• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

no Darwin, no Hitler

Elizabeth I said:
Those were donations from private citizens.

As a government, the U.S. supported the U.K. - not specifically against the IRA, but as a general policy.
Click to expand...

Agree with the first part - although there have always been rumours that the CIA or other parts of the USA government did help fund/supply or otherwise assist some terrorist groups in the UK I treat those claims with a lot of skepticism.

However the second part is only partly true for instance the USA government never outlawed NORAD and I don't think it is controversial to say NORAD funds did go toward killing UK citizens. There were also other areas where the USA did not exactly go out of its way to assist the UK. I believe there were instances when extraditing either suspected or even convicted terrorists proved very difficult, also very little co-operation in helping UK authorities trace finances of suspected or convicted terrorists and so on.
 
Elizabeth I said:
As a government, the U.S. supported the U.K. - not specifically against the IRA, but as a general policy.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the IRA was always careful not to attack US government personnel knowing it would likely piss off their private American donors. I treat a contrary scheme with much skepticism.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Those were donations from private citizens.

As a government, the U.S. supported the U.K. - not specifically against the IRA, but as a general policy.
Click to expand...
I accept this, however I think that the IRA deliberately targeting Americans would have made many of these donations dry up pretty fast, I can find no record of any US solderers killed by the IRA, do you have a source which shows the IRA targeting US bases?
 
brodski said:
I accept this, however I think that the IRA deliberately targeting Americans would have made many of these donations dry up pretty fast, I can find no record of any US solderers killed by the IRA, do you have a source which shows the IRA targeting US bases?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I do not - it was, I admit, anecdotal, told to me by someone who had served in the area where the incidents allegedly took place. Given the general loopiness of terrorists in general and the IRA in particular, I have no problem conceiving of them shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended) by being, if nothing else, careless of who might get caught in their cross-fire.
 
Darat said:
However the second part is only partly true for instance the USA government never outlawed NORAD and I don't think it is controversial to say NORAD funds did go toward killing UK citizens. There were also other areas where the USA did not exactly go out of its way to assist the UK. I believe there were instances when extraditing either suspected or even convicted terrorists proved very difficult, also very little co-operation in helping UK authorities trace finances of suspected or convicted terrorists and so on.
Click to expand...

This NORAD? North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a joint organization of the United States and Canada which provides aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. It was founded on May 12, 1958, under the name North American Air Defense Command. (wikipedia)

Why would the U.S. outlaw a joint satellite/radar surveillance operation with the Canadian government, and how would funds for it be used to kill U.K. citizens?

Looking up other references to NORAD, Wikipedia says NORAD can also refer to the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. Google shows a "NoRad Corporation," which sells "radiation shields for computer displays," and a N.O.R.A.D., which seems to be a web hosting company.

Not trying to be snarky, just wondering if there is another organization or activity referred to by the same acronym.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Unfortunately, I do not - it was, I admit, anecdotal, told to me by someone who had served in the area where the incidents allegedly took place. Given the general loopiness of terrorists in general and the IRA in particular, I have no problem conceiving of them shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended) by being, if nothing else, careless of who might get caught in their cross-fire.
Click to expand...

While not disputing that someone told you this, I would regard it as an urban legend. I have never heard of any American assets ever being targeted by the IRA. Were there IRA terrorists loopy enough to take a potshot at an American? Sure, in theory. Did it ever happen? Not to my knowledge.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Well, yes...they definitely should have been outlawed. I never understood why the U.S. stood by and let that happen when we seemed to be perfectly capable of interdicting transfers of funds to Cuba, for example.
Click to expand...

Because in the cuban exile comunity sanctions agenst cuba are popular but preventing them from sending money to their releatives to aleviate the sactions would be very unpopular. And the cubans have very good lobbiests.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because in the cuban exile comunity sanctions agenst cuba are popular but preventing them from sending money to their releatives to aleviate the sactions would be very unpopular. And the cubans have very good lobbiests.
Click to expand...

Technically, it's very popular amoung the older, more hardline conservative hardline Cuban exiles, who have a higher voter turn out rate than the younger generations. The rest of us don't approve of a policy which prevents our releatives from getting food and medical supplies just to cater to an anti-communist stance.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Technically, it's very popular amoung the older, more hardline conservative hardline Cuban exiles, who have a higher voter turn out rate than the younger generations. The rest of us don't approve of a policy which prevents our releatives from getting food and medical supplies just to cater to an anti-communist stance.
Click to expand...

BUt are prefectly happy depriving others of them to support an anti-communist stance?
 
ponderingturtle said:
BUt are prefectly happy depriving others of them to support an anti-communist stance?
Click to expand...


Younger cuban exiles, the under 40 group, are partially composed of people who were born in Cuba under Castro and have emmigrated since, or are the children of those who already came here. The strongest political power in most groups tends to lie with the over 40 bunch. We're not catering to anyone, thank you very much.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Younger cuban exiles, the under 40 group, are partially composed of people who were born in Cuba under Castro and have emmigrated since, or are the children of those who already came here. The strongest political power in most groups tends to lie with the over 40 bunch. We're not catering to anyone, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

The only people I ever asserted where catering to anyone was the politicians. It is the inconsistency of wanting to embargo cuba while sending money to family with in cuba that I am pointing out.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The only people I ever asserted where catering to anyone was the politicians. It is the inconsistency of wanting to embargo cuba while sending money to family with in cuba that I am pointing out.
Click to expand...


In their defense, most believe that trade with Cuba would primarily enrich Castro, and futher improvrish the people of Cuba. How the people of Cuba could be significaly poorer, I don't know.
 
D. James Kennedy needs to stop living in the 20th Century. What about the creationists who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001? What about the fact that the U.S. government has felt the need to go to war against millions of creationists in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia? If a society's beliefs about origins have such far-reaching consequences, then Muslims' beliefs in creation must have something to do with the world's current political situation.
 
KingMerv00 said:
People would pay attention to her no matter what she looked like. Why? Because she is shrill and super conservative. A "pro-family" and "pro-religion" stance will get you all the fame you can handle in America.
Click to expand...

Your position is contrary to the evidence. Who are the leading female pundits?

Coulter
Malkin
Ingraham

All are reasonably attractive (well, I don't think Coulter is but plenty of conservatives salivate over her)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom