Note also that curretnly the attempt to push a right-wing platform is not working at all in Congress, and is in fact backfiring.
Fallacy of the excluded middle, Revtim. I, for one, never claimed that Americans were all of a single like mind, and I will thank you profusely to refrain from implying that I did.
And they then executed the leaders of that “legitimate” government when they dared to disagree with Moscow.
So they call you “Floater” , huh? Is that because your argument is “belly-up”.
I don’t mind criticism but it is frustrating when it is criticism of the inevitable. What exactly is the US suppose to do to reduce civilian casualties? Wars kill people. Tragically, they sometimes kill people who were innocent bystanders. This will never change. You may as well argue that the US should make daylight last longer.
The US has probably caused the least amount of civilian casualties in any conflict of this scale in the history of the world. We of course should always strive to improve our efforts, but what more do you require of us before we are not judged wrong in your eyes? More ground troops, less airpower? Ground troops kill people too and it’s not as if our enemy wears uniforms. Nearly everyone is armed and for good reason.
So to the charge that we killed too many civilians, what can we do but shrug and say, “Sorry, next time we’ll just use bad language.”
You may think we are not listening, but we are and what you say hurts us because we do care about others despite what other nations say about us. But reality does not change for us simply because we dislike it. We did what needed to be done.
Damn it sun, stay up just a bit longer…
Sorry, when you said “The words of a person who knows nothing about America… you might as well go about advocating that Ford should build cars.” I took that to mean you think that there no people or orgs that equate criticising the US gov’t actions as being unpatriotic. Please clarify what you really meant.
Certainly wars kill people, that is inevitable, but wars themselves are not inevitable. And before everyone starts yelling at me that we have to get the bastards back for the WTC let me remind you that World history did not start on September 11th. This is a just another chapter in the long history of Americas’ international relations. ‘Cleaning up’ the taliban and al Qaeda will not make the situation go away. After that there will just be another enemy to target or another shift in policies that makes certain enemies friends and certain friends enemies.
Is it inevitable that this war continues for years?
Is it inevitable that the US expands this WoT into other nations?
NO! It is a choice.
Why can’t anti-war movements start up/gain strength around the world and put and end to this god awful WoT? I know Ill be protesting my little heart our the next chance I get. You might be cheering but thats a democracy for ya.
Because they can’t. Most people don’t pay attention to them as it is. In fact, many of them consider anti war movements to be insane and suicidal. My view is that anti-war movements are a nice idea, but they’re not always feasilble and I don’t think it was feasible in the case of Afghanistan.
WTF? Insane and Suicidal? Im didn’t say go and stand in front of a fucking tank or stick your head down a cannon. I mean a group of people who share the view that the war is wrong and want it stopped. People who are prepared to stand up for their opinions and try to make others listen. Feasibility is not an issue, you obviously don’t understand what I mean. People have a right to protest against anything they don’t agree with. These things start off small and (hopefully) gain momentum as more people listen to them.
And stop talking about the war in past tense, the bombs are still falling.
“WTF? Insane and Suicidal? Im didn’t say go and stand in front of a fucking tank or stick your head down a cannon. I mean a group of people who share the view that the war is wrong and want it stopped.”
I’m well aware of that as I know quite a few people who are entirely opposed to the war. However, people consider the anti war efforts “insane and suicidal” because they believe that terrorists would consider the move for peace as “weakness” and attack again.
“People who are prepared to stand up for their opinions and try to make others listen. Feasibility is not an issue, you obviously don’t understand what I mean.”
I know EXACTLY what you mean because I’ve heard the arguements. I like the idea of the alternatives they present, it’s just that you would need the use of force to capture those the US wants. I don’t not agree with the bombings. However, I agree with the use of ground forces.
"People have a right to protest against anything they don’t agree with. "
Where did I say that they didn’t?
“These things start off small and (hopefully) gain momentum as more people listen to them.”
Eh…I know that.
"And stop talking about the war in past tense, the bombs are still falling. "
I know that too. I was speaking in the past tense because I was referring to the beginning of the war.
I don’t think a movement that says simply “stop the war - it’s wrong” will ever be taken seriously unless they can suggest a real alternative. Doing nothing is clearly not an option, unless a group of protesters also think that saying to the Bin Laden gang “stop killing us - it’s wrong!” will stop their antics, too.
Anti-war movements can change government policy if enough citizens feel strongly enough, but bear in mind that there’s often a HUGE group of people who really don’t care either way at the outset of a conflict and often when they do start to care it’s because the war is impacting on them rather than because of any ‘objection in principle’ to the conflict itself.
It wasn’t until that middle group of Aussie citizens became pissed off with our involvement in Vietnam that our own government changed its policy, and our government isn’t going to change its policy in this conflict either unless votes are on the line. Given that our young people aren’t being conscripted this time around, I can’t see any “middle Australia” changing its attitude to our involvement in Afghanistan any time soon.
Perhaps the OP was referring to stories like http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll_sixmonths020311.html , which at least have the appearance of indicating that Bush can, and is, doing practically whatever he wants, with the majority of Americans not questioning any of it?
Not to say there’s not a lot of dissent, but is it even a plurality? Is it being heard at all, anywhere? Making a single jot of difference?
We are prepared to stand up for our opinions. They happen to be a little different than yours. The bombs are falling and will continue to fall until we achieve our objective.
It seems your proposed solution is that we sit back and do nothing. Turn the other cheek and offer a rose in hopes they will sit with us at the peace negotiations. And of course, they will sit with us and talk.
Yeah, that’ll happen. :rolleyes:
It also seems that you think we got what we deserved, that it was our own fault.
Listen up. If they had a point, it no longer matters. It stopped when they hijacked the planes. They are gonna pay for that.
I say again, they are gonna pay for that. If we don’t make them pay, they will keep coming after us, and us doing nothing would encourage others to take a stab at us.
It would be better if these fucks didn’t hide amongst civilians. It really would. We would ALL feel better about it. But they choose to hide among civilians, to use them as sheilds, hoping that would deter us.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and more than welcome to voice it. So am I. In my opinion, your objection to what we are doing pales in comparison with our need and obligation to do it.
How’s that.
At least it’s debate.
As I imagine our bombing is to the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives of the thousands of completely innocent people bombed to death by our planes.
But of course, our losses are so much greater and more important…
You got a better way, Stoid???
I’m all ears.
Again, the terrorists chose to hide among a civilian population with the blessing and support of that population’s Government.
What is your solution?
samboy, while there might be a few people on this board who take the “who gives a fuck?” attitude, I think you’ll find that the majority of Americans are painfully aware of the fact that the vast majority of Afghan people did not support the Taliban, let alone support the actions of Al-Quaeda and Osama bin Laden.
They are equally aware that the Afghan people were not in a position to simply overthrow the Taliban and install a government which would hand over to the US those responsible for the events of September 11. A diplomatic solution was not an option for the US because there was no “government” with which to negotiate such a solution. Nonetheless the US government did request that the Taliban hand over bin Laden and Al-Quaeda and gave them time to do so before launching military action.
We know what choice bin Laden, Al-Quaeda, and the Taliban made - to expose the mostly innocent Afghan population to military retribution for acts they had no power to prevent and which were not committed by anyone they had chosen to represent them.
Yes, it horrifies me that yet again the Afghan people are paying an enormous price for a situation not of their choosing and which they were powerless to prevent - but bin Laden could have prevented the US military strikes on Afghanistan by handing himself over to the US.
I sincerely hope that when this is over the US and other nations in the coalition will honour their pledges to rebuild Afghanistan; let’s not forget that there are many indirect victims of this conflict too - those who will starve because food aid cannot reach them, those who have been forced to become nomads because entire regions have been destroyed. We in the west failed miserably at rebuilding Afghanistan last time, and it was that failure - in part - which allowed the Taliban to assume and hold power. I think we’re painfully aware of the need to respond differently this time. I don’t think you’ll find many Americans who see this as a war on Afghanistan; rather, the majority seem to realise that bin Laden chose the venue, not the Afghan people.
I’m just not sure samboy what you think it is that the US “should” have done in response to the attacks of September 11 (and those before) or indeed what you believe it should be doing now. Perhaps you can elaborate for us, because I’m damned if I can really see what other options there were/are except for doing absolutely nothing.
I’ve made this same point before and been piled on for it. But it’s true. I am living and working in the Middle East, and I can tell you that this is the situation here - whether those attitudes are right or wrong - that the US IS perceived as acting in its own self-interest and being extremely heavy-handed about it.
And this IS leading to hatred which can lead to terrorism. Hatred certainly creates a fertile environment for terrorism. Now again, disclaimer ad infinitum, the anti-American viewpoint here is not necessarily or totally a fair one. Many of the problems faced in this part of the world are not directly or indirectly caused by America. But some are.
And the attitude of many - again not all Americans - certainly since 11 September - has been perceived as over-reactionary and jingoistic, not just by non-Americans, but also by some Americans themselves. I realise any reaction to such a horrific tragedy as was suffered that day is understandable. But Muslims and Middle Easterners died that day too, yet from the very start it has been a jingoistic “God Bless America.” That in particular pissed off this part of the world.
So back to the OP - whenever people here - or elsewhere - have questioned America’s actions, and the whole “God Bless America” (as opposed to “God Bless the World”) thing, they have been cyber-lynched. Yet America is surely a democracy, and freedom of debate and criticism are in essence the pillars of any democracy.
The OP was a criticism of this comment by Sam Stone from another thread:
Really, I think such an attitude speaks for itself.
And the saddest thing is that it doesn’t really matter if we “dare” or not, does it? Because if America is run by people like you, it’s not going to listen, is it?
For the sake of argument, is there a nation anywhere that is NOT acting in it’s own self-interest? Isn’t that what they are supposed to do?
**
In this country we elect representatives to act in our own self-interest. The foreign policy of any nation, those in the mid-east included, reflect the self-interest of that nation.
**
What is the proper way for a nation to react after such attacks? And the US is being jingoistic? I don’t find fault with being belligerant to such nations as Iraq.
**
Well heck, and I thought they got pissed off when was focused our attentions on the minority of Americans who get killed in overseas disaster. Now that we focus on Americans who made up the overwhelming number of victims on our own soil they’re pissed off? I didn’t see the attacks of 9/11 as an attack on civilization I saw it as a more specific attack on the United States.
Marc