English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I suppose its because of the amount of so-called
Irish-Americans? Same as why the USA stayed out of the Falklands because of the South American population?

Also, rather strange that New York (One of the biggest donators to IRA i'm told) gets hit by terrorists??

2006-08-23 04:10:35 · 29 answers · asked by Banderes 4 in Politics & Government Politics

Love being called an IDIOT/grow up (err im 32!) by people who cannot understand questions...

Not saying the IRA attacked the US, or that the USA should have helped the UK then (even if we ARE supposed to be allies),

Just pointing out (As many here have also answered) that the U.S doesnt get involved unless IT has something to gain from it....

2006-08-23 04:44:25 · update #1

29 answers

SVern
Level 2

Probably because the IRA did not attack the USA

SVern, you are a MUPPET!! Iraq didn't attack the USA, but hey, the good old US of A had NO problems kicking their ars'e (sorry, TRYING to kick their AS'S). Let's face it, The United States of America is using the very tragic events of September 11 to secure cheaper oil from the Middle East. They've installed a puppet leader of Iraq to help achieve this. To keep the public in a state of fear (which allows them to introduce their PATRIOT ACT) the American (and British) government keep us informed of all these little 'terrorist plots' that they've (only just) foiled. Our governments have never had a better time to scare us all in to relinquishing the civil rights that they want us to so that they can have an easier time spying on us!

2006-08-23 04:40:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

There's absolutely no comparison between the IRA and the likes of Al queda.
IRA is for a united Ireland and they were able to be negotiated with.
Al Queda wants the destruction of western civilization and they can not be negotiated with.
The USA wasn't about to send troops to Argentina. They supported the Brits by providing an all important refuelling stop at Diego Garcia.
Argentina is or was actually in another alliance with the USA, the Organisation of American States (OAS). So there was a conflict there, Britain is a NATO allyof the US and was attacked by Argentina, an OAS ally of the USA.

2006-08-23 04:43:32 · answer #2 · answered by Munster 4 · 0 0

Thank you for asking that question. I often wondered why terrorism only became an issue when it came on home turf. It was said for many years that much of the funding for the IRA came from the USA, but of course, no presidential candidate would want to risk losing votes by stopping the Irish Americans from putting funding in that direction. I am sure you are right over the Falklands issue too.

2006-08-23 04:31:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The US public with Irish background viewed the IRA as freedom fighters out of nostalgia and that's why it was funded by them,
And that the IRA were not a direct threat to the US,

Thankfully we now have more people less ignorant on what a 'freedom fighter' really is, which is a terrorist.
Unfortunately it took very sickening attacks towards the US, UK and Spain (to name just a few) for them to change their views on 'freedom fighters'

Oil is another point! need i say more!

2006-08-23 04:27:05 · answer #4 · answered by ryn 4 · 1 0

Sinn Fein invented themselves due to issues with the British dating back to Lord Cromwell's time. Therefore, the IRA was Britain's problem even though the IRA was likely funded by US elements who liked to see Britain embarrassed. Perhaps MI5 struck back at America during 9/11.

2006-08-23 04:15:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There was an organization called NORAID back in those days made up of ordinary people with an axe to grind. They contributed millions of dollars to "The Cause". I wouldnt think it still exists now they have felt the axe themselves. As for the US government, it wasnt their problem so why interfere. Especially when there is a large Irish American population that may have extended the conflict there.

2006-08-23 04:52:31 · answer #6 · answered by wizard prang 3 · 1 0

And you expected something different from liberal Democrat Yankee micks? They were wrong to support the IRA or Sinn Fein. Just as people were wrong to support the Orangemen (or whatever the Protestant militia is called).

But when you have powerful idiot Micks in the US, like the Kennedys, Monyihans, etc, there's not much sensible and responsible people can do to stop them.

I would like to apologize for all my fellow Americans who so stupidly supported terrorism by the IRA thugs.

2006-08-23 04:27:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Think of what's the most important asset in Middle East. oil. Any USA relations to Iraq? No. Who has the military arsenal in the world? USA. They do things that served their benefit rather than being anti-terrorist. The term or the actions that defined the term has been around since ages...

2006-08-23 04:18:27 · answer #8 · answered by madxkatz 2 · 2 0

Why should America have sorted out the IRA .. It was bad enough the had to win to world wars for you . New York , one of the biggest donators to the IRA , not sure if that's true, but what is true is that British firms where one of the biggest supplier of weapons to Sadam Hussein's regime , so who knows maybe the weapons killing British soldiers were made in Manchester.
So how is that for a lot of what if's

2006-08-23 04:36:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

You give us too much credit. The overwhelming majority of Americans were barely (if at all) aware of any of these events.

To us, IRA is an acronym for a retirement savings account. And we couldn't find the Falkland Islands on a map - of the Falkland Islands!

2006-08-23 04:18:50 · answer #10 · answered by hquin_tset 3 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers