U.S. War on Terrorism: Change in World Opinion?

that would be a great piece of advice if the US had taken it 25/30/35 years ago

the world is paying for American lack of responsibility in the Middle East

you need someone to tell you the colour you've been calling blue is in fact orange

I don't need facts for an opinion and this op is about opinions... haven't you notice?

I despise compromise.

hat's the problem, you don't know what you're talking about. Having an opinion based on ignorance is worse than having no opinion at all.

You made a point which could be interpreted in varying degrees, but won't actually own up to where you actually stand, accusing others of misinterpreting because you're unable to commit to any stance based on what's actually going on.

Can you even find Iraq on a map?

You are the one talking about countries taking responsibility for their actions.

That means the US has to take responsibility for its actions - not just other countries.

So do ISIS and Al Qaida. Compromise is a peaceful way of resolving disputes and getting things done.

But I'm suggesting an approach for America.

I don't care what you think about blue, I do however find it troubling that you're able to pontificate on global politics whilst remaining incredibly ignorant about so much.

You will not clarify what you mean about America acting in its own interests regardless of world opinion. Where is the cut off point, how severe has global opposition got to be before you think it's not in America's best interests?

At one end of the scale you've got the president phoning up Papua New Guinea, amongst others, before making any policy decision. At the other end you've got America doing so provocative that every country in the world, including Israel, unites in a coordinated nuclear strike on the US. And there's everything in between.

So what level of opposition do you think the US should ignore and carry on regardless? Where do you think you have to stop, clearly you don't think the nuclear destruction of most of the world is a good thing, but where do you draw the line? All of the world except Israel carrying out a coordinated nuclear strike?

Consensual solutions are the best.

I'm
suggesting an approach for America.

I've not inferred anything I asked you a simple question; what level of opposition world wide is too much for America to carry on regardless?
Answer the question. I want to know where you draw the line.

I've not kept anything about the ME to myself, I've already said what needs to be done on this thread. You weren't paying attention, or you forgot, or something.

So what level of opposition do you think the US should ignore and carry on regardless? Where do you think you have to stop, clearly you don't think the nuclear destruction of most of the world is a good thing, but where do you draw the line? All of the world except Israel carrying out a coordinated nuclear strike?

@timur,
Terrorism; self evident. Isn't that we are talking about?

The middle East is a hot bed of problems because of the religious factions and the unwillingness to compromise those beliefs which has lead to violence, granted, but to thing that will ever change, in that region of strong beliefs, seem a bit irrational. To expect rational resolution seem a bit irrational.