I am not a fan of the american military presence outside of the states, but I respect your decision to sign up as a soldier for your country.
You need to identify the opinions you read and hear as protectable values whether you agree with them or not, though.
The fact that these topics are discussed means that there is more than one idea out there and disagreement about it. What you ask for is as much maintained and represented here as other convictions.
Having said that, I do disagree completely with your hypothetical statement about the impact of a withdrawal. Not only is it sheer impossible to predict the outcome, it is not in the eyes of one nation to determine what makes the world a better place.
2006-12-16 16:54:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by smiling4her 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
I wonder this often as well. It's like people are so against the war but cannot solve the problem. We either stay in and get criticized or get out called hypocrites. We loose both ways.
I've been stationed overseas the majority of my life. Surprisingly the most of the people who live near the base or got to know Americans enjoyed our company. Granted there are a few rude or bad Americans out there--the same goes for English, French, German, and Russian people. It's just a matter of stereotyping which is a part of life these days.
A lot of people (from other countries) have either a) never met an American or b) had a bad experience with one. How can someone possibly base a whole nation on the act of one?
I think it's ridiculous. We should stay in as long as we get the job done. My husband is in the military--I don't want him there but I know what's necessary for the country. I also don't like Bush but I do think he is doing the best that he can with the obstacles he's faced. I think the plan could have been different as well as our objectives. You know what? Re-hashing the past does nothing. We have to live for the present and future.
I'd love to see them implement a plan that will both create some sort of peace with the Middle East and to get the troops out--with the job completed. Realistically, it's not going to be tomorrow. I hope our next President will take a plan to heart and really work towards them both.
2006-12-16 16:58:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by .vato. 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
first for the first part about if the US doesn't intervene we are wrong. thats mostly because the US is already involved in those reagions that it is asked to intervene and if it did not proactively intervene I doubt that it would be asked again and again . and for another there are always people in situations who are looking for foreign intervention or help to destablise their domestic politics and the US complies when it suits its agenda . after all there was no intervention in Rwanda even though there was a holocaust taking place . and for the second part about being called a warmongers 116 figure speaks for itself . I very much doubt that the rest of the world would be speaking German or Japanese as most of the world does not Speak English either besides I dunno if German or Japanese speech is any worse then or better then English .
well for 10 years is a very short time the world needs a much longer time for the Natural Balance to become re-established after all we are still going thru the repercussions of the first world war where countries were artificially merged into the Soviet Union . and they just recently became independent by anyways that just a mute argument because for the foreseeable future US will continue its policy of active intervention and regime changes .
2006-12-16 16:53:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First of all, the United States media changes a lot of things to make the military from the US seem like heroes. As i was looking on some other questions, I found one that said: "... he is not only serving the US army but also the rest of Mankind too..." are u being serious, see what I mean by the media changing everything?? Im not american nor i live in the US, I m Mexican. Can u tell me what good have the wars in iraq and afghanistan done to me? well none. just the opposite.
I dont have a problem with the US going to war with many countries, what i have a problem with, is that they do it without real reasons. WWII - cause: Pearl Harbor; now that is a good reason, war in Iraq: "supposed WMD", yea right. Why dont u invade Iran and North Korea then?? they have accepted plans for plutonium/uranium enrichment. North Korea tested their nuclear warfare recently.
I'll tell u why the US invaded Iraq and wont attack Iran and North Korea. After Desert Storm, Iraq was devastaded (it was still better than it is right now) the UN embargo, the debt carried after the war. 10 years later u come and attack them. really, could the Iraqi armed forces really pose a threat to an apache or an f-18? i doubt it. Bush knew Iraq didnt have the weapons, so did the rest of the world. Basing his decisions on supposed WMD and WAR ON TERRORISM.
OPEN YOUR EYES the united states already lost the war on terrorism. just look at the damn word!! TERROR-ism. terror = fear. arent u AFRAID that while shopping at a mall ur family gets blown away to pieces by a bomb in the parking lot?? The patriot act, bush said it was another step towards the war on terrorism, well its totally the opposite, it causes fear. inother words, the great majority of the american population is living with FEAR of an attack right now.
America will never change the worlds opinion about them if it continues to attack and doing whatever the **** they want. The average (note the word AVERAGE) american thinks theyre country is the center of the world. I mean cmon, those kinds of people think that in Mexico we still move around in donkeys. give me a break id like those people to go to Mexico City, and look how many ******* cars are there.
I dunno why u joined the army, but for me and for most of the world out there, ur not "SERVING MANKIND" thats what americans think. U were guided by a sensless, blind nationalism and patriotism about doing something good for the world.
The outcome of a war isnt decided by men in their cammouflage suits behind their guns.
The outcome of a war is decided by men in their Zegna and Hugo Boss suits behind their desks.
2006-12-16 19:53:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by bdle_8 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
First and most important don't let anyone tell you that you are serving for a "lost cause" Secondly no matter what the U.S. does or does not do we will always be criticized. Sadly however in these times we are in it is mostly from the citizens that are bashing the U.S. We are blessed in America with a lot of power and resources therefore we are responsible for helping other whenever we can. If we would not have got involved in WW II the entire world would be speaking German right now. More importantly the people that do bash the war and the president would not have the rights to do so. Kinda ironic huh.
2006-12-16 16:48:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by dodgedifferent01 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Partner, you are absolutely right. And it is crap to even think that any country, in existence today, can handle/beat America, if the politicians would let the military fight! No! Actually, we don't have to send in our troops! We have stuff, all we have to do is push the button and we take out everything in 25 mile circle.
We have bombs that suck out all the air and leave every thing on fire. We can put enough crap into the desert and make the sand turn to glass. American people need to stop thinking that there is a Sweet, kind, nice, fair, fun way to have a war!
For the above way, DON"T GO TO WAR! Any other way, you take everybody out that is in front of you! Mama, dog cat, Grandma, goats, trees, the dead, women, children - ALL!!
Else, don/t go to war! If you feel that I'm wrong, get up from in front of the TV, Join the Marines, go get shot at then come back and talk your smack! You ain't never carried a weapon for this country and been shot at? Then shut up!
2006-12-16 17:00:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
In nuclear conflict for sure Mexico is often lengthy gone. In a regularly occurring conflict they have an excellent probability truly considering they have already invaded and captured an excellent element of the U. S.. The Euro-way of existence US has grew to change into into too many spoiled and sheltered little children in man or woman bodies who're incapable of even protecting themselves antagonistic to street punks now to not indicate squaddies. i'm not confident there are sufficient of the stone chilly-blooded slaughtering German hordes or the screaming Irish brawlers who flooded in right here about the same time those (pondering the frequently disciplined Germanic English) outfitted up the British Empire. truly the Irish swept away the section human beings after their hungry hordes forced our Civil conflict with the help of destroying Northeastern economic equipment undercutting wages like the also-toddler-spewing Mexicans help human beings in China do now. That inspired the tariff threats antagonistic to Southeastern states overseas commerce that initiated secession. The Irish have stopped spewing little ones a lot I listen and it sounds like they and the Germanic human beings have also change into thumb-sucking little ones searching for mommies and daddies in authorities to take care of and preserve them. So i'm not confident at present besides the indisputable fact that the destiny seems good for the Mexicans. As we get extra thumb-sucking toddler-like and the truly nonetheless toddler-spewing Mexicans stay scuffling with their broods draining them, and helping drain us, they could end superior than we are. the precedence is with the help of then they and extra so the horrendously overpopulating chinese language would have swallowed maximum the worlds economies and what they get right here received't seem economically a lot diverse than Mexico.
2016-11-30 21:04:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by barnas 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
My answer to your (1)first question : the US/America can't win because the world is that much bigger. (2)second question : countries that currently bad-mouth the US may or may not be countries; though the latter, I believe, is more likely. (3)third question : maybe or maybe not. The US should, if not must, work with as many countries as possible in resolving conflicts/issues in the world. It will definitely be better off that way. By the way, with more and more countries having nuclear capabilities as the years pass us by, a nuclear holocaust may end it all. God have mercy on us all then.
2006-12-16 17:14:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Alfretz T 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
It has all been planned and calculated as to what is happening or will or has happened. It all boils down to money. The only ones who win are the manufactures of the tools and equipment that are used in a war...if you look deep enough you will find that the arms merchants supply both sides in a war (money) then when they have accomplished the goals for that war they cut the funding off for the one that is to loose the war.
By the way if you are in Afghanistan you should read this web page. Sorry to be the barer of bad news!
2006-12-16 16:57:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by pinelake302 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
As you already said "Why can't the USA win" is right on the mark. We will never win in a military conflict like the war we have in Iraq. We are considered "Illegal Invaders" which we most likely are. ( Remember Vietnam ) Even Powell stated today we are losing in Iraq. And don't worry about Americans speaking Germany and Japanese because the American students are learning that language so they can get better jobs since most of our jobs are going to those countries anyways. And for YOU.....You take care of yourself and come home safe and sound.
2006-12-18 11:00:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋