English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

“Old Europe”
“Axis of Evil”
“You’re either with us or against us”
“Islamo-Fascists”
“Crusade”

2007-09-08 01:25:16 · 34 answers · asked by Y 2 in Politics & Government Politics

Eg, re the ‘Axis of Evil’, a bit of education for ignorant Americans:
Iran, being Shia, is fiercely opposed to Al Qaeda.
More importantly, being Persian, the POPULACE has historically been one of the most anti-Arab and PRO-AMERICAN of all the Middle Eastern Muslim nations. This has, however, all changed after they were dismissed as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

2007-09-08 01:25:27 · update #1

34 answers

Increased law inforcement in the high crime areas of a city creates increase hatred of the police.
When ever a ruling authority tries to alter the behavior of an out of control society, hatred will be focused at the authority.

This should have been expected. It was shortsighted on the part of this administration not to and not be prepared for it.

2007-09-08 01:36:22 · answer #1 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0 0

You are lumping us into one pile The idiot bush pile. The majority of Americans don't believe in this idiot. How is the terrorism going in your country? Calm, peace full, serene. All nationalities getting along well? The last time I was there I found so much self hatred let alone hatred for anyone or anything not exactly like yourselves. Being that the whole of Europe is becoming populated with Muslims at a alarming rate you have 25 years till you will be a predominately Muslim country. What are you going to do then Join them or leave? Where will you go?

2007-09-08 01:42:07 · answer #2 · answered by WDOUI 5 · 0 0

I think that most (or at least a lot of) Americans fully understand
this concept. Don't forget the fiasco of G.W. Bush winning the
elections even though he did not have a majority vote. Also, as is the case in every country, for a government/president to be
elected, 50% or more majority of the whole population is not
needed. More votes than the other parties will suffice,
even if this means that only 30% of the population may be
backing the winning party.

What is noteworthy (and this applies to every affluent country),
is how people may dissagree with their governments on very
fundamental things (such as declaring a war on another
country), yet are very complacent and simply let it happen.
You would have thought that people power, can change
the mind of a governments, yet we all (and we are all equally
to blame), just sit back in our relative comfort, and simply
criticize. Nearly half the population of the UK doesn't even
bother voting. A right that took centuries to acquire, together
with bloodshed, and violence. Yet we are still just too lazy
to go and vote! Incredible!!!!!! It is our own doing (speaking
at least as an Englishman).

Think for a moment of what citizens of other countries must
think of us. Especially the ones that wake up and go to
bed listening to bombs exploding around them. I can't even
begin to imagine what they must feel like.

2007-09-08 03:04:47 · answer #3 · answered by bamboozlini 1 · 0 0

I'm reluctant to write off all US citizens. The present government seems hell bent on enforcing their erroneous interpretation of Christianity on the world at large. This is not far from a small section of followers of Islam who have the same goal.
It is said that the electorate gets the government they deserve - although this was not clear in November 2000 in the USA.
Since the end of World War II, the USA seems to thrive on paranoia - when Communism collapsed in 1991 in most of the world, they turned their attention to Islam.
For many years I found that the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights (that's the USA State Department) was informative and useful. But the USA doesn't respect those rights themselves..
Somehow it gives strength to the reports. There is an old adage: 'It takes one to know one.'

2007-09-08 01:42:19 · answer #4 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 3 1

These phrases have not created the terroristic attacks on dozens of countries around the world over the last 30 years. Our words did not force Hezbollah, (Iranian backed), to bomb the US marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, or the bombing of the Kobahr Towers in 98' or the US Cole in 2000, or the countless other barbaric attacks designed to kill innocent civilians in the name of Islam.
It is apparent to me that we are fighting the most evil people on Earth, the radicalized Islamics, (terrorists).
If fighting back against those who have been aggressors against us and the civilzed world for decades is "increasing terrorism", oh f***ing well.

2007-09-08 01:38:22 · answer #5 · answered by heavysarcasm 4 · 3 1

No, but we are too stupid to put someone without real diplomatic foreign policy solutions in office. GWB was a state governor and nothing on his resume prepared him for this job.

Our President needs to go but out of 3 people, 1 absolutely love him and his policies, 1 hate him and the rest of us are waiting to see him go.

This administration have tried to make lies true but it cannot be done. His intention are viliant but naive and arrogant, the rest of America suffers.

You know, with his response to terrorism, he had no choice but to respond; I'm glad he did. I would bet 9 of 10 Americans stand behind his response.

God bless you and all of you; God bless America.

2007-09-08 01:49:14 · answer #6 · answered by true_value5 4 · 1 1

You must be young,and audacious to even attempt to give a history lesson about Iran's historic love of America.You,kid,are the ignorant fool.Iran has been completely anti American for decades.You probably aren't old enough to remember a wee little incident called "The Iranian Hostage Crisis"When they kept our people through the last of "The GREAT DEMOCRAT"Jimmy Carters' term,releasing them THE DAY a republican,Ronald Reagan took office.Appeasement doesn't work,has never worked,and never will.A FACT someone who knew history would realize.Your little "equation" sounds like the schoolyard Bytch equation"If I am REALLY nice to those mean ol' bullies,maybe they will stop beating me up"That line of thinking only gets the schoolyard bytch more trouble.What a wuss.

2007-09-08 01:36:47 · answer #7 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 4 2

I agree with your assessment, but America has nothing against the people of Iran, just its crazy President who wants a nuke to use...He should be using the money to feed and help the poor people of Iran...I have Persian friends who live in Iran and this is what they tell me...The majority hate Amadinajhad and feel that he is creating problems for them. America labeled the Revolutionary Guard as terrorist because they are supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq killing American soldiers creating a proxy war, but it has nothing to do with the people of Iran.

2007-09-08 01:39:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Your are totally separated from reality. Typing an equals sign does not create a valid equation. Your logic is non-existent.

I don't care if anyone hates America. Just don't mess with me. It is as simple as that.

Persians have a 5,000 year history of fighting everyone. The Ayatollah Khomeini started trouble with the US, when he ordered President Carter to stop the Shah of Iran from coming to the US for cancer treatment. Then there was the hostage crisis that lasted for more than a year. This goes all the way back to the early 1970's. Where have you been all this time?

2007-09-08 01:33:08 · answer #9 · answered by regerugged 7 · 5 3

Ok Mr Terence, now comment on Bin Laden's latest rant. Take a wider view. Grow up!

2007-09-08 02:30:24 · answer #10 · answered by nipper 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers