948-1951 Marshall
Plan supports the long-term reconstruction requirements of the country following the March 2003 U.S. invasion and overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Funds have been mostly directed at improving the security capabilities of the Iraqi police and armed forces, at making rapid
improvements in infrastructure including electricity, oil, water and sewage, and telecommunications and promoting democratization efforts. To date, two emergency supplemental appropriations have provided funds for these purposes (P.L. 108-11 for FY2003 and P.L. 108-106 for FY2004). The bulk of Iraq assistance nearly $21 billion of the $23.7 billion
that is expected to support the program is held in an Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund controlled by the Office of the President and delegated to other executive branch agencies.

Because of the size of the Iraq reconstruction effort, including funding figures in FY2003 and FY2004 totals tends to overshadow and obscure key trends in changing foreign aid budget and policy priorities. Therefore, unless otherwise noted in the text and figures, funding amounts noted
in this report exclude figures for Iraq reconstruction. In many instances, however, a notation is made stating what a particular amount would equal if Iraq assistance was included.

[]

Humanitarian assistance. In FY2004, Congress appropriated $2.55 billion,
12% of assistance, for programs of humanitarian aid.3 Unlike, development
assistance programs, which are often viewed as long-term efforts that may have the effect of preventing future crises from developing, three programs are devoted largely to the immediate alleviation of humanitarian emergencies. The bulk of humanitarian assistance goes to the refugee program administered by the State Department. It supports, with about $785.5 million in FY2004, a number of refugee relief organizations, including the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Offices of Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA) and Transition Initiatives (OTI) in USAID provide relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance to victims of manmade and natural disasters, activities totaling $529 million in FY2004.







[edit on 04/9/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by An VanderVeld


1.Oh, you are talking about the planes? Than is not called bombing but "planeing", I guess. (cos' "they" were not bombing "you" yet since you haven't gone to war anywhere yet in that occasion, but this is not "you" anymore but your troops somewhere out of your country, baby)


Well, they did explode in a hostile fashion, so technically they'd be 'bombs'. Never heard that word used, though, always just 'attacks'.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Korea- The UN decided to invade Korea. The US just made up the bulk of the forces because, well, we cam out on top in WWII. We defended South Korea becasue it could not do so itself and reuqested help.


According to the US version of history.
The Soviet version is different.

A Timeline of US War (1945 - 1949)

A lot of what they say about Korea can be verified from other sources.

The South Koreans had set up a government of their own which was removed by the US who set up a military government.
The South also provoked a lot of the clashes with the North.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   

The Taliban were supporting Bin Laden.


So? from when supporting someone is a reason enough to kill them?


That means they were helping him bomb us.


Bomb you ...where? have you got any proof that the Talibans actually helped Bin Laden set up 9/11? you don't even have proof of Bin Laden doing it.


The gov't. even showed the world a tape of Bin Laden talking about it.


Right. And the tape was clear enough to admit it was OBL. And then you understood Arabic and you actually can guarrantee the correct translation.


With very little internet research, you can find plenty of evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected.


Internet research does not count. Where is the hardcore proof?


Saddam was firing missles at will ALMOST DAILY at U.S. and UK planes along the U.N. mandated No-Fly zone.


You invaded his country. What did you expect? 1,000,000 children have died in Iraq from 1990, due to UN stopping food and pharmaceutical supplies to Iraq.


He had broken every UN resolution.


So? he does not agree with us. Do you go around and beat everyone that does not agree with you?


Diplomacy had been tried for 11 years.


How can you call bombing and border closing with military means as diplomacy


Saddam and his two sons had actual rape rooms where they raped their own citizens.


It's none of your business.


They butchered their own people, used Nerve gas (a WMD!) on their own people.


It's none of your business.

There are worse dictatorships around the globe, but you did nothing about them.

On 9/11, 30000 Chilian citizens died from Pinochet. You did nothing about them.

More than 900,000 people have been butchered in Indonesia. You have done nothing about them.

More than 1,500,000 people have died the last 5 years in Africa. You have done nothing about them.

More than 50,000 people have been slaughtered by Turkey invaded Cyprus. You have done nothing about them.

More than 5,000,000 Armenians have been killed by Turks. You have done nothing about them.


we were fighting against (and I can't spell his name right) Kruschev (sp) who publicly stated that his USSR block would someday bury America.


It is just words. If you ever saw a Russian missile in a course against you, then you should take defence. There is no excuse for anyone going to Vietnam.

You were just afraid of communism being spread around.


if you see a little old lady across the street getting beat up by some thugs, all smaller than you, and you do nothing. YOU ARE CONDONING EVIL by allowing it to continue. Refusing assistance you are able to give is selfish and evil in and of itself. The Vietnamese gov't WANTED us there.


That's the most lame argument I've heard. Did the old lady asked for help? then call the police. You have no right to play the saviour. These matters have been correctly resolved many years ago, and they are established law by now.


Both the Iraqi people - without exception - and the older Koreans who remember that war expressed heart-felt thanks to me for being an American and for being there to help them (I am former Army.) I'll say that part again: EVERY Iraqi I spoke with was glad we were there.


Your biased testimony does not count. Not only it is biased, but you need proper statistical techniques to extract any meaningful result.


Tell me where you think I'm wrong.


You are wrong, from top, to bottom. But I've got used to it when it comes to USA citizens. It's not their fault, actually.


[edit on 30-9-2004 by masterp]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
For a few days now I was thinking about this, the past few decades, USA has always fought with other countries. Almost none of the countries did anything to USA but USA always came up with one reason or another to attack them.

So when the US comes to the aid of a country that is being invaded by another or helps the people in one country fight people trying to take it over, the US is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? Nazi Germany and Facist Italy didn't attack the US either, and neither did any of the Central Powers, did fighting them make the US terrorists?

Is USA the biggest international bully of them all? Osama deserves to be killed but most of the other countries were just minding their own business right?
What?

I mean none of them have blue sea capabilities and no country has came to threaten USA with nuclear weapons until now.
Do you even have any idea what the cold war and fighting by proxy was even about? And what countries are you thinking of outside of the one's i covered? Afghanistan?

ThichHeaded
afganastan

Harboured bin laden, probably worked with him


iraq

Invaded kuwait the first time, couldn't demonstrate that they had destroyed their wmd to two teams of UN inspectors and harbored terrorists.


veitnam

US never attacked any such country. The US did attack vietnam tho. Is it really necessary to go over why the US was there? The french had pulled out of their former colony because of action from communist rebels supported by china and moscow in part of an over struggle by the communists to bring the revolution abroad and overthrow all non communist states and societies. US intervention was predicated on the non communists requesting support.


korea

Exactly the same as vietnam, except that it was a UN action.

and the list can go on and on..

Please go ahead



If the Boston tea party occured today, our forefathers would be in a cell in Cuba.

Thats a bit of an over-reaction no? The only people in guantanomo are people who were either captured in battle or, like jose padilla, were captured on american soil plotting to plant bombs. If padilla was merely destroying public property he probably wouldn't be in cuba, and if the sons of liberty had been caught they should've been thrown in jail. What they did was clearly illegal. The US certainly wasn't founded on knocking down buildings, strapping powderkegs to kids, or assainating members of the british government.




[edit on 30-9-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Well, they did explode in a hostile fashion, so technically they'd be 'bombs'. Never heard that word used, though, always just 'attacks'.


Well, apparently, when they were passing out brains someone passed and got a double portion of another more lucrative organ. If a certain trollop ever had an American market, she's biting off her nose to spite her face.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join