US Soldiers think dead Iraqis are something to grin about...

[Jacob]

'Since you didn't get it the last three times, I'll try and make it EVEN clearer for your simple ass to understand.'

Care to enlighten me on why you like to make things personal when people disagree with you? Stop acting like a c*nt and grow up, you don't have to attempt to insult someone everytime they question you.

'-This poor guy died at the hands of American dumbasses, and ended up with American dumbasses smiling over his corpse.'

Now, was this "poor guy" firing on the Americans? Or maybe plotting to kill them with certain Biological toxins? Because if this "poor guy" was, then he must've known that his "poor guy" ass would have been blown apart by some "American dumbasses".

If not, then meh, he was a casualty of war. Happens all the time. Sure, the taking pictures doesn't happen all the time and yes, if he was innocent i can see your points, but still, what can you do?

'-This sort of behaviour will stir up MASSIVE controversy in the middle east, practically undoing any good that America was doing there in terms of relations.

-This sort of behaviour will also incite anti US attacks, and more killings by extremists, thus America will bring harm to itself through it's own irresponsible and disrespectful foolery.

-The west and the east will eventually become more and more seperated the longer things like this continue.

-This will cause a WW3 if things get more volatile.'

Now i see a part of your point. Your worried this will cause an uproar that will lead to WW3. Yes, i can see your point now. However, i do find it doubtful to a certain extent. If by WW3 you mean bombings on home turf on a frequent scale, then no. Not only are the Iraqi's et al incapable, but if they did they would be blown out the sky the minute the plane took off.

If you mean constant Guerilla warfare...then WW3 is already here.

I don't see why America, UK and company don't just pull out. If the Iraqi's are going to fight, let them fight amongst themselves.

[Codek]

Not unless more countries get involved. Of ocurse, that's also quite possible.

Israel alone are fully capable of besting US forces at war. It's just that you've been brought up to think different.

The USA would LOVE to think that they are some kind of military superpower but really, they are not. They've never been in a modern day situation where they have been up against more than 4 tanks at once.

One moment that really sticks out of my mind, was when the US troops were sent FLEEING in fear as literally HUNDREDS of armed Al'Quaida militia charged on them from the hills. Good for them I say, give America the moral kick up the ass that it deserves.

We live in an age when one single Russian nuclear submarine carries enough explosive firepower to decide the fate of earth. Nearly every major country in the world has at least 1 doomsday device. The USA doesn't stand a chance, and I'm glad, because the people that run it are complete idiots.

[Dave]

I hope and pray that people around the world do not assume that the actions of U.S. soldiers and the decisions of U.S. political figures actually reflect the feelings of each and every citizen of the United States.
I have to say this, and if I offend you or whatever, then good:
ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND UNITED STATES SOLDIERS REPRESENT EVERY PERSON IN OUR COUNTRY IS STUPID..
It's ****ing impossible. And, (please correct me if I am wrong about this) everyone around the world that makes an opinion about the average U.S. citizen makes their assumption based on what they hear about our government leaders and what our soldiers do in other countries.
That is total bullshit.
If anyone really thinks that our government really cares about the average person, you are completely delusional. I don't know if anyone outside of the States learns about our government, but what we learn in school is that it is supposed to be chosen by the people, for the people. And in some part, it is. The people vote for who they want to be president.
But the candidates don't always cover every question. They mostly make statements that will get them votes. And the people hear their words through the media, which is always slanted one way or the other. It likes to make one candidate look bad and the other look good.
And then, candidates need to have money. Connections. They won't get anywhere unless they know people. Look at Bush. He signed up to serve in the air force and dodged it completely. Then, since his daddy owned oil pumps or some stupid shit in Texas, Dubya greased his way up the ladder.
Our government is not a fair representation of the needs and welfare of the common people.
Then there are our soldiers.
I personally don't know much about the stuff they do. That's because here in the States, the media will not reveal any information that might anger the people: they only print stuff that will sell papers.
But from what I have heard second hand, none of that shit was sanctioned, and no officials gave anyone permission to do it. The soldiers did it on its own.
I have a few historical references to make. It has been said that the States cannot possibly install a democracy in Iraq. They say it can't be done at all. I say bullshit, look at Japan. After they fell apart at the end of WWII, who rebuilt them? Why, the United States?
Look at South Korea. They were invaded by the Communist Nation of North Korea back in 1950. We are actually still in a technical state of war with them; no treaties were ever written. We drove North Korea out of South Korea and dominated every inch of it, and China pushed us back to the borders they have today. People in South Korea have very short memories, because they don't like U.S. soldiers on their borders. But, wait, if we never showed up in the first place, wouldn't they be a communist nation right now?
And on a side note (though it is still kinda related), I thinks its funny that France mocks us. Especially because we saved their assess from Germany. Twice.

Okay, I'm ready for anyone to throw corrections or rebuttals. I really want to know how accurate I am about this sort of thing.
And anyone from the states who reads this, can I get any verification for what I've said?

[Mac the Janitor]

Ahhh, I totally love you Dave. Took the words right out of my mouth.

I hate the fact that whenever I say I'm American people think I'm fat, ignorant and lazy, with the "LET'S NUKE 'EM ALL" adittude.

But the lazy part is right

[Codek]

Dave your post is ****ing massive, and as such, I can't be bothered to read through all of it, since it led off as being some bullshit about how great the USA is.

The political leaders of the USA are indicative of the populace, since they only ever do anything these days if it will stand them in better stead for the next elections - sometimes they misfire, but most of the time they hit it right on the mark, and everyone supports them.

This includes war.

[Dave]

Death, this post is not as massive, so perhaps you'll read it ...

since it led off as being some bullshit about how great the USA is.

That is absolutely not what I am saying.
Maybe I should clarify: I agree entirely with what everyone else says about this country.
The point I am making is that the political leaders do not accurately represent the thoughts of the people.

they only ever do anything these days if it will stand them in better stead for the next elections - sometimes they misfire, but most of the time they hit it right on the mark, and everyone supports them.
This includes war.

This is a point I actually tried to make. Politicians in this country will only do what will get them elected. I'll overlook this, because you said you didn't actually read my entire post.
Except for the part where we support them. I mean, I know that I personally don't. But, because our media doesn't show us all of what our soldiers are doing, and then show us how surprised everyone is, the average citizen doesn't have any reason to not support what is happening. The media owns our government, and influences our elections.
And I am ashamed to say that I live here, but I can't change that for a few years.
For the record (and for any US citizen that read my entire rant), I never advocated the U.S. as being great--I did quite the opposite. I only live here because I'm too young to move out.

[oddguy]

Dave your post is ****ing massive, and as such, I can't be bothered to read through all of it...

The same way I approach looong posts. Most of these threads about american politics generates many of them. Very annoying.

-oddguy

[Majic]

I've come to the conclusion that those outside of the U.S. are just as negatively affected by negative slander as the average citizen here is by patriotic slander. Honestly, our governments foreign affairs are ****ed. There's no dignified way out. But is the good shwon in the papers? Are successes of the average person displayed? Positive news is left for the headlines of the 9 o'clock news. Negative news is reserved for the front page of major newspapers. Negativity sells. By placing it up first, that's the major thing seen, the major thing read, the thing influencing what people who don't look at the entire picture see. And never, never will this fact of life change. If negativity sells, that's what'll continue to make the papers. That's how the world works, and what most all developd countries have a right to do. But until people get their head out of their asses and stop focusing purely on aspects that display a horrible image of a nation, whose apparent goal in the world is to invade, destroy, and leave, I'm afraid this cycle of ignorant hate shall go on.


However, just as a side question, what about in 10 years? People hate "America" purely because of foreign actions already. But what if a working democracy is set up in the Middle East, the reconstruction is more or less complete, and an entirely different administration is in charge? Are you still going to be saying America is a laughable nation? Or will you look back at this time period specifically, and say "The Bush administration was pretty gung ho, and messed up," instead of letting yourself look at a mere 4 years of history to form an entire opinion on a nation? What about 25 years? 50? Whilst on your death bed? Take a look at what's been said throughout every thread regarding the War on Terrorism. The definiton of "America" seems to have been changed to "The 1/57th of a nations history, set in modern times, when an agressive administration was in charge."

[Codek]

"Negativity sells"

How would you know? Are you the new Reuters editorial consultant or something?

What sells is the NEWS. People want to know what's going on in the world and they want to keep up to date with the big stories. Big stories being either positive or negative.

A big story is usually controversy, and that is what sells.

[Mac the Janitor]

"Negativity sells"

How would you know? Are you the new Reuters editorial consultant or something?

What sells is the NEWS. People want to know what's going on in the world and they want to keep up to date with the big stories. Big stories being either positive or negative.

A big story is usually controversy, and that is what sells.

I actually agree with him on the negativity sells thing. Just turn on the 9 o'clock news here in the U.S...story after story about shootings or rapes or kidnappings or drowning kids or theft...the list goes on and on. For some reason people only want to hear about the BAD things going on, and never the good things. That's why I can't ever watch the news, it makes me sick.

[Esus]

Everybody has their stereotypical views. As many of you have said, there has been a lot of anti-Europe/France feelings in the US after they decided not to go to war. Perhaps you shouldn't judge nations on their governments before you very constantly tell others to do the same.

people think I'm fat, ignorant and lazy, with the "LET'S NUKE 'EM ALL" adittude.

A lot of the Americans, who I have come across on the internet, do have a ignorant "LET'S NUKE 'EM ALL" adittude. Generalisations will always happen subject to what the person in question is exposed to.

[Majic]

"Negativity sells"

How would you know? Are you the new Reuters editorial consultant or something?

What sells is the NEWS. People want to know what's going on in the world and they want to keep up to date with the big stories. Big stories being either positive or negative.

A big story is usually controversy, and that is what sells.

Controversy also fuels a negativity of their own. For example, the terrorism threads splattered about Off Topic. We're nice to each other in all the other threads. So why do we keep tearing out each other's thoats and flossing our teeth with the vocal cords? Anger. Anger is part of negativity. Anger is part of controversy.

[Codek]

Controversy also fuels a negativity of their own. For example, the terrorism threads splattered about Off Topic. We're nice to each other in all the other threads. So why do we keep tearing out each other's thoats and flossing our teeth with the vocal cords? Anger. Anger is part of negativity. Anger is part of controversy.

That doesn't mean that negativity is the ONLY thing that is ever reported on the news. "oooh controversy can possibly sometimes be negativity and that must mean it's all that gets reported" - not so.

In fact I personally find it depends on what is going on around the world. If the only thing worth reporting is negative, then that's all they'll cover. Often they'll stay on a subject until they actually find out what happend, and speculate until they do.

Often they cover Nasa developments, political movements, election runs, world records, the olympics, football, baseball (in the states), racing, celebrities, and other important events. - I just think it's that you never notice it.

[Majic]

Silly Death. I never said negativity was the only thing that ever sold.

[Codek]

Silly Death. I never said negativity was the only thing that ever sold.

Therefore implying that it is the only thing that we are ever shown.