the left has turned this into a pretty popular talking point in the last couple of years -- that Bush has hurt American standing in Europe, and that that standing and prestige must be restored. they keep touting European and ally anger.

well guess what: France and Germany's new elected governments are much more friendly with US than their predecessors. them being elected also shows that the electorates of the 2 countries think the same. same for Britain - Brown is popular and pro-America. he is pulling troops out of Iraq, but other than that, the cooperation between the UK and the US has not been scaled down at all.

Italy chose a more left-leaning president, but under him Italy's anti-terrorism efforts have escalated.

the damage the Dems are talking about is not as bad as they say it is. and if it was, then it's been fixed.

in fact, Europeans realize that they have a huge Islamic Terrorism problem of their own, and they would, in my opinion, prefer an American president who is stronger on anti-terrorism efforts. and it's pretty much a given that a Republican would be stronger in that area.

Anti-Americanism is and always has been hypocritical and difficult to figure out. People "hate us" but lust after our products and snap them up whenever they can. Many of them also yearn to come to school here or immigrate here. I still can't forget the kid in his nikes trying to topple something at the WTO all those years ago in Seattle...

"Restoring American standing in the world"

I thought they dont care what the world thinks of them.

the left has turned this into a pretty popular talking point in the last couple of years -- that Bush has hurt American standing in Europe, and that that standing and prestige must be restored. they keep touting European and ally anger.

well guess what: France and Germany's new elected governments are much more friendly with US than their predecessors. them being elected also shows that the electorates of the 2 countries think the same. same for Britain - Brown is popular and pro-America. he is pulling troops out of Iraq, but other than that, the cooperation between the UK and the US has not been scaled down at all.

Italy chose a more left-leaning president, but under him Italy's anti-terrorism efforts have escalated.

the damage the Dems are talking about is not as bad as they say it is. and if it was, then it's been fixed.

in fact, Europeans realize that they have a huge Islamic Terrorism problem of their own, and they would, in my opinion, prefer an American president who is stronger on anti-terrorism efforts. and it's pretty much a given that a Republican would be stronger in that area.

Agreed. All it took was time for the head-in-the-sand Europeans to begin seeing more results of terrorism in their own back yards. As that reality sinks in, more and more of them will understand as France and Italy have finally done.

and it's pretty much a given that a Republican would be stronger in that area.

Back up that statement with facts if you expect people not to laugh.

Terrorism doesn't happen from nothing.
The US itself invited terrorism on its soil with its own illegal actions abroad.
Then it dragged other states into it, and those states got burned.
You can't fight terrorism with weapons, because that only creates more anger and suffering in the world. The heart of the problem is greed and it's mainly American greed and desire to control and own the world of which it understands very little.

Of course one must protect himself, but the way out of terrorism is not even more violence, it just puts all into a cycle of ever increasing suffering on all sides.

Friendship, compassion and understanding is the way out and violence should be the last possible mean. I thought you guys touted yourselves as Christian.

I thought they dont care what the world thinks of them.

the left does. or at least it keeps emphasizing that Americans should -- to score political points as the Saviours of American Global Standing.

Anti-Americanism is and always has been hypocritical and difficult to figure out. People "hate us" but lust after our products and snap them up whenever they can. Many of them also yearn to come to school here or immigrate here. I still can't forget the kid in his nikes trying to topple something at the WTO all those years ago in Seattle...

it's true -- it's completely irrational. i remember having the same feelings about America when i was a kid, before i was aware of politics. on the one hand i liked American products and died to visit. but on the other hand i was glad about 9/11. i had that feeling of "finally someone showed those arrogant assholes what it's like"

yes, i used to think like that. now my thinking has sobered up and matured so obviously i don't think like that at all. but i understand how others have that paradoxical feeling. to sum it up: it is jealousy. pure and simple.

All it took was time for the head-in-the-sand Europeans to begin seeing more results of terrorism in their own back yards.
Madrid and London got bombed as a result of their foolish decision to back the US on Iraq.

Back up that statement with facts if you expect people not to laugh.

fact #1: the left is against stronger anti-terrorism measures
fact #2: the left is for extending more legal protection to terrorism suspects

conclusion #1: given facts #1 and #2, left would be weaker on terror.
conclusion #2: given fact #1, and given that the Democrats are the Left's party, you can conclude the Democrats would be weaker on terror.

i'm just stating the obvious here..

yes, i used to think like that. now my thinking has sobered up and matured so obviously i don't think like that at all. but i understand how others have that paradoxical feeling. to sum it up: it is jealousy. pure and simple.
It was jelousy for you, but it doesn't mean, that everyone else in the world has the same reasons. It's error in critical thinking.

Madrid and London got bombed as a result of their foolish decision to back the US on Iraq.

let's assume you're right. the European electorates decided not to punish US-friendly candidates but to reward them. what do you have to say about that? look how warmly Sarkozy talks about America

I'm totally expecting a Republican victory in the US elections next year. Americans live in die hard fantasies

let's assume you're right. the European electorates decided not to punish US-friendly candidates but to reward them. what do you have to say about that?
That right wingers exist in Europe just like anywhere else. Sometimes they are in power, sometimes they are not. You think Sarkozy is universally liked in France for his pro-US stance?

fact #1: the left is against stronger anti-terrorism measures


Specifically what?

fact #2: the left is for extending more legal protection to terrorism suspects

What, you mean they want to uphold the Geneva Conventions?

Violating human rights is not necessarily a great anti-terrorism strategy.

I'm totally expecting a Republican victory in the US elections next year. Agreed. But because of this:
fact #1: the left is against stronger anti-terrorism measures
fact #2: the left is for extending more legal protection to terrorism suspects

conclusion #1: given facts #1 and #2, left would be weaker on terror.
conclusion #2: given fact #1, and given that the Democrats are the Left's party, you can conclude the Democrats would be weaker on terror.

i'm just stating the obvious here..

That right wingers exist in Europe just like anywhere else. Sometimes they are in power, sometimes they are not. You think Sarkozy is universally liked in France for his pro-US stance?

i recently spoke to a visitor from France. he said that Sarkozy is looked at as a savior and a hero. imagine that -- an incumbent politician receiving such affection from youth...

he is VERY popular in France. and not just because he received the majority of the votes.

re: "rightwingers exist in Europe", that's true. but the "undecideds" have decided on a right-leaning candidate.

i recently spoke to a visitor from France. he said that Sarkozy is looked at as a savior and a hero.
Yes, by the French right. Whats the surprise?

but the "undecideds" have decided on a right-leaning candidate.
As they did with Chirac, who was a conservative.

Agreed. But because of this:

Nope, its cos they cannot contemplate losing their standing.

Terrorism doesn't happen from nothing. The US itself invited terrorism on its soil with its own illegal actions abroad.

Bullshit. Terrorism was around long before the US even existed. If you're speaking of Islamic terrorism, which gets all the headlines these days, you're full of shit, too. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt started for essentially religious reasons that had nothing to do with the US. That is, they wanted to establish a new caliphate after the collapse of Imperialism. In many other areas, such as India, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Turkey, the terrorists group sprung up to resolve border conflicts that came about after the maps were redrawn at the end of the First World War by foolish European diplomats. The Peace to End All Peace is a good book to see about this, but you need to see several books if you want to correct your appaling ignorance.

You can't fight terrorism with weapons, because that only creates more anger and suffering in the world. The heart of the problem is greed and it's mainly American greed and desire to control and own the world of which it understands very little. Of course one must protect himself, but the way out of terrorism is not even more violence, it just puts all into a cycle of ever increasing suffering on all sides. Friendship, compassion and understanding is the way out and violence should be the last possible mean. I thought you guys touted yourselves as Christian.

While that all sounds sweet it typically ignores the fact that the religious zealot cares not a whim for comprmise or understanding. The Islamic sort want a caliphate pure and simple. They are religious extremists, interested in purifying eastern and western societies. Either you agree with them or you die or you are enslaved. I choose none of those options. I choose to fight.

^^^ exhibit A. Paranoia+US media = same thing they are fighting; ie. idoits who don't know that discretion is the better part of valour.

Bullshit. Terrorism was around long before the US even existed.
Of course it was, of course, but the current problem wasn't. The US has escalated the conflict by its foolish actions after the 11th september.
While that all sounds sweet it typically ignores the fact that the religious zealot cares not a whim for comprmise or understanding.
Exactly what Bush is with his holy crusade and axis of evil.
The Islamic sort want a caliphate pure and simple.
So why not allow them to have it? Rights of self determination.
If they as a country choose to attack western countires, kill 'em.

religious extremists, interested in purifying eastern and western societies
Then why give them more reasons want to do that?

I choose none of those options. I choose to fight.
Your choice, your karma.

Yes, by the French right. Whats the surprise?


As they did with Chirac, who was a conservative.

how do you know he is a rightwinger? he's a friend of a friend who happens to be a lefty.

and re: Chirac, he's proven himself to be very anti-US.

how do you know he is a rightwinger? he's a friend of a friend who happens to be a lefty.
I wasn't talking about your friend.

and re: Chirac, he's proven himself to be very anti-US.
'Anti-US' because of his stance on Iraq, which was (and actually still is) a popular position in France.

Terrorism doesn't happen from nothing.
The US itself invited terrorism on its soil with its own illegal actions abroad.
Then it dragged other states into it, and those states got burned.
You can't fight terrorism with weapons, because that only creates more anger and suffering in the world. The heart of the problem is greed and it's mainly.
S.A.M.? Is that you?
The U.S. and the world have been dealing with Islamic terrorism longer than our recent issues.
American greed and desire to control and own the world of which it understands very little.
Yet, all you non-U.S. residents seem to think you 'understand' the U.S. and what we do. :rolleyes:

^^^ exhibit A. Paranoia+US media = same thing they are fighting; ie. idoits who don't know that discretion is the better part of valour.
Is it possible for you to shut the fuck up for five fuckin seconds about blaming the United States for everything? I mean surely you can't be THAT fuckin stupid and clueless.
Why don't you worry about the problems of you OWN country and try to fix them instead of running your mouth about the U.S.?
And no, this isn't paranoia Sam; it's disgust at your utter, absolute ignorance.

Of course it was, of course, but the current problem wasn't. The US has escalated the conflict by its foolish actions after the 11th september.

So, if we're inviting terrorism on our soil through our foolish post 9/11 actions, why is it that there haven't been any terrorist attacks on America since then?

Also, given that the cut-off date you selected is 9/11 and not, say, 3/20/2003, the question arises of exactly how you think we should have dealt with Afghanistan.

So why not allow them to have it? Rights of self determination.
If they as a country choose to attack western countires, kill 'em.

Funny, aren't you in the middle of criticizing us for doing exactly that?

Your choice, your karma.

Exactly. So kindly leave us to our fates and stop with your juvenile moralizing.

So, if we're inviting terrorism on our soil through our foolish post 9/11 actions, why isn't that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on America since then?
Because of your police and military.

Also, given that the cut-off date you selected is 9/11 and not, say, 3/20/2003, the question arises of exactly how you think we should have dealt with Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was legal, Iraq was not.

Yet, all you non-U.S. residents seem to think you 'understand' the U.S. and what we do.
No, I don't think I understand you, frankly, I don't. I just don't like the results of the US actions abroad.
Of course I also don't like actions taken by other countries, including my own, but as the US is the most powerful country in the world, its actions are most felt.

Because of your police and military.

Actually, I'd say that the intelligence services are more important than either of those. Nevertheless, you've gone in yet another circle. I'd suggest you take the time to iron out your own thoughts and positions before trying to talk down to us about it.

No, I don't think I understand you, frankly, I don't. I just don't like the results of the US actions abroad.
I don't agree with some of our actions abroad either; and that's mostly because there are a few too many less than competent people too high up in the government.
But I'm also sick of hearing people 'who know very little' about the U.S. constantly blaming us for all the world's problems.
I guarantee that if we closed our borders and became semi isolated like China used to be, and didn't export any of our goods, or let anyone abroad come here and study, there would be far more whiners and bitchers because of that.
Even though I don't like the reason for us going to Iraq; we're there, and minus well finish the job we set out to do right. So there's no reason to bitch about it in the meantime; it's like crying over spilled milk.

Afghanistan was legal, Iraq was not.

Why is it that people think this statement will impress anyone? Everyone knows that the word "legal" means, in this context, nothing more than "approved of by France, China and Russia." It is kind of troubling that you speak as though a world government already existed, however...

Talk you down?! :D You think me for a delusional fool?
Yes, you probably do, but I'm just voicing my opinion here. What I say won't affect any of US foreign policy actions the slightest,
and I have no intention to participate in this "struggle", because I have more important things to do with my life and friends.

No, I don't think I understand you, frankly, I don't. I just don't like the results of the US actions abroad.

Then what makes you think that your critiques will be of any use to anyone?

Then what makes you think that your critiques will be of any use to anyone?

No use at all, I'm just chatting.

You think me for a delusional fool?

No, just an immature fool.

What I say won't affect any of US foreign policy actions the slightest,

You've got that right. What you are accomplishing, however, is to ensure that Americans here will not value your opinions on topics related to them.


and I have no intention to participate in this "struggle", because I have more important things to do with my life and friends.

And yet, here you are, posting trite little barbs about America, Bush, etc.

No use at all

Well, that was easy...

You've got that right. What you are accomplishing, however, is to ensure that Americans here will not value your opinions on topics related to them.
If I cared about that I wouldn't be posting this reply.
And yet, here you are, posting trite little barbs about America, Bush, etc.
Sure, why not? Just like everyone else here. The whole problem is people taking things too seriously. Islamic militants taking their religion too seriously, the US taking a few ruined buildings and deaths too seriously, and you taking these forums too seriously.
We all turn to ash any way, so experience life for what it is, participate joyfully in its sorrows and be aware that we're all born to die. Fear is the mindkiller (Dune).

fact #1: the left is against stronger anti-terrorism measures
fact #2: the left is for extending more legal protection to terrorism suspects

conclusion #1: given facts #1 and #2, left would be weaker on terror.
conclusion #2: given fact #1, and given that the Democrats are the Left's party, you can conclude the Democrats would be weaker on terror.

i'm just stating the obvious here..

Nonsense. You are just spouting your own talking point here. You have defined for yourself what being "stronger" on terror means, stuff like torturing people and subverting our own rights of privacy. This doesn't make us stronger, it undermines our historical position as a nation of laws, the bringer of justice and rights.

In a practical sense, all the clues to prevent 9/11 were available to our government through legal means. If there is a war on terror, then the enemies are POWs, otherwise they are criminals that should be tried in court, (like Spain has already done).

Of course it was, of course, but the current problem wasn't. The US has escalated the conflict by its foolish actions after the 11th september.


The current conflict didn't exist, but the US escalated it? There's a problem with your logic there. The conflict between the world and Islamic radicals has been around since the 1950s, as I already mentioned. The US was attacked on Sept. 11th on its home soil after several smaller attacks. So who was it that really escalated the conflict?

Exactly what Bush is with his holy crusade and axis of evil.


This remark isn't even worth responding to.

So why not allow them to have it? Rights of self determination. If they as a country choose to attack western countires, kill 'em.

First of all, it's against our interests, and the interests of civilization as whole to allow religious radicalism to run a state as a theocracy. Second, they have attacked "western countries," so can we kill them now? They also continue to attack their own Muslim "brothers."

Then why give them more reasons want to do that?

You seem to misunderstand that their faith is their reason. They require nothing else, and any claims to the contrary, are empty-headed and foolish.

Your choice, your karma.

Funny. I'm fighting for people like you...

well guess what: France and Germany's new elected governments are much more friendly with US than their predecessors. them being elected also shows that the electorates of the 2 countries think the same.

Not necessarily. Governments are not elected based on how close they want to be with the US. You think the people in Europe only think about America? :rolleyes:

same for Britain - Brown is popular and pro-America. he is pulling troops out of Iraq, but other than that, the cooperation between the UK and the US has not been scaled down at all.

Brown is popular?

The UK is 'pro-America'. Europe is 'pro-America'. The whole World is generally 'pro-America'. 'Pro-America', like that means anything. The UK has and will always be close to America, no matter who the PM is, it is set policy. No matter how much opposition they face at home (e.g. Iraq war), no matter how much pressure is applied, the main political parties will never say anything against America.

in fact, Europeans realize that they have a huge Islamic Terrorism problem of their own, and they would, in my opinion, prefer an American president who is stronger on anti-terrorism efforts. and it's pretty much a given that a Republican would be stronger in that area.

They do?

America's war on terror has been nothing but a failure. Afghanistan is a mess. Iraq is a mess and Iran is next in line. Osama Bin Laden is still about, Al-Qaeda is now in Iraq. Terrorism in the Mid-East and Worldwide has increased.

The US had the whole World's support after 9/11, look at the situation 6 years on.

Funny. I'm fighting for people like you...
Stalin said the same, so please exclude me.

If I cared about that I wouldn't be posting this reply.

If you don't expect people to pay any attention to your input, why post it in the first place? What, exactly, do you get out of posting admittedly uninformed opinions that you don't think anyone should listen to?


The whole problem is people taking things too seriously. Islamic militants taking their religion too seriously, the US taking a few ruined buildings and deaths too seriously, and you taking these forums too seriously.

Riiiiight. My naive hope that people here might engage in a useful, informed discussion is on par with international Islamic terrorism and American retaliation in the pantheon of global problems.


We all turn to ash any way

So why do you get all worked up about America and terrorism? All those people were going to die anyway. Why moralize about it on some obscure message board? Especially since it doesn't affect you in the first place.

You think the people in Europe only think about America? :rolleyes:

Well, if you judged by the posts on SciForums, you might start to think so...

America's war on terror has been nothing but a failure.

Except for the whole part about there not being any terrorist attacks in America.


Afghanistan is a mess.

Sure, but less of a mess than it was prior to 2001. Afghanistan has been a mess for centuries, and will continue to be a mess for centuries. The point is that said mess not be exploited for international terrorist training and logistics.


Iraq is a mess

Likewise, Iraq has been a mess for quite some time. Is the current situation really that much worse than the systematic destruction of an entire generation of Iraqis via the sanctions regime?


and Iran is next in line.

Are you sure? At any rate, no attack on Iran is going to happen without strong European support, so I'm not seeing the relevance to your point... Considerations about Iran are a big factor driving American efforts to shore up relations with Europe and other allies and get the diplomatic process functioning again.


Al-Qaeda is now in Iraq.

Yes, in Iraq being marginalized and killed by fellow Arab Muslims. I can't think of a more substantial, lasting way for them to be defeated than to have the Sunnis of Iraq side with America in order to oppose them.

The US had the whole World's support after 9/11, look at the situation 6 years on.

The War on Terror is not a popularity contest. That y'all are insecure about depending on us for your security is something we've known for quite some time, and is why we have no difficulty at all ignoring your specious preaching.

Stalin said the same, so please exclude me.

Stalin fought against radical religious extremists hellbent on ending the Soviet way of life? Um ... no, he didn't. And frankly, it's obvious you know little or nothing about history, politics, international relations or any of the other relevant issues we're discussing here, so speaking with you is an obvious waste of time. Go find some pertinent books, read them and then come back. OK?

You didn't get it. Stalin too was fighting for the good of workers and peasants, at least that was the party line, but in the end he executed and sent to prison camps millions of people.
I don't want my name used as an excuse for atrocities, so please don't fight for me.

p.s. I'm quite informed, working in foreign affairs for my government, I just find it very funny, how people worry and take these things so seriously, so I play along for the common fun and entertainment.

Any way, my points in this discussion, and with this I leave it all for you, troubled ones. is that:
1. The US has declared war on an idea, a method of fighting, it's a lost and neverending cause from the start.
2. The US uses this excuse to further its influence and military presence around the world in order to secure its purely political and financial interests besides the security ones. And because it's not an achievable goal (winning terrism), there is no end for it. Very convenient.
3. The US with its foreign policy and actions fuels extremist regimes and organizations throughout the world, but especially Middle East, and in doing so deliberately or not creates more reasons to increase its influence.
4. The best strategy for peace is to diminish your imperial desires and cooperate with other regimes for the common and local good. Don't teach others what is right, because you yourselves don't know any better. Torture, wars, illegal detention, and just plain arrogance.
Democracy is not a solution for everyone, and you yourselves have stood against democracy when the democratically elected regime was not in your interests (many regimes in Latin America, as well as Palestinian territory and other countries).

Oh, and my final suggestion remains, don't take life too seriously, it's all passing and going. On the cosmic scale it's all the same, and bush with all the americans and all the other people of the Earth are just rambling monkeys worshipping bananas and their own tiny, little brains.

Worshipping Allah is not all that different from worshipping the not so mighty dollar or Jesus, chill out and read something from the Quoran before sleep, it'll too be entertaining.

For someone who claims not to understand America(ns), your "points" rely an awful lot on certainty about why we do what we do.

But, don't worry, I'll have no trouble heeding your recommendation that I discount all of your opinions about America.

"Restoring American standing in the world"
America stands on its own merits. America does not stand because non-Americans think it should stand more to their liking.

The Great Monolith of the Rest of the World should be more concerned about why America doesn't think as much of it as it thinks of itself.

If America wanted to be like the rest of the world America would be just like the rest of the world.

I'm comfortable with the discomfort of the rest of the world that America is not like it. I am even more comfortable with its discomfort that America doesn't want to be like it; doesn't have to be like it; wants something more for itself than just it.

I'm comfortable with the discomfort of the rest of the world that America is not like it.
you can recognize that there is a Left in the US, and that it strives to be just like the Sophisticated Europeans are. that Left is very much bothered by how America is perceived overseas. and as you know, those people vote too.

you can also appreciate that America needs cooperation on some things from outsiders. be it technological innovation, intelligence sharing, oil, military fronts, etc.

US needs good relations with other countries.

Not necessarily. Governments are not elected based on how close they want to be with the US. You think the people in Europe only think about America?
you're right of course. but then it shows that Europeans don't really care that much about American behaviour if they don't care that their new leaders are more chummy with it -- an indicator that America's standing isn't so bad (or that things at home are really fucked up)

Nonsense. You are just spouting your own talking point here. You have defined for yourself what being "stronger" on terror means
strength = how midevil you get on the terrorists' asses. not how many flowers and stuffed fuzzy animals you spread around the world to "combat" terrorism.
i mean, sure you can make an argument that the carrot is more effective than the stick, but Europeans want an American president who carries a very big stick, and even uses it once in a while.

You won't find any terrorists if you don't win heart and minds. Read Patreus' own counterinsurgency manual.

6-1. Success in COIN requires the establishment of a legitimate government which has the support of the people and is able to address the fundamental causes that the insurgents use to gain popular support.

You won't find any terrorists if you don't win heart and minds. Read Patreus' own counterinsurgency manual.

6-1. Success in COIN requires the establishment of a legitimate government which has the support of the people and is able to address the fundamental causes that the insurgents use to gain popular support.

there's a segment whose heart no carrot will win over. that's the one you crush with the biggest stick you can find.

there's a segment whose heart no carrot will win over. that's the one you crush with the biggest stick you can find.

Very true, and no one should even want to try to pacify that segment since it's clearly a fool's errand.

There are those here who will strongly deny it (because they don't understand OR because it suits their personal agendas) but radical Islam will eventually fall to the pressures of Westernization. It has already taken a strong hold in many backward countries much to the dismay of their national leaders. It many require 150 or 200 or more years to happen, it certainly cannot happen overnight - but happen, it will. All the extremist Inmans in the world cannot contain the people's desire for Western clothes, entertainment and general higher standard of living. As the world 'shrinks' and people are forced closer and closer together, it's inevitable.

well guess what:
The EU is taking over and America is turning into the new Brazil .
EU ain't seen nothin' yet (http://newhumanist.org.uk/861)
If you look at a map of the world, you can see Europe's influence spreading: Around the 450 million citizens of the European Union, there are another one and a half billion people who depend completely on the EU as their biggest trade partner, source of credit, foreign investment, and aid. These 2 billion people (one third of the world's population) live in the 'Eurosphere': Europe's zone of influence, which is gradually being transformed by the European project.

You won't find any terrorists if you don't win heart and minds. Read Patreus' own counterinsurgency manual.

6-1. Success in COIN requires the establishment of a legitimate government which has the support of the people and is able to address the fundamental causes that the insurgents use to gain popular support.

The Patreus manual is about how to fight a counterinsurgency, not how to fight terrorism. The two are very different. Just because insurgents use the methods of the terrorist does not mean they are "terrorists" by definition.

You won't find any terrorists if you don't win heart and minds. Read Patreus' own counterinsurgency manual.

6-1. Success in COIN requires the establishment of a legitimate government which has the support of the people and is able to address the fundamental causes that the insurgents use to gain popular support.

Insurgents != terrorists, despite Bush's rhetoric to the contrary. To see this distinction in action, notice how most of the success fighting terrorists in Iraq lately has come about because the insurgents got so disgusted by them that they flipped, allied with themselves with us, and we fought the terrorists together. You could, in some sense, consider this to be "winning the hearts and minds" of the insurgents, but it would be more accurate to say that the terrorists were so repellent that they drove them into our arms.

Winning the hearts and minds of a bunch of brainwashed, spoiled Saudi youths is hard. Teaming up with the Iraqis to kill them once they turn up there is relatively easy.

It's the Iraqis who's hearts we needed to win. See how we are tolerant of Iraqi militias? They are terrorists too, but if we went into their neighborhoods and shot them up as otpead would have us do, the population would only radicalize against us.

It's the Iraqis who's hearts we needed to win.

In order to quell the insurgency, yes. That's not necessarily the same thing as defeating terrorists, nor are individual steps to win hearts and minds necessarily helpful in cutting down on terrorism.

The whole difficulty with Iraq is that there are 5 or 6 distinct conflicts going on there, and steps to alleviate any one of them usually make at least one other one worse.


See how we are tolerant of Iraqi militias? They are terrorists too,

Only some of them. More to the point, the ones that are terrorists generally aren't interested in attacking the United States. Dealing with the militias falls under the mission to stabilize and shore up the Iraqi state, not so much the war on (international) terrorism.

It's the Iraqis who's hearts we needed to win. See how we are tolerant of Iraqi militias? They are terrorists too, but if we went into their neighborhoods and shot them up as otpead would have us do, the population would only radicalize against us.

you're talking about a carrot-to-all-segments approach. that approach is missing the nuance -- some segments (not all) will only accept the stick. the first step is to acknowledge that.

no one ever said to use only a stick.. try the carrot, but if it isn't working then go for the stick.

Don't always believe Democratic talking heads.

Don't always believe Democratic talking heads.

same goes for republicans

Nope, its cos they cannot contemplate losing their standing.

such a lovely opinion on Americans. who said SAM isnt narrow minded. :shrug:

To see this distinction in action, notice how most of the success fighting terrorists in Iraq lately has come about because the insurgents got so disgusted by them that they flipped, allied with themselves with us, and we fought the terrorists together The part about fighting AQ, one of our common enemies, I can see. The part about "allying themselves with us" is quite a stretch.

Didn't we learn better than that in Afghanistan ?

The part about fighting AQ, one of our common enemies, I can see. The part about "allying themselves with us" is quite a stretch.

Didn't we learn better than that in Afghanistan ?

Uh, I suppose it depends on what you read into the word "ally." Certainly, they're not our allies in the same sense that, say, Australia, is. On the other hand, relations between US personnel and the general population of Anbar have markedly improved.

For that matter, some of our avowed "major non-NATO" allies are at least as problematic.

US needs good relations with other countries.
No more so than other countries need good relations with the U.S..

Newton's "equal and opposite".

Respect works both ways or it doesn't work either way.

Dis the U.S., have a happy life on your own -- as will we.

you're right of course. but then it shows that Europeans don't really care that much about American behaviour if they don't care that their new leaders are more chummy with it -- an indicator that America's standing isn't so bad (or that things at home are really fucked up)

I don't think so. I definitely know that the people in the UK are concerned and unhappy with how close the UK is to America. But then again, you have to appreciate the gap between the feelings of the UK populace and to the policies of the UK Gov. There is such a massive gap there. When issues such as CIA private prisons & torture, the Iraq war (and the lies that led to that war), how to deal with Iran etc. pop up, you can see how much opposition there is to America.

And the UK is also very close to Saudi Arabia. Does Saudi Arabia have a good image in the UK? I don’t think so, do people here want the UK to be close to the Saudis? Apart from weapons manufacturers and pimps, I don’t think so. I don’t think they have a good image anywhere in the West, they have a very bad image in the Muslim World too. In the Muslim World they are the equivalent of America e.g. rich, selfish and full of fat people.

I don't think so. I definitely know that the people in the UK are concerned and unhappy with how close the UK is to America. But then again, you have to appreciate the gap between the feelings of the UK populace and to the policies of the UK Gov. There is such a massive gap there. When issues such as CIA private prisons & torture, the Iraq war (and the lies that led to that war), how to deal with Iran etc. pop up, you can see how much opposition there is to America.
Fortunately, Americans' self-respect (half of America, anyway) isn't derived from the subjective projecting transferences of fickle serial whiny bitchers.

I don't think so. I definitely know that the people in the UK are concerned and unhappy with how close the UK is to America. But then again, you have to appreciate the gap between the feelings of the UK populace and to the policies of the UK Gov. There is such a massive gap there. When issues such as CIA private prisons & torture, the Iraq war (and the lies that led to that war), how to deal with Iran etc. pop up, you can see how much opposition there is to America.

And the UK is also very close to Saudi Arabia. Does Saudi Arabia have a good image in the UK? I don’t think so, do people here want the UK to be close to the Saudis? Apart from weapons manufacturers and pimps, I don’t think so. I don’t think they have a good image anywhere in the West, they have a very bad image in the Muslim World too. In the Muslim World they are the equivalent of America e.g. rich, selfish and full of fat people.

dont you find this ironic?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7084547.stm

dont you find this ironic?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7084547.stm

Erm, no. :rolleyes:

Benayoun is a quality player. And he plays for Liverpool (the team I support), I could not give a damn about his background, race, religion etc. As long as he plays well I'm happy.

I need Israel to beat Russia, I am counting on Israel, if there is anything I could possibly do to help them beat Russia, believe me, I would be more than willing to do it. Thats all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. I will be supporting Israel against Russia, I'm not ashamed to say that.

Erm, no. :rolleyes:

Benayoun is a quality player. And he plays for Liverpool (the team I support), I could not give a damn about his background, race, religion etc. As long as he plays well I'm happy.

I need Israel to beat Russia, I am counting on Israel, if there is anything I could possibly do to help them beat Russia, believe me, I would be more than willing to do it. Thats all there is to it as far as I'm concerned. I will be supporting Israel against Russia, I'm not ashamed to say that.

that is what I find ironic.

that is what I find ironic.

Please explain.

Please explain.

that you have no problem supporting Israel, when it coincides with your interests.

Fortunately, Americans' self-respect (half of America, anyway) isn't derived from the subjective projecting transferences of fickle serial whiny bitchers.
Judging from the lack of response, I could have just as accurately phrased that as "the subjective projecting transferences of fickle serial whiny weak-kneed testicleless bitchers".

Just saying.

Thanks, Imus.

No more so than other countries need good relations with the U.S..

Newton's "equal and opposite".


oh really...
would you tell me please how France was hurt after their refusal to support the Iraq war?

Freedom Fries to the rescue...

"Restoring American standing in the world"

they should bribe us.

Thanks, Imus.
Hey, look everyone. I'm a racist!

I don't recall characterizing anyone's empty sack as being characterized by a particular pigmentation.

Actually, I was thinking "invisible".

oh really...
would you tell me please how France was hurt after their refusal to support the Iraq war?
That wasn't my point. My point was America doesn't need France any more than France needs America.

Just a thought:

If Iraqis could vote to elect the next US President for which party's candidate would they most likely vote?

That's what I thought.

What, this? Iraqis would likely vote for the closest thing to viable opposition available, in hopes of US policy reversal (they would likely vote Democrat). By every measure available, Iraqis do resoundingly want American forces to leave their country, and they sorely rue it that we ever intervened.

they should bribe us.

Yeah, but ... well ... we pay in dollars.