Listen, it may be true that our image is worse in some arab/muslim countries, but big deal.
When asked to describe their feelings when they viewed the WTC collapse, over half of the Egyptians replied that the USA deserved it, according to a poll from sept. 2002. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/603/sc41.htm
Hell, Egyptians think Israel/Mossad were behind 9-11, ahead of al qaeda on the perpetrator list, so who really gives a fuck what these delusional people think.
Only 25% of the Egyptian population even as a high school or greater education, and we should give a shit as to what they think why ?
Please tell me why we should care as to what a bunch of people in mostly undemocratic countries think about us ?
They should be worried about how we view them and not the other way around.
Am I the only person who’s deeply disturbed by the excuses and spin from the Bush-apologists in this thread? While the United States might not have been the Islamic community’s favorite boy beforehand, it’s glaringly obvious that the Bush Administration’s actions over the last few years have made things worse. We have essentially given al Qaeda and their ilk a big honkin’ list of talking points to use when they go out to recruit more people to attack us, and cheesed off our allies in the process. Listening to the apologists try to handwave all this away is creepy…
Ah, the old, we’re creating more terrorists argument. :rolleyes:
Well, frankly, I find that to be a crock of shit. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that countless people across the globe sympatize with osama and his kind ? Nah, just a wild guess.
Regardless, we have more bombs/bullets then there are terrorists out there, so to qoute Bush “Bring 'em on !”.
I dont know about the Islamic world, but from where I stand (Iceland, middle of the N Atlantic) the public opinion went from very sympathetic and automatic agreement with anything the US wanted post 9/11, to an increase in anti American sentiments, post DS2. Our somewhat right wing government went from boasting about its friendly relationship with the US, to hiding it. That is some sort of an achievement.
The US had to buy Icelands support with the continued presence of an American base here, despite all logic and the wishes of the Pentagon. Your tax$, entering my wallet. Thx GWB & supporters
Sure there is. There are plenty that wouldn’t be Pit-worthy. We could point out that her unsubstantiated opinion that the Bush adventurism hasn’t created more terrorists is worth exactly nothing. We could point out that people have reasons to dislike America. We could point out that a good deal of this thread, if one were to bother to actually read and attempt to understand it, is a discussion some of those reasons. We could point out that many of the terrorists are dedicated enough to die in an attempt to kill us so it doesn’t matter that we have more guns. We could ask Daisey Cutter if she is willing to match that commitment in our defense.
What we can’t do, unfortunately, is use reason to convince an unreasonable person. If she wants to stick her head in the sand and ignore all the rational arguments against her position then there is nothing we can do about it. She can go on being irrational right up until the carbomb takes her life or limbs or loved ones. Because you can try to hide from reality but it tends to find you and bite you in the ass.
Big deal, huh? I wonder if you think it will big a big deal if (and I hope it never does happen) a terrorist attack kills more American citizens as a consequence of our poor image.
Here’s a thought…try asking yourself WHY over half of the Egyptians replied that the USA deserved it. Don’t you think it’s important to understand the rationale behind the feeling? It’s one thing to weigh the considerations of others and then reject them based upon some sound principle or reason. It’s another thing to outright reject other people’s considerations with no other rationale than it’s stupid/crazy/illogical/irrational. While another person’s consideration’s may very well be stupid/crazy/etc., it calls for a sort or - oh, I don’t know - tact (or sound diplomcay) in dismissing/rejecting those considerations.
Oh, sorry…I thought you might have some sort of sound, rational basis for not giving a shit. Egypt is an ally of the US, don’t you know.
Again, ask yourself WHY only 25% of the Egyptian population even has a high school education. Do you honestly think that, given the choice of getting a decent education or not, Egyptians would choose NOT to? But then again, you’re probably of a mind that we shouldn’t give a fuck about poor people in the United States as well. Who cares what they think, right? Poor people in the US are like poor people in the rest of the world - uneducated rubes we shouldn’t give a rat’s ass about, right?
Because there are more of them than us. And some of them 1) already have WMD’s or 2) are attempting to acquire them. We shouldn’t have to go around kissing everyone’s ass - but at the very least we (the US) should at least exhibit the APPEREANCE of consideration. Particularly with those countries whom we have had friendly relationships with. This includes our longstanding allies, both in Europe and the Middle East, as well as other countries around the world. Which, by the way, hasn’t been done very well by the current administration.
I should point out that this consideration shouldn’t necessarily be done in all cases (particularly with some of our enemies). But if we can’t even take into account the considerations of our long-standing allies, what kind of message does that send to other nations?
And what makes you think that they AREN’T worried? Wouldn’t that help to understand some of the irrational hatred/fear that those place have towards us?
The spector of the 800-pound gorilla seems apt here. Not in the sense of other countries being worried about us. But in the sense that the 800 pound gorilla hasn’t the wherewithall to understand the fear/hatred towards it.
Thing is, we’re not acting. We truely are morally and ethically superior to them.
No, the arab world’s actions are the absolute, total cause of all of this. The arab world has had hundreds of years (not to mention trillions of dollars in oil revenue) to get their act together and they have consistantly and repeatedly failed to.
9/11 was the last straw. They are going to become a modern, civilized, democratic, progressive culture, or they are going to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Humility goes a long way... and obviously you have none of it ? The arab world was a colony until a few decades ago... not hundreds of years. The same way some americans are assholes... most of them aren't. Same for the Arabs... most aren't terrorists... some are. You still want to wipe 'em out ? They will become civilized, democratic and progressive due to a US gun pointed to their head ? Pretty stupid attitude I feel. No wonder SOME arabs want to kill some guys like you.
Your acting like some Europeans during the slavery period... they are just "primitive". Lets enslave them for their own good. Arabs are certainly lacking in refinement and atitude... but that doesnt mean the US gets away with anything. People who are truly morally and ethically superior don't think like that...
No, I’m saying that a quicker end to hostilities would have taken it off the news. Passions fade, sailor. Personally, I think it was worth the short-term tradeoff in popularity. Since I just can’t say whether and to what extent it might have saved American lives, I don’t have an opinion on that.
You are the liar here, sailor. The U.S. and its allies are at war with terrorists in many countries. Intelligence and financial wars in dozens of countries including the United States. Shooting wars in Afghanistan, Indonesia, the Philippines and yes, Iraq. Iraq supported terrorists. That they were not directly involved with 9-11 and had only tangential direct relations with al Qaeda is wholly irrelevant. They continued to support terrorists in Iran, Turkey, western Europe and Israel. Abu Nidal was picked up living openly in a Baghdad suburb. They had a fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists.
President Bush promised that “from this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” Iraq did and Iraq was.
What we’re losing is the information war. As my link said, that’s largely because we’re not fighting it. If it turns out that after receiving full information the “Muslim world” still hates us, that’s too bad. We’re going to keep fighting terrorism until it’s gone. But I don’t agree that they’ll reach that conclusion after your lies are exposed.
More troops in a war= more civilian casualties, always. Whether it would have been from house-to-searches to root out the people now attacking us, innocent mistakes where civilians run checkpoints, or whatever else.
**I agree that among the mistakes the U.S. has made is underestimating what it would take manpowerwise after the destruction of the organized army.
** Obviously I disagree. But if it turns out you’re right, fuck 'em. If you aren’t with us you are against us and we’re going to continue prosecuting this war, including deposing the regimes of countries which support terrorism, until we’ve won.
**It’s our very first war on global terror – we had previously been geared up to take on large nation-states. We’ll make some mistakes, including some big ones.
Yes there is. We are going to kill them. All of them.
I disagree. I think GWB would very much like to get out of that mold and is making a lot of mistakes in how to do it. Part of his error is his staff – the “adults” that gave a lot of people (including me) comfort when he appointed them are old cold-war hands and are struggling with this new thing. Another is the infrastructure under those staffs, which have the same handicap. But the biggest problem, I think, is that GWB sees good guys and bad guys and can’t do a good job yet picking out grey guys.
Blame the victim. No guy would ever grab a girl and rape her just because he’s an amoral scumbag. She must have given him some provocation. She made advances, wore revealing clothes etc.
Or maybe she was just going home, living her life, and a bunch of selfish, irredeemable cowards decided to fly a plane into her building, killing her and 3000 others in an act of barbarism unparalleled in modern history.
There comes a point when you have to say: enough.
There is nothing more that needs to be explained, or negotiated, or accommodated, or debated. You state your position and policy, and you put it into effect.
And that point was reached on September 12th, 2001.
And some Bostonians still give money to the Real IRA, I’m sure. Is Massachusetts on the list of places to be invaded? Give me a freaking break. Wholly irrelevant my ass.
I’d also like a cite for your claim that Iraq was involved indirectly with 9-11. Or were you hoping no one would notice that little fib?
Wow!! The Neo-Cons (or whatever you want to call them) have come out to play!!! (Who needs december).
The one simple point that seems so obvious to many of us is this… You can swat flies with a sledgehammer if you want, but you are probably not going to kill a whole lot of flies. You will most likely do a lot of unintended damage.
You’re missing a few countries. Our image problem is no longer limited to arab/muslim countries, but is worse in just about every single country in the world, inlcuding (in case you missed it) in all of the NATO countries (remember the “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys”?).
See, now that there is crazy talk.
The “war” against terrorism is a battle for hearts and minds. I don’t believe that it can be won by “killing them all”. (And who are “they” by the way?) If it could, Israel would not have a terrorism problem. In the sick history of this world, plenty of armies with superior forces have used brute force, reprisals, and death squads to enforce their views. It generally doesn’t work, and it has never, in the history of the world, produced a society that I would care to live in. If you have a different opinion, please provide some historical examples.
Sorry, it’s not the ENTIRE Arab world’s actions. You must be until the misconception that 1) the Arab world is some large, Borg-like entity that thinks and acts in lock-step fashion; 2) That Muslim extremists (those who were responsible for the actions) = Arab world, conveniently forgetting that most Muslims are not Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslim extremists.
By whose standards? You’ve once again falling into the misconception that the “Arab world” thinks and acts in lock-step fashion. And you’ve failed to even consider the fact that the nation-states that exist in the Middle-East were largely created during the era of European colonialism. So, no they haven’t had hundreds of years - try 100.
Whose “they?” The Arab world? Muslims? Arab Muslims? Middle Eastern Countries?
If you are talking about those terrorist organizations that seek to inflict carnage on the US, by all means we should wipe them off the face of the earth. Pursue and rid the world of Al Qeada - you got no qualms with me.
But tell me - if you’re plan is to “force” the “Arab world” to become modern, civilized, democratic, progressive - don’t you think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, you should put a little forethought into your little scenario. You know, be a bit more subtle about it. That way, when the changes you want to occur, do occur, then the people living their won’t necessarily feel that OUR version of what it means to be a modern, civilized, democratic, and progressive society was crammed down their throats. To become a modern, civilized, democratic, progressive society often requires that the people living their have some say in the process.
But wait - you want to force the “Arab world” to become a modern, civilized, democratic, progressive culture (our version of one) or wipe them out. Why go through the trouble of forcing them to be free - wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier just wipe all of them out, hmm?
Two more words - bull & shit.
Jeez - I never said (or insinuated) that trying to understand the mindset of a population for a particular belief/feeling they have towards us leads one in condoning terrorist action towards us.
And my example was referring to Egypt - not the terrorists responsible for 9-11. And using your example, wouldn’t you think it was a bit strange if 50% or more of the girl’s community thought that the girl deserved it? Wouldn’t you want to spend just a little bit of time trying to understand the mindset of said community? Again, trying to understand the mindset of a community (or country) as to WHY we (or the girl) deserved it will at lesat give us some justification for the decisions that we do make. And again, it doesn’t necessarily mean you actually condone the action (or the rationale of the community). But by attempting to try to understand that rationale, then you have a better framework from which to understand the community (or country) in those cases where the community’s (or country’s) viewpoint DOES have some rational or logic behind it that makes some sense.
So why aren’t we vigourously attempting to eradicate those elements that were responsible for 9-11? Oh, wait, I forgot - it’s proven without a doubt that there was a link between Al Qeada and Saddam/Iraq. Oops, yesh, I forgot as well - the entire “Arab World” must be punished for the actions of a few, right?
So would you suggest to girls that they walk around in dark alleys, in seedy parts of town, wearing revealing clothing, and everything will be OK as long as they remember who rapes them, so the police can track him down? You don’t need to take precautions, you can be as provocative as you want, as long as you have the muscle to get back at whoever attacks you? Don’t you think it would be better to avoid situations that get you attacked in the first place?
The attackers are thugs and criminals and deserve whatever smack we lay down on them. But we’re idiots if we think we’re going to prevent any future attacks by “making an example” of the ones who hit us, without changing anything we did to provoke them… or by striking out at a completely different group.
Which looks to me like a direct implication that they were indirectly involved. Why else would you use the qualifier?
Honestly, everything you’ve said in this thread regarding Iraq and terrorism has been precisely the weaselling not-lies purveyed by your precious Bush Administration with direct intent to produce the result we see today: a majority of Americans believing that Saddam was involved in 9-11. So clean up your innuendo and implication, or put up some evidence.
