Anti-Americanism- at all time high!

[Neamos]

I've known american soldiers who've shot civilians. I've never met an american soldier who did it intentionally.

Well, your anecdotal evidence changes everything!

Just like Clinton did in 98 when he bombed iraq

Clinton did it, so it's okay!

AND SO DID BRITTAN! GERMANY! RUSSIA! SO DID THE UN!

Others did it, so it's okay!

Stop using the no WMD's in Iraq to make the war unjustified. It's not easy to know your making a mistake until you've already done it.

What the fuck? Do you understand that the "mistake" is a fucking war with a huge number of innocent people dead?

 

[Jack The Knife]

I've known american soldiers who've shot civilians. I've never met an american soldier who did it intentionally.

The problem is that american soldiers are not careful enough, and in combination with trigger happiness results in a lot of civilian casualties.
Not to mention blue on blue. American soldiers are notorious for friendly fire.

16% of american losses during WWII, and 14% during the Vietnam war was blue on blue.

 

[radnan]

i'm more upset about the polarizing effect it has on a world scale - on a political, social and religious level.

americans should be upset that their countries policies and actions have been hijacked by corporate and religious intrests.

but truly the americans get what they deserve - you get what you voted for - or better said what you let others vote for

i find it amuzing how selfish intrests intertwine with strong beliefs - example: people want less taxes and goverment interference but at the same time want to pry into other peoples lives, ban abortion etc.

oh and to hell with the soldiers - i respect and understand the ideea of duty but there was no draft - there's nothing to complain about - people joined the army because they wanted to -

i feel bad for those who wanted to serve their country and are more likely now serving coporate intrests ...

 

[Pope Viper]

The problem is that american soldiers are not careful enough, and in combination with trigger happiness results in a lot of civilian casualties.
Not to mention blue on blue. American soldiers are notorious for friendly fire.

16% of american losses during WWII, and 14% during the Vietnam war was blue on blue.

Complete. Bullshit.

I would LOVE to see your reaction to getting nailed by an IED, then getting assaulted by AK-47/RPG welding militants.

Have there been friendly fire incidents? Of course, it's part of warfare, spouting statistics for ONE country is completely idiotic. Let's see your stats for other countries. Let's see your stats for the so called "Iraqi Patriots" who are wasting their own citizens for the sake of "liberating" their country from the infidels. Let's see the evidence where the all Sunnis and Shiites can put aside their hatred for each other in order to work for the good of everyone.


Show me a country that has had a military action where civilians were unfortunately caught in the middle.


How about you set aside your bias, and actually speak to soldiers that are serving in the field? Carib FMJ for example, who is currently serving.

It's easy to sit in your nice, cozy chair, and spot rhetoric, when you have to fucking clue.

Yes, America has had it's fuck ups in Iraq. Yes, the current administration has spouted lies about the reasons for the war, and the military has had it's bad issues.

Unfortunately, the media has focused mostly on the bad, rather than good, and some of the "enlightened" individuals in other countries have focused on it, and spout America is the devil.

 

[Sander]

As for WMD's in Iraq. No there wern't any. Bush lied to us to get at the oil! Just like Clinton did in 98 when he bombed iraq! AND SO DID BRITTAN! GERMANY! RUSSIA! SO DID THE UN! SO DID I WHEN I WAS SITTING ON MY TOILET IN 98 WONDERING WHY WE DIDN'T INVADE! ITS A C-O-N SPIRACY! or it was a police state that was notoriously hard to spy on and also refused to allow inspectors in repeatedly. Stop using the no WMD's in Iraq to make the war unjustified. It's not easy to know your making a mistake until you've already done it.

And you're the one complaining about 'bad arguments'?
Regardless of the positive or negative effects of the war in Iraq, it was started on false pretenses. No matter what happens afterwards, this essentially means that a supposedly democratic government deceived its only people and attempted to deceive much of the rest of the world with false evidence and ridiculous presentations in front of the UN.

'But others did these things tooooo!'
Ehm, yes, so? What's your point, exactly? Does this mean that this makes this war more justified? Well, no.

 

[horse]

there are few countries of a certain cosmopolitical "strength" constantly leading wars, possible exception russia. that is the underlying currency that anti-americanism is fueled by in the euros. damn that was a bad metaphor.

on another note: i dont exactly get it why serving in a war does improve your comprehension of statistics.

 

[Pope Viper]

on another note: i dont exactly get it why serving in a war does improve your comprehension of statistics.

Wasn't related to statistics, I was more attempting to point out that unless you can have firsthand knowledge of being in the line of fire, or seeing what the actual situation is, you can not have a clear picture of what is going on.

 

[JR Jansen]

There is another problem that nobody has addressed until now. The USA's current government (well maybe not it's current one but certainly it's previous one-G.W. Bush 1 so to speak) also had a habit of insulting other nations when they didn't want to follow their way of thinking. They ridiculed France, Germany and Belgium for not jumping in to the Iraq fire with them for example. Calling them 'the axis of weasels' and such. That doesn't help ease the anti-Americanism much.

I kinda agree with some people who said that when Bush is out i may start to become better. although that depends on who will win the next presidential election.

 

[Pope Viper]

True, to be honest, as an American, I am sick and tired of the US wanting to police/supply the world, especially when we're either not wanted, or are being taken advantage of economically.

We've got internal issues that need addressing, we need to put the agenda of the US people before other countries.

We've got to tend our house before we attempt to "fix" the world.

 

[Jack The Knife]

Complete. Bullshit.

I would LOVE to see your reaction to getting nailed by an IED, then getting assaulted by AK-47/RPG welding militants.

Have there been friendly fire incidents? Of course, it's part of warfare, spouting statistics for ONE country is completely idiotic. Let's see your stats for other countries. Let's see your stats for the so called "Iraqi Patriots" who are wasting their own citizens for the sake of "liberating" their country from the infidels. Let's see the evidence where the all Sunnis and Shiites can put aside their hatred for each other in order to work for the good of everyone.


Show me a country that has had a military action where civilians were unfortunately caught in the middle.


How about you set aside your bias, and actually speak to soldiers that are serving in the field? Carib FMJ for example, who is currently serving.

It's easy to sit in your nice, cozy chair, and spot rhetoric, when you have to fucking clue.

Yes, America has had it's fuck ups in Iraq. Yes, the current administration has spouted lies about the reasons for the war, and the military has had it's bad issues.

Unfortunately, the media has focused mostly on the bad, rather than good, and some of the "enlightened" individuals in other countries have focused on it, and spout America is the devil.

I agree about statistics for one country being useless. And since I can not find statistics for any other countries, I forfeit it as an arguement.

But still. Even the fact that googling 'friendly fire' mostly finds a hell of a lot of articles on US friendly fire,
and that the US is one of very few nations to actually keep statistics on the matter speaks for itself.

And I stand by the statement that the US is notorious for blue on blue. But it has of course been hyped by the media a bit.

You should know friendly fire only count accidents, and Iraqi Patriots shooting civilians are in many cases not. I dont thing you can compare the two.
It is a difference in policy, if you like. American troops does not shoot civilians on purpose as you of course know.

Further, most of the blue on blue by Americans are done by shelling and bombing. Not in actual fire fights, if you see my point.
I feel your 'in the heat of battle' arguement is not valid because of this.
Shelling an area with friendlies counts as carelessness in my book.

The amount of bombs dropped by the US in wars are bloody incredible. Sadly, a lot of them hit civilians and friendly troops.


Added:

We've got to tend our house before we attempt to "fix" the world.

Yeah. That has always been one of my biggest issues with the US. The cost of playing 'world police' has given the american people a lot of problems.

 

[welsh]

I tend to think that most "friendly fire" exercises are the result of negligence, recklessness and the fog of war. How much of which factor- matters. If its higher than it should be, then fine.

@Ah-teen.
Immigration and terrorism are two sides of the same issue- "Fear of others"

Immigration and terrorism are one side of the same coin. The other side is IRaq- or "take it to them before they take it to us." Or, "Time to kick ass."

America has always been a sleeping bear, that is best left alone. When woken it comes out of its cave swiping, not always rational, not always careful, and sometimes just really pissed off.

Iraq happened because Bush saw that America was willing to be taken to war- in Afghanistan, and then stretched the case to make for a war on Iraq. That simple.

Why the war continues or hasn't been won- that's an interesting question.

A friend pointed out that the way we understand the war might be wrong. What we have may be more of an occupation than a war. A war you need an enemy, but in Iraq- it seems to be a bunch of enemies.

The US isn't much good at occupation, and its done a pretty crappy job on this one.

As for the financial/economic problems- yes that's a consequence of war too. YOu can't fight a war that costs $12 million an hour -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15377059/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111600865.html

At the same time that the government's cutting back on taxes and increasing debts. Increased debts mean lower dollar values, mean higher prices for gas, inflation of imported goods, higher credit risk and less access to credit.

This mixed with the other problems we've seen- most clearly seen in the fuck up that was Katrina- leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Jack The Knife]

A friend pointed out that the way we understand the war might be wrong. What we have may be more of an occupation than a war. A war you need an enemy, but in Iraq- it seems to be a bunch of enemies.

The US isn't much good at occupation, and its done a pretty crappy job on this one.

Heard on the news a couple of weeks back that the US recently put forth a demand for the rights to put up no less than 50 permanent military bases in Iraq, and the complete control of Iraqi airspace from 'somethingsomething'-thousand feet.
Not to forget legal immunity for all american soldiers.

Seems like an occupation to me.

 

[iridium_ionizer]

The whole thing about Saddam and the WMDs is kind of complicated. When Clinton last checked the intelligence there were still missing chemical weapons. And then Saddam goes about purposefully screwing with the U.N. Inspectors. Why would someone without any WMDs screw around with the inspectors that could prove your innocence? Because if they did show that without a doubt he didn't have any then he would have been facing a possible civil war with the Shiite and Kurdish factions - as well as a possible new war with Iran.

In their weakened state the Saddam government had only one trump card and that was the threat that they would use WMDs. Sure they didn't have any but as long as nobody new that then they could still use the threat to bolster their control of Iraq. I think Saddam didn't realize how hell-bent George W. Bush was on invading until it was too late. In fact the reason for the 1st Gulf War was that Iraq thought the U.S. wouldn't react as strongly as it did to the invasion of Kuwait.

 

[DarkCorp]

Oh noes heres my history stuffs again.

Man like someone else said, yeah I guess it is "Fuck you I got mine".

You don't think the fucking frenchies were thinking the same shit when Napoleon was stomping the shit out of the world?

The germans didn't say shit when they were the big kings of Europe.

The japanese, well we all know how comfortable they were at stomping all over everyone elses shit to get theirs.

The spaniards, oh yeah lots of complaining going on in spain when they were raping away in the new world.

The english, they fucking dominated most of the world till WW 1 pretty much broke their bank accounts and they had to cede their "colonies". God forbid anyone brings up the shit they did to the Irish.

China did a fair share of stomping too in the ancient world. If they become more aggressive and isn't controlled, I have no doubt in my mind that the CCP would use past injustices to pull the same shit that japan did.

Romans, same shit.

So forgive me if I'm not Ned Flanders thinking the world is made of gum drops and goodness. Until we can form a one world government, petty bickering and bullshit will continue to reign supreme. Until people are ready to give up divisive things like religion or personal opinion or who deserves what, the bullshit will continue on like it has for thousands of yeards before.

Everyone hates the top dog.

 

[Pope Viper]

A friend pointed out that the way we understand the war might be wrong. What we have may be more of an occupation than a war. A war you need an enemy, but in Iraq- it seems to be a bunch of enemies.

The US isn't much good at occupation, and its done a pretty crappy job on this one.

Heard on the news a couple of weeks back that the US recently put forth a demand for the rights to put up no less than 50 permanent military bases in Iraq, and the complete control of Iraqi airspace from 'somethingsomething'-thousand feet.
Not to forget legal immunity for all american soldiers.

Seems like an occupation to me.

Link to the story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

God, our President is a poser if this is true.

 

[Buxbaum666]

the fucking frenchies
The germans
The japanese
The spaniards
The english
China
Romans

I guess they all learned from their mistakes. Kind of.

 

[DarkCorp]

the fucking frenchies
The germans
The japanese
The spaniards
The english
China
Romans

I guess they all learned from their mistakes. Kind of.

Dude learning from ones mistakes means being sorry for what you have done. The examples above were only sorry because they lost. Its that simple. Did you see any of those nations actually give up the lands they took over? I think not, they had to be forced off one way or another.

So yeah bullshit.

 

[Bad_Karma]

When were France or England forced off most of their colonies? Do you live in parallel universe or soemthing like that?

By the way the austrians didn't get angry about germany, as the japanese weren't.
Allied nearly never got real angry about them, but it's the case with america.. so it's not really the same.

Sure the top-dog is hated by the ones over whom he walks, but america also got a reputation problem with the ones that help america, and wich america is helping...

 

[DarkCorp]

When were France or England forced off most of their colonies? Do you live in parallel universe or soemthing like that?

By the way the austrians didn't get angry about germany, as the japanese weren't.
Allied nearly never got real angry about them, but it's the case with america.. so it's not really the same.

Sure the top-dog is hated by the ones over whom he walks, but america also got a reputation problem with the ones that help america, and wich america is helping...

Uh, the biggest example is America. It's not like the fucking brits just walked away and let America develope. We did fight a fucking war of independence. Lets not mention the war of 1812, their little hissyfit which left our whitehouse in ruins. Also like WW1, WW2 gave England enough troubles at home to deal with. They weren't going to give up India if they didn't have to.

And onto France. Dude WTF are you smoking??? French Indochina anyone??? Its not like the fucking frenchies let the vietnamese people have their own freedom. They had to fight for it. Also lets go back to Napoleon, whom I mentioned. Did Napoleon go "Oh shit I am sorry. I kicked all your asses but now I feel bad about it so I am going to leave and this war was all for nothing". No dude, the Russians had to fight them off.

Once again the Nazis had to be FORCED off. Learning means realising a war of conquest is wrong and to give up the lands without being FORCED off. Oh yeah thats right, the Japanese and the Nazis had their asses KICKED. It took multiple armies to destroy the Nazis and fucking atomic weapons to cow the japanese.

So yeah dude, they didn't learn shit. The reason these countries can't remiltarize is because america won't let them.

 

[Bad_Karma]

Right... you never heard of Australia and the US had to fight France off eh?
There were cases in wich France and England turned away without being in the big trouble. So i wouldn't say that Australia have become a free country because of WWI or WWII...
Nor would i say that all other colonies were given freedom because of problems in their mother-countries. I mean yeah, india was making trouble, and Vietnam started making trouble soon after WWII... but others weren't and would have given still some money/material for France/England...

Again the top-dog has problems with his enemies, but not such problems as americas has with it's allied.

So yeah dude, they didn't learn shit. The reason these countries can't remiltarize is because america won't let them.

Erm i really don't get what you mean with that.
Because both countries have quite some army, and the US were never able to change the minds of people so easily...

By the way:

Dude learning from ones mistakes means being sorry for what you have done. The examples above were only sorry because they lost. Its that simple. Did you see any of those nations actually give up the lands they took over? I think not, they had to be forced off one way or another.

If they wouldn't have lost, they wouldn't have made a mistake...
And to answer it with your own words:

So yeah bullshit

And just a historicall note, the US didn't learn anything from Vietnam, nor did Germany learn form the loss in WWI...