Anti American sentiment

Post Reply New Topic

Of course not. Yours are so much nicer.

I got some DD Bro's for Xmas.

And i bought stock in mansiers

Saying that all casualties, both military and civilian, are the Coalition's fault, in my opinion is circular logic that just falls flat. The only part of that argument that holds up is that we "shouldn't be there", which I'll address later. By that logic, it could be said that the friendly fire and Coalition-caused civilian casualties can be blamed on the insurgents, since they don't have any business trying to disrupt the democratic process in Iraq, and their leaders - mostly foreign born terrorists - have less right to be there than we do. Even if we're only after oil, which I don't think we are, at least we're not there to oppress people with a fundamentalist religion and execute subversive types and all the good stuff that a theocratic dictatorship brings with it.

I think if anything, it's more that Bush considers himself a Great Crusader, and envisions himself 50 years from now, being enshrined in text books as the man that started the war that defeated radical Islam and brought peace and stability to the middle east. Now, if Cheney egged Bush on because he had HIS sights set on the oil, that would surprise me less... don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of Bush, though I did prefer him to Kerry (and still do). Getting off track anyway...

The reason the insurgency is referred to as an insurgency, or as terrorists, is because - unlike soldiers - they target civilians on purpose. They are not trying to defeat the Coalition by military means, for the most part. They are trying to undermine the Coalition's support by spreading terror through the civilians in Iraq.

[quote=SB2]We have no business dictating (dictatorship) to other countries until we can pull ourselves together as a Nation. Why should innocent young Americans be forced to die for greed.
I would be interrested to know what the greater good is, with us being in Iraq and all..[/quote]

This is something I agree with. While I consider myself a patriot, I think that something in the USA is broken, and I pray - but doubt - that it can be fixed without revolution. I could also go on for hours with what I think the problem with the USA is. But the big one is that government is using big business to crush the middle class. Bush supporters love to cite how many jobs he's bringing back to the market - but those aren't subsistance jobs. They're entry level jobs that don't pay enough for you to own both an apartment and a car, and they're all part of those big business corporations.

Bush uses Reaganomics. I don't hate the concept - I think it would work. But the government has to be sure that enough money trickles down to make the people have enough to live on. The Bush Administration is doing the opposite, by allowing big business to blatantly price gouge. It's not just the oil industry - paid attention to the chicken industry lately?

Anyway, I'm undecided about whether we should have gone to war in the first place. I think that we should NOT have gone after Iraq. Saddam did try to play mind games with us, refusing to cooperate with the UN Inspectors and offering money to suicide bombers, but we didn't have actual info that said he had WMDs, only rumors. On the other hand, taking over Saudi Arabia would have netted us just as much oil as Iraq, and since Saudi Arabia, aside from being our ally, is the most theocratic government in the middle east AND the birthplace of fanatical, terroristic islam... that's to say nothing of Iran and their nuclear aspirations...

Anyway. It's my opinion that, while there may be individuals within the insurgency with noble mindsets, that the administration behind it is wholey evil, far more so than the Coalition or US Government, even if you believe the absolute worst about the Bush Administration. While I could have supported a war on terror run properly, this one has been bungled hopelessly. And yet I'll still have to vote Republican in 2008 so that we don't start paying the insurgents apology money.

The "insurgents" are mostly Iraq and their allies and have more business being there than us. There is nothing democratic about invading a country illegally and killing people in their thousands, accident or not. It was the US administration that declared war and so it must be them that take some responsibility for all the deaths that happened (most of them civilians killed by US "friendly fire").

The "democratic" process is far from democratic as a lot of people (particularly sunni arabs) have been killed or intimidated to stop them voting. Vote Republican if you wish but dont be surprised if republican policy brings you more trouble than solutions, particularly in the long-term.

The US and a number of arm bent, reluctant, coalition forces. Not to mention, the Johnny come lateleys.

The British people were rightly not only reluctant but against the war. I dont think our prime-minister was, he was more than willing to back up this war. The US were Johhny come latelies in a real war (ww2) so they should know hoe it feels. The US make up at least 90% of the forces and Britain makes up nearly all the rest but that's not the point. This was a US war (just one with "coalition" backing) so European forces are less active, just as the US were and are "johhny come latelies" in wars that are mostly European.

This is a ludicrous thing to say. I'll explain why later in this post.



Are you serioulsy trying to claim that friendly fire is responsible for more deaths than suicide bombsings and car bombings?



Yeah, they were intimidated and killed by the insurgents that you're defending as having more right to be there than us.

Let's say for a minute that the US doesn't have Iraq's best interests at heart. We already KNOW that the Insurgency doesn't have Iraq's best interests at heart, that's why they target the civilians. They're both causing unnecessary civilian deaths by being in the area. So given these two states of affairs, we can say they're equally unqualified to be there.

But what effects are they having by being there?

US - Prolong insurgency
Insurgents - prolong US occupation

OK, stalemate again. Let's move on.

US - Establish democracy
Insurgents - Establish theocracy

I shouldn't have to explain why a democracy is better than a theocracy, but I will anyway. One simple reason - in a democracy, disapproving of the government vocally won't get you tortured and killed, which in a theocracy, especially the kind the insurgents want to set up, it certainly will. Also don't bother the "we don't care about democracy only about oil" routine. Is that why we've gone to so much trouble to insure safe elections?

Yes, far more. When the coalition invaded up until Iraq was "captured" nearly all casulties were caused by the coalition forces.

Intimidated by them and the US backed Shiite and Kurdish militia. Would you vote in an election that was brought by a foreign administration who you were totally opposed to militarily when things are so raw?



It's their country (the ones from Iraq) and they were invaded by a foreign people, that's why they have more right to be there. You think it is only the "insurgency" that is doing all the killing civillians in Iraq? There are other groups involved with different sides killing each other. The whole area is a power-grab without much of this "peaceful democracy" we hear of.



All these are oversimplifications that you probably seen in a nice colourful "explain the Iraq war in five minutes" chart on fox news channel. The effects are wide-ranging and caused by the illegal occupation of Iraq.



You made elections safe for pro-US shiite and Kurdish areas to an extent but certainly not for all. I know democracy is better than theocracy but you are very naive if you think that dissaproving of the government in Iraq and their forces cant put your life at risk. It is in the US interests to have a friendly Iraq government and oil is one of those interests. There is plenty more things that started the war like Saddam's attempt at Bush sr's life years ago.

There is the Security, arms and other trades that have high sway and money is a lot easier to lose in a war-torn figurative jungle than it is in the US. Im not saying we should back the opposition forces in Iraq but i do wish people would look into things further than the "good and evil smoke the bandits out" propaganda. I suppose it makes peoples live's easier to believe everything that their government or snappy news channel tells them.

Last edited by eamonn on 02 Jan 2006, 11:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I would have thought it obvious that the US needs to pay lip-service to democracy, the world is watching this particular conflict closely and spin is everything. Just take look at the USG's form -

>>> US Interventions 1945 - 1999

Numerous incidents of actively destroying democracies, then educating the resultant dictatorship in cutting edge torture methods!

The US is even fronted again by the same dynasty & cohort (Bush/Rumsfeld etc) as presided over several of the interventions listed above - I doubt theyve suddenly tranformed into altruistic peaceniks!

This particular intervention, may result in something more palatable than an Iranian style theocracy. But only because overall thats the easiest way to consolidate US$ hegemony (the primary motivation for this war imo). They would just as easily help install a dictatorship if circumstances were propitious.

Last edited by psych on 03 Jan 2006, 5:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

I live in Australia. I have much anti-american sentiment, oh yes.
The american tourists I've seen over here are much louder than the average person when they speak, and like to talk about where they've come from and how much better it is than where they are now. They ask daft questions and say unintentionally nasty things in that bleating accent.
Then there's the media rubbish, the capitalism and all the rest. Throw in a few wars, a bad track record internationally and now I refuse to give americans directions if they ever ask me. Just the way it is.
I talk to them online, but only so I don't have to hear their voices.

Hey, that wouldn't be new for them.

Hmmm... I thought it already was a dictatorship...

Anti-Americanism relies on discarding facts and rationalization, and relying on what could best be described as anti-faith - the overwhelming belief that the US is capable of the greatest enormitys, and regard its history and present as a legacy of deceit, greed, avarice and injustice. Facts and rationalization, as previously mentioned, are dismissed because they don't agree with the views of the anti americans. Credible news sources are dismissed by claims that they are controlled by the US, and editorials by people with an issue to press and an axe to grind are held as gospel regardless of the dearth of facts and information supporting them, soley because they are anti-American in their subject matter.

Yeah. That lasted about the first 2 months of the campaign, and probably resulted in fewer than 100 civilian casualties.



There is no such thing as the "Shiite & Kurdish militia", and you failed to take into account the extensive measures that the US took to make the elections safe for the Sunnis. Which is why, after boycotting the first election out of fear, they participated heavily in the second one. Because they now trust that the US and Iraqi army can keep them fairly safe from attack.



This argument makes no sense.



Translation: I've got nothing constructive to say because the harder I try, the more obvious it becomes that you're right, so I'm just going to blame it all on Fox News, like that alone is enough to discredit it.



Do you have some sort of factual info that shows the Iraqi government oppressing others and trying to suppress the Sunni vote?

And please don't link to that thing about the 100 sunnis having found to be imprisoned and beaten - that was inexcusable but there's no evidence that it was condoned by the gov't, and the US put a stop to it anyway.



I wish it was possible to make you understand that what I've been saying here is that, no matter how evil you consider the US to be, in this situation it is simply by FAR the lesser of the two evils. And rather than trying to argue that the US is "good" and "right", I'm trying to explain why it's insane to support and apologize for the insurgency and its actions.

I realise that the US is the lesser of the two evils (at least for my interests and most Iraq people probably) but the rest of your logic is flawed.

There are many opposing factions including the Shiite's and the Kurds and the place is not safe for any side when even the democratically elected leaders have their own connections to atrocities and oppose new safer elections and to sugget that US bombing killed less than 100 people is nothing short of ridiculous.

I am not a citizen of either country but am closer to living an american lifestyle than a middle eastern one and to be honest would rather the US won than the Insurgents for future security (for the west anyway). I will not however be baised to the extent of the pure propaganda that you put out.

Just for clarifications sake, the "100 US bombings" comment was specifically related to the actual War - the one where we fought Saddam's army. The war against Iraq, not the Dislocated War on Terror. The post war casualties in regards to suicide bombings have escalated greatly, and probably several thousand have been accidentally caused by the US... still, that's better than tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, being caused deliberately by the insurgency.

But if you want, we can agree to disagree on the point, since we both generally agree that the US government is hopelessly corrupt and needs to be aired out, and that the Iraq war, if not absolutely illegal, is being mishandled terribly.

According to a study shown by the American media giants CNN (and most other reasonably credible sources of media) in october 2004 the Iraq death toll was at 100,000 and most victims were women and children killed by US bombs. I realise we dont have 100% accurate figures and maybe never will (because the US "dont do bodycounts" and refuse to launch an accurate study or inquiry) but this has been the most respected research and credible figures to come out of the Iraq war yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

McJeff i respect your right to have a different opinion from myself but felt i had to back up my argument because we were told before the war that technological advances would make civillian casulties insubstansial and Bush and Blair would still like us to believe that still. I feel we were lied to and have a duty to expose these lies at every turn.