Vietnam was the defence of a democratac nation (south vietnam) that was being invaded by another nation. And we hardly got
our ass's kicked. The kill ration was, accoding to conservitive estimates 10-1. What made us loose ultimatley was politicians
micromanaging every detail and traitors like Kerry aiding the enemy by hurting morale at home.
Oh god, I can't believe you just said that Vietnam wasn't that big of a loss for you. Come the fuck on, you got kicked the
fuck out of North-Vietnam, yes the kill-ratio may have been 10-1, but this says nothing when it comes to victory and the
amount in which you are winning. YOu can't define winning by the number of people kiled, you can only define it by the goals
you reached. And the one thing that didn't happen was you reaching your goals. The North-Koreans did.
And now you claim it's due to "traitors like Kerry"? People have a right to freedom of speech, they have a right to say what
they think, Kerry did that and you bash him for it? Would it have been better if he had shut up because he was afraid of
people like you? No. People should always say what they think, and the fact that you think they are wrong doesn't mean that
they are. Instead of saying "we lost because of them" (which is vaguely reminiscent of post-WW1 Germany), you should say why
this is so, and not just that this is so.
Maybe the US isnt as dumb as you seem to think, since were not the people believing stupid shit like that
Stupid? It's stupid to think that a lot of insurgents just want you gone? Most fundamentalists don't want power in the USA,
they want power in the muslim countries of the middle-east, according to an expert of middle-eastern studies, who studied
middle-eastern studies in the USA. Why do you think that this is any different? Just claiming it is, isn't good enough.
Like the UN is any better ? Or any of the other nations that do similar things. There are approx 30 nations in Iraq with the
US so its hardly just us.
Yes, it is. The USA initiated this war, and the other countries are now there to help build Iraq again. That's a huge difference.
Furthermore, the UN was created specifically with that in mind (by the USA, mind you). They are acting with a mandate from the international community, and have therefore much more rights to act than the USA by itself.
Out and out lie. They want to kill all non muslims, and those they consider evil. If they wanted to be left alone like you said then they wouldnt enact actions that would cause a military responce, such as I dunno, KILLING 3000 people ?
Not a lie. As I said before, come with some support for your statements instead of just assuming people willl believe.
Once again, full of shit. The majority of the fighters ARNT IRAQUIS.
Well that just about contradicts a lot of things I've read in any form of media. Proof and such..
There fore they CANT be nationalists.
Yes, they can. They can be nationalists believing in a large Islamic state, they can also be nationalists who want the Americans out of the middle east in general.
Even the Actual Iraquis fighting us arnt doing so for nationalistic feelings but rather because they lost the power to rape maim tourtre and murder than they could weild withput fear under Sadam.
Which is a form of nationalism. They either want power, or think Saddam is better for them than the USA. Both of those feelings are nationalistic.
Once again, full of shit and lies. How are we forcing our way on them ? Were allowing them to set up their own goverment and military, said miliitary is getting quite good as trained by US forces (I had a good chat with one air force medic who's HMMWV got hit bya RPG. Iraqi national guard forces responded and massacerd the insurgents)
"Lies, I tell you, it's all lies!!!"
The way you are forcing your way on them is by coming in there, taking over the government and then retaining a lot of the power for yourself to bring stability into the country. Ever thought about the fact that maybe they don't want everything you are giving them?
And not showing respect ? American forces do their best to AVOID killing noncombantabts, the forign fighthers however do things like detonating bombs in the middle of IRAQI crowds, killing and maiming innocent children in a hope to kill just one american.
There's a difference between protecting and showing respect. Showing respect means being friendly, smiling to the Iraqis, showing respect for their culture. A report in the NY times, which was published as well in a Dutch newspaper, the Volkskrant, talked about the way in which the Dutch were treating the Iraqis. They smiled to them, they say "Salaam Aleikum" when they encounter Iraqis and they show general interest in the local culture. And, possibly as a consequence of that approach, there have only been two deaths among the Dutch soldiers there, and, IIRC, around 5 attacks in total.
Not so.the fact that we limit suplies coming into Iraq so things such as pork products easily pokes a hole in that falsehood on its own.
No, it doesn't.
Fact: the culture in the USA and other countries is vastly different. Europeans tend to value security and the thought that they are relatively safe, while the USA doesn't have this culture, it has more of a culture of working hard and always remaining positive, and working for yourself. A consequence of that is that people have less social security in the USA, but it also means that the USA can be a lot more productive. Those are two sides of one coin, but to claim that the USA understands other countries or that Europeans understand the USA is silly at best.
No, America just happens to have the balls to stand up for its principles unlike someeuropean nations. And how is america alone there ? There are over 30 nations in Iraq with us so were hardly the only ones doing this. problems with relations my ass.
This statement shows you know little about the situation outside of the USA and the general thought about the USA. Some examples:
Barely anyone outside of the USA would vote for Bush, in Europe this is mainly a 10-1 against Bush. This is a consequence of the way in which Bush is perceived outside of the USA, and the way in which the USA's actions towards other nations are perceived.
Several people in Europe are deliberately avoiding US products because of this, including businesses.
Whenever you speak to anyone outside of the USA about the USA, chances are huge that they will say something negative and not something positive.
Bush has fucked up the relations between other countries and the USA, there's no denying that. (Well, if you believe in facts and reason, that is).
Oh, wait, you mean relations with the UN. Do a little research on something called the leauge of nations. Youll see it had many of the same problems that the UN did.
hah. YOu'll also see that the USA signed a treaty, the Atlantic Charter, stating it's goals and mainly founding the UN. YOu'll notice that the USA has largely ignored this Charter. The fact is that the UN has fixed many problems with the League of Nations (Powerlessness, no military forces, unwilling to do anything), but that it's the USA who are banishing the UN by ignoring it. The UN cannot be effective without the support of the USA, but it can be effective with the support of the USA.
Insular ? Bullshit. America isnt known as a cultural melting pot for no reason. simply while in grade school I got to know people from all inhabited continets,as well as a bit of cultures from all over the world. Such experinces arnt uncomon in america. And dumb peasants ? Hardly, out military is all volunter, and one of the things that means is we can affoard to only accept people with a minumum of talents, those not up to a certain eduecational level are not elegible. Actualy, I dont get this wholepart of your rant, seems like you just wanted to insulrt americans.
Hah. The fact that America is currently a melting pot doesn't mean it isn't insular. The attitude of the Americans after Bush came to power is one you are curreently displaying: "We don't care about anything outside of the USA, we do what WE want." That's called insular.
Once again, total bullshit. The with us or agisnst us argument isnt taken seriously, as its understood that othercountries geopolitical relationships dont always allow them to heavily support us.
You may not take it seriously, but from my experience, many Americans do.
Once again, full of shit. Remember all thos airdrops of food over afganastan ? All the relief suplies being shipped to the Darfour region of the sudan ? and many many many more places where america donates selflessly.
Compared to other nations, the USA does relatively little. The Netherlands donate much more per capita than the USA. (I'll try to find the study showing that)
Oh, another example, the marshal plan. We paid quite a bit for rebuilding europe after WW2.
The marshal plan wasn't selfless. It was recognised that if they wanted to stand a chance against Russia and improve the economy of the USA itself they'd need trading partners like they had in Europe before WW2. As such, they offered the nations money to rebuild themselves, and later on the USA profited a lot from that. I remember several studies showing that the
True, having a camera crew for himself in Nam was definatly thinking in detail. And shooting people in the back must be grey areas.
Say what? Where the hell did you pull these statements from?
You mean he tries to appeal to as many groups as possible, regardless of the facts, then becomes "flexible" by changing his position when the tide of public opinion comes in ? Then yes.
Bush claimed before Cuban refugees that he would remove Castro. That's nothing but a political stunt (or at least, I hope, unless you'd like a draft and all), and Kerry has them as well. Remember the "Conservatism with compassion" of 2000? He dropped that as well, it became more right-wing Christian instead.
Face it, the American elections are focused around personal attacks and trying to get as many voters as possible, both take as mainstream a viewpoint as they can to attract as many voters as possible.
Careful QuietFanatic, you're gonna blow a fuse or two. 
