When They say "I hate America", what do you think They mean?

I support the PAC-3 version of the Patriot as it provides protection against aircraft to the troops in the field.

What I never supported was trying to turn the Patriot into something it was never designed to do, namely some sort of half-assed anti ballistic missile system.

When I was in the Army, I was a crewman on a Pershing II missile (A medium ranged tactical nuclear ballistic missile system that was eliminated by the 1987 INF Treaty.) so I understand the capabilities of ballistic missiles and just how hard it is to try and intercept them.

The Patriot works brilliantly at it's original task, shooting down aircraft. The PAC-3 version is faster, more maneuverable and even MORE capable at doing that job. The problems with the Patriot only began when they started messing with the radar/intercept code.

I support the Patriot because of its mission and capabilities, I just think they should have let it just do it's original mission and not screwed around with it beyond that.

source: [Allensbach poll] Expatica

That last sentence is the most revealing of your post, Walter. I bet other country's citizens are thinking and feeling the same.

To a large extent the current distemper of the Moslem World is a result of a several centuries old divergence of its fortunes relative to the European West. The major part of their historical greivances are tracable to the colonial era and the predatory behavior of the European powers before, during, and after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Certainly many actions of the United States and others as well have done their part to sustain these ill feelings.

While I do believe that Germany can justifiably construct a case to escape a good part of the historical blame for this situation, Russia, France and the UK certainly cannot. To lie low now in the hope that the retribution will fall only on the United States can hardly be called cooperative and considerate behavior on the part of these countries. It is a great stretch for them now to attempt to absolve themselves.

Congratulations for finally making sense georgeob.

Thank you. (Sincerely) Though I at least believe I have done it once or twice before.

At least twice, George.

Yes, he did. It was twice. Unfortunately, the second instance contradicted the first.

Good one! Actually it was three times - the third introduced an entirely new formulation.

But that was discounted as bunk, and on it goes.

Can't get an even break from these critical Canadians. :wink:

Just caught up on several days' worth of this.

Many good points and the usual good-natured banter between political wings.

Just what I come here for!

KP

George wrote
"While I do believe that Germany can justifiably construct a case to escape a good part of the historical blame for this situation, Russia, France and the UK certainly cannot. To lie low now in the hope that the retribution will fall only on the United States can hardly be called cooperative and considerate behavior on the part of these countries. It is a great stretch for them now to attempt to absolve themselves."

Forgive me if my memory is defective, but I seem to remember Britain fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Americans in Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq. You Americans are past masters at really pissing people off. Blair's mistake was to have faith in the competency of American leadership. If the war had gone well, we would not be in this mess. And if the Americans had listened to people who know Iraq better than they do, i.e. us the Brits, we invented the damn place after all, it might have gone better than it has. But no this was going to be Invasion-Lite, all the flavour and none of that tiresome nation building.

and I'm sorry if I sound annoyed. Thats because I am.

It's sort of like Baskin-Robbins, 31 different reasons why we attacked Iraq.

but couldn't come up with 'one' not to go to war..........

nimh

Interesting progression of stats but a key question: in which country/countries was this conducted?

KP

America

Steve,

I did not mean to imply that the UK is attempting to escape its responsibility. On the contrary, as you have correctly pointed out, the UK has defied many strong pressures, both internal and external, to take what I view as a principled stand on these matters. It is indeed true that the USA has no better friend or ally in the world than the UK. This is a distinction I failed to make in my post above, and I apologise for that.

Instead it is the French and the Russian in particular who, with truly grotesque hypocricy are atempting to have it both ways in a cynical attempt to escape the anger which they helped create, and exploit a dangerous situation for their own gain in defiance of their obligations to their long-standing (and in the case of Russia) short term allies and friends.