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

@ehBeth,

Quote:

things were reasonably stable til the US decided to stick its nose in

I do agree that expecting the US to be rational is irrational

I think any one seeking a rational solution where strong religious beliefs are centered is being irrational
That's an opinion LOL

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

I think any one seeking a rational solution where strong religious beliefs are centered

aka the US

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

aka the US

Yeah, founded on christian beliefs. Very Happy

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

No, No more deflecting and avoiding I ask you to show me where I said or hinted the things you refer to below. Why can't you show me?

Quote:
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?

I'm not the one refusing to answer a question. I never said that you said or even hinted at the above. I said that was the extreme end of a scale of possible consequences to America doing what it wants regardless of world opinion.

Now when you said that, you must have known what you meant. Unfortunately the rest of us don't, because we're not mind readers. Whenever I've attempted to clarify what you mean, you've accused me of inferring stuff. So I asked you what you meant, where you draw the line, and you don't understand what you're being asked.

Please, try to answer the question, how far does your America ignoring world opinion go? Where do you draw the line, diplomatic incidents, UN resolutions, economic sanctions, travel bans, economic warfare, actual warfare, nuclear warfare? At what point on that list do you think America should listen to World opinion and stop whatever it is they're doing that pissed so many people off?

1 Reply

@argome321,

not founded on - living on

take a look around - look at the fundamentalist involvement in politics, media, government

there are certainly people trying to fight back, but Christian fundamentalists have a disturbing influence on the way things happen in the US

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Re: argome321 (Post 5940776)
argome321 wrote:
No, No more deflecting and avoiding I ask you to show me where I said or hinted the things you refer to below. Why can't you show me?

Quote:
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?

I'm not the one refusing to answer a question. I never said that you said or even hinted at the above. I said that was the extreme end of a scale of possible consequences to America doing what it wants regardless of world opinion.

Now when you said that, you must have known what you meant. Unfortunately the rest of us don't, because we're not mind readers. Whenever I've attempted to clarify what you mean, you've accused me of inferring stuff. So I asked you what you meant, where you draw the line, and you don't understand what you're being asked.

Please, try to answer the question, how far does your America ignoring world opinion go? Where do you draw the line, diplomatic incidents, UN resolutions, economic sanctions, travel bans, economic warfare, actual warfare, nuclear warfare? At what point on that list do you think America should listen to World opinion and stop whatever it is they're doing that pissed so many people off?

I wanted you to answer the question because that is the heart of your argument and I was never speaking for America or What speific action America should take.

What you are asking me is to speak for America,

My position was never to speak for America so your question is irrelevant as far as this post is concern.

If you want to argue America's position and middle east policy argue with some one who has one on the Middle east. I never offered one.

If yo think that is the heart of my argument show me because I didn't make one.

Saying America should decide for itself does not advocate any particular action and I have stated that over and over.

2 Replies

Advocating that America decide for itself AND don't give a sh*t what other countries think, as you have been doing, is the summit of irresponsibility.

Reminds me the old saying that a country is better governed by its barbers and taxis drivers.

0 Replies

@argome321,

I'm not asking you to speak for anyone other than yourself. You made a statement that America should act without concern for world opinion. You refuse to clarify how far you think that position should be taken.

Every time you're given a scenario you start crying inference instead of clarifying your position. You still won't.

When you were given the example of the last time America went ahead without heed of world opinion your sole criticism was about placating France and the Arabs. You claim a lack of conviction is at fault but you're singularly unable to show how increased conviction would have helped in any way.

The only thing I'm going to infer is that you're too stupid to answer the question. You can't clarify your position because you don't know what it is. You're very good at meaningless rhetoric but when you're faced with what you actually mean by those words you're at a loss.

Now stop playing games, drop the bollocks about talking for America, clarify your position or accept that you're too stupid to know what your position actually is.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

My only viewpoint is that the United States government needs to pay attention to world opinion regarding any military action.

I would certainly advocate that the US listen to constructive criticism, but all the childish whining about "how horrible we are" should be ignored out of hand.

I don't agree with your use of the word "need". If the US chooses to listen to someone else's views, that is fine. But I reject the notion that the US is "required" to listen.

1 Reply

@argome321,

No reply, so I guess it's perfectly safe to infer you don't what your position is. All you can offer is a load of meaningless rhetoric because you do not understand the nitty gritty and are out of your depth.

Btw, your analogy of colour is ridiculous, you like blue because you've seen various shades of blue, and other colours. It's not based on ignorance at all. A more apt analogy would be a blind man saying he prefers blue to other colours, that is a true reflection of your position.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
My only viewpoint is that the United States government needs to pay attention to world opinion regarding any military action.

I would certainly advocate that the US listen to constructive criticism, but all the childish whining about "how horrible we are" should be ignored out of hand.

I don't agree with your use of the word "need". If the US chooses to listen to someone else's views, that is fine. But I reject the notion that the US is "required" to listen.

You certainly got this one right, Oralloy.

It makes plenty of sense for us to listen to world opinion...and even to be influenced by it.

But there is absolutely no "required" involved at all.

And if we were to insist that other countries were "required" to listen to us...the reaction from the others probably would be to reject the "required" out-of-hand.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You guys actually think the US government ever gave a flying rat fart for world opinion??? Do you think the French care? Or the Iranians? Or Putin? Wake up. 'We the People of the World' do not rule the world. Governments do. What matters at that level are political, military or economic forces around, friends and foes, etc. NOT public opinion.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Compare that to Kosovo, when the decision to act was for the right reason.

word

We did Kosovo because the war was threatening to expand and draw Greece and Turkey in on opposite sides. Such a conflict would have risked undoing NATO.

Stopping the war was necessary for the good of NATO, but the demonization of the Serbs, and the subsequent illegal independence of Kosovo should never have happened.

For all that Putin is wrong to invade Georgia and Ukraine, he is right when he says that his actions are little different from the west stealing Kosovo from Serbia.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

To a certain degree, but politicians have always got one eye on the next election. Chirac listened to French public opinion and made the right decision to keep out of Iraq. Blair ignored British public opinion.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

politicians have always got one eye on the next election. Chirac listened to French public opinion and made the right decision to keep out of Iraq. Blair ignored British public opinion.

Chirac did not listen to French public opinion. He was personally convinced that the Iraq war would only serve to create more terrorists, and that the US was lying about WMD. That's all. In matters of geopolitics, public opinion can easily be manipulated and thus it means nothing whatsoever. The real reasons why Blair should have rejected the Iraq adventure is its poor rationale, the lack of serious planning for post-war, and the personalities of Bush and Cheney. Don't go to war with an idiot and a manipulator as allies, no clear plan, and no real reason to go to war in the first place... Duh. The whole proposal was absurd and stunk manipulation and incompetence to heaven's high. Chirac could see that. Heck! Bush senior could see that... Blair, as a smart leader, should have seen it too. I still haven't figured out why he didn't. Probably the desire to maintain UK's special relationship with the US...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Canadian prime minister Chretien in 2002 re Saddam/terrorism

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=874_1398688536

(it only takes about 7 seconds)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Blair, as a smart leader, should have seen it too. I still haven't figured out why he didn't. Probably the desire to maintain UK's special relationship with the US...

There was pressure on Labour from the Tories to prove they weren't anti-American, so the special relationship was part of the thinking. Certain cabinet ministers have said off the record they thought the Americans actually knew what they were doing. I think they were genuinely shocked at the lack of planning once the invasion turned into an occupation.

Btw, public opinion can only be manipulated so far, otherwise we wouldn't have changes of government.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

public opinion can only be manipulated so far, otherwise we wouldn't have changes of government.

Rarely on foreign policy. Bush was re-elected in spite of Iraq, for instance.

A US President asking for a Gallup world poll before taking a decision would be a fool. But a US president -- or a leader from any country, since the US is like any other country in this respect -- failing to take into account friends and foes, failing to build alliances, and systematically failing to listen to allies, would also be a fool. The US cannot "go it alone" anymore than any other country.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know