You seem to believe that terrorists blowing things up in Baghdad is somehow damaging to US interests. I don't grant you that premise. Terrorists blowing thigns up "over there" is not really something I worry about. Terrorists blowing things up over here, however does. And that's not happening.

these event into Badhdad could (probably will) lead to a full-fledged civil war, and when the dust settles, I doubt seriously anyone will love America for it's "good job".

They will hate you. Not just their elite, but the whole population. This hate will propagate into Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries..

You said that is was in the US interest to topple an open ennemy of the US. You simply created a lot more of them. That is against the US interest. You set back the problem for about 10 years, but you multiplied it by 20.

Explain how? What US interests have been attacked since the invasion of Iraq? Any at all?

The US's image in the world is at its lowest since a century. Maybe ever. People around the world trust you lesser than ever. America is less and less a popular tourism destination (that's still an economical loss). Allies are less sure about trusting you, while we would have fought to the gates of hell beside you after 9/11 (and Canadians still are in afganistan, taking the bulk of the losses). the Iraqi invasion changed that.

I don't know about you, but I think a nation's image is really important to it's interests.

Instead of making stuff up why don't you ASK people from other countries why America is hated so much?

I don't personally hate Americans but I do hate the American government or more specifically Bush. My reason, and the reasons of other people who I know that feel the same way do not even closely resemble your reasons. In fact they more closely resemble the reasons I hate my OWN government.

Most intelligent people realise that the American people don't necessarily reflect the government's views and that they often feel as cheesed off by there lies as we do.

P.S. Did you ever think that other countries just think that a neutral facial expression might be easier to identify? Hmmm, it just might be...

P.P.S. I'm Australian

Instead of making stuff up why don't you ASK people from other countries why America is hated so much?

That is what the forum is for my friend. Please give us your reasons.

What leads to the state of "terrorism" from a population is if their antagonist is so ubermore powerful than they are. IRA vs U.K. jumps to mind. However, IRA haven't disarmed because the U.K. army smashed it so hard they changed mind.

Right, peace and love caused them to give up.

I would like to see the list of consessions that were agreed on Israel's part before any further comments

I love how people act so well informed yet don't remember news broadcast that don't agree with their point of view.

Here is a piece of a news article you can find the rest yourself.

July 11-26, 2000

President Clinton hosts Israeli leader Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David in the hope of reaching a peace agreement. After two weeks of unsuccessful talks, the summit breaks up with no agreement.

he black panthers in the 60's tried to become a terror orginazation but were infiltrated and torn apart before they could get moving. We did not have that option because of Congress and their short sighted political view of the world.

I though the black population stopped supporting this movement when they were finally allowed the same rights than the white? no military win.

English/ Irish conflict comes to mind.

It hasn't stopped because the English beated them. It stopped because the Irish population stopped receiving funding from Americans, so it became a better option to sit and talk rather than fight. no military win.

I have now given you instances on both sides. To win against terror you have to wipe them out or bring thier numbers down to the point that they feel their cause is not worth the price of terror.

Again, I haven't see one example where the military solution won at the end. You have to beat them down economicly, or for the public support.

Here is a piece of a news article you can find the rest yourself. July 11-26, 2000 President Clinton hosts Israeli leader Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at Camp David in the hope of reaching a peace agreement. After two weeks of unsuccessful talks, the summit breaks up with no agreement.

great, now can you give me the link? I doesn't say what Israel agreed on in the first place

There is a difference between 40% approval rating and 10%. You will win peace when you will win the Arab and Persian street. And there are more ways to do that than to adopt an Islamic theocratic rule. You said in another post that "what Islamic Nations should do is....", why would they care about what you want if you don't care about what they want? What is their interest of doing America's bidding, if America simply screw them with its policies?

Why should they care what we want? Because we have the power to annihilate all of them if we choose to.

And I realize you're young and don't know much on history yet but you really should read up on the history of the United States -- disproportional response is part of the American character.

The Islamic nations SHOULD restrain their radical elements in order to prevent those elements from doing something that would result in retaliation that would reslut in the deaths of millions of people in the Islamic world.

In December of 1941, the Japanese bombed a US military base on a US territory (not even a state).  5 years later, the United States had killed over a million Japanese civilians in firing bombing and atomic bombs.

The US doesn't have to win the "Arab Street" for victory. There are many paths to victory and defeat. Hopefully a path can be found that ends with the least amount of bloodshed.

The US's image in the world is at its lowest since a century. Maybe ever. People around the world trust you lesser than ever. America is less and less a popular tourism destination (that's still an economical loss). Allies are less sure about trusting you, while we would have fought to the gates of hell beside you after 9/11 (and Canadians still are in afganistan, taking the bulk of the losses). the Iraqi invasion changed that.

I'm not sure there's anything correct in your paragraph.

Let's address each incorrect point:

1) US popularity in the world at large was lower in the 1960s and certainly during the early 1970s than it is today. Communist countries, and large %'s of their population, considered the United States its enemy.

2) US tourism grew last year by 12%.  The growth is slower than it should be according to the US commerce department for reasons ranging from a rise of anti-Americanism and fear of terrorism affecting travel. But the US's lower rate of growth than projected started back in 1992 so anti-Americanism is probably not a significant issue.  A rise is still a rise.

3) After 9/11 very few countries actually stepped forward to really help in a meaningful way. I don't recall seeing divisions of Germans or Canadians in Afghanistan. Instead, we got a very small trickle. Compare that to the 50 years the United States risked its actual existence by stationing over a half million troops in Western Europe during the cold war. Talk about fair weather friends.

The main problem with your paragraph is that it lacks what we call, a point. What exactly is the consequences to the US? Is there some tangible benefit to having Europe like us that I should be aware of?

Is there some reason we should, you know, care about countries who object to us overthrowing a ruthless dictator like Saddam?

Again, I haven't see one example where the military solution won at the end. You have to beat them down economicly, or for the public support.

By your line of.."thinking" we should give up on having police too.  I mean, when has police work ever eliminated crime? They keep arresting people and there's still crime.

Did you really think through your question? Terrorism is a tactic. You can disrupt it or eliminate sources of it, but you can't ever totally eliminate it any more than you can totally eliminate crime.

They will hate you. Not just their elite, but the whole population

The US's image in the world is at its lowest since a century

We don't care. Why should we?

And just "when" was the last time where you saw a country wipe out an entire bunch of terrorists? I can tell you. NEVER! Because it's never been tried or done. I take that back...it's been tried. English/Irish. And just why was it not successful? Because the Brits were unwilling to do what was necessary to wipe them out.

because it's plain impossible, either on capability or politicaly

because it's plain impossible, either on capability or politicaly

No it isn't! Can you spell "nuclear missles"?

I notice that you don't actually provide any of these so-called reasons. Do you have any reasons that reflect a rational thought or is all from your spleen?

I didn't give my reasons simply because that wasn't the point of my reply. Paladin was parroting the same dumb reasons that Bush reckcons are the same reasons terrorist attack the US for.

To keep you happy though here is a short list of reasons:

1. The war in Iraq. My thoughts on WHY I think is a bad thing are quite complicated and I don't want to write an essay at the moment. My reasons in short: a) It is nice to say in theory that they are better with Saddam gone. However I think the basic instability caused by the tension between ethnic groups and terrorist groups will mean instability for years. Will the benefits balance out the chaos caused by the war? I don't know, but I don't have a good feeling. I think a countries has to fight for its own democracy in the same way it is better to "teacher a man to fish" etc. etc.

The reasons given for going to war. WMDs turned out to be a bust, there is no stong evidence to support Saddam being involved with 9/11. Regime change may be valid but it seems unlikely to be the true reason since there are other regimes that are just as bad that they are doing nothing about.

2. Not leading the way with environmental reform (goes for my government too). The Kyoto protocol situation is only part of it but a big part of it. The reasoning given such as "well China isn't a part of it so we won't either" is stupid. China may be heading towards being one of the largest polluters but they DIDN'T CAUSE THE PROBLEM. The US uses 25% of the worlds fossils fuels and should take some responsibility for it (as we all should). If the US gov wants other countries to do the same thing they have to realise that they can't expect others to do what they aren't prepared to. The US does set the standard as a super-power whether we like it or not.

3. Hypocritical stance on nuclear weapons.

4. Keeping people in Gitmo for years without trial or even charges. I don't care if these people did do what they what they supposedly did, they should still get trials. Especially since the US wouldn't stand for the same thing happening to one of their citizens in another country. I hate my government for sitting back a letting one of our citizen being treated this way. Especially since other countries have fought and got just treatment for there citizens.

5. Acting like you can fight a "War on Terror" anymore than you can fight a "War on Abstract nouns". ALl that has happened is more people are being pissed off and becoming terrorists. Especially since for a lot of people it is seen as a "War on Islam".

6. Not accepting that bad foreign policy is responsible for a lot of anger from other countries. Instead spouting pithy statement like "they hate our freedom" etc. etc. that may be true for some of the "masterminds" but many of the grass roots terrorists have reasons along the lines of "supplying Israel with weapons" and so on.

I'm not doing my reason justice with these short statements. Nearly every reason I've given deserves a whole essay on it's own. Aside from that you can see that I don't dislike the US government because of America's optimism or some such bullshit.

Oh, and here is the link.

WWW Link