Escalation of War In Iraq

[IslaScotts]

Well there are plenty of people on this forum who are not American, you could ask them how they feel about America and Americans.

As for your comment about me, just because I do not feel empathetic over every sob story in this world does not mean I need counciling. It just means I am at least honest with myself and others. I don't say it to be cruel or to be liked, I state it because that is how I feel... regardless how it makes anyone else feel. If I can't be honest about my less than the ideal life or points of view, then I have nothing. To put it plainly, I would rather befriend an admitted ahole then befriend someone who fiegns niceness and turns out to be an ahole.

[StupidScript]

Originally Posted by IslaScotts

Well there are plenty of people on this forum who are not American, you could ask them how they feel about America and Americans.

As for your comment about me, just because I do not feel empathetic over every sob story in this world does not mean I need counciling. It just means I am at least honest with myself and others. I don't say it to be cruel or to be liked, I state it because that is how I feel... regardless how it makes anyone else feel. If I can't be honest about my less than the ideal life or points of view, then I have nothing. To put it plainly, I would rather befriend an admitted ahole then befriend someone who fiegns niceness and turns out to be an ahole.

Just ... right on, Isla.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by Lakeman

I think the idea that so many people hate us is actually a myth.

When I observe the views on the USA by most of my countrymen, I don't see real 'hatred' either, it's hard to explain, it's not hatred, it's more that people find 'America' to be acting in a very unintelligent manner to a point that it becomes dangerous to the rest of the world.

People down here are very much aware that it is huge political corruption that causes this dangerous stupidity, but they also regard 'Americans' as a tad retarded because they don't seem to be interested in changing that political corruption while they should be smart enough to see what's going wrong. Yes, 'Americans' in general, and the 'American society' are regarded as not-so-smart.

Hatred is a big word, people are mainly worried because the 'American stupidity' affects us all and adds risks to our lives that we know could be avoided if 'American politics' would be less corrupt.

[StupidScript]

What if the 'American society' recently took the opportunity to make substantial changes in the makeup of their government, and it turned out that they did the right thing ... support for and involvement in overseas engagements vanished ... support for and involvement in humanituys greater challenges increased ... and the whole 'American political system' became more accountable and more transparent? Somehow I don't think the global opinion-meisters would offer any more love to this country and her citizens. They would wait for the other shoe to drop for decades or longer, all the while finding additional things to chastise us for, and all the while refraining from making any substantial contributions to the global society of their own.

We can't improve the opinion of the global community unless they are willing to see the positive things we have done and are doing, even in the face of a political system that is facing grave issues. It's not that we can simply do something good and be recognized for it, because the way it goes is that we do something good (throw the bums out of office) and we get continued pessimism and criticism in its wake (yeah you threw them out, but your system still doesn't work).

Oh well. Until we start hearing some workable solutions instead of dead-end criticism, we'll continue to try and work it out, ourselves. Sorry, world!

[Ferre]

Point is, that actions speak louder than words.

I'm pretty sure that 'the world' realizes that the American public does not at all agree with the present policies of their government, the world also isn't blind and they see that the past elections made it clear that the American public wants changes.

Having said that, I think that the world needs to see that changes are actually implemented and they need to see some results before they can change their opinion.

No more than reasonable, no?

[StupidScript]

No more than reasonable, no?

Sí. And yet, I am provoked by the idea that other nations might consider doing more, n'ést pas? At the risk of appearing fallible?

PS: And here's a bit of news, the American public wants to be left the f*ck alone to pursue their individualistic agendas, da?

PSS: I sincerely do appreciate the sentiment that the 'world' appreciates our desire to be rid of this jive-talking, back-stabbing leadership. Thanks for that, Ferre.

[zcoder]

When I observe the views on the USA by most of my countrymen, I don't see real 'hatred' either, it's hard to explain, it's not hatred, it's more that people find 'America' to be acting in a very unintelligent manner to a point that it becomes dangerous to the rest of the world.

America is dangerous? If this was even alittle true, I would suspect that
all the leaders in the world would have had one big meeting to discouse
ways to take her down and fast.

So backup your claim of this, by having your so well behaved leaders
come to our leader and tell us in the face that you all think we are
dangerous, and that you plan to take us down if we don't shape up.

But even this may not work eather, sence we are also stupid.
Dam, can you imagine that? we are both stupid and dangerous
at the same time.

You know what? a scew fell out of someones head, and your looking at
us as if it came from us.
I think people like you who talk like you do should start counting your
own scews.

Zcoder....

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by IslaScotts

And all of them are against the war.

Really? I don't know that I ever met anybody who was against the war in Afghanistan. Democrats, Republicans, gays and straight - pretty much everybody supported that, and still do.

[IslaScotts]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Really? I don't know that I ever met anybody who was against the war in Afghanistan. Democrats, Republicans, gays and straight - pretty much everybody supported that, and still do.

Umm I think you misread my quote, I meant that of the people I know who have served in either Afghanistan or Iraq all of them are against the war. It's not that they are against the idea of a war in Afghanistan, it's the fact that they have served in that war and it is brutal and mostly fruitless. Basically it isn't making a difference, especially with how they have to go about fighting this particular war. Living in caves being confused as to who and what they are looking for. It feels like they are hunting ghosts and every sound or silence is like a haunting. It is crazy to hear their accounts in Afghanistan. They are against it because they aren't getting anywhere with it.

[John Scott]

Basically it isn't making a difference, especially with how they have to go about fighting this particular war.

Keeping up with the news in Afghanistan, it seems to have made a huge difference, especially where women's rights are involved.

[IslaScotts]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Keeping up with the news in Afghanistan, it seems to have made a huge difference, especially where women's rights are involved.

But that isn't their mission or directive. Their purpose is to seek and flush out terrorist groups, especially the pursuit to find Osama. None of my friends who served over there had anything to do with womens rights. The wars highlight on the country and their laws may have attributed to them changing it. But their mission was to basically seek and destroy the terrorist cells.

[John Scott]

But that isn't their mission or directive.

Their directive was to take the Taliban out of power, and establish democracy. So, yeah, that was their mission.

[IslaScotts]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Their directive was to take the Taliban out of power, and establish democracy. So, yeah, that was their mission.

It wasn't to establish democracy there, that was the directive of Iraq. Afghanistan is an Islamic Rebublic. At one point the Taliban controlled 90% of the country. Unfortunately we flushed them out... but just to outlining countries. We didn't get rid of them at all. Our directive was not to help Afghanistan as a country to throw the Taliban out of power and help as a security force. We helped them in the process.. woo hoo... but we failed at ridding the world of terrorists.. all we did was make them move.

[zcoder]

Was you expecting genocide? as in Rwanda or maybe Darfur?

Zcoder....

[IslaScotts]

Originally Posted by zcoder

Was you expecting genocide? as in Rwanda or maybe Darfur?

Zcoder....

Umm I have no idea what you are talking about, maybe if you give your question a little bit more direction. Because, the only kind of response I can think of is to tell you what I expected. I expected that even if they could find terrorist cells they would only be able to kill a few of them, and what happened was that they just sent most of them running. They were hoping to destroy large groups. Because remember, soldiers are sent out into a "battlefield" to kill the "enemy". As far as genocide goes, the literal meaning of genocide is to deliberately and systematically destroy a racial, political, or cultural group. They were a group and you could possibly stretch it to say they were a political group. Like I said I never even expected them to kill as many as they did, and that isn't even saying much. I pretty much got what I expected. Genocide was their goal, to wipe out the Taliban.

[zcoder]

I don't think Genocide was their true goal, more like an
expression. I don't think we have past that fine line yet.

Zcoder....

[IslaScotts]

Well if genocide means to deliberately and systematically destroy a racial, political, or cultural group, then I would say that most all wars have two desires to either commit genocide or force opposition to surrender. In Vietnam there were two political forces, the Viet Cong (who we were fighting) and the Republic of Vietnam (who we were fighting for.) Now the goal of war was to either wipe out the Viet Cong or make them surrender. Either option would be satisfactory. And since the Viet Cong was a political group (National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam) and our goal was to either wipe them out or have them surrender... I would say that genocide is one means or option to just about any war.