News What is the solution to America being a terrorist nation?

[Townsend]

I am sick of all the criticism that is being directed towards America with no solutions given. What is the solution? What should be done with America...Lets hear it.

 

[Smurf]

For me it's not what America isn't doing that's the problem, it's what America is doing. And it's pretty simple and self explanitory, you lead by example. You don't imprison people without charges, everyone gets a fair trial, you don't blow up appartment buildings (really, there's no reason why you would need to do that), you don't kill people for being a 'suspect' you don't try to attract kids towards your soldiers when on patrol, you don't do all the **** that America's being criticized for doing.

There's nothing extra you can do, you just stop causing problems in the first place. It's not complicated. You stop and start acting like the moral society you claim to be. America's the only democracy that continuously seems to find this so difficult.

 

[Townsend]

... start acting like the moral society you claim to be. America's the only democracy that continuously seems to find this so difficult.

I think we are...I have never seen anything post here or anywhere else that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Telling America to stop acting the way it does is pointless because it will not accomplish anything. If we are in fact terrorist and terrorist cannot be reasoned with then what makes anyone think that the terrorist of America are any different?

I am agnostic so it is not a religious conviction that makes me feel America is justified. It is the not the media because I never watch TV and get almost all my news from RSS feeds that come from just about everywhere. Yet, I believe and so many of my countrymen believe America is doing the right thing.

So you offered no solution smurf...sorry but telling us we need to start acting in a way that we believe we are is not going to work.

Regards,

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

you don't kill people for being a 'suspect' you don't try to attract kids towards your soldiers when on patrol

like when US soldiers get blown up for giving candy and toys to children? what's next, did they poison the candy too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071300336.html

"The kids were laughing and playing with the solders when the suicide bomber drove his car bomb very fast into the crowd and blew himself up, killing all the kids who were around the soldiers, and some cleaners who were there," said Ali Hussein, a police officer.

[snip]

Amjad and more than a dozen other children from east Baghdad's al-Khalij neighborhood made up the majority of the 27 people killed when a suicide bomber drove into a crowd that had gathered around U.S. soldiers who were handing out candy and small toys, police said. The attack also killed one soldier, according to the U.S. military, and wounded at least 50 people.

personally i find it insulting that the US would even be considered a "terrorist nation". and if the best argument you can make is "what about the civilians in Iraq" that does not constitute terrorism since the US has not purposefully targeted civilians since Vietnam.

How about Canada being a "terrorist nation" too? Hey, anyone can join the club!

http://www.isranet.org/DataBank/canada_terrorism.htm

Bell's litany of terrorist incidents around the world involving Canadian terrorists is long enough to qualify Canada for membership in the Axis of Evil. The most infamous are: the 1985 Air India bombing; the 1991 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi; the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing in New York; the 1993 assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa; the 1995 blast at the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad; the murder of 58 tourists in Egypt in 1997; the 1997 truck explosion in Sri Lanka that killed 100; the bloody Bali night club bombings in 2002; and the 2003 attack on the housing compound in Riyadh.

 

[Townsend]

personally i find it insulting that the US would even be considered a "terrorist nation". and if the best argument you can make is "what about the civilians in Iraq" that does not constitute terrorism since the US has not purposefully targeted civilians since Vietnam.

I agree but for the sake of argument I want to just have everyone pretend that TSM is correct in saying that America is a terrorist nation like any other terrorist nation. I want to know what people who agree with this point of view think should be done about. I want to hear their solutions...

 

[Smurf]

I think we are...I have never seen anything post here or anywhere else that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Telling America to stop acting the way it does is pointless because it will not accomplish anything. If we are in fact terrorist and terrorist cannot be reasoned with then what makes anyone think that the terrorist of America are any different?

I am agnostic so it is not a religious conviction that makes me feel America is justified. It is the not the media because I never watch TV and get almost all my news from RSS feeds that come from just about everywhere. Yet, I believe and so many of my countrymen believe America is doing the right thing.

So you offered no solution smurf...sorry but telling us we need to start acting in a way that we believe we are is not going to work.

Regards,

No, you wouldn't regard it as a solution, of course how could you when you don't even recognise the problem. I thought you created this thread to discuss how America can change, not argue over weather it needs to. You've named it inaccurately.

 

[Pengwuino]

Good luck townsend, i asked people "How shoudl Iraq be liberated if the US isn't suppose to do it" and basically all i heard for 5 pages was "they didnt want to be free, they enjoyed Saddam" or "The UN was going to do it in a few years" (no proof obviously). Someone got into a "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" argument as well.

 

[Pengwuino]

you don't try to attract kids towards your soldiers when on patrol,

Well i think this will set the stage for the rest of this thread

 

[Art]

like when US soldiers get blown up for giving candy and toys to children? what's next, did they poison the candy too?

Do you not think it is strange for occupying troops to be handing out candy to kids during a combat mission. This was not a meet the people PR trip. The reason the troops were in the area was because they had received intelligence about a car bomb there. Some might think a) It was incredibly irresponsible for them to attract children to them in a combat zone. Especially as the US gov't has been saying for some time that the insurgents target children who talk to the US forces or b) The troops were trying to use the children as a human shield to deter attacks.

personally i find it insulting that the US would even be considered a "terrorist nation". and if the best argument you can make is "what about the civilians in Iraq" that does not constitute terrorism since the US has not purposefully targeted civilians since Vietnam.

If that is true then there is something seriously amiss with the training US troops receive or else their eyesight is dreadful as their accuracy is appalling. As I posted on another thread the US military is directly responsible for 37% of civilian deaths whereas the insurgents who are supposedly targeting civilians are responsible for 9.5% (including police and recruits) Based on these statistics maybe the US should target civilians as they would then probably miss thus saving lives.

 

[Smurf]

How about Canada being a "terrorist nation" too? Hey, anyone can join the club!

http://www.isranet.org/DataBank/canada_terrorism.htm

Oh come on Quetz. I'm dissapointed, surely you don't expect me to argue with you on that one? However, I have read bells book and you know there are a thousand better examples for Canadian terrorism than an article about that guy. At least mention Sudan or something solid.

 

[Townsend]

No, you wouldn't regard it as a solution, of course how could you when you don't even recognise the problem. I thought you created this thread to discuss how America can change, not argue over weather it needs to. You've named it inaccurately.

I am trying to agree with the perspective of the people who think that America is a terrorist nation for the sake of the argument. Nothing more.

The reason I don't find it a solution is because I can step outside my front door and shout out what you want me to say and yet nothing will change. If I could afford it, I could have you make a commercial and run it on every station in America but again, nothing would change.

I want to know what should be done to stop America. It is a nation of Terrorist! How do we fix it?

 

[Smurf]

Ah, what can you personally do is what you're asking? Well why didn't you just bloody say so.

 

[Townsend]

Ah, what can you personally do is what you're asking? Well why didn't you just bloody say so.

Not just me...anyone. The whole world...what can anyone do to fix America?

 

[Smurf]

Well sadly townsend, the first step is getting the American people to own up and realize that you are not acting the way a superpower should. You either need to change your government in the next election, or force the current government to change it's ways and you can only do that if you get the people to a) realize the government is ****ing up, b) get the lazy american people off their butts and into the streets, c) picket, boycot, protest, blah blah blah. Rinse and repeat. Unfortunately it seems like we're not even at a yet, despite most of the rest of the world trying to tell it to you.

All anyone anywhere else can do is put pressure on America and the American people, by the same methods.

 

[Art]

Somehow I suspect all this is leading up to "WELL I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY" If so can we cut out the prologue and cut to the chase?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Do you not think it is strange for occupying troops to be handing out candy to kids during a combat mission. This was not a meet the people PR trip. The reason the troops were in the area was because they had received intelligence about a car bomb there. Some might think a) It was incredibly irresponsible for them to attract children to them in a combat zone. Especially as the US gov't has been saying for some time that the insurgents target children who talk to the US forces or b) The troops were trying to use the children as a human shield to deter attacks.

I do not know why they were playing with children, but I don't find it hard to imagine that it was because soldiers are people too, with their own families back home. They are not completely heartless, maybe they just wanted a break from routine and to toss a football around or something, who knows? My experience with US soldiers has been that they are very professional and decent people. There are always some bad apples unfortunately, but the vast majority are just really nice people trying to do their job.

If that is true then there is something seriously amiss with the training US troops receive or else their eyesight is dreadful as their accuracy is appalling. As I posted on another thread the US military is directly responsible for 37% of civilian deaths whereas the insurgents who are supposedly targeting civilians are responsible for 9.5% (including police and recruits) Based on these statistics maybe the US should target civilians as they would then probably miss thus saving lives.

I will accept your figure of 37% at face value, because I do not doubt it. Why? Because the insurgents are fighting on their own turf, they are familiar with the urban landscape and so they hide and conduct operations from places like apartment building, homes, hotels, etc. In the course of combat, it should be no surprise that civilians will be killed.

It is sad and unfortunate but I do not believe that it is done purposely, and I certainly do not believe that it is due to incompetence as you have suggested. The reality is that if someone is shooting as US soldiers from a building, the soldiers are going to shoot back and it is not a perfect science - innocents will die.

I would bet you that more than 37% of civilian casualties in WWII were also due to allied forces, particularly French and German civilians. It is a sad yet unavoidable consequence of any war.

 

[Townsend]

Somehow I suspect all this is leading up to "WELL I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY" If so can we cut out the prologue and cut to the chase?

No...

Let me be your pawn Art. Tell me, what would you have me do? What would the world have to do? If you were a world leader of say...Britain, what would you be doing to fix it?

The perspective of the American is that the world is against us right now. I think adding more pressure will only backfire and create the opposite effect.

Let's see some creative ideas that would work to fix the problem...instead of pushing pointless diatribe down the throats of Americans let's see what the world has to offer? There is a lot of creative minds here so I want some ideas?

Feel free to brain storm...

 

[Art]

I do not know why they were playing with children, but I don't find it hard to imagine that it was because soldiers are people too, with their own families back home. They are not completely heartless, maybe they just wanted a break from routine and to toss a football around or something, who knows? My experience with US soldiers has been that they are very professional and decent people. There are always some bad apples unfortunately, but the vast majority are just really nice people trying to do their job.

The point remains these US troops were not out to kill time they were out on a combat mission following intel of a car bomb in the area which turned out to be true. Now if this was a leafy suburb in an American town and the authorities were called out to a similar incident, tell me honestly do you think the authorities would be handing out candy to kids or would they be telling them to get the hell off the streets and stay there until the situation was handled?

I will accept your figure of 37% at face value, because I do not doubt it. Why? Because the insurgents are fighting on their own turf, they are familiar with the urban landscape and so they hide and conduct operations from places like apartment building, homes, hotels, etc. In the course of combat, it should be no surprise that civilians will be killed.
It is sad and unfortunate but I do not believe that it is done purposely, and I certainly do not believe that it is due to incompetence as you have suggested. The reality is that if someone is shooting as US soldiers from a building, the soldiers are going to shoot back and it is not a perfect science - innocents will die.
I would bet you that more than 37% of civilian casualties in WWII were also due to allied forces, particularly French and German civilians. It is a sad yet unavoidable consequence of any war.

Two points why is it an inevitable consequence when US troops do it and deliberate when insurgents do it? And secondly as Bush formally declared an end to combat in Iraq certain international laws under the Geneva convention come into play including a legal responsibility on the occupying forces to protect civilians and property. Since Bush's declaration of end of hostilities, they are no longer allowed legally to fire at civilian occupied structures even if there is a rebel in the building firing at them no more than they would destroy an apartment block in Manhattan if a sniper fired at the authorities from the building.

 

[Smurf]

Let me be your pawn Art. Tell me, what would you have me do? What would the world have to do? If you were a world leader of say...Britin, what would you be doing to fix it?

Oooh this looks fun. ok, let me see hmmm. As PM of britain I would:

1. Immediately stand down all forces deployed in Iraq. Stop patrols, stop all attempts to control or occupy british sections of iraq, find some way to do it without physically removing the troops (or most of) from the country. Demand that bush achieve higher more and civilian-friendly standards in his occupation if he wants our continued help.
2. Initiate UN movements to condemn america for all atrocities committed in iraq, guantanamo, anywhere. Wait for america to Veto them, then make public statements condemning USA's use of Veto to avoid responsibility.

Just a start. More later.

 

[Townsend]

Oooh this looks fun. ok, let me see hmmm. As PM of britain I would:

1. Immediately stand down all forces deployed in Iraq. Stop patrols, stop all attempts to control or occupy british sections of iraq, find some way to do it without physically removing the troops (or most of) from the country. Demand that bush achieve higher standards in his occupation if he wants our continued help.
2. Initiate UN movements to condemn america for all atrocities committed in iraq, guantanamo, anywhere.
3. Wait for america to Veto them
4. Make public statements condemning USA's use of Veto to avoid responsibility.

Just a start. More later.

Ok...but feel free to think outside the box. You don't just have to be PM of Britain you know...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The point remains these US troops were not out to kill time they were out on a combat mission following intel of a car bomb in the area which turned out to be true. Now if this was a leafy suburb in an American town and the authorities were called out to a similar incident, tell me honestly do you think the authorities would be handing out candy to kids or would they be telling them to get the hell off the streets and stay there until the situation was handled?

Are you trying to say that the troops wanted themselves to get blown up, and take a few children with them (you realize that soliders also died in that bombing)?

Two points why is it an inevitable consequence when US troops do it and deliberate when insurgents do it? And secondly as Bush formally declared an end to combat in Iraq certain international laws under the Geneva convention come into play including a legal responsibility on the occupying forces to protect civilians and property. Since Bush's declaration of end of hostilities, they are no longer allowed legally to fire at civilian occupied structures even if there is a rebel in the building firing at them no more than they would destroy an apartment block in Manhattan if a sniper fired at the authorities from the building.

Point 1: the US is not purposefully targeting civilians as part of their strategy: the insurgents are. The insurgent want the civilians to be afraid to go anywhere near American soliders - they wish to use fear in order to break down civilian support for the US military presence. They seek to cause instability by causing civilian casualties in order to put pressure on the newly formed government. It is part of the insurgents strategy, and it violates the rules of war. In contrast, dropping a bomb on a building that is housing insurgents does not violate the rules of war.

It is in the interest of the US to keep the civilians happy. It is in the interest of the insurgents to keep the civilians unhappy - who do you think is going to try harder to avoid hurting civilians? Who also has the technology and skills to do so?

Point 2: the Geneva convention does not apply to those not wearing a uniform. Under the Geneva convention, parties who have signed the convention are bound to certain civilities.

 

[Art]

Let me be your pawn Art. Tell me, what would you have me do? What would the world have to do? If you were a world leader of say...Britain, what would you be doing to fix it?

Unfortunately the second law of thermodynamics plays it's part in politics as well and so there is no simple fix. At this time civil war in Iraq seems inevitable. Some commentators say it is already happening. What the US could do is withdraw their military immediately, apologise profusely to the Iraqi people for the disaster they have created and then to the rest of the world for ignoring their warnings. They should cooperate fully with an international enquiry and based on it's findings hand over to the world court anybody accused of war crimes.
After that it is a matter of lessons learned and a change in foreign policy to demonstrate their new found humbleness.

 

[Townsend]

Unfortunately the second law of thermodynamics plays it's part in politics as well and so there is no simple fix. At this time civil war in Iraq seems inevitable. Some commentators say it is already happening. What the US could do is withdraw their military immediately, apologise profusely to the Iraqi people for the disaster they have created and then to the rest of the world for ignoring their warnings. They should cooperate fully with an international enquiry and based on it's findings hand over to the world court anybody accused of war crimes.
After that it is a matter of lessons learned and a change in foreign policy to demonstrate their new found humbleness.

So what about future terrorist attacks? What are we to do when they bring the American economy to its knees?

They should cooperate fully with an international enquiry and based on it's findings hand over to the world court anybody accused of war crimes.

For politicians the Constitution does not exactly allow for such a thing to happen.

Unfortunately the second law of thermodynamics plays it's part in politics as well and so there is no simple fix.

Ok...does that mean you don't have any ideas? Sure, you tell me what you think America should do but you don't say how that is supposed to happen. So has it come to this? Everyone complains but nobody knows what to do to fix things?

 

[Art]

Are you trying to say that the troops wanted themselves to get blown up, and take a few children with them (you realize that soliders also died in that bombing)?

Or perhaps on the contrary they thought surrounding themselves with children would protect them from being blown up. I note you didn't answer my question BTW.

Point 1: the US is not purposefully targeting civilians as part of their strategy: the insurgents are. The insurgent want the civilians to be afraid to go anywhere near American soliders - they wish to use fear in order to break down civilian support for the US military presence. They seek to cause instability by causing civilian casualties in order to put pressure on the newly formed government. It is part of the insurgents strategy, and it violates the rules of war. In contrast, dropping a bomb on a building that is housing insurgents does not violate the rules of war.

It is in the interest of the US to keep the civilians happy. It is in the interest of the insurgents to keep the civilians unhappy - who do you think is going to try harder to avoid hurting civilians? Who also has the technology and skills to do so?

And yet the statistics clearly show that the US are 4* as efficient at killing civilians. The facts do not support your hypothesis. Has it occurred to you that your thinking might be skewed by US gov't propaganda. As to your references to dropping a bomb on a civilian occupied building being legitimate. To a point during war it is allowed, although to nowhere near the extent you imply. However as Bush formally declared an end to hostilities, as I said previously, a whole new set of rules came into force and dropping bombs on a building housing civilians is now a war crime. Read the conventions if you don't believe me. This is not opinion it is fact.

Point 2: the Geneva convention does not apply to those not wearing a uniform. Under the Geneva convention, parties who have signed the convention are bound to certain civilities.

Yes you should definitely read the Geneva conventions. I think you will find you are very much mistaken or are you seriously saying civilians should wear uniforms before they can claim protection under the Geneva conventions?

The problem seems to be that you in line with Bush and his administration believe the Geneva conventions are an a la carte menu to be taken or left at one's pleasure. The rest of the world does not hold with this view.

 

[Art]

So what about future terrorist attacks? What are we to do when they bring the American economy to its knees?

Can you provide the sources or references detailing where Iraqi terrorists attacked the US? As I recall 15 of the hijackers who attacked the twin towers were Saudis. Did the military mistakenly make a left instead of a right on their way to exact retribution?

For politicians the Constitution does not exactly allow for such a thing to happen.

Now that one is easy to fix. How many amendments are there already to the US constitution? Just add another one.

Ok...does that mean you don't have any ideas? Sure, you tell me what you think America should do but you don't say how that is supposed to happen. So has it come to this? Everyone complains but nobody knows what to do to fix things?

I gave you ideas. The fact you don't like them is an entirely different issue.

 

[Townsend]

Can you provide the sources or references detailing where Iraqi terrorists attacked the US? As I recall 15 of the hijackers who attacked the twin towers were Saudis. Did the military mistakenly make a left instead of a right on their way to exact retribution?

No, I cannot...

Keep in mind that I am not, for the sake of this argument saying America is right about anything.

You said that we should be humble. I am asking about future terrorist attacks. What can we do? Since we cannot work to prevent any kind of future terrorist attacks, the attacks will surely come and like never before. What can we do about it?

Now that one is easy to fix. How many amendments are there already to the US constitution? Just add another one.

Ok, how? No one will allow it...Sorry to say that the people will not consent to such an idea. I wish I could be of more assistance to you but such an idea is beyond anyones power.

I gave you ideas. The fact you don't like them is an entirely different issue.

I like them just fine, but you only told me what we should do, not how we are to do them. Pointing to the finish line is not a solution. It just tells me what direction to head, I want a complete solution.

Regards,

 

[Yaaks]

Whooaa,, Chill-out guys...
All i can say is that,
The US is truly a great democracy in its own way, where i find people who can do things that i can't dream of in India, but i also believe that there are things that i do in India that can't be dreamed of in the US...
Each Country is Great in its own way. Its what some of the Things that happened under the 'Bush Administration' that people did not appreciate, gave some of the people around the world the anyi-US feeling. But, i don't say the Administration is bad, i don't say Bush is a Moron, i only say the Foreign Policy of the Bush Admin. is not greatly appreciated..
Solution : Theres no solution,,Time will tell, but the admin. can certainly take-up some good incentives towards improving its image following the Aftermath of the Iraq war..

 

[vanesch]

Not just me...anyone. The whole world...what can anyone do to fix America?

Ok, let's give it a try, this is going to be fun.

The simple solution to having a Terrorist Nation is simply to invade it, and "impose a regime change" and "liberate their people", but given the muscle America has, this is not going to work. So we first need to bleed the animal.

So how can we do this ? We look at the weak points in them, and then try to use their own force to bleed them, like in many eastern martial arts. What is their main weakness ? I'd say, their self-over estimation and their ignorance of the rest of the world, so let's try to use that, according to a plan:
1) do something that doesn't cost much, but makes them real angry.
2) push them as a response into complicated conflicts which will cost them a lot of money and effort, and tickle them a bit more, so that they start to make mistakes and loose friends, things they didn't foresee
3) repeat steps 1) and 2) as many times as necessary until they've completely ruined themselves, and need to borrow a lot of money elsewhere to finance all these conflicts
4) with those debts, take over as much control in America (of companies etc) as one can
5) make bright people leave America because they don't like the life over there anymore.

For starters, here we go:
For instance, go and bomb something in, say New York, and let them attack a few 3rd world countries where they'll get into a hopeless guerilla fight ;
Push interventions in the UN to liberate people a bit all over the world ;
Make them think that half of the world is after them, so that they only can count on themselves, and deconstruct what's most precious for themselves: their individual liberty...

 

[Townsend]

Ok, let's give it a try, this is going to be fun.

The simple solution to having a Terrorist Nation is simply to invade it, and "impose a regime change" and "liberate their people", but given the muscle America has, this is not going to work. So we first need to bleed the animal.

So how can we do this ? We look at the weak points in them, and then try to use their own force to bleed them, like in many eastern martial arts. What is their main weakness ? I'd say, their self-over estimation and their ignorance of the rest of the world, so let's try to use that, according to a plan:
1) do something that doesn't cost much, but makes them real angry.
2) push them as a response into complicated conflicts which will cost them a lot of money and effort, and tickle them a bit more, so that they start to make mistakes and loose friends, things they didn't foresee
3) repeat steps 1) and 2) as many times as necessary until they've completely ruined themselves, and need to borrow a lot of money elsewhere to finance all these conflicts
4) with those debts, take over as much control in America (of companies etc) as one can
5) make bright people leave America because they don't like the life over there anymore.

For starters, here we go:
For instance, go and bomb something in, say New York, and let them attack a few 3rd world countries where they'll get into a hopeless guerilla fight ;
Push interventions in the UN to liberate people a bit all over the world ;
Make them think that half of the world is after them, so that they only can count on themselves, and deconstruct what's most precious for themselves: their individual liberty...

So based on that list you seem to believe that OBL will destroy America? If so, why not just say so?

 

[vanesch]

So based on that list you seem to believe that OBL will destroy America? If so, why not just say so?

Hey, there was some irony in my post of course (after all this was a crazy thought experiment because we started from the point that the US was a terrorist nation), and no, OBL will not _destroy_ America ; nobody will. But I think he really succeeded in doing a lot of damage to the US, more or less in the way I outlined.

 

[Townsend]

OBL will not _destroy_ America ; nobody will.

What makes you so sure?

 

[Townsend]

after all this was a crazy thought experiment because we started from the point that the US was a terrorist nation

A point of view that seems to be rather common on this board I might add.

Regards,

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't have time at the moment to sift through all the links and info but it seems there is some doubt about the methodology used in coming up with these figures of 37% and 9% that keep croping up. If anyone else wants to take care of researching that, by all means but I have to get going and won't be online for a couple days.
The one thing that I can say with certainty is that the statistics weren't arrived at by people running an investigation in Iraq but by people here in the US taking numbers out of news articles. The source is "A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005". The authors are affiliated with IBC and the one who formulated the methodology has apearantly refused to release information in regards to his sources and his methodology. So far I have only found a couple of BLOGs talking about this and want to do more research.

 

[Smurf]

Ok this thread is officially an "AMERICA IS BAD" "NO AMERICA IS GOOD" "NUH UH! AMERICA IS BAD!" thread.

 

[Townsend]

Ok this thread is officially an "AMERICA IS BAD" "NO AMERICA IS GOOD" "NUH UH! AMERICA IS BAD!" thread.

Who is saying America is good?

 

[Smurf]

Quetz of course. Guy doesn't seem to have the vocabulary to say anything else.

 

[Smurf]

A point of view that seems to be rather common on this board I might add.

Regards,

I don't know about that. It depends what you call a 'terrorist nation'. You yanks seem to take special offense at the word, as if it's the worst thing in the world to be called. When I think of America I don't think bela clava's and improvised explosives, I think corrupt CEOs and Government officials who don't mind killing innocent people and violating their own citizen's rights to make a buck.

 

[Townsend]

I don't know about that. It depends what you call a 'terrorist nation'. You yanks seem to take special offense at the word, as if it's the worst thing in the world to be called. When I think of America I don't think bela clava's and improvised explosives, I think corrupt CEOs and Government officials who don't mind killing innocent people and violating their own citizen's rights to make a buck.

I take offense to the idea of equating anything America has done with what terrorists have done. A word is just a word and I could careless about it but what is meant by the word... I don't like it...

I can compromise, and I can and will acknowledge that America has made some mistakes and needs to throttle back. I accept that America does not rule over the world and I want it to be that way.

But it don't see the point in trying to compromise...

The point of this thread was to try and show that a lot of people from around the world, whether they will admit it or not, are expecting something from America which no other country would be willing to do.

What country is willing to come to an understanding with the US? By the sounds of things from people in other countries around the world, they think that the only country that is not allowed to save face is the United States. TSM talks about China willing to go to WWIII over face...but at the same time he lashes out at the United States. He tries to denigrate any good thing the United States has ever done.

People here have insulted the Constitution of the US, described the US as the anti-thesis of its own political religion.

This kind of attitude will only result in Americans becoming more resolute in their determination to support the current actions of the US. It will result in more division between the people of the United States.

Perhaps, a lot of you are just emotionally charged and want to lash out. Fine...say whatever makes you feel better...

But let's face it...for a lot of people around the world the only thing keeping America alive is the power of its military. It is something that I feel at least a few of the members here seem to agree with. At least from everything in their post I can only conclude so much.

Anyways... its late

 

[alexandra]

So what about future terrorist attacks? What are we to do when they bring the American economy to its knees?

I have two questions for you, Townsend:
1. When did Iraq ever conduct a terrorist attack on American soil? Please provide evidence that Iraqi terrorists attacked the US, ever.
2. When did Iraq try to bring the American economy to its knees? How did they do this? Again, evidence would be appreciated.

You are so sure of the facts that showing me the evidence should be no problem, I imagine.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I take offense to the idea of equating anything America has done with what terrorists have done. A word is just a word and I could careless about it but what is meant by the word... I don't like it...

Careful ... When you get mad, you just might lash out and hurt someone.

I can compromise, and I can and will acknowledge that America has made some mistakes and needs to throttle back. I accept that America does not rule over the world and I want it to be that way.

Yes, you can but you don't. In fact, the only ones who do NOT offer solutions on this whole thread ARE the republican Americans because of their blind patriotism.

But it don't see the point in trying to compromise...

Yes ... Why compromise when you have all the guns. Quite right too. If it was good enough for the Romans, it must be good enough for you.

The point of this thread was to try and show that a lot of people from around the world, whether they will admit it or not, are expecting something from America which no other country would be willing to do.

And you have shown us that while there were equal countries in the world, the USA did things BECAUSE they had something to fear. Now that you are the only remaining nuclear power with the most guns, you have shown you have neither the interest or the intent at compromise while you have the power to dictate and demand.

You further reinforce this observation by negotiating with the 'Axis of Evil' member that officially became a nuclear power while invading the one that didn't.

Your very actions in this world motivate a return to terrorism as a solution because it is the only way to fight back.

You announce a theology of martial power and then expound upon it with theories on how the second most powerful military might on the other side of the world could not stand against you and you are right.

So who is going to try to stand against you in an army?

It is your very efficiency that has brought about 'terrorists' who fight for their rights just as sure as you fought for yours when faced with a foreign power of 'extreme power'.

When bin Laden did this to the USSR, America hailed him as a hero.

If you want to find out just what the official position was ... try watching Rambo III.

What country is willing to come to an understanding with the US? By the sounds of things from people in other countries around the world, they think that the only country that is not allowed to save face is the United States. TSM talks about China willing to go to WWIII over face...but at the same time he lashes out at the United States. He tries to denigrate any good thing the United States has ever done.

LOL ... Your words in my mouth again, I see.

What is 'an understanding with the US'?

"If you're not with us, you're against us?"

Is THAT the 'understanding'?

Are we to 'understand' that if we take a contrary opinion to the US administration that, because we are not 'with you', we are 'targets'?

People here have insulted the Constitution of the US, described the US as the anti-thesis of its own political religion.

This kind of attitude will only result in Americans becoming more resolute in their determination to support the current actions of the US. It will result in more division between the people of the United States.

Yeah ... It's called being pig headded.

The constitution and all rights end at the border. From that point, martial law reigns.

This explains Camp X-ray, "extraordinary rendition", etc.

You have actually taken to sending teams into the sovereign territory of nations you are allied with and shipping people to third nations for torture.

Is this part of your 'new constitution'? Your constitution talks of the rights of the people of the USA. I wonder where the 'other' document is that explains the rights of people OUTSIDE the continental USA?

Perhaps, a lot of you are just emotionally charged and want to lash out. Fine...say whatever makes you feel better...

But let's face it...for a lot of people around the world the only thing keeping America alive is the power of its military. It is something that I feel at least a few of the members here seem to agree with. At least from everything in their post I can only conclude so much.

Damn, I didn't know Americans were so downtrodden ... such poor victims in this world.

I'm going to tune my violin now.

Does anyone have the sheet music for 'Hearts and Flowers'?

 

[DM]

Townsend

So what about future terrorist attacks? What are we to do when they bring the American economy to its knees?

Isn’t it already happening? What happened to the dollar a few months back? This bearing in mind that it was without the presence of terrorists in the country. Imagine now what could happen if terrorists decide on attacking America again?

Townsend

The point of this thread was to try and show that a lot of people from around the world, whether they will admit it or not, are expecting something from America which no other country would be willing to do.

Yes a lot of people genuinely believed the US would find its perpetrators. Sadly they didn’t and still haven’t. What dismays me the most is the fact of shooting stray bullets, metaphorically meaning that instead of studying the facts better, they concluded on pointing the finger at Iraq and purport that something was done. Have you noticed the façade Bush puts on? “The war on terror continues”. What on Earth will they do with Saddam in prison?

Townsend

You said that we should be humble. I am asking about future terrorist attacks. What can we do? Since we cannot work to prevent any kind of future terrorist attacks, the attacks will surely come and like never before. What can we do about it?

In my perspective, the United States cannot do anything about it. It’s irrational to devise “solutions” when there’s none, the US is in a dire quagmire with desperation resting on its shoulder.

Townsend

But let's face it...for a lot of people around the world the only thing keeping America alive is the power of its military. It is something that I feel at least a few of the members here seem to agree with. At least from everything in their post I can only conclude so much.

And it is with military power that the US will sink itself further down. The deadly combination of using military power with contradictory stipulations and ideologies on both sides, with insurgents and extremists using suicide bombs as their military power, that conflicts are likely to be everlasting.

This perverted evil cannot be uprooted from our system when there's people taking innocent lives, this will only cause more hatred behaviour from those that had originally nothing to do with it and thereby causing a broader insurgency. I fear that even with the removal of military power in Iraq, that it may be too late to avert terrorism acts around Europe and America.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Or perhaps on the contrary they thought surrounding themselves with children would protect them from being blown up.

Do you have any proof of such a ridiculous claim?

And yet the statistics clearly show that the US are 4* as efficient at killing civilians. The facts do not support your hypothesis. Has it occurred to you that your thinking might be skewed by US gov't propaganda.

So that is your counter-argument? That I have been brainwashed by gov't propoganda?

No, one of the best news sources that I have access to are friends of mine who are now returning home from Iraq. They paint a somewhat different picture than both media extremes portray (one extreme saying that the war is just going splendidly, and the other extreme - the one that you subscribe to - that the war is a complete mess. According to people with first-hand knowledge, neither view is correct.)

Yes you should definitely read the Geneva conventions. I think you will find you are very much mistaken or are you seriously saying civilians should wear uniforms before they can claim protection under the Geneva conventions?

No, it was my point that the insurgents are not wearing uniforms and thus are not subject to the Geneva convention. I am well aware of what the Geneva convention says and what is currently taking place is not a violation of it. If it were, then I'm sure we would hear more from the impotent organization that we call the UN.

The problem seems to be that you in line with Bush and his administration believe the Geneva conventions are an a la carte menu to be taken or left at one's pleasure. The rest of the world does not hold with this view.

Our military goes to great length to be compliant with the Geneva convention, whereas the insurgents do not, so please excuse my lack of sympathy.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Quetz of course. Guy doesn't seem to have the vocabulary to say anything else.

it is with unteneted certitude that your perfidious guile absconds any aspect of truth, but rather is the chicanery of garrulous retardedness and culpability.

 

[Art]

it is with unteneted certitude that your perfidious guile absconds any aspect of truth, but rather is the chicanery of garrulous retardedness and culpability.

I think that is a terminalogicalinexactitude

 

[Art]

Do you have any proof of such a ridiculous claim?

You still haven't answered the question I posed to you.

So that is your counter-argument? That I have been brainwashed by gov't propoganda?

No my counter-argument was the statistics I supplied.

No, one of the best news sources that I have access to are friends of mine who are now returning home from Iraq. They paint a somewhat different picture than both media extremes portray (one extreme saying that the war is just going splendidly, and the other extreme - the one that you subscribe to - that the war is a complete mess. According to people with first-hand knowledge, neither view is correct.)

And a friend of mine says Bush is actually an alien impersonating a cretin but as this is mere hearsay (like your source) I won't push it.

No, it was my point that the insurgents are not wearing uniforms and thus are not subject to the Geneva convention. I am well aware of what the Geneva convention says and what is currently taking place is not a violation of it. If it were, then I'm sure we would hear more from the impotent organization that we call the UN. Our military goes to great length to be compliant with the Geneva convention, whereas the insurgents do not, so please excuse my lack of sympathy.

Really - You are well aware of what the Geneva conventions say? How about;

According to the Charter of the United Nations, every state has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of any state. ( Protocol I, Preamble )

The Geneva Conventions must not be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. ( Protocol I, Preamble)

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. ( Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

Prisoners of war must have the right to legal advice, particularly in the case of preparing powers of attorney and wills. ( Convention III, Art. 77)

The same applies to civilian internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 113 )

Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)

Warring parties must try to make local agreements to allow the removal of children from besieged or encircled areas. (Convention IV, Art. 17)

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military property and attack only military property. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

Prisoners of war may not be tortured mentally or physically, and no other form of coercion may be used during interrogation. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer must not be punished in any way. (Convention III, Art. 17)

The wounded and sick are to be collected and cared for by the party that has them in its power. (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 2)

Murder is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions, both in cases of internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1A), wounded combatants (Convention I, Art. 12), civilians in occupied territories (Convention IV, Art. 32), civilians in international conflicts (Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2Ai) and civilians in internal conflicts (Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2A).

War crimes are againt the customary laws of war which are applicable in any conflict, regardless of whether the country in question is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

And yet you claim to be familiar with the Geneva conventions and that US forces observe them? I respectfully suggest you rethink your position.

 

[DM]

On the subject of children and Iraq, reading does certainly help:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1274.shtml

"They took the name of every student and matched the names to the photos they got from the day before and then arrested the students.They actually dragged them by their shirts onto the floor and out of the class."

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

You still haven't answered the question I posed to you.

I'm sorry, which question is this that you are referring to?

No my counter-argument was the statistics I supplied.

Let me see if I understand this, you are saying that 37% of the civilian casualties are due to US personnel. You are also saying that the US forces claim great accuracy due to training and technology, and therefore you conclude that these civilian casualties are purposefully inflicted.

However, I do not see how you can make that conclusion when the US military forces are operating in response to the insurgency. If a gunmen is in a building shooting at people (civilians and US soldiers) the soldiers are expected, in the interest of their security, the security of the civilians and the stability of the Iraq, to shoot back. In the process I agree that civilians will die, but my point is that this is unavoidable and largely the blame falls upon the insurgents. They wish to engage US forces in populated areas, so who's fault is that?

The other week in the news, here in the US, some scumbag was toting a gun and waving it at police...and he happened to use his 2 year old daughter as a shield. He began shooting. The police could not let a crazed gunmen start shooting, since this was in a public place and they have a duty to protect the people. They shot back, and in the gunfight that ensued the child was sadly killed. You cannot blame the officers for this, they were not the ones who dragged the child into that situation.

And a friend of min says Bush is actually an alien impersonating a cretin but as this is mere hearsay (like your source) I won't push it.

Yes, but I am talking about people who have actually spent more than a year on the ground in Baghdad, the very people that we read about in the news. I'm not talking about some drunk at a bar. While I realize that this is not a citeable source, it is useful for this conversation since you have raised the question of US troops using children as human shields..I find this hard to believe. Whatever you may think of our soldiers, and whatever you may hate about the US for invading Iraq, I can assure you that cowards they are not.

And yet you claim to be familiar with the Geneva conventions and that US forces observe them? I respectfully suggest you rethink your position.

And yet you are the only one making this claim, so I am supposed to take your legal advice regarding the matter? Where is a UN ruling finding the US in violation of the Geneva Convention?

 

[The Smoking Man]

On the subject of children and Iraq, reading does certainly help:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1274.shtml

"They took the name of every student and matched the names to the photos they got from the day before and then arrested the students.They actually dragged them by their shirts onto the floor and out of the class."

Other countries too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,942347,00.html

 

[alexandra]

I am sick of all the criticism that is being directed towards America with no solutions given. What is the solution? What should be done with America...Lets hear it.

Here is one solution proposed by a US academic, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky:

There is broad agreement among specialists on how to reduce the threat of terror - keeping here to the subcategory that is doctrinally acceptable, their terror against us - and also on how to incite terrorist atrocities, which may become truly horrendous. The consensus is well articulated by Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol (a more dangerous one after he is killed, perhaps, becoming a martyr who inspires others to join his cause). The role of Washington's current incumbents, in their Reaganite phase, in creating the radical Islamist networks is well known. Less familiar is their tolerance of Pakistan's slide toward radical Islamist extremism and its development of nuclear weapons.

As Burke reviews, Clinton's 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan created bin Laden as a symbol, forged close relations between him and the Taliban, and led to a sharp increase in support, recruitment, and financing for Al Qaeda, which until then was virtually unknown. The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush's bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden's message "spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world," Burke writes, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of "a whole new cadre of terrorists" enlisted in what they see as a "cosmic struggle between good and evil," a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush. As noted, the invasion of Iraq had the same effect.

Citing many examples, Burke concludes that "Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden," who "is winning," whether he lives or dies. Burke's assessment is widely shared by many analysts, including former heads of Israeli military intelligence and the General Security Services.

There is also a broad consensus on what the proper reaction to terrorism should be. It is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves and at the reservoir of potential support. The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency the terrorists - who see themselves as a vanguard - seek to mobilize, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause. We can help the vanguard mobilize this reservoir of support by violence, or can address the "myriad grievances," many legitimate, that are "the root causes of modern Islamic militancy." That can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal.

Violence can succeed, as Americans know well from the conquest of the national territory. But at terrible cost. It can also provoke violence in response, and often does. Inciting terror is not the only illustration. Others are even more hazardous.

Reference: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/0919force.htm

 

[loseyourname]

Here is one solution proposed by a US academic, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky:

Two things:

1) That strategy was proposed by Jason Burke, not Noam Chomsky.

2) That strategy was a proposed solution to Islamic terrorism, not American terrorism.