Draginol Draginol

Don't misunderstand the American character

▼

Don't misunderstand the American character

The United States will do whatever it takes to win the war on terror

from JoeUser Forums

All over the blogsphere I'll see people say "You Americans need to start asking yourselves, 'Why did they do this to you.'"  It is a terrible misreading of the American culture. Americans don't care. You can argue all day that they should care. But they don't. I don't. There is nothing we have done that justified the events of 9/11. And those who try to justify the acts of terrorists will be ignored as sycophants and appeasers of evil.

After 9/11 the question is no longer "why did they do this to you?"  The question should be what is happening to the Islamic world as a result of their growing culture of death and violence towards the west.

Perhaps the Islamic world needs to start asking, why the US does this to them.  Because if the choice becomes us or them, Americans will choose us in a heart beat even if that means the Islamic world is a totally destroyed.  Make no mistake about that.  This isn't jingoism, far from it, it is the quiet knowledge of certainty.  The clear understanding of the American character that is saying this.

I don't say this because I hope that happens, I don't. I hope that the Islamic World can live in peace with the west and in particular the United States. I just don't think Europeans and especially the Islamic world understands American culture. We try to do the right thing. But if we feel we've been wronged (and we do) our history shows that we will do whatever it takes to secure ourselves.

Remember this: Japan bombed a military base to start its war against the United States.  The war ended with the United States vaporizing two of its largest cities after having used conventional weapons to flatten nearly every city in Japan with millions of civilian casualties.  It is one of those things about democracy - it is slow to anger but once angered, once motivated, it is hard to turn it off. So I say to you, for the sake of the Islamic world, they will not continue the path of folly in trying to convince us that the fault lies with us. That sort of argument is interesting in intellectual forums. But in the real world, when people are getting killed, those who would start killing Americans need to understand the full implications of their actions.

Blaming Bush is convenient. But I can say this: Any President of the United States would have done at least as much or would have faced riots.  The US federal government only has one job (the state governments do pretty much everything else): Take care of the personal well being of its citizens  It's not designed to build roads. It's not designed to build schools. It doesn't provide the police.  It doesn't run the water plant. It doesn't provide water or electricity.  It just takes care of individual citizens. And it does this in two ways: Killing non-citizens who seek to harm us and provide services to individuals. That's basically all it does (all but  less than 10% of the budget is dedicated to those tasks). It's not like a European government or the government in other countries in its design.  And it does those things remarkably well. And democracies can be scary things. The average person acts out of passion, emotion. The government is merely the tool of the citizenry. It doesn't rule the people, the people rule the government.  Blaming Bush for Kyoto or the International Criminal Court or the Iraqi invasion or whatever may make some quasi-intellectual feel better. But it's a delusion. It doesn't matter who the President was. Those things would have happened under any President one way or the other particularly after 9/11 in the case of Iraq.

So don't delude yourself into thinking that Americans are going to sweat about the "why" the terrorists murdered so many Americans.  Most Americans care about how its government will make the problem go away in as permanent a way as possible.  It's not the "Arab street" you should worry about, it's the American street people should worry about. Even 4 years after Pearl Harbor, poll after poll taken in 1945 showed that the vast majority of Americans supported the extermination of the Japanese as a people. Do you understand? The extermination of the Japanese as a race. It's not the terrorists that people should be afraid of. That is why the Islamic world needs to stop the terrorists. Why they need to do it on their own. They're not doing it to help us. They are doing it to ensure their continued survival.

politics
52,669 views 136 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
factoid: a fact as far as I'm concerned and aware of.

factoid 1: Most of the violence and unstability in this world seems to be stemming from the Middle East, specifically fundamentalists within the muslim religion. Likely reasons: fanaticism, ignorance, blind hatred, misguided ideologies. A strike upon America out of the blue without any obvious provocation, creates an enormous backlash reaction: The problems in the Middle East need to be resolved once and for all.

factoid 2: The rest of the world feels threatened by this violence and unstability. European bodies argue and debate, but for the most part accomplish nothing (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=83C5390B-7673-472E-A6B14EE2925F9CF6). The US and England feel threatened to the point where they decide they cant wait for Europe to get its act together and therefor decide to act on their own.

factoid 3: America will continue to act upon its own interests just like every other country acts on their own interests. Our interests now encompass any nation or region which poses a threat to worldwide stability, economic prosperity, and the basic human rights and freedoms of all people.



Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The strick on america was not out of the blue, it was due to american foriegn policy which attracted attention 2 our own country. I personally owe no alleigence to any country right now, being legally canadian, chinese by blood, and living in the US. And i choose to view the situation from a global perspective. My question is this: would the US gain more if it went down on the middle east with an iron fist as Brad seems to suggest so eagerly, lose civilian lives as well as american combatants, and speed up the already problamatic fissure in the UN, or make concessions to the middle east, if not to pacify the region, than at least shift the attention from us and back to isreal, the real object of palestinan anger/hatred.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please refrain from strawman arguments.

At no time have I even suggested that mass extermination of the Islamic world was something that was good let alone "Eager".

Let me dumb it down here since some people seem to willfully mis-read what I say.

If a man goes up to another man and punches him in the nose, odds are the other man's reaction is going to be to fight back.

And yet many people, particularly on the left, are telling the man who just got punched that instead of punching back he should think why he got punched in the first place and not punch back.

All my article does is point out that such a thing is contrary to human nature. We can debate at length of whether it's wrong or not. I'm not arguing the morality of it. I am simply pointing out that human nature is to strike back without thinking about it where the severity of the response is dependent upon how much harm has been done.

I approve of the US strategy - it is trying to reform the Arab Islamic world with Iraq as the first step and hopefully over time the surrounding countries. I find that to be much preferable than one that would lead to the annihilation of Arab Islam which is, IMO, the most likely result if the left were to be listened to.

The best thing that can happen for the middle east is for their people not to commit any further terrorist attacks against the United States.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok Machiavelli. I'll give you their strike on our WTC being due to american policy in general, if you give me our resulting invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as a consequence/result of Saddam's & Al Quaida's respective policies in general.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top



An aggressive policy, or warlike posturing, is not the cited reason why UBL attacked America, reality lies on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Terrorists began to think America was weak. After America withdrew from Somalia UBL spewed forth a doctrine in which he claimed that American soldiers are “paper tigers,” easily vanquished because they run from a “bloody nose.”

Now that the US is going after terrorist’s full tilt, a lot of liberals and sophists who don’t even understand the nature of the brutality that exists in the world want to condemn it as “American Imperialism,” they view any success in the war against these thugs as “American triumphalism.”


Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok Brad, if u insist on dumbing the situation down like that. It is true that one would punch back if punched. If there was say 10 people surrounding you, one of them punched u. Would you punch back knowing that if u knock him down, another one will come and punch you again. That is the reality of the US rite now. The war against terrorism is simply a war it CANNOT win unless it nukes the rest of the world. (and that would be pointless) We r exploiting the middle east for its resources rite now. If for sum reason this region becomes useless. The US will have to find another region. (the basics of imperialism) That region will then hate us. Back to the ten vs one issue. If that one person punches u, would it be smart to punch him back without regard to the other 9?
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I firmly agree. Even with the conspiracy theories and the lies. Anything that makes me and my family a little safer is great. You cannot fight terrorism that way. Too many innocents die in the process. Especially when we have enough special forces to just go in sniper people while they aren't even expecting it.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
America is not a democracy.

Your comments exemplify the arrogance and stupidity that typifies the 'American character' for many people all across the globe. Remember, population wise, America is the minority. How long do you really think American domination can last? Besides, if you blow up the third world, who will make your sneakers? I guess it will be you who will have to work for $1 a week. Don't think that the American government actually gives a shit abouts it people. More Americans have been killed in Iraq than in the first three years of the Vietnam war. You are loosing this war!

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Mach: No, your analogy isn't correct.  Because at the end of the day, the US has the means to eliminate Islam entirely if the majority of Americans were convinced that their lives were on the line.  There isn't an infinite number of terrorists like you seem to believe. 

Let's look at the world as it is, not as you wish it was:

Terrorists attack the United States in 9/11 ostensibly over various vague issues (primarily because US troops were based in Saudi Arabia btw which were there to protect the area from Iraq).  In response the United States replace the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.  By taking out Iraq, the US was able to remove the offending presence from Saudi Arabia.

So what's next?  Hopefully what will happen is that the war on terrorism will slowly dwindle down.  That the Islamic world will either hope that democracy and liberalization will make their lives better OR at the very least have enough fear that attacks against the United States will have negative consequences.

But what happens instead if Al Queda smuggles in a nuclear device into New York and sets it off killing a million people? What do you think the US reaction is going to be? Do you really think Americans will ask "Why do they hate us?".  No, they are going to demand action. Once WMDs come into play, the gloves are off.  This is what would happen. Anyone who thinks differently..well is not looking at how peoples have reacted over thousands of years or how Americans have reacted to such things in the recent past.

Therefore, the best course is for those who are against American policies to recognize the reality of the situation - the best solution for Islam is for it to moderate itself.

The only way the US is giong to moderate itself is if enough real external pressure is put on it to change its course and that would only work as long as the US is not attacked. External pressure, btw, is not chattering from Europe.  Europe is full of democracies. If France and Germany really have a problem with US actions they should enact sanctions or something.  But they don't and they won't because they aren't really serious, it's just chattering.  That means that the only party that is realistically subject to outside influence is Islam.

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad, I think you are making a very simple point and I am frankly astounded that it is being misinterpreted by so many of the commenters. I believe many Americans would be receptive to hearing the grievances of people who feel wronged by American policy (real or imagined). I think it is consistent with our culture to learn from our mistakes or at least admit them (no reasonable person accepts as right our past treatment of native Americans or the Africans we forced into slavery). However, if those who oppose our policies attempt to change them through violence we are not a people who are inclined to talk about our differences. We are action oriented by nature, and as the world has seen throughout our history, retribution will be swift, sure, and deadly. Now, you can debate whether that is right or wrong, but there should be no question that it is in fact the way it is.

Another couple of points I would like to make by way of example. A very large percentage of Americans do not in fact support or approve of Sharon's policies in Palestine. In my view, he gets a pass from our government because everytime a Palestinian suicide murderer kills innocents, many Americans will say "well, Israel has a right to defend herself, even if we don't agree with the tactics".
I shake my head in wonder at the ignorance of the Palestinians who have so many legitimate grievances and yet so totally undermine their moral high ground by allowing terrorists to practice their evil trade in their name. Until that changes Israel will not be significantly pressured to make concessions by the US.

Now, I am only one American but I think this goes to Brad's point generally. I have voted in presedential elections since 1976. I have never voted for a Republican. That is likely to change in 2004. I disagree with most of Bush's domestic policies and on environmental and social issues. But after 9/11 I realized that without national security, none of the other stuff really matters. I honestly don't care if the people of France or Germany disagree or even despise us for it, America was attacked and America declared war. I see it in very simple terms: if you want to kill us, we will hunt you down and kill you first.

Two towers, two countries. Who wants to be next?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
The united states can easily eliminate Islam entirely, but thats not gonna solve the problem. If u seriously think that crushing the islam people is gonna relieve this problem than u r completely mistaken. There is a whole generation of young people in the world that is the sworn enemy of the united states. Osama bin Laden has achieved a cult hero status not only in the middle east but also in Africa, eastern Europe, and sum parts of Asia. Do u really expect us to destroy all of these places? It doesnt matter how many nuclear weapons we have, its simply impossible to kill the rest of the world. If we crush the islamic world. there will simply be another terrorist orgainization. There is NOTHING fundamental about islam that permits it to acts of terrorism. The hate against the US has simply taken the form of islam rite now. If we destroy this form, than it will change into another form.





"terrorists attack the United States in 9/11 ostensibly over various vague issues (primarily because US troops were based in Saudi Arabia btw which were there to protect the area from Iraq). In response the United States replace the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq."


That mite have been the short term reasons, but that is not the primary reason the attack on the america took place. It is because of a generation of young men with no hope in their future, nothing but anger and hate in their minds, willing to join any organization that promises revenge on their supposed oppressors



You keep saying that none of us is gettin ur point, i think its u thats not understanding what im saying

THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM IS A WAR THE UNITED STATES CANNOT WIN. ITS EITHER THE UNITED STATES COMPRIMISES, OR THE AMERICAN EMPIRE WILL FALL.
u seem to be under the fantasy that america is sum sorta of divine power that cannot be toppled. The US mite be powerful but its not invincible
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
The whole “hearts and minds thing” you hear about is basically a call for Muslims to fight extremism, and leave behind the side of militant extremists that are eventually going to be annihilated, in the millions if necessary. As of today, two dictatorships are destroyed, and one capitulated, renouncing terrorism. liberals and sophists feel that the US has been too heavy handed, I feel that we haven’t been ruthless enough, I think that when Bin Laden was trapped in Tora Bora we should have moved US forces and the northern alliance to a safe withdrawal zone and then nuked Tora Bora, I don’t care if Tora Bora became uninhabitable for fifty years just as long as bin laden was dead, and if we get attacked again you can Bet your bottom dinard that will be the pervasive belief nationwide. I can also assure you that the world and everything in it would cease to exist before the US was “toppled.”
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
umm.... r u responding to my comments or just the topic in general cuz if ur responding to mines than u didnt address a single issue mentioned
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
America might think it's invincible, but the terrorists somehow think they're justified, and unless I'm mistaken, purposely killing innocent people is never justified, especially when its justification is something that isn't life or death, and simply lashing out against a nation that doesn't always give them their way.
There are other groups that want the United States destroyed, which means that destroying Islam would not mean the end of terrorism, but I'm sure that those groups are much more likely to attack against a nation they know will appease them whenever they throw a tantrum then one that will punish them severely for acts of war. Appeasement doesn't work with those who want the world.
The US can be toppled, but I'm pretty sure that we'd take down several others with us. After all, it might just be me, but most Americans value their lives, and will fight to keep them.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
The United States definitely doesn't think it's invincible.

Someone in another thread argued that Americans are obstinate against "constructive" criticism. I'm not hearing constructive criticism from Europe. Just self-interested chattering from France and Germany.

Mach: I basically just plain disagree with you. You can jump up and down yelling as loud as you want saying that the US cannot "win" the war on terrorism. I disagree and so do most Americans.

What I am pointing out is that right or wrong, American restraint is not infinite. You seem to take that as being some sort of jingoism which I find sad and discouraging. I can imagine what early astronomers felt like when they tried to explain that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and having people trying to argue that they were speaking heresy.

You don't help your "argument" (if it can be called that) by using terms like "American Empire". I also suggest you educate yourself on Al Queda as you don't seem to have a clue of what Bin Laden's reasons for putting it together were.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Messy: Exactly. I appeasement is so ingrained into some people that they just can't recognize that Americans will never choose appeasement as a solution. Right or wrong, Americans will fight to stop those who are trying to kill them no matter what the end result was.

Americans would generally prefer not to right at all. We'd rather just be left alone to live our lives. But anyone who seriously thinks that Americans will tolerate being slaughtered like animals en masse by terrorists without demanding its government to take massive action in response is delusional.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fisrt off, ive nv supported terrorism, thats the problem with u americans, u seem to think that whoever doesnt agree with u must be allied with the terrorists, which is an immature, black and white view of the world. Secondly, my question is whether or not america would choose appeasement over destruction. U seem to so eagarly suggest America, and its population would eagarly choose destruction. While president bush may consider it his "divine mission" to destroy terrorism (he refered to the war on terror as a crusade on several occasions)the majority of americans r not that stupid. America has had a long tradition of being isolationist and will continue to do so if it feels threatened.

"But anyone who seriously thinks that Americans will tolerate being slaughtered like animals en masse by terrorists without demanding its government to take massive action in response is delusional."
Has the idea that a defense rather than offense tactic for homeland security would work alot better ever occured to u? Going on the offense simply makes ppl hate us more and become more eagar to join the fight against america. Defensive measures will take pressure off of us interantionally and prevent acts of terrorism.


"I also suggest you educate yourself on Al Queda as you don't seem to have a clue of what Bin Laden's reasons for putting it together were."
u seem 2 be taking this more and more personal.... U have NO need 2 question my intellect. Bin Laden started Al Queda with the 10 year goal of converting the whole world into islam. Again, u seem to be thinking under the assumption i support terrorism, i DO NOT support terrorism. Its demands r unrealistic and the majority of times, pure lunacy. All of my comments have centered on the ways we can prevent terrorism from happening in America.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would also like to add that ur hypocrisy is amazing. america trained saddam hussein, america put him in power, america trained bin laden, america gives him weapons to fight the soviets. Now america doesnt need them any more so america guts millions of civilians to get rid of it's own puppet. I know sum body out there is gonna say that i need 2 consider the ppl killed in 9/11. Without the tactical training Bin laden recieved from the CIA, those towers would have never gone down like that.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we only acted defensively, we'd simply be giving terrorists more time to grow stronger in their home countries knowing they have no reason to fear us. By playing the offense, we're sending a message that we will not tolerate terrorism and they will not escape from us no matter where they hide.
I'm also pretty sure that we did not try Bin Laden and Hussein knowing that they would become our enemies. People change, even evil people.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

Machi - it's really hard to take you seriously when you're such an extremist.  So now America "trained" Hussein and put him in power. 

Do you have any idea what you're talking about or do you merely regurgitate idiocy written on various left wing news sites?

If you think that American reaction to being attacked is isolationism, I suggest picking up history book. The US has consistently reacted very strongly when attacked, often seemingly irrationally.

1) War of 1812 - US declares war on the world's most powerful country over impressment of US sailors.

2) War of 1898 - US declares war on Spain because a US ship at anchor in Havana Harbor explodes and assumes the Spanish did it.

3) World War I - US declares war on Germany/Central Powers because Germany had unrestrcted U-boat activity.

4) World War II - US lays waste to Japan after it bombs a US naval base. Wipes out a good portion of Germany in the process.

5) Vietnam - US gunship in the gulf of Tonkin is allegedly (though probably not) attacked.

And yet some of you have the nerve to spew your invective at me because I point out that if the United States got nuked by a terrorist group that the US reaction might be to lay waste to the entire middle east if that is what it took? Do they not teach you people history anymore?

And the US is the one that has a lot of restraint compared to its capabilities.  European and Asian countries have done far worse relative to their capabilities.

Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Machi - it's really hard to take you seriously when you're such an extremist. So now America "trained" Hussein and put him in power."



i think its u that needs to pick up a history book. The US placed Hussein in power and gave him money and weapons to fight off the Iranians in the 80s. In world war 1 and 2, the US did not intervene even when the europeans were begging for help. In world war 1, the US sold both weapons to Germany and Great Britian to benefit economically. You quote historical evidence without examining all the issues behind them. R u not aware that the US went to war in WW1 only after the british intercepted a telegram from germany supporting the mexicans invading the US. (100 years ago mexicans were actually a threat)

R u also not aware of the fact that the war in Vietnam was to prevent the world wide spread of communism, not the attack on a gunship. There was also alot more reasons the war of 1812 was declared, u seem to be only looking at the things that were spoon fed to u through the media, disregarding any polticial or economic considerations for the examples u gave. Do consider dropping 2 nuclear weapons on civilian cities restraint? If so than i guess the US should just vaporize the earth if it doesnt show restraint



"If we only acted defensively, we'd simply be giving terrorists more time to grow stronger in their home countries knowing they have no reason to fear us. By playing the offense, we're sending a message that we will not tolerate terrorism and they will not escape from us no matter where they hide."

Well, then y just us? y not canada, or France, or Great Britain. These are all developed countries bleeding the middle east of its oil. (sum more than others) y do they attack us instead. y dont the terrorists look at Canada and go "geez... they nv bomb any of our buildings, they must be weak, lets blow up the CN tower"

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mach-

Sorry, your facts are incorrect.

You state: 'The US placed Hussein in power and gave him money and weapons to fight off the Iranians in the 80s.'

Fact: Iraq was a Soviet Client state in the 80's. The extent of US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war was to feed Intel to Iraq in order to prevent Iran from winning. The detente there was useful for our purposes.

Fact: The US has never been a major source of military funds and hardware for Iraq. According to a study done by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the major sources of military hardware for Iraq were the USSR, France, China, and Czechoslovakia. The USSR provided Saddam with a whopping 57% of his arms. France rolls in at 13%, followed by China as 12% and Czechoslovakia at 7%. The United States shows up at a gloriously high and excessive 1%. The data stops at 1990 due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent UN arms embargos. Reliable data for the post '90 period is impossible to predict, according to the SIPRI.

(Source is http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html)

Do feel free to discard whatever history book is teaching you the tripe you've spouted about US support for Saddam.

With respect to your comment on the US entry into WW I, you're not looking at the entire picture. The first major problem was the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (see Lusitania). Germany agreed to halt said warfare. The telegram you refer to indicates that the Germans were going to renege on that agreement on Feb 1. This telegram was widely published in US newspapers, enraging the American public. Once the Kaiser announced that the Germans were no longer going to abide by the Sussex Pledge regarding Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war. He was forced into this by his pledge to maintain the freedom of the seas. Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of war with Germany. Had the Germans not repeatedly violated the neutrality of the US and hindered free trade, the US would probably never have entered WWI.

The entire WWI example is just yet another one which shores up Brad's point about an enraged America and what she is capable of doing.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saddam Hussein's rise to power (courtesy of PBS): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/war/player1.html



The Revolutionary Command Council was not a pro-US group. Nationalizing the oil production was not pro-US. The Scud missles used during the 1990 war were Russian designed and of Chinese construction.



Facts on who benefited from keeping Saddam Hussein in power: http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm



The largest suppliers of weapons to Saddam's Iraq were Russia, China and France respectively.



My problem with modern Europe is not that they oppose US policies on moral grounds, but that the countries of Europe (France and Germany in particular) offer terrorists safe hiding and provide them with weapons and money.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Machiavelli_incorporated, one day the United States of America will fall. All empires fall at some time. But it will Not be because of religious extremists/terrorists.

When it happens, it'll be from within, as in its own citizens, not terrorists.
And who knows, that could be centuries from now. But encurring the wrath of the U.S. is a quick way to be decimated.

Maybe you'll get my point if I use all caps.

DECIMATION, ANNIHILATION, TOTAL DESTRUCTION. We're the type of society to cut its nose off to spite its own face..I.e. if we gotta go, our enemies go to.
Sure, that's a negative comment..but true. Family for an Eye, Nation for a Tooth.