No more war on terror!!

[Guest]

STOP, Ye lemmings with horse blinders!

I know this is long, but I want you to read this before you bicker like old ladies!

This is what happens when you got an entire population who does not bother to know their own history. Or maybe "entire population" is too general. Okay, I'll limit it to you people bickering about War on Terror and Torture techniques or whatever else petty arguments you start from having heard such "buzz words" breathed by Tom Brokaw or Sean Hannity.

Let me open your eyes from MY own personal experience based on my country's very own history.

Back in 1521, the Spaniards came and conquered the Philippines and we were under Spanish oppression until the citizenry finally gained the leadership to revolt in 1896. That's over 3 centuries of oppression. The war went on until 1898 when we finally put the rebel flag on the steps of the governor's mansion and declared our independence. But, instead of ceding the government to the Filipino rebellion, Spain sold the Philippines to the USA in the 1898 Treaty of Paris.

We did not know who the Americans were, we just knew that we never gained independence. So, battered and bruised from the 2-year Spanish War, we continued the war against the Americans. At the same time the Americans had no idea that the Filipinos were an organized group. They thought we were just a bunch of pet monkeys the Spaniards were keeping. (The Filipino sentiment at the time).

But, the Americans were different. The Spaniards prevented the native Filipinos from accessing the Spanish education system. We were a tribal system before the Spaniards came. Each tribe had their own micro-community with their own language and culture. The Spanish militia did not allow Filipinos to learn Spanish because then we would have a common language that can unite the tribes and cause an uprising. They used the Catholic church to instill fear and collect tithes. If you don't give 10% of your property and proceeds, the "Church" sequesters it "to help the poor". Jose Rizal's parents got killed for not paying 10% to the church! Jose Rizal is the National Hero.

When the Americans came, it was very different. They put up schools and established a Filipino government. Although, American arrogance has always been such that they think their way of life is superior to all else. I can't really argue with that much because the American Constitution as established by the original framers is superior to any other form of government especially during those days of divide and conquer. It appeals to man's natural wish to be born free and to strive to achieve on his own merit.

So then, the rebellion slowed down - ran out of resources - and with the people seeing improvements in their standard of living, there was not much support from the tribes anymore. Although, it was still alive and giving the American soldiers trouble. We became a US territory. But the Filipino rebellion was taken aback when the Americans signed the McDuffie-Tydings act in 1934 that mapped out a 10-year plan for Philippine Independence! How can that be? An "oppressor" teaching the Filipinos how to run their own country? In 1934, we became a US Commonwealth with a Filipino President and a process by which the Filipinos can start running the country on their own. But then, in the 1940's the Japanese came and defeated the Americans. We were back to square one. The Japanese military were bad. They would go through the town and rape and pillage innocent civilians, taking everything of value including the young daughters to molest in the barracks! My grandfather - a colonel - died in the hands of the Japanese. The Filipino rebellion joined up with the Americans to throw the Japanese out. You know the outcome of that war. The Japanese finally surrendered the country back to the Americans after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And guess what, on July 4, 1946 (July 4 has meaning to the Americans in more ways than just American Independence), only 2 years late from the 10-year plan, and the USA with fresh wounds from WWII, the Philippines was declared a sovereign nation. The Americans pulled out and went on their merry way, taking only 2 small tracts of land to install a US air force and naval base.

Would we have achieved the same Independence if we never got short-changed in the Treaty of Paris? Yes, probably. But, I doubt we would last one second against the Chinese and the Japanese. It would just be a matter of time before one of those two take over. We were ill-equipped to protect our borders. Would we have gained independence from any other nation? I very much doubt it. In the history of the world, only the United States of America believed that people should be granted freedom. You can go back as far as history will get you. Nobody else has ever done it. You always have to win a bloody war to gain independence only to lie in wait for the next big thug and fight the war all over again.

Even after America started to establish a legitimate Philippine government, they still had to fight several independent rebel groups that wanted to wrest the power from the Philippine government. Included in these smattering of guerilla fighters were pockets of muslim extremists from the southern Philippine islands and christian extremists (yep, there were those too!) from the mountain provinces. At that time, the American military aided the ailing Philippine leadership in squashing these insurgents at the same time providing needed combat training to Filipino police forces. This is exactly the same as what's happening in Iraq today.

And, these guerilla fighters do not check with their conscience before they start killing Americans, in any means fair or foul, as long as they win. Whereas Americans have to follow rules of "war between gentlemen". Which is the same as it is in Iraq today.

There were several people in the American congress and popular Americans who were very loud in their anti-war campaign. Most notable of which was Mark Twain who declared that America has become an Imperialist driving Spain away just so they can replace them in the oppression of the Filipino people. These people had control of the media so they can selectively disseminate information to the american public to further their agenda.

Several soldiers wrote home to their loved-ones about atrocities inflicted on the Filipinos by American soldiers. These letters became fodder for the media to rile the Americans to protest against American occupation in the Philippines. But, even the Filipino fighters will attest to the fact that these atrocities are not modus operandi for the American military and that anybody caught doing so are immediately brought to disciplinary action or court martial.

Most notable of these events was when Filipino guerilla fighters armed only with knives and swords, invaded the military installation in Samar and succeeded in killing majority of American soldiers armed with guns! These guerilla fighters wrapped their bodies with opium and went kamikaze on the Americans, killing as many as they can before they eventually died of blood loss - pain was suppressed by the opium. The American General in that military installation, with a bruised ego and mad as a peahen, ordered everybody in Samar, civilian or otherwise, old enough to carry a sword, killed! This included children! The order was given because there was no way to identify a guerilla fighter since they did not wear uniforms nor bear identifying marks. Fortunately, the major in-charge of sending out the troops, was able to countermand the order, but not before a few Filipinos got killed.

General McArthur investigated the incident but was adviced by his superiors not to go public because it would be juicy fodder for the media and would be sure to elicit distrust for the military. But, General McArthur, guided by his conscience, followed standard operating procedures and filed his report. This caused the General in Samar to get court martialled and dismissed from the military. Sure enough, the media published the incident and made it look like it was standard operation of the American military which led to several protests for IMMEDIATE withdrawal of troops on the steps of the White House. This is the same as what's happening today. Except, now, the American government are REALLY withdrawing troops before the Iraqi government is stabilized.

The American occupation lasted from 1898 to 1946. Almost 50 years. And even then, several high-ranking officials of the Philippine government filed a request to extend American occupation because they felt they are still not ready to address certain major issues such as a flailing post WWII economy and corruption. This was proven correct by several corrupt Philippine presidents like Pres. Garcia in the 60's and, of course, the rise of the dictator, Pres. Marcos. The American occupation in Iraq started in 2003. There is no way an Iraqi government is stable enough to stand on its own in just 6 years. But, I guess it will have to be enough because they're withdrawing already. I can understand if the Americans feel it is not their responsibility to stabilize Iraq. Especially since it incurs a gigantic financial burden. But, this is a deviation from what I understood was American idealogy. I guess it is really time for change now.

The Philippines will always be on the American side of history. That is what the Americans accomplished there. That is what you could have accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq. A major victory when you consider these are 2 hotbeds of extremists!

History repeats itself... Over and over again. Except this time, the Americans don't want to do what has worked that made America the great nation that it is today.

Learning from my own history, I have a good understanding of how the American ideals work. They are not the "big bad wolf" that everybody portrays them to be. Although, they are guilty of being so arrogant that they think if it doesn't smell like democracy, they have to sweep in and do the same thing they did in the Philippines. Of course, they do things to gain resources. It is how the world has always turned. The Roman Empire did not conquer lands just for the fun of it. They conquered lands to increase their resources. Same with the British, same with the Spaniards. It is human nature. America needs to influence OPEC so that the American people can enjoy $2.00 a gallon. How can they achieve this? They can always just nuke Venezuela and take over their oil fields. But they don't. They offer Iraqis independence from Saddam, and a wing of their military to prevent other wanna-be-Saddams from taking over the country in exchange for lower crude oil prices. I don't see that as bad. Because, if you remember, oil prices go to $4.00 a gallon and the Americans whine and complain that the President is not doing anything about it. The problem is, the American leaders are too chicken, pandering to the sentiments of the American public that has slowly and surely been intentionally dumbed down so that they have to spin intentions like a ferris wheel just to make the public feel good about it.

The world view changed after World War II. Because of America, the world now has the luxury of thinking, "hey, where's my independence???". And the little guy armed with 2 brooms and a mop has the courage to say, "Oh you big bad wolf, stay away from my door!". It is completely a big deviation from a millenia of world history.

So, yeah. I love America and all it stood for. But, my friends, the Americans are all ruining themselves from within. You don't need Islamic extremists to wage war against America. The Americans are blindly doing it all on their own...

This thread is just a minute example of this fact!

[Elphaba]

STOP, Ye lemmings with horse blinders!

I know this is long, but I want you to read this before you bicker like old ladies!

Although I am a bickering old lady, I am not a lemming with horse blinders, whatever that is.

This is what happens when you got an entire population who does not bother to know their own history. Or maybe "entire population" is too general. Okay, I'll limit it to you people bickering about War on Terror and Torture techniques or whatever else petty arguments you start from having heard such "buzz words" breathed by Tom Brokaw or Sean Hannity.

"Terror" and "torture" are petty buzzwords?

By the way, Tom Brokaw retired in 2004.

Let me open your eyes from MY own personal experience based on my country's very own history.

. . .

When the Americans came, it was very different. They put up schools and We became a US territory.

No one denies America has accomplished a great deal of good around the world, more than any other country on the planet, and I am extremely proud of my country for this.

But that doesn’t mean we have no right to criticize our country’s actions if we believe they are wrong.

The American occupation in Iraq started in 2003. There is no way an Iraqi government is stable enough to stand on its own in just 6 years.

So, you expect America to occupy Iraq for fifty years?

But, I guess it will have to be enough because they're withdrawal already. I can understand if the Americans feel it is not their responsibility to stabilize Iraq. Especially since it incurs a gigantic financial burden. But, this is a deviation from what I understood was American ideology. I guess it is really time for change now.

Yes, it is a deviation. It's called "nation building," and, in general, we are against it.

Learning from my own history, I have a good understanding of how the American ideals work.

What makes you think we don’t? Just because some of us disagree with our country’s actions? Guess what? We get to do that.

So, yeah. I love America and all it stood for. But, my friends, the Americans are all ruining themselves from within. You don't need Islamic extremists to wage war against America. The Americans are blindly doing it all on their own...

This thread is just a minute example of this fact!

What fact?

The only thing I culled from your post is that we are leaving Iraq when you think we shouldn’t be. How else are we “ruining themselves from within”? You don’t really say.

One of the wonderful things we all love about America is that we get to "bicker like old ladies." It's guaranteed by the Constitution you mentioned above, and is one of the reasons America has succeeded, despite the "lemmings with horse blinders."

Although I know it doesn’t seem like it, I did enjoy your narrative quite a bit. However I have a couple of questions.

1) How do you define "stabilize Iraq"?

2) Do you believe Americans should stay in Iraq for the next fifty years, like it did in the Philippines?

3) Why should it be only America's job to stabilize Iraq?

4) Given how emphatic you are that Iraq must be stabilized, why don't you personally travel to Iraq and help the Americans do just that? After all, America has already given almost 4200 lives, and over 30,000 casualties. Surely you can sneak in some way without being caught and beheaded.

Thanks for the perspective--I really enjoyed it.

Be sure to let us know when you’ll be traveling to Iraq to help the Americans stabilize the country, so we can give you a good sendoff.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

I liked Glenn Beck's ideas on renaming the war on terror.

What was his idea?

[Hemidakota]

STOP, Ye lemmings with horse blinders!

I know this is long, but I want you to read this before you bicker like old ladies!

This is what happens when you got an entire population who does not bother to know their own history. Or maybe "entire population" is too general. Okay, I'll limit it to you people bickering about War on Terror and Torture techniques or whatever else petty arguments you start from having heard such "buzz words" breathed by Tom Brokaw or Sean Hannity.

Let me open your eyes from MY own personal experience based on my country's very own history.

Back in 1521, the Spaniards came and conquered the Philippines and we were under Spanish oppression until the citizenry finally gained the leadership to revolt in 1896. That's over 3 centuries of oppression. The war went on until 1898 when we finally put the rebel flag on the steps of the governor's mansion and declared our independence. But, instead of ceding the government to the Filipino rebellion, Spain sold the Philippines to the USA in the 1898 Treaty of Paris.

We did not know who the Americans were, we just knew that we never gained independence. So, battered and bruised from the 2-year Spanish War, we continued the war against the Americans. At the same time the Americans had no idea that the Filipinos were an organized group. They thought we were just a bunch of pet monkeys the Spaniards were keeping. (The Filipino sentiment at the time).

But, the Americans were different. The Spaniards prevented the native Filipinos from accessing the Spanish education system. We were a tribal system before the Spaniards came. Each tribe had their own micro-community with their own language and culture. The Spanish militia did not allow Filipinos to learn Spanish because then we would have a common language that can unite the tribes and cause an uprising. They used the Catholic church to instill fear and collect tithes. If you don't give 10% of your property and proceeds, the "Church" sequesters it "to help the poor". Jose Rizal's parents got killed for not paying 10% to the church! Jose Rizal is the National Hero.

When the Americans came, it was very different. They put up schools and established a Filipino government. Although, American arrogance has always been such that they think their way of life is superior to all else. I can't really argue with that much because the American Constitution as established by the original framers is superior to any other form of government especially during those days of divide and conquer. It appeals to man's natural wish to be born free and to strive to achieve on his own merit.

So then, the rebellion slowed down - ran out of resources - and with the people seeing improvements in their standard of living, there was not much support from the tribes anymore. Although, it was still alive and giving the American soldiers trouble. We became a US territory. But the Filipino rebellion was taken aback when the Americans signed the McDuffie-Tydings act in 1934 that mapped out a 10-year plan for Philippine Independence! How can that be? An "oppressor" teaching the Filipinos how to run their own country? In 1934, we became a US Commonwealth with a Filipino President and a process by which the Filipinos can start running the country on their own. But then, in the 1940's the Japanese came and defeated the Americans. We were back to square one. The Japanese military were bad. They would go through the town and rape and pillage innocent civilians, taking everything of value including the young daughters to molest in the barracks! My grandfather - a colonel - died in the hands of the Japanese. The Filipino rebellion joined up with the Americans to throw the Japanese out. You know the outcome of that war. The Japanese finally surrendered the country back to the Americans after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And guess what, on July 4, 1946 (July 4 has meaning to the Americans in more ways than just American Independence), only 2 years late from the 10-year plan, and the USA with fresh wounds from WWII, the Philippines was declared a sovereign nation. The Americans pulled out and went on their merry way, taking only 2 small tracts of land to install a US air force and naval base.

Would we have achieved the same Independence if we never got short-changed in the Treaty of Paris? Yes, probably. But, I doubt we would last one second against the Chinese and the Japanese. It would just be a matter of time before one of those two take over. We were ill-equipped to protect our borders. Would we have gained independence from any other nation? I very much doubt it. In the history of the world, only the United States of America believed that people should be granted freedom. You can go back as far as history will get you. Nobody else has ever done it. You always have to win a bloody war to gain independence only to lie in wait for the next big thug and fight the war all over again.

Even after America started to establish a legitimate Philippine government, they still had to fight several independent rebel groups that wanted to wrest the power from the Philippine government. Included in these smattering of guerilla fighters were pockets of muslim extremists from the southern Philippine islands and christian extremists (yep, there were those too!) from the mountain provinces. At that time, the American military aided the ailing Philippine leadership in squashing these insurgents at the same time providing needed combat training to Filipino police forces. This is exactly the same as what's happening in Iraq today.

And, these guerilla fighters do not check with their conscience before they start killing Americans, in any means fair or foul, as long as they win. Whereas Americans have to follow rules of "war between gentlemen". Which is the same as it is in Iraq today.

There were several people in the American congress and popular Americans who were very loud in their anti-war campaign. Most notable of which was Mark Twain who declared that America has become an Imperialist driving Spain away just so they can replace them in the oppression of the Filipino people. These people had control of the media so they can selectively disseminate information to the american public to further their agenda.

Several soldiers wrote home to their loved-ones about atrocities inflicted on the Filipinos by American soldiers. These letters became fodder for the media to rile the Americans to protest against American occupation in the Philippines. But, even the Filipino fighters will attest to the fact that these atrocities are not modus operandi for the American military and that anybody caught doing so are immediately brought to disciplinary action or court martial.

Most notable of these events was when Filipino guerilla fighters armed only with knives and swords, invaded the military installation in Samar and succeeded in killing majority of American soldiers armed with guns! These guerilla fighters wrapped their bodies with opium and went kamikaze on the Americans, killing as many as they can before they eventually died of blood loss - pain was suppressed by the opium. The American General in that military installation, with a bruised ego and mad as a peahen, ordered everybody in Samar, civilian or otherwise, old enough to carry a sword, killed! This included children! The order was given because there was no way to identify a guerilla fighter since they did not wear uniforms nor bear identifying marks. Fortunately, the major in-charge of sending out the troops, was able to countermand the order, but not before a few Filipinos got killed.

General McArthur investigated the incident but was adviced by his superiors not to go public because it would be juicy fodder for the media and would be sure to elicit distrust for the military. But, General McArthur, guided by his conscience, followed standard operating procedures and filed his report. This caused the General in Samar to get court martialled and dismissed from the military. Sure enough, the media published the incident and made it look like it was standard operation of the American military which led to several protests for IMMEDIATE withdrawal of troops on the steps of the White House. This is the same as what's happening today. Except, now, the American government are REALLY withdrawing troops before the Iraqi government is stabilized.

The American occupation lasted from 1898 to 1946. Almost 50 years. And even then, several high-ranking officials of the Philippine government filed a request to extend American occupation because they felt they are still not ready to address certain major issues such as a flailing post WWII economy and corruption. This was proven correct by several corrupt Philippine presidents like Pres. Garcia in the 60's and, of course, the rise of the dictator, Pres. Marcos. The American occupation in Iraq started in 2003. There is no way an Iraqi government is stable enough to stand on its own in just 6 years. But, I guess it will have to be enough because they're withdrawing already. I can understand if the Americans feel it is not their responsibility to stabilize Iraq. Especially since it incurs a gigantic financial burden. But, this is a deviation from what I understood was American idealogy. I guess it is really time for change now.

The Philippines will always be on the American side of history. That is what the Americans accomplished there. That is what you could have accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq. A major victory when you consider these are 2 hotbeds of extremists!

History repeats itself... Over and over again. Except this time, the Americans don't want to do what has worked that made America the great nation that it is today.

Learning from my own history, I have a good understanding of how the American ideals work. They are not the "big bad wolf" that everybody portrays them to be. Although, they are guilty of being so arrogant that they think if it doesn't smell like democracy, they have to sweep in and do the same thing they did in the Philippines. Of course, they do things to gain resources. It is how the world has always turned. The Roman Empire did not conquer lands just for the fun of it. They conquered lands to increase their resources. Same with the British, same with the Spaniards. It is human nature. America needs to influence OPEC so that the American people can enjoy $2.00 a gallon. How can they achieve this? They can always just nuke Venezuela and take over their oil fields. But they don't. They offer Iraqis independence from Saddam, and a wing of their military to prevent other wanna-be-Saddams from taking over the country in exchange for lower crude oil prices. I don't see that as bad. Because, if you remember, oil prices go to $4.00 a gallon and the Americans whine and complain that the President is not doing anything about it. The problem is, the American leaders are too chicken, pandering to the sentiments of the American public that has slowly and surely been intentionally dumbed down so that they have to spin intentions like a ferris wheel just to make the public feel good about it.

The world view changed after World War II. Because of America, the world now has the luxury of thinking, "hey, where's my independence???". And the little guy armed with 2 brooms and a mop has the courage to say, "Oh you big bad wolf, stay away from my door!". It is completely a big deviation from a millenia of world history.

So, yeah. I love America and all it stood for. But, my friends, the Americans are all ruining themselves from within. You don't need Islamic extremists to wage war against America. The Americans are blindly doing it all on their own...

This thread is just a minute example of this fact!

Even the extremists in the end will turn on themselves.

[Just_A_Guy]

I do find it interesting that, in the whole Iraq discussion, we haven't looked back more intently on the Philippine Insurrection (which cost four thousand American lives and possibly as many as one and a half million Filipino lives).

[bytor2112]

I do find it interesting that, in the whole Iraq discussion, we haven't looked back more intently on the Philippine Insurrection (which cost four thousand American lives and possibly as many as one and a half million Filipino lives).

I find it interesting how the War in Iraq is so awful, yet sending more troops to Afghanistan is the right thing to do.

[Just_A_Guy]

Among an awful lot of people on the left, it isn't. Ya gotta give 'em credit for consistency.

To be perfectly Machiavellian, it seems like there isn't much reason to stick around in either country. Neither country has both the will and the resources to strike us in our homeland.

I think the primary reasons for staying are 1) a moral commitment to the people (assuming it's still possible for us to fulfill it), and 2) preventing a power vacuum that will enable the rise of a power that can strike us in our heartland (e.g. Iran).

[Guest]

Although I am a bickering old lady, I am not a lemming with horse blinders, whatever that is.

Lemming = stands on the brink of a precipice, crowd gathers and everybody starts jumping over the edge, for no other reason but because that's where everybody else is going... all the way to salvation or death...

Horse Blinders = too blinded by political partisanship or selective news consumption to analyze the merits or demerits of any situation by pure principle, logic, or historical lessons. Eventually leads to becoming a lemming...

"Terror" and "torture" are petty buzzwords?

Yes. In the context that it is referred to in this thread and the commentary that I supplied in my post. If you remember in my post, "torture" was used by media to promote anti-war sentiments. This is nothing new. "Terrorist" is another one of those similar to buzz words used in the early to mid 1900's like "Imperialist".

By the way, Tom Brokaw retired in 2004.

Why do I feel like you're trying to trick me? Tom Brokaw retired from NBC Nightly News in Dec 2004. He remains an NBC special correspondent with a contract lasting until 2014. At the end of last year's election cycle, Tom Brokaw and Sean Hannity were ranked by the people & and the press interest index as 2nd and 3rd most favorite campaign journalist respectively. Bill O'Reilly was ranked the most AND least favorite (quite an amazing feat in my opinion) which is why I did not bother to mention him in my post.

No one denies America has accomplished a great deal of good around the world, more than any other country on the planet, and I am extremely proud of my country for this.

But that doesn’t mean we have no right to criticize our country’s actions if we believe they are wrong.

This has nothing to do with my post. The purpose of my post is not to criticize America nor other countries but to hopefully insert a time-out period after the 4 or so pages of arguing that is a complete regurge of everything the popular media is feeding you guys. The back-and-forth discussions presented in the thread is so skin-deep, I'm amazed you bother to spend time with it! So, I put a controversial first line referring to y'all as lemmings to get you to be riled up enough to read the rest of the post that provides a better understanding of what America has done in the past that is the same formula that Bush tried to do in his Presidency and attempts to explain why. It presents all the similarities from then and now including all the same arguments presented by politicians/celebrities/media then and now to hopefully get you to bypass all the "fluff" and do some proper thinking beyond your political partisanship.

So, you expect America to occupy Iraq for fifty years?

No, I don't expect anything. I am not democrat nor republican. Heck, I'm not even American! I have no voice in this conflict except to get you Americans to think clearly about your sentiments. To not be easily swayed by selective media and popular outcries. To gain the ability to analyze through researching the annals of history and to understand what made you the America that you are today. To rise beyond the Bush/Obama mud slinging and start sounding independently intelligent - worthy of the title, "World Power".

I tried to tell you, learning from your own history, that even after 50 years of American guidance - interrupted by years of World War II - the Philippines was still ripe enough for Marcos to take power. What I'm trying to say is, you can't expect any lasting accomplishments in Iraq after only 6 years. So, you're just throwing all the money and military/civilian lives lost in that effort unless you provide an "end game" that maintains lasting stability in Iraq.

Yes, it is a deviation. It's called "nation building," and, in general, we are against it.

It is okay to be anti-nation building like I said in my post. I can understand why you wouldn't want to do it. But, you are not part of "in general". And nation-building is not a deviation. I hate to tell you this, but you really need to learn your own country's history. America historically, has always been a nation builder since 1898.

It is ingrained in their military standard-operating-procedure. The first country they rebuilt was Cuba, then the Philippines, then Germany and Japan after WWII. Then there's Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan and Iraq. I mentioned it in my post. This is the formula that made America the World Power that they are now.

America spent a short time in Cuba and it failed. That's why they tried to do better in the Philippines and succeeded although it took too long (we were guinea pigs, after all), but they pulled their military presence in the 80's which made democracy in the Philippines tenuous with the increasing muslim extremists threat in the South. America is correcting it now with continued anti-terrorism training of Philippine forces to combat this threat - we (the Filipinos) succeeded in eliminating Abu Sayaff leaders neutralizing the extremists - no terrorist attacks came from the Philippines except, maybe, McVeigh, but the relationship between McVeigh and Philippine muslims has never been proven.

Germany and Japan were also successes, owing to post-war commitment made by the US to permanently station US forces. Japan especially - we never thought a time would come that the Japanese would contribute to American economy, think of Hiroshima, then think of Toyota employing thousands of Americans.

Somalia and Haiti are both disasters - completely abandoned, no "end game" at all.

Bosnia and Kosovo are still ongoing - a good sign. Much improvement there. Although, my Bosnian friends are calling it a success, I want to reserve judgement on this.

What makes you think we don’t? Just because some of us disagree with our country’s actions? Guess what? We get to do that.

I didn't say YOU don't. I said, I DO. I may not be American, but I may have a unique understanding of America having experienced our joined histories.

Although, from your comments, I am starting to think you might not understand American idealogy. It seems like you only know America from Vietnam War onward. I'm not trying to be contrary. Just an observation which could be completely off-base. I am a follower of Christ, so I try to be sensitive when I write, but sometimes, when words are written down and then read by someone else, the "expression" changes. Or sometimes, my words are poorly chosen. English is only my 4th language - which is not an excuse, I know.

Disagreement is awesome! It's part of what makes America great! As long as both sides are represented by people who are armed with knowledge and true desire for good and not just political mud-slinging by people who cannot be bothered to go beyond the TV and their political voice-boxes as their source of information.

What fact?

The only thing I culled from your post is that we are leaving Iraq when you think we shouldn’t be. How else are we “ruining themselves from within”? You don’t really say.

Leaving Iraq is beside the point. The fact that the people who contributed to the disagreement in this thread are using arguments they just heard over the ___(insert popular media here) and had no independent thought of their own. The downside to democracy is the exact same thing that makes it great. The government and its actions are only a reflection of the will of the people. Manipulate the people or make them indebted and you own the government. That's the Marcos formula (if you want, I'll write an entire post on this one too). That's the danger that has the potential of bringing America down. Because, it is so easy to manipulate a population who sides on an issue by virtue of delivery (e.g. the popularity of the delivering medium, the political affiliation of the deliverer, etc.) and not substance.

One of the wonderful things we all love about America is that we get to "bicker like old ladies." It's guaranteed by the Constitution you mentioned above, and is one of the reasons America has succeeded, despite the "lemmings with horse blinders."

I agree. Except, I'm not American. So, your constitution cannot protect me. Therefore, I encourage you to go beyond and dig deeper. Find that America that is the world's beacon of freedom. The America that has allowed YOU, an American, and ME, a Filipino, to write our inner thoughts about our respective governments on this forum without one or both our heads chopped off. I cannot rely on my government alone to keep me free. The Koreans are right next door. The Chinese, Japanese, and Russians are a stone's throw away. The muslim extremists are licking our boots. We don't want THEM to lead the world. We want YOU. The Americans. The home of the true prophet. The ONLY ones who has made it possible for my country to achieve greatness. The ONLY ones who made it possible for the true gospel to reach my ears.

Although I know it doesn’t seem like it, I did enjoy your narrative quite a bit. However I have a couple of questions.

1) How do you define "stabilize Iraq"?

2) Do you believe Americans should stay in Iraq for the next fifty years, like it did in the Philippines?

3) Why should it be only America's job to stabilize Iraq?

4) Given how emphatic you are that Iraq must be stabilized, why don't you personally travel to Iraq and help the Americans do just that? After all, America has already given almost 4200 lives, and over 30,000 casualties. Surely you can sneak in some way without being caught and beheaded.

Thanks for the perspective--I really enjoyed it.

Be sure to let us know when you’ll be traveling to Iraq to help the Americans stabilize the country, so we can give you a good sendoff.

Elphaba

I think I have sufficiently answered all these questions in my post above. Especially the last one. My grandfather died side-by-side with the Americans. My country, puny as it is, have forces in Iraq in addition to our own anti-terrorist achievements in our own country. It is part of our, uhm, "brotherhood" for lack of a better word, as an American ally. And THAT is the biggest advantage America gets for rebuilding our nation. If Bin Laden ever hits our shores, he will be on a silver platter on Obama's dining table. And that's with military appropriation probably equal to your annual salary. We are not, and never will be, America.

Thank you for listening to something very important to me. I hope I made some impression. It is all I ask. And I apologize if something here sounds insolent. It is not my intention. It's like being a missionary. All I can do is provide information from my limited viewpoint. The rest is your own feeling, your own research, and your own principles.

Edited April 8, 2009 by anatess

[trulykiwi]

This is a speech from the last true American President.

TRANSCRIPT:

Ladies and gentlemen:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it. And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

President J F Kennedy

No wonder the man didn't have a chance!!

[Hemidakota]

I do find it interesting that, in the whole Iraq discussion, we haven't looked back more intently on the Philippine Insurrection (which cost four thousand American lives and possibly as many as one and a half million Filipino lives).

Or D-Day that cost over 5-7 thousand lives just in a day.

[Just_A_Guy]

Or D-Day that cost over 5-7 thousand lives just in a day.

Well, I'm not talking so much about casualty numbers as tactical analyses of the insurgencies in the Philippines and Iraq.

We already played the body-count game in Vietnam, and we got roasted for it.

[Hemidakota]

Was there any time in history where there was not a insurgency for a nation?

[Dravin]

Was there any time in history where there was not a insurgency for a nation?

In the Garden of Eden? Immediately after the flood?

Of course it probably didn't take to long after those events for one to get off to a running start. :)

[FutureCoastGuardsmen]

Winston Churchill once described American diplomacy as “a bull who carries his own china shop around with him.” This is a true statement, it's more accurate than anything I have ever read in my life.

But honestly, why change the name? Is this not a war? I mean what if the "Big War" (WWII) was changed to "Happy Kisses and Hugs Tea Cup Party for Unicorns and Pixie Dust" by Roosevelt?

I can't believe this happened.

Edited April 9, 2009 by FutureCoastGuardsmen

[Dravin]

Is this not a war?

I do believe the position of those in favor of a name change are saying its not. Me I'm kinda inclined to agree, war is declared against entities not ideologies. I am aware of the rhetorical use of the term war (and people are still free to call it the War on Terror) and realize it isn't quite as stringent, for instance people in WW2 probably talked about the War on Nazism or some such but I doubt any official military documents used that phrase (could be wrong).

To sum up, I have no problem people calling it war, I also have no problem with the government changing its terminology as no official declaration of war was leveled against the nation/Kingdom/Republic/ect of Terror.

[FutureCoastGuardsmen]

That's the only problem I've ever had with it.

I feel we should make a declaration of it.

But anyways, when you say people talked about calling WWII a "War on Nazism" or possibly a "War on Fascism", is that not what they were?

Also, we didn't actually declare war on an ideology. We declared it on an entity - the international terrorist network. People often forget these groups all work together in someway, and they all have their goals of killing people in name of an ideology. Most lower level members of these groups may not know it, but quite often, their leaders, no matter how out in the wilderness the region is, are getting money, weapons, or working with some other group. And that group gets financial support from a banker who is employed by another group. And that group gets military assistance from a terrorist state somewhere. And that terrorist state works uses its intelligence agency to gather knowledge of enemy activities and passes it on to group #1. It's all a ring you see, and we have declared war against that ring.

We are fine with them having an ideology; we are not ok with them killing for it.

Edited April 9, 2009 by FutureCoastGuardsmen

[Dravin]

But anyways, when you say people talked about calling WWII a "War on Nazism" or possibly a "War on Fascism", is that not what they were?

Not technically, we declared war against Germany, Italy and Japan (and I'd expect military documents to reflect this) not an ideology or political party. I mentioned people talked about it because people use words in lots of different ways, I for instance can say I waged war aginst the weeds in the garden, or I'm loosing the war against baldness (now that's something the US should get behind! ), these however are not one political entity declaring war on another, at least not in a formal or legal sense. The US Military (and Government at large) is a bureaucracy and they tend to be picky about words, random people tend not to be so.

international terrorist network

Then it'd be more accurate to state its a war on X network or networks (assuming it was declared by congress), its not just a war on all terrorists anywhere, for instance if Ireland went pair shaped I doubt we'd be sending in Marines.

Personally, I'm kinda meh on the whole debate. If the name changes or stays the same it won't bother me much if at all.

[Elphaba]

Was there any time in history where there was not a insurgency for a nation?

Ours were called patriots.

Elphaba

[FutureCoastGuardsmen]

And if you recall, our same patriots, or "insurgents" took down an insurgency themselves after winning the war. See: Whiskey Rebellion.

Edited April 9, 2009 by FutureCoastGuardsmen