Well, that was quick...

[Shi Huangdi]

It's a hardly a collapse of the goodwill generated from getting Saddam. Yes, there is some lingering resentment, but it would also be a mistake to assume that capturing Saddam is irrelevant either.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Japher


That is both an ignorant and very arrogant thing to say Rufus. Understandibly it is just regurgitated anti-American BS, but is something I can't just let hang in the air like yesterday's farts without at least disagreeing.

LotM

In support of my comments, I would cite the the reams of standarized test data that show that Americans know very little about their own history or anyone else's, and the equally voluminous reams of polling data that show that Americans have very little understanding of what's going on in teh world beyond their borders. (My favorites include, of course, the over 50% who seem still to believe that we went into Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11; the over 50% who, after our military adveture in Afghanistan -- the lead story on the nightly news for weeks -- couldn't find Afghanistan on a map; and, of course, those 5-10% who cant find the USA on a map of the world).

No patience for long-term planning is harder to document, but I would suggest that the current state of Social Security, coupled with the country's negative savings rate, certainly implies that we aren't all that great at thinking past our next Big Mac Attack.

That's what I've got. You've got...what? An American flag on your SUV?

I do agree with this. Leaders should not present complex problems as easy ones, but I know that wasn't the case here. Was that the case there?

Are you wilfully ignoring Rumsfeld's pre-war comments that it would be a "cakewalk"? Are you conveniently forgetting all administration officials' descriptions of how the euphoria in Baghdad would look like Paris in the summer of '44? Have you willfully repressed the "Mission Accomplished" photo op?

Or are you just another American with no sense of history?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


In support of my comments, I would cite the the reams of standarized test data that show that Americans know very little about their own history or anyone else's, and the equally voluminous reams of polling data that show that Americans have very little understanding of what's going on in teh world beyond their borders. (My favorites include, of course, the over 50% who seem still to believe that we went into Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11; the over 50% who, after our military adveture in Afghanistan -- the lead story on the nightly news for weeks -- couldn't find Afghanistan on a map; and, of course, those 5-10% who cant find the USA on a map of the world).

No patience for long-term planning is harder to document, but I would suggest that the current state of Social Security, coupled with the country's negative savings rate, certainly implies that we aren't all that great at thinking past our next Big Mac Attack.

That's what I've got. You've got...what? An American flag on your SUV?



Are you wilfully ignoring Rumsfeld's pre-war comments that it would be a "cakewalk"? Are you conveniently forgetting all administration officials' descriptions of how the euphoria in Baghdad would look like Paris in the summer of '44? Have you willfully repressed the "Mission Accomplished" photo op?

Or are you just another American with no sense of history?

1. Stats on geography ignorance - only really relevant compared to some other country. Certainly here on 'poly (not a valid sample, to be sure) i see just as many europeans ignorant of history as Americans.

2. Iraq and 9/11. Lets try to avoid a threadjacking, but the linkage is far from absurd.

3. Social Security, etc - again, compared to say Europeans? Not to start a thread jack, but maybe theyre unconcerned cause theyre looking at the rate of growth of the US economy, etc. This is one where the experts disagree.

4. Cakewalk - citation please. You will find none - an arguable one from Cheney - none from Rumsfeld.


5. Paris 1944 - It WAS disappointing in April - we didnt realize how terrorized these people were - but since we have seen celebrations not only in April, but on many occasions since, notably yesterday. And US troops have reported widespread friendliness from Iraqis. Is there still political struggle, resentment, etc? Like you think there wasnt in France in 1944-45? Whos historically ignorant.

SUV - dont own one. I have a US flag on my energy efficient Honda.

Historical ignorance - I suggest you follow what I have to say on historically oriented threads - i would like to see a history forum here.

Mission accomplished - er wasnt that on an AIRCRAFT CARRIER? Wasnt the Carriers mission accomplished? Not much for Carriers to do in IRaq now, is there? Was Bushes flying out stupid - maybe, thats Karl Rove, not evidence against the American people. There arent other international leaders who done stupid symbolic things?

[Japher]

I thought someone would come to my rescue with a well worded rebuttal

Still, after reading the entire thread instead of just flaming a troll, I find myself in agreement with Rufus in that many Americans (maybe most) respond to world events out of ignorance and emotion, yet these things are fueled by a liberal media and uncompromising and idiotic claims by public officials... However, I see no difference in the general reactions among other countries, to such a point, to single out Americans as being the epitamy of such blatant stupidity. We are just louder than the rests, as we have a right to use our voices.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

LoM,

Not accusing you or anyone in this thread of historical ignorance -- except myself, for forgetting that the cakewalk comment came from Cheney, not Rumsfeld.

But it seems to me a willfully deceptive rewriting of recent events to suggest that the Bush administration presented Iraq as a difficult, complex proposition from the outset. Quite, quite the opposite -- which is why they had to backpedal so furiously when the invasion bogged down a bit in its initial days. Everything coming out of the Bush team's mouth before our troops landed presented Iraq 2 as simplicity itself. They were either consumed by arrogance, flat-out lying, or being incredibly stupid; I can believe all of the above, and see no reason to forgive any.

As for comparison's to Europe, I'll let the Europeans defend themselves if they like; I wasn't comparing Americans to anyone else, just saying that in general our sense of history and world events is very, very shabby. Whether other countries are just as shabby is irrelevant.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Japher,

I'm only singling out Americans because (1) Iraq's our show, and (2) I feel it's legit to take my own countrymen (meaning the ignoramuses, not you or LotM) to task for their failings as citizens.

[Sprayber]

Why were you shocked Rufas???? These people were only pleased that Saddam was caught not that America caught him. There is absoulutly nothing in that article that shocks me. It has been this way from since the beginning. They like the results of what happened but they curse of for being there. Do you think for a second that they will not blame American for the Civil War that would accompany an American withdraw at this stage? They curse us saying we should go and would curse us for allowing the Civil War that would surely follow. So why you think this is shocking is a little strange to me. It's standard operating procedure.

[Japher]

From Bush's speech after 9/11

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

I know it's not specificly about Iraq 2, but it I think it represents not only the Bush regime's outlook on the war, and mine as well. No one said it would be easy, except when some idiot (Rummy and Chenney) spoke without thinking. We had 'em out manned and out gunned, they just forgot about who the war is actually being waged against.

I'm only singling out Americans because (1) Iraq's our show, and (2) I feel it's legit to take my own countrymen (meaning the ignoramuses, not you or LotM) to task for their failings as citizens.

Fair enough.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
From Bush's speech after 9/11

I know it's not specificly about Iraq 2, but it I think it represents not only the Bush regime's outlook on the war, and mine as well.

As I recall, Iraq did not enter the equation until he pulled the "Axis of Evil" thang out from his rectum. As a matter of fact, there still is no evidence linking Saddam/Iraq with al-Qaeda.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, EST, I think you to be completely wrong. I'm sure the administration hoped for a quick turnaround, but they knew they'd be there for a while. There were plenty of speeches by Bush saying we need to be patient and be there for the long haul. Remember Bush was advised by neoconservatives, who wish to transform the MidEast, and Iraq in particular to a democratic area. The whole goal was to build institutions in order to foster democracy and the US will be there for a while.

The problem is trying to convince Americans to stay for the long term good of Iraq. It may be 'empire', but that doesn't always have to be a dirty word.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by East Street Trader

How many lives the next invasion will cost God only knows.

As many lives as it takes to get more oil!

Er, I mean, as many lives as it takes to find WMDs -- no wait, screw that one, too.

As many lives as it takes to win the next election -- nah, that doesn't sound good enough.




As many lives as it takes, to accomplish whatever.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To accomplish a regime change for democratization . I realize it is impossible at the moment, but I'd love to see an invasion of Burma to remove the *******s there. Then again, I'm sure it'll never happen now.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
To accomplish a regime change for democratization . I realize it is impossible at the moment, but I'd love to see an invasion of Burma to remove the *******s there. Then again, I'm sure it'll never happen now.

Imran -- Bush does not have the best interests of the common Iraqi at heart, in spite of his beautiful speeches. Has has other reasons for having invaded Iraq.


To believe that American political leaders of either party having the best interest at heart for common, low-class, suppressed peoples in poorer countries . . . . . that's just seems to me, being naive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush does not have the best interests of the common Iraqi at heart, in spite of his beautiful speeches. Has has other reasons for having invaded Iraq.

When did I say he did. What, you think democratization is simply for the best interests of the common Iraqi? I'm sure that is part of it. Bush genually does seem to want people to vote for their leaders (the only reason people in Pakistan can vote is because of Bush's pressure on Musharraf). However, democratization of the ME is in the US'S BEST INTEREST. Taking power away from dictators may lead to more friendly and more peaceful regimes, especially with respect to other democracies.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by MrFun
... Bush does not have the best interests of the common Iraqi at heart, in spite of his beautiful speeches. Has has other reasons for having invaded Iraq.

True. With Babylon now under U.S. control, there's no way in hell it can become the capital of the Anti-Christ for the impending showdown between the armies of God and Satan.

Guess good old AC will have to just set up shop in Las Vegas.

Gatekeeper