No wonder the world hates us

[Red Beard]

War sucks

It's not a war; it's an occupation.

[HalfManHalfGod]

Originally Posted by Red Beard

It's not a war; it's an occupation.

Doesn't make the statement any less true.

Although I think you're right POTUS has outlawed the term "War on Terror".

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Oh hey lets all post pictures about how terrible war is.

That's the point. People don't like it when the US makes wars in their area over bullshit. Yes, war is terrible. Soldiers intentionally or accidentally killing people is a Bad Thing. So maybe the ease at which the US goes to war (which, lets remember, is "terrible") might have something to do with the ill will certain nations feel toward America. Maybe people are more concerned about their leg being blown off or 17 of their friends being killed in their homes by a crazy soldier than by how super the first amendment to the US Constitution is or whatever.

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by Warborn

That's the point. People don't like it when the US makes wars in their area over bullshit. Yes, war is terrible. Soldiers intentionally or accidentally killing people is a Bad Thing. So maybe the ease at which the US goes to war (which, lets remember, is "terrible") might have something to do with the ill will certain nations feel toward America. Maybe people are more concerned about their leg being blown off or 17 of their friends being killed in their homes by a crazy soldier than by how super the first amendment to the US Constitution is or whatever.

I think this sums up your point pretty good.

http://bubblare.se/movie/jon_stewart..._to_the_rescue

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Red Beard]

Malorn you got some great posts, but I' gotta say;

What America does doesn't affect the way people see America.

I have no idea how you conclude something like that...?

WWII also showed us what happens if you ignore tyrants or try to appease them - they take more and more. That's what Hitler did, and later we saw the oppression of communism. We can't sit back and let the world go to hell, and we certainly can't let another country go to war against us by proxy of terrorists (Taliban). Saddam may or may not have had weapons of mass destruction. But he did and would have done far more death and suffering to his own people than US involvement has done in the last 9 years. The man killed entire villages and used nerve gas on his own people for no other reason than they weren't the right ethnicity or religion. He used UN food money to build palaces while his people starved.

I believe they call it "the war on terror" these days. WE are the problem now.

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

"There's a lot of evil in the world and it will happen whether the US intervenes or not. We have the power to stop some of it, and prevent it from developing into something much worse."

I'm pretty sure much of the "intervention" you mention has in fact been the worsening development.

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Maybe people are more concerned about their leg being blown off or 17 of their friends being killed in their homes by a crazy soldier than by how super the first amendment to the US Constitution is or whatever.

Good point...Though its a moot point for the purposes of your post; I gotta say:

"What first amendment?"






"See this little box here? You're free in there!"

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Baneblade]

America wouldn't be so reviled if we would grow out of this interventionist phase. Helping is one thing, shoving our cock down the throats of people we have no ties with... is another.

Get rid of our foreign soil bases, all of them. Eliminate the USAF entirely, the only thing it does that the Navy doesn't is hand deliver nukes. Merge the Marines back into the Navy, reorganize the Army into the Guard. And run it like the Guard including greatly decreasing the overall size. Reduce the scope of the Navy from global to North Atlantic and Pacific.

[Figment]

Hitler attacked the USSR because he expected them to attack him at some point anyway and hoped to convince the Brits to accept the status quo on the continent (he even called on the allies to join in the war against the USSR in the declaration of war speech iirc).

The USSR kinda expected an invasion as well from Germany, just not so soon. So yes, Hitler did do pre-emptive assaults.


Hussein constantly denied having nukes, so no, he did not claim they had weapons of mass destruction, in fact, quite the opposite. He just frustrated searches for them, making people believe they were there anyway. Why else frustrate? Could in retrospect simply have been ego, base reluctance to be inspected (pride and arrogance) and irritation.

Regarding Iraq, to say "some people died" is a bit of an understatement. After putting Iraq on the verge of civil war and with currently estimates between 106.000 and 116.000 civilian deaths due to destabilising the region and population power balance over night.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Most of these come from inter-sektarian and warlord militia violence. This type of violence was NOT present under Saddam Hussein (he did all the killing and political imprisonment himself). I'm not argueing the amount of freedom was greater or the current situation is worse, I can't really tell, tbh. From the looks of it, it improved in a lot of areas, but worsened in security.


So I'm stating the post-war policy of the Bush administration (especially the uncontrolled disbanding of the Iraqi national guard) is responsible for this. Which, is a direct consequence not of waging war, but of having no plan or idea for what came next. Particularly the incredibly stupidity of disbanding the Iraqi National Guard and with it basically creating both a large, combat trained disgruntled populace with no income and arming any group with a destabilising agenda that could abuse the power vaccuum (criminals, zealots, warlords, you name it).

And that is simply down to governmental shortsightedness, incompetence, lack of understanding of (and interest in?) the local situation and perhaps down to mere arrogance of "we'll fix it over night, they'll be transformed in democratic value loving people over night after they have been freed from tyrranny".


Plus, it would have been a much better reason and timing to remove Saddam Hussein during the Kuweit war. Nobody would have objected to the legitimacy of that. But no, US elections showed the hypocrisy of American foreign policy. The hypocrisy of supporting and condoning certain oppressive regimes as long as they are friendly towards the US or "stabilising" for the region. America often loses face through that hypocrisy. A lot of people believe America's only interested in preserving its own interests (and in doing so are not better than the USSR or China) and morality comes second to economic interest and political (world) power. Basically, when it's convenient, the democracy and "public outrage" card is pulled, but when it's not the US government looks away from uninteresting nations.

Basically, where would the US intervene? Rwanda or Middle East? Random poor populace genocide or dictator in control of oil threatening to not sell to the US in a time where oil resources becomes scarce and a certain country is the biggest consumer (and waster) of energy in the world?


What also annoys in general is that the US often does not conform to or participates in global treaties, despite being one of the main culprits to have the treaty signed. For instance, treaties regarding pollution and energy consumption, international law and other positive for the long term, worldwide initiatives. That creates resentment as well as strengthens the impression that the US is only interested in "#1" (economical self-interest with no regard for consequences).

And of course, the US often stampedes through porcelain cabinets despite of all that.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Noivad

The United States was the first Free Country which gave specfic rights to its people.

Look up Magna Carta. Then get back to me.

Originally Posted by Vash02

But there is that 18 month tour of duty american soldiers have to do. That may fuck with their heads somewhat, being stuck in a bloody hot country with no AC and being fired upon constantly.
I dont know about the other NATO nations but in Britain its only a 6 month ToD followed by at least a year off.

I did three of these tours as a soldier and one as a "contractor". I know guys who've done more than that. In all cases there were less than two months time off between tours except for the contractor gig after I ETS'd. You don't see my face on the news, pissing on dead combatants, forcing prisoners to stick their dick in some other prisoner's face, keeping ear necklaces, burning a Quran, shooting up innocent people, burning families alive, or other shenanigans. Why? Because I give a shit about human beings, even fuckers trying to kill me, even people of a foreign nation who just live there, even family members of fuckers trying to kill me. Why? Because I'm a professional. Why? Because that's how I was raised. And no amount of time in a combat zone will change that.

Maybe I'm better, or maybe I'm just not good enough. Maybe people who do this type of shit are stupid, damaged, or both. Or maybe stress got to them. I don't know. I don't have an answer.

[Vash02]

I'm not saying every soldier goes crazy, you only need one or two for it to explode on the news and fuck all the progress made.

[Firefly]

That's because society tends to focus on the bad, and not the good. The key word there is media. News is no longer responsible journalism - it's "news entertainment". Which makes it on par with Fox News.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

The way I see it, and by God the only way I'll ever see it; If I'M on the ground with known hositles in the area and I feel threatened in any possible fucking way. I will, one way or another, come home in one peace.

How very christian.

A far more sure survival tactic is not going in the first place. Its 100% effective at preventing troops from dying.

But I guess we only teach abstinence in sex ed nowadays.