Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation?

spaceman67

Thank and pray for USA if not USA ,all of you would speak RUSSIAN today and eat your potatoes

The Highwayman

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!

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

Manic Moran

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.

Minor detail, the US got involved in Nov 42.

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.

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

Laois_Man

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.

Invasion. Whatever. You're debating semantics and swerving the point now so what's the point. I'll leave you to it!

ricero

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

so true its so naive and incompetent to think the usa won ww2 although they did play a part it was the red army of russia that defeated hitler and the third reich.

speaking of the third reich theirs things the americans have done that would of even make hitler shudder.

Nodin

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..

....because S Korea used be a dictatorship, backed by the US.......

The Highwayman

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.

I am more than aware of american sponsorship if brutal governments and dictators during the cold war and today. Funding and supporting administrations whos ideals are the polar opposite to the ideals america drones on about being the bed rock of its culture. Oh the irony!

I find it even more ironic that an american would use the word 'ignorant' when talking to someone about foreign policy. Psst kettle this is pot, your black....

So you train and fund Bin Laden and the mujahideen fighters to expell a foreign invader but you dont understand why he fights to expell a foreign invader. Hmmmm ...... thats why people scoff at american foreign policy(if there is one).

America is like a lumbering bully throwing punches not thinking of why it does it or ever considering the consequences of its actions. Then it sulks when nobody comes to its birthday party, and nobody is surprised when its its early twentys comes out as gay.

So 'Cmdr Kean' are you in the military of just a frustrated call of duty player?

The Highwayman

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.

Jeboa Safari

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

Why didn't he then? He obviously knew he couldn't.

The Highwayman

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Why didn't he then? He obviously knew he couldn't.

Who knows maybe after 5 years and 30 million lives he didnt have the stomach for it

With allied appeasement and the total control of eastern europe behind the 'Iron curtain' forming a buffer zone he didnt feel the need for it.

Being slightly behind in the nuclear race and knowing that war would be fought on american soil not european.

Or maybe Stalin sense of honor(yeah your right not likely) he didnt want to attack his allies.

Stalin had the brutal battle hardened power of 20 armies(aprox 2.6 million men), 6,300 tanks and 8,500 aircraft in the field at the end of the war. They had began to wind down war production months before. Even if the allies could match the Russians with producing equipment they could not keep up with man power.

My reason to bring up this point was because an american said if it were not for them then we would all be speaking german, my point is we were closer to speaking russian than german.

We could hypothesis for ever as to weather the red army would have beaten or lost to the allies if people like Patton had had his way and fought on. My point was about america not being the force that defeated the Wehrmacht.

Norwayviking

The Highwayman wrote: »

Who knows maybe after 5 years and 30 million lives he didnt have the stomach for it

With allied appeasement and the total control of eastern europe behind the 'Iron curtain' forming a buffer zone he didnt feel the need for it.

Being slightly behind in the nuclear race and knowing that war would be fought on american soil not european.

Or maybe Stalin sense of honor(yeah your right not likely) he didnt want to attack his allies.

Stalin had the brutal battle hardened power of 20 armies(aprox 2.6 million men), 6,300 tanks and 8,500 aircraft in the field at the end of the war. They had began to wind down war production months before. Even if the allies could match the Russians with producing equipment they could not keep up with man power.

My reason to bring up this point was because an american said if it were not for them then we would all be speaking german, my point is we were closer to speaking russian than german.

We could hypothesis for ever as to weather the red army would have beaten or lost to the allies if people like Patton had had his way and fought on. My point was about america not being the force that defeated the Wehrmacht.

It was the Russians that turned the war around not the Americans.
When the Germans faced the Russian winter it all went downhill for Hitler.
The only thing about the Russians is that they got there arses kicked by the Finns in 1939.
Something Stalin didnt predict.

sxt

Was curious to see what other people thought were the bigggest terrorist nations , so did a google search for that and this is the first link that comes up


http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/TNJ22N2CMFFOJSN00

The most approved answer was this one

" not every muslim is a terrorist but every terrorist is a muslim...muslims appear to the world as violent,wicked,intolerant,back ward people. "


Scary...

FreudianSlippers

Without a doubt, the US is the most religiously extreme, fascist and ignorant state on the planet, but I wouldn't say they are terrorists.

philologos

How is the USA fascist?

Religiously extreme - I guess by Irish standards, but you should really take a look at Saudi Arabia or Iran and compare with the USA. I think you'll find the US fades in comparison.

Ignorant - I'd say it's a mixed bag. There are a lot of people living in the US that are also very intelligent.

Donkey Oaty

Jakkass wrote: »

There are a lot of people living in the US that are also very intelligent.

I've never been there, but I watch Judge Judy regularly and I'm inclined to disagree.

FreudianSlippers

Jakkass wrote: »

How is the USA fascist?

Religiously extreme - I guess by Irish standards, but you should really take a look at Saudi Arabia or Iran and compare with the USA. I think you'll find the US fades in comparison.

Ignorant - I'd say it's a mixed bag. There are a lot of people living in the US that are also very intelligent.

As Roger Griffin put it in his paper (http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/resources/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf)

Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism. [...] fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led "armed party" which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation's imminent rebirth from decadence.

See: Fox News.

As far as religious extremism, I suppose SA and Iran are more "extreme" because they do not follow your prescribed religious views. But that is your view on what is and ought to be considered "extreme". The US bandies about Christianity like it's going out of style (which it is and should be - bar in the US).

As for ignorant, a high number of academics in the US are foreign or at the very least foreign educated. It is a sad sad day when creationism is being taught along-side evolution in schools in the US and a majority in many states believe that this is the way it ought to be. To allow people to believe the Earth is 5,000 years old and to reject that we orbit the Sun is insanity and ignorant in itself.

Clawdeeus

OisinT wrote: »

Without a doubt, the US is the most religiously extreme, fascist and ignorant state on the planet, but I wouldn't say they are terrorists.

Really?

Good god.

philologos

OisinT wrote: »

As Roger Griffin put it in his paper (http://ah.brookes.ac.uk/resources/griffin/coreoffascism.pdf)

I'd generally also include the caveat that fascist regimes are actually repressive to liberty as well, and generally are led by a dictator rather than being democratically elected.

OisinT wrote: »

As far as religious extremism, I suppose SA and Iran are more "extreme" because they do not follow your prescribed religious views. But that is your view on what is and ought to be considered "extreme".

Not at all. It's obvious to anyone that Iran and Saudi Arabia are different kettles of fish to the USA except for someone with a clear agenda. Iran and Saudi Arabia are theocratic states, the USA on the other hand isn't. That's a very stark difference. The USA also advocates freedom of religion, which allows numerous forms of faith to thrive on its own accord, rather than being endorsed by the State.

It appears that not to be "religiously extreme" one has to have a majority of atheists and agnostics by your definition.

OisinT wrote: »

The US bandies about Christianity like it's going out of style (which it is and should be - bar in the US).

The facts disagree with you. It is only in decline in the West. In other regions of the world Christianity is growing. I.E - Christianity has never been in a better position.

Courtesy of good aul' Wikipedia:

This masks a major shift in the demographics of Christianity; large increases in the developing world (around 23,000 per day) have been accompanied by substantial declines in the developed world, mainly in Europe and North America (around 7,600 per day)

OisinT wrote: »

As for ignorant, a high number of academics in the US are foreign or at the very least foreign educated. It is a sad sad day when creationism is being taught along-side evolution in schools in the US and a majority in many states believe that this is the way it ought to be. To allow people to believe the Earth is 5,000 years old and to reject that we orbit the Sun is insanity and ignorant in itself.

Countries such as the USA don't succeed on the basis of ignorance. There has to be some degree of know-how and knowledge for a state to be as prosperous as the US.

As for the creation - evolution debate, you know and I know that whenever this has been brought to court in the USA, that the advocates of Young Earth Creationism have been mostly dismissed.

As for rejecting that we have orbited the Sun, I can't say I've even heard as YEC claim that.

Killer Wench

The most religiously extreme? Do you mean that we are polarized by people who make up the extremes due to their different religions?

poppyvalley

bleg wrote: »

I'm happy we're on their side. Go USA!!

I totally agree with you Bleg They are the only protection we have against those middle east terrorists( now there's a true definition of terrorism)

The Highwayman

poppyvalley wrote: »

I totally agree with you Bleg They are the only protection we have against those middle east terrorists( now there's a true definition of terrorism)

LOL

Post of the day, classic

sock puppet

Norwayviking wrote: »

Its called tactics in military terms

Read the second part of my post. The point of the Pearl Harbour attack was to curtail the US's ability to to wage war in the Pacific and it failed to do that.

Clawdeeus

Norwayviking wrote: »

Its called tactics in military terms

Actually, in that context it was a strategy.

Manic Moran

The Highwayman wrote: »

Yeah they did but aircraft and crew hardly compare to the numbers and hardwear that were in the field on the eastern front.

Though certainly not to the levels of the Eastern Front, Torch was mounted at the request of the Soviets for the purposes of relieving some of the pressure that they faced. It is also to be said that five combat divisions was a fairly substantial portion of the US Army at the time. Bear in mind that in 1939, the US had all of 60 mainly obsolete tanks in the entire inventory, so they were still ramping up.

Aften 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.

Well, here's an example of the latter.

Mounted on.... yes, an American Studebaker US6.

The FEBA vehicles tended to be Russian, yes. But a massive amount of the support equipment, particularly trucks and radios, without which the combat vehicles would have had problems, came from the US. For example, by 1945 a full third of the USSR's truck park were US imports, the Soviets imported more trucks than they built over the course of the war. Plus the American ones were far better. Heck, about a third of the Red Army's food came from the US. Number of locomotives built in the USSR between 1941 and 1945? 20. All the plants were converted to tank production. Some 2,000 were delivered by lend-lease. Granted, a small number compared to the size of the USSR's railway fleet, but another example.

BTW, KV-2 is hardly an example of a war-winning piece of equipment!

NTM

Da Shins Kelly

I'm not sure that they are most extreme terrorist nation, but they certainly perpetuate their beliefs all over the world unlike any other nation. Their attempts to quieten down these supposed "rogue states" often do come across as just attempts to control the world. Also, all of these countries that are seen to be enemies of America have often been funded by America. It's a tricky question, because despite all of America's claims to be the most free nation in the world and the most upstanding nation in the world, we don't really know what's going on behind closed doors with them. I don't agree with what America does, and I definitely think that a lot of their problems with countries abroad have been quite beneficial to those up on high in various American administrations, but I would still be be reluctant to call them "extreme". Dangerous, yes. Cunning, defintiely. Extreme...I don't know...

socrates79

War,what is it good for?

Millicent

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!

Hahahaha! It's not like Russia had anything to do with that or anything... Gotta love revisionist armchair historians.

Millicent

kuntboy wrote: »

All you America bashers would do well to remember that without them, the armies of 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 as China would have military bases and military and economic hegemony over the whole world. Perhaps you would like these dictatorships to have control of the worlds resources? And FYI only 60% of oil is used as fuel. 40% is used to make plastics and various other things and crucially, fertilizers and medicines.

I have to take issue with this. Help , good deeds and support in the past are not an apology for negative actions of the present. That's like telling a domestic abuse victim that, sure he blackened your eye, but he did a put a roof over your head, so stop your whining.

People, and countries, should be judged on their most recent actions. To have to hark back to the 40's and 50's for a defence is ludicrous and does not help you make your point.

Dude111

johnmcdnl wrote:

America is the biggest rogue state in the world trying to force their values on every country that tries to stand up to oppose them in anyways...

Yes its quite disgusting how this country thinks THEY CAN BULLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY AROUND!!

Quite sad and pathetic!!!!

Norwayviking

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.

The Russians got their arses kicked by the Finns back in 1939,and you are saying they would have wiped the floor with the American and British troops.Dont think so

thebigbiffo

poll answer yes but...

they're violent bully's but their OUR violent bully's. prefer to be on the side of the big f'ucker that'll make sure ya dont get yer ass kicked

sxt

Norwayviking wrote: »

The Russians got their arses kicked by the Finns back in 1939,and you are saying they would have wiped the floor with the American and British troops.Dont think so

I don't think the Russian army of 1939 is comparable to the Russian army of 1945, which would have been significantly better organised/ commanded, had a massively enhanced production line of weapons /tanks/planes etc, hundreds of thousands more troops, and were battle hardened and high on morale.

Sykk

So many sheep in this thread it's hilarious. Thought I'd make this short post before I continue on reading the list of debating!

thebigbiffo

sxt wrote: »

battle hardened and high on morale.

raping almost every woman in berlin will do this to ya

BlaasForRafa

thebigbiffo wrote: »

raping almost every woman in berlin will do this to ya

and latvia, lithuania, estonia, poland, czechoslovakia, hungary, yugoslavia.... the winners write the history and decide who committed the war crimes.

Sykk

sxt wrote: »

no,after Russia suffered devasting casualties, I think around 30 million during the whole war campaign ?, they managed to overcome the most modern,well drilled, and feared army of the time.

Oh dear.. You really haven't a clue.

sxt

Sykk wrote: »

Oh dear.. You really haven't a clue.

Educate me...

sxt

Sykk wrote: »

So many sheep in this thread it's hilarious. Thought I'd make this short post before I continue on reading the list of debating!

Who are the sheep you are referring to

Nodin

Norwayviking wrote: »

The Russians got their arses kicked by the Finns back in 1939,and you are saying they would have wiped the floor with the American and British troops.Dont think so

You may have missed the military escapade termed World War II which happened between the Winter war and 1945. Things changed somewhat.

onlyrocknroll

I voted no, not supporting the USA, just disagreeing with the 'the most extreme' part of the question.

A lot of moments in the history of American foreign policy are terrible, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Iraq, Vietnam etc, but not terrorism under any generally accepted definition of the term. If you're a critic of US foreign policy, making claims like this only undermines your position.

However the US has acted like a terrorist nation under its own understanding of the term. Especially in supporting counter revolutionaries who've used terrorist tactics against governments they didn't support. The worst examples of this were under the Reagan administration.

However unfortunately many other states engage in this sort of thing, so I've voted no.

philologos

I honestly don't know why people would have serious issues with the USA. Yes, it's a superpower. Nobody disputes this. Nobody disputes that on occasion the US military has made mistakes, nobody disputes that the USA as a state has made mistakes in the past.

However, when push comes to shove, the USA overall advocates democratic values, freedom and liberty as a model for other nations to follow. If the bully advocates these type of values, then I'm quite happy to back the bully for the most part. Of course the right to criticism remains open.

I'd rather the USA be the bully than Russia, China, or Iran for example.

The Highwayman

Norwayviking wrote: »

The Russians got their arses kicked by the Finns back in 1939,and you are saying they would have wiped the floor with the American and British troops.Dont think so

Yeah they did but are you saying the red army was the same animal that rolled inti Berlin in 1945?

All the WWII stuff is getting very off topic if someone wants to continue that thread over in history or military great I love the topic

sxt

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

I voted no, not supporting the USA, just disagreeing with the 'the most extreme' part of the question.

A lot of moments in the history of American foreign policy are terrible, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Iraq, Vietnam etc, but not terrorism under any generally accepted definition of the term. If you're a critic of US foreign policy, making claims like this only undermines your position.

However the US has acted like a terrorist nation under its own understanding of the term. Especially in supporting counter revolutionaries who've used terrorist tactics against governments they didn't support. The worst examples of this were under the Reagan administration.

However unfortunately many other states engage in this sort of thing, so I've voted no.

But then, which nation would you consider more extremest than the U.S.A ...

The Highwayman

sxt wrote: »

But then, which nation would you consider more extremest than the U.S.A ...

Israil

Clawdeeus

sxt wrote: »

But then, which nation would you consider more extremest than the U.S.A ...

Plenty, just most do not have the power to realyl matter on a world stage o their extremism is turned inside.

Clawdeeus

Oh and if people think the red army would have stopped at Berlin were it not for the Americans, your deluding yourself.

sxt

Somtimes it is very hard to seperate the two...they are very economically and politically similar in their outlook...

Son Of A Vidic

We all know the Yanks need a war every now and again - it feeds their Industrial/Military complex. War is a very profitable industry after all. In 1964 Johnson used the infamous 'Gulf of Tonkin incident' to justify a massive escalation in U.S. involvment in Vietnam. We all know what 9/11 was used to justify. Coming from a country that has removed as many democratic regimes, as it has tried to install we shouldn't be surprised really.

sxt

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Oh and if people think the red army would have stopped at Berlin were it not for the Americans, your deluding yourself.

Who do you believe to be the most extreme terrorist nation?

Clawdeeus

sxt wrote: »

Who do you belive to be the most extreme terrorrist nation?

what do you mean by extreme? That they have the most extremem left/right views? That they differ the most from my own? And by terrorrism do you mean support terrorists in other countries? HAVE supported terrorrists in other countries? Whos definition of terrorrist? those in power?