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

We don't do bodycounts

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    MeatProduct
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭MeatProduct


    FYI wrote: »
    "The United States is the largest supplier of weapons to developing nations, delivering more than $9.6 billion in arms to Near East and Asian countries last year.

    The U.S. sales to the developing countries helped boost worldwide weapons sales to the highest level since 2000, a congressional study says.

    The total worldwide value of all agreements to sell arms last year was close to $37 billion, and nearly 59 percent of the agreements were to sell weapons to developing nations, according to the Congressional Research Service report."

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0901-08.htm
    And it's not like anyone ever got hurt by weapons is it?

    Nick


  • Options
    #153
    SpAcEd OuT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,963 ✭✭✭SpAcEd OuT


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Obviously he couldn't influence things militarily, and politically he as pretty much out in the cold among his neighbors.

    Yes but that was by choice. Thats not to say he wouldn't have had a strong influence in his neighboring countries if he decided to get involved and you can be sure he would have done everything in his power to disrupt America's progress in the middle east.... a lot like what Iran is doing to America right now.


  • Options
    #154
    SpAcEd OuT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,963 ✭✭✭SpAcEd OuT


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    But that's not a good measure since they have a larger pool to collect from.
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-per-capita

    Those estimates aren't fair as they don't count the billions of dollars the USA govt. donates to NGOs and the billions of dollars worth of debt owed that the USA wipes clean every year.


  • Options
    #155
    FYI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭FYI


    SpAcEd OuT wrote: »
    Those estimates aren't fair as they don't count the billions of dollars the USA govt. donates to NGOs and the billions of dollars worth of debt owed that the USA wipes clean every year.


    Or the billions the US wipes off it's own debts every year, as the dollar is devalued.


  • Options
    #156
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    FYI wrote: »
    Or the billions the US wipes off it's own debts every year, as the dollar is devalued.

    The US does not care about any other country .Its US first and it suits it now to have the dollar lower than the Euro and other currencies as it has to deal with its huge trade deficits .It should sort itself out and stop playing policeman to the world .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    SpAcEd OuT wrote: »
    Yes but that was by choice. Thats not to say he wouldn't have had a strong influence in his neighboring countries if he decided to get involved and you can be sure he would have done everything in his power to disrupt America's progress in the middle east.... a lot like what Iran is doing to America right now.
    Which is it SpAcEd OuT?
    You claim that Saddam obviously had influence in the ME, then when that's refuted you claim that he could have had influence if he wanted to.
    Did he have obvious influence or not?

    And tell me SpAcEd OuT, what's the problem with "disrupt America's progress in the middle east"? You talk as though that amounts to some crime or something.
    Surely it's in Iran's interest to influence events in Iraq even if it requires disrupting America's plans. Any self-respecting nation would. Iran (a country which shares a long border with Iraq, and has been involved in massive bloody war with that country) has more right to be there and influence Iraq politically than America does.


  • Options
    #158
    SpAcEd OuT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,963 ✭✭✭SpAcEd OuT


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Which is it SpAcEd OuT?
    You claim that Saddam obviously had influence in the ME, then when that's refuted you claim that he could have had influence if he wanted to.
    Did he have obvious influence or not?

    I'm saying that Iraq had influence in the ME it just chose not to exercise that influence after the Gulf War. However that certainly wouldn't have remained the same if Afghanistan had become an American ally as Sadaam would've done everything in his power to ensure that America's influence in the ME was not increased any further. America foresaw this and decided while they were placed in the ME to get rid of Sadaam and his brutal regime while at the same time ensuring stability in the ME.



    RedPlanet wrote: »
    And tell me SpAcEd OuT, what's the problem with "disrupt America's progress in the middle east"? You talk as though that amounts to some crime or something.
    Surely it's in Iran's interest to influence events in Iraq even if it requires disrupting America's plans. Any self-respecting nation would. Iran (a country which shares a long border with Iraq, and has been involved in massive bloody war with that country) has more right to be there and influence Iraq politically than America does.

    I'm sorry but any country that funds suicide bombers and actively aids in the destruction of state as well as helping to intensify a civilian war deserves absolutely no say in how said country is run. Iran is playing with fire and is going to get burnt.


  • Options
    #159
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Sounds like what your really saying is that while you accept that Saddam was not influencing things in the ME, nevertheless USA felt he might. Therefore it's ok for them to launch bloody war and kill countless thousands.
    Nice guys huh?


    any country that funds suicide bombers and actively aids in the destruction of state as well as helping to intensify a civilian war deserves absolutely no say in how said country is run. Iran is playing with fire and is going to get burnt.
    "Suicide bombers" is a tactic employed by people whom do not have access to modern weaponry, otherwise they'd probably elect to initiate attacks from a safe distance. I respect their bravery sometimes. Afterall, the attack on the USS Cole in broad daylight required a lot more bravery then the american's employ via their ranged attacks for example.
    It's cultural and about honor too though. For example the Japanese kamikaze pilots during WWII. "Human-Wave" tactics employed by Russia, Korea, China and Iran are similar i think. The brave Viet Cong also used "suicide bombers".
    But that's a different debate.
    Certainly it matters not to the deceased whether they were killed by an explosive device smuggled into their proximity secretly, or from a 1000lb bomb dropped for a massive height.
    All those other things you find so disapproving however:
    actively aids in the destruction of state as well as helping to intensify a civilian war"
    are things the US has done aplenty, and indeed some of which they are currently doing.
    For example the destruction of Iraq. Completely against the UN Charter.


  • Options
    #160
    SpAcEd OuT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,963 ✭✭✭SpAcEd OuT


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Sounds like what your really saying is that while you accept that Saddam was not influencing things in the ME, nevertheless USA felt he might. Therefore it's ok for them to launch bloody war and kill countless thousands

    That was only one of the reasons. They were also going in to rid the world of a dictator who had brutally murdered his own people, defied the United Nations, was a liability to the ME and at the very least had the capabilities to produce WMDs which in the past he had readily used on his own people.

    [By the way I still think to this day Sadaam did have WMDs and perhaps they are either still hidden in Iraq or were brought to Syria but thats another matter.]

    RedPlanet wrote: »
    "Suicide bombers" is a tactic employed by people whom do not have access to modern weaponry, otherwise they'd probably elect to initiate attacks from a safe distance. I respect their bravery sometimes.

    I'm referring to the funding of suicide bombers who directly target civilians. Iran know what is going on and where their money is going but in their eyes this is perfectly acceptable.
    RedPlanet wrote: »
    It's cultural and about honor too though. For example the Japanese kamikaze pilots during WWII. "Human-Wave" tactics employed by Russia, Korea, China and Iran are similar i think. The brave Viet Cong also used "suicide bombers".
    But that's a different debate.

    I think it's a whole different ball game when the target is military though. The problem I have is with the direct targeting of civilians by suicide bombers and as such I have a problem with Iran funding said suicide bombers.
    RedPlanet wrote: »
    All those other things you find so disapproving however: are things the US has done aplenty, and indeed some of which they are currently doing.
    For example the destruction of Iraq. Completely against the UN Charter.

    The US aren't destroying Iraq, Iran is. If Iran wasn't funding and arming the insurgents then the US would be able to concentrate on the rebuilding of Iraq and not on having to deal with daily attacks. Iran could drastically calm the civil war as well by cutting off support for the militias they are funding. If Iran really cared about Iraq they wouldn't be doing this but they are and I wouldn't be surprised if the US decide to do something about it.


Advertisement