Can you show me some of these? Can’t say as I’ve seen any. Preferrably, you could show me some that you’ve cut through.
From Bush’s speech announcing the invasion.
He mentioned specifically that the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror in general.
Regards,
Shodan
Rashak Mani:
I believe it is possible for the US to be a Christian nation without violating the Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is doing the exact opposite.
>> He mentioned specifically that the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror in general
And he was lying. To say the USa was entitled to retaliate against Iraq is ludicrous. Iraq never attacked the USA. The USA had NO valid reason to attack Iraq. None. It was naked aggression with no justification whatsoever. That’s how I see it and that is how millions and millions of Muslims see it. The fact that some Americans do not see it does not matter at all for the fact that millions of Muslims see it that way and it is creating resentment and hate toward the USA.
I’m having trouble with your use of the word ‘unprovoked’. When did the Iraqi people provoke the United States of America/UK? This isn’t about liberation, this about the only superpower left flexing it’s muscle, fucking over thousands of innocent people, all in the name of it’s economy and continued assurance as a superpower. The U.S.A., IMO, has no moral stance from which to stand and preach to other countries [who are provoked] when I read (read: liberal bleeding hearts - and read: at least they’ve got a heart bleed) it has some of the worst human rights records in the world.to
Cite?
France was and still is the world’s first tourist destination (Cite,Cite)
and even more the first destination for Americans (Cite). While it’s true, that France lost 10% of it’s tourists this year, for the Americans it remains the primary destination.
I had an American family over this summer in Lyon (I don’t need to be French to live in France), and they didn’t object to visit France. Apparently, not all Americans behave like little kids (Grudge, grudge).
Funny, you don’t seem to object spreading out your political opinions…
I don’t see any terrorist supporters on the SDMB, but if you say so.
Pearl Harbor and Iraq? It is common knowledge on this board, that Iraq does not have a connection with 911. America did not defend itself.
If you don’t believe this “common knowledge” then cite your connection.
Being that this thread seems to be continuing into oblivion let me sum up the OP, i.e. US image worsens.
“Image” has absolutely, positively nothing what-so-ever to do with terrorism. Countries like France, Russia, Brazil, the UK etc. may not like the current ‘image’ of America, but that’s not going to cause any of their citizens to hijack an airliner and crash it into a building. Or to strap on a pile of explosives and blow up a shopping mall. It will cause them to go to protest marches and to think unfavorably towards the US. For a while anyway. And that’s hardly anything new or earth-shattering. In fact, that’s one of the points of western democracy.
The current form of arab/Islamic terrorism is caused by religious hatred. Very strong religious hatred. And there is no PR campaign, no leaflet dropping, no ‘image’ change that will have any affect on this. It is preaching to the absolutely unconvertable.
9/11 was a crime, not a protest or political act. Actually, it was an unprovoked act of war. Unfortunately national boundaries are not as clearly defined as they were on Dec 7th, 1941. Thus the perfectly legitimate statement GWB made, “You are either with us or you’re against us”. Your actions and statements will define our policy and actions towards you. To have taken any other position would have been both impractical and down right dangerous.
Saddam Hussein was given countless opportunities to prove he wasn’t a threat and he refused. His refusal by itself was a threat. So we removed him. And this is how you fight a global war on terrorism. Not by trying to polish your country’s ‘image’, but by removing threats (even those that are more perceived than actual).
And to those who don’t live in the US, let me remind you that you have the luxury of not being the target.
*Originally posted by flonks *
**Cite? **
Well, I would hardly see the point in asking for such an obvious cite, but nonetheless, I will painstakingly provide one of the countless cites on the net, that shows that American tourism to France has drastically declined. 
This article suggests that it had declined by as much as 80%, in the first half of 2003, hardly insignificant.
http://www.iht.com/articles/104421.html
I didn’t want a cite for the fact that the number of American visitors dropped. That we all know, although not as much as you want me to believe.
I wanted a cite for this statement:
**
It’s easy to loose customers if you are the number one country where they go usually.
Anyway, quoting your own cite:
**
weak dollar … You see that there is a decline of “only” 30% in the beginning, during the Iraq war(!!), then a stronger decline, just wenn the dollar collapsed.
That hardly anybody visits France anymore is wishfull thinking on your part.
Anyway, the debate is stupid since it is fed by your own hatred against the French. That’s ridiculous. Do you also hate the Germans, the Swiss, the Belgians and the Austrians? I am Austrian, perhaps that gives you extra motivation.
France always held an option to join the Iraq war, never categorically refused it. That is is not believed in the US - thanks to the “liberal’” media as it is called here, but that subject has already been discussed several times in this forum.
On the other hand, the Germans, Swiss, Belgians and the Austrians categorically denied the Iraq war, even a war with UN backing. Austria, Belgium and Switzerland even denied the US the rights to access their airspace.
Of course, nobody thinks of that, because it’s so much easier to hate the French because you already hated them before and because they are so French.
The OP is US image worsens in Muslim countries and I think a fair conclusion is that hate for the USA has increased in those countries. It does not have to be terrorism which harms US interests it is trade and commerce and many other things. In any case it is foolish to think that an increase in hatred for the USA will not have as a consequence an increase in terrorism.
Preaching to the unconvertable? So what’s your plan? Kill them all? Even the Israelis are trying to talk to the Palestinians. If the Iraelis cannot win by brute force against the Palestinians, you can be surte the USA cannot win by force against the Musmlims of the world. Advocating those policies harms the USA more than anybody else. The USA is not and cannot impose its will on all Muslims and continued confrontation will cost a very high price in money and in lives.
*Originally posted by Hail Ants *
I think maybe you are missing the point - if a substantial number of people in other countries, even in those countries that are our allies or we have been friendly with, have a negative perception of the US, then there is the strong likelihood that those countries are going to be less willing to assist us in out fight against terrorism. Protests in France, Brazil, RUssia, etc. is not the concern - the concern is that people in Brazil, France, Russia (along with our allies in the Middle East) will be less likely to help us catch those people who do want to hijack and airliner and crash it into a building.
Not caused by religious hatred - it hatred that uses religion as an excuse for that hatred. It would be the same if a group of terrorists seld identified as Christian were to blow up the Kabba in Mecca, and justify the attack saying “all true Christians should rise up against the heathen Arabs.” Would you then condemn all Christians and say that Christianity preaches religious hatred?
True, it was an act of war. But GWB could have gotten his message across all the same without the cowboy rhetoric.
Again, the problem wasn’t so much in getting rid of Saddam. It was the manner in which it was done. GWB and the administration wanted to get rid of Saddam NOW - even though we had him contained. We could have gotten much wider support from other countries if had approached the situation a bit more diplomatically. As it stands now, the supposed imminent threat posed by Saddam has turned out to be an illusion (Never mind that there STILL has been no conclusive proof of a direct link between the 9-11 attacks and Saddam).
And I won’t even bring up the situation in Afghanistan (or Pakistan - which more than likely still harbors elements of Al Qeada or Saudi Arabia - where most of the 9-11 attackers came from).
Not necessarily true - if terrorists attack other people in other countries for their assistance in helping the US, mighten it give pause to those same people in contuining the fight? Particularly if they don’t like us?
Please see the Zakaria article I cited earlier. He (editor of Newsweek International and a former Ivy League political science professor) and I both disagree with you on this point.
I work about 100 yards from the Sears Tower, and I still disagree vehemently with everything you have said in this post. Even the Soviet Union, which hardly had anyone entering or leaving, couldn’t manage to track the movements of every single person who did, but at least they had the sense to concentrate their intelligence energies on those who they pereived as more likely to be threats.
The U.S. will never be as tightly sealed up as the USSR was, nor should we be. We have been fighting the so-called “War on Terrorism” the same way as the “War on Drugs,” by trying to cut off the supply rather than addressing demand, and how successful has that been? Isn’t it easier, not to mention cheaper and more moral, to take other peoples’ interests into account when dealing with them rather than ignoring them or actively working agains their interests to make a few bucks, and then pumping up the defense budget so we can bomb the crap out of them? Iraqis (and Afghans, for that matter) are human beings, not collateral damage.
Do you have a cite for this strong assertion? The experts at the State Dept think otherwise. If we’re just going on your analysis alone, would care to share your credentials?
You really don’t get it do you? These polls aren’t just some sort of high-school popularity contest to decide who gets to be home-coming queen.
Moreover, 9/11 wasn’t merely some bizarre video game gee whiz bit of cool graphics. Those were real people getting vapourised under millions of crushing debri.
And these people in the Middle East who you so arrogantly and condescendingly dismiss as being worthy of nothing so much as your contempt? They’re not just people who you don’t like in the high school cafeteria. They’re the people who live in mud, who have shit house sanitation and whose babies die of crappy diseases and shit every year. They’re the people who become so bitter that eventually, given the opportunity, the want to kill you.
Yes. You, Daisy Cutter. They want to kill YOU. Not just your servicemen and women. They. Want. To. Kill. YOU.
I think most reasonable people would agree that THAT is why you should care what they think. Anything less? Well it’s just a 2003 version of Marie Antoinette suggesting that the poor should eat cake if they have no bread.
If Bali and 9/11 proved any single thing, it’s that they can get you, anytime, anywhere. And when I say you, I mean you personally - coz people like you unknowingly paint the biggest, boldest bullseyes of all on your backs.
It’s your right Daisy Cutter to play the “arrogant smug card” on this messageboard, but it’s my right to take you to task for it when you do so.
This is what I meant by people assuming that all the concessions need to come from the US.
Your assumption is that only the opinions of the Muslims matter in the scheme of things. I think the opinions of the US matter as well.
Muslims who think that the the US invasion of Iraq was simply an act of aggression against Islam are objectively wrong.
I realize that “it is not possible to use reason to argue a person out of a position, if he did not use reason to arrive at it in the first place”. If Muslims are willing to ignore the actions of Iraq for the last dozen years, and 9/11, and the other components of the war on terror, in favor of assuming that the US just wants to kill Muslims, then, as I said before, their good opinion is worth nothing and should not be pursued. Who cares what a paranoid thinks?
Again, someone who can look at the human rights records of Iraq and the US, and then go on to condemn the US, is not a person who can be argued with rationally, or whose good opinion is worth pursuing.
Sometimes one group is right and everyone else is wrong. People who argued that the US pullout from Viet Nam would lead to a bloodbath were right, and the anti-war protestors were wrong. Churchill was right about Hitler, and Neville Chamberlain and his supporters were wrong.
Sometimes, we don’t care what you think. We are going to do what we think is right, and not concern ourselves with a lot of whining afterwards. “The dogs bark, but the caravan marches on.”
Sorry. You can just get used to it.
Regards,
Shodan
That may (or may not) be true in terms of the U.S.'s foreign policy.
But in terms of the U.S.'s domestic policy, we have one of the best human rights records in the world.
Shodan, the text of the speech by president Bush to which you link, is a very good example of the lies:
Saddam Hussein had no desire, no intention and no means to attack the USA. The war was based on lies from the US government.
And, as long as the US government goes around the world attacking countries for no justifiable reason it will have enemies.
I have to repeat the recommendation to read the report commissioned by the US government and mentioned by SimonX http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf
It is very critical of the isolationist policies and says much more effort has to be put into better understanding and communication.
>> Sorry. You can just get used to it.
Well, America can get used to being universally hated and target of terrorists. It can get used to spending billions and billions in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions which could be better spent in domestic spending, in raising the standard of living of Americans. America can get used to the economy going south because of the war and associated problems. Yes, America can get used to that. The question is whether that is what you want.
*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo *
Moreover, 9/11 wasn’t merely some bizarre video game gee whiz bit of cool graphics. Those were real people getting vapourised under millions of crushing debri.
I don’t need anybody to lecture me about what 9-11 was or wasn’t. To you, 9-11 was just some mere pixels on a television screen. To me, I could look out my window and see 9-11, and smell it, so don’t come here and tell me about 9-11 not being a video game or anything like that.
**
And these people in the Middle East who you so arrogantly and condescendingly dismiss as being worthy of nothing so much as your contempt? They’re not just people who you don’t like in the high school cafeteria. They’re the people who live in mud, who have shit house sanitation and whose babies die of crappy diseases and shit every year. They’re the people who become so bitter that eventually, given the opportunity, the want to kill you.
**
Yeah, they’re poor. Too bad, but that’s their problem with their ineffective, corrupt, piece of crap terrorist supporting governments and society. It is in their best interest to fix their piece of crap societies, and quickly. Otherwise they will surely face dire consequences. Look at Israel & the Palestinians.
Israel = succesful country, with good industries/wages etc.
Palestinian areas = chaotic backwards, terrorsupporting, corrupt society. They could have had their state in 1948, just like Israel, but when people choose war and violence over peace and prosperity, then people shouldn’t be surprised or disappointed when future generations end up dirt poor. The ironic part is that these people still choose violence over any other option, so screw them.
Yes. You, Daisy Cutter. They want to kill YOU. Not just your servicemen and women. They. Want. To. Kill. YOU.
Yeah, no kidding, I know what their plans are, I have previously posted a link describing their plans. This is why WE will kill THEM first.
**I think most reasonable people would agree that THAT is why you should care what they think. Anything less? Well it’s just a 2003 version of Marie Antoinette suggesting that the poor should eat cake if they have no bread. **
Bollocks. Terrorism has little to do with poverty. Most of the terrorists are economically priviliged, and they seem to be better educated than most in their society. They have zero legitimate reasons for their murdering ways.
If Bali and 9/11 proved any single thing, it’s that they can get you, anytime, anywhere. And when I say you, I mean you personally - coz people like you unknowingly paint the biggest, boldest bullseyes of all on your backs.
Again, no kidding. :smack: They want to kill me, and others like me, so what ? We will kill them first. I’m not scared of them, and their primitive tactics, they should be scared of us. We can strike at them anytime, anyplace as well, far easier than they can get at us.
It’s your right Daisy Cutter to play the “arrogant smug card” on this messageboard, but it’s my right to take you to task for it when you do so.
Take me to task ? I don’t see any points you made, with your useless line of questioning. Besides offering some info as to 9-11 not being a video game (duh), and that THEY wish to kill ME and others like me (no kidding), I see nothing of value which you have brought forth.
They have triggered a war, which will last decades, and we will crush them like a pathetic pack of miserable ants.
For people in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places the USA has meddled the images of death and destruction are different from what you saw in 9/11 ? They are being killed and maimed just the same... or their lives arent worth much ?
The USA and Israel have absolutely nothing to do with the dour economic and political situation your complaining about ? They have by no means done anything to interfere ?
The same choice the USA made apparently... and yes there were other options that were not so heavily military. Your the one talking about "killing" everyone.
Everything you say seems like if the US had just been idling sitting in their side of the pond doing nothing... not supporting dictators... not creating economic distortions... not financing Israel into a strong military and economy... then WOW out of the blue came these evil arabs and their evil ways...
YOU might have been napping… but your government has been screwing things major league for decades. Payback time comes and americans act like they are virgin paladins of justice ! Hmmpphh… At least put yourself in their shoes as hard as that may seem. Americans lives arent worth 100 to 1… There is a lot of resentment and anger… both which instead of being reduced are being fueled by the current US govt.
Now if you rather beleive your country is always right and can do no wrong... go ahead... close your eyes.