Actually, what you said is that it willnot be forgotten, even if we leave the middle east. It will "follow" us, in your words.

This does not seem to leave any possibility of peace, regardless of what we now do.

Matt

WS;
Sympathy for America for that is dwindling fast. Those with direct losses arising from it will never forget, most won't ever forgive, and that's exactly what's happening with regard to America's blunders, miscalculations and deliberate viciousness abroad.

Who has the largest extended family, the WTC victims or one million Iraqi dead ?

well in that case what are you complaining about all the time. Why should we stop doing anything we are doing. Damn now that I am aware of that it changes the whole nature of the game.

__________________
Freedom for the Muslim Women

1 million?

__________________
Freedom for the Muslim Women

No, over 1 million.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

How many of these are victims of sectarian violence, WS?

Matt

Then if we stay in the ME on an open-ended basis, who should pay for it?

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

Alot. But was there sectarian violence before the US invaded Iraq?

Who benefits from this sectarian violence? The US.

Who benefits from the fighting between Hamas and Fatah? Israel.

The same principle.

Divide and conquer.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

It's demonstrable that the illegal invasion led to the sectarian-killing component of the one million + casualties. The ghosts are Guantanamo George's , no matter which way his fan-boys wriggle.

Hmmm. I tend to blame the people doing the actual killing, such as Al-Sadr's neighborhood cleansing squads.

I guess one could claim the US is responsible for this, but it seem to me this is simply a mechanism to avoid blaming those actually doing the killing.

Anyway, you seem to be saying there can never be peace between the US and whomever these folks who are going to "follow" us are.

If that's true, why would we change anything?

Matt

One thing that strikes me about the threads in this section is the way one or two individuals, who present themselves as anti-war, use the death of civilians to support their personal agenda. By condemning only those unfortunates killed by US or NATO actions and completely ignoring the other side of the coin, the civilian deaths caused by the Taliban/foreign insurgents, they show their true colours.

If they were truly posting on an anti-war platform they would condemn the taliban killing of civilians with equal vigour, particularly since the Taliban are responsible for more civilian deaths than the US, NATO and Afghan national forces combined. Furthermore, US and NATO civilian deaths are never intentional and deeply regretted, unlike Taliban strikes against civilians which are intentional and celebrated. UN human rights chief Navi Pallay says, "There is substantial evidence indicating that the Taliban are carrying out a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence aimed at Afghan civilians they believe to be supportive of the government…”

Here are the facts according to the UN:

I would also point out that the anti-government forces in Afghanistan are the only ones who commonly use civilians as human shields, and I talk from experience - unlike some here.

It is clear to me why some only highlight and condemn just one aspect of civilian deaths. To do otherwise would clearly expose their true agenda.

__________________

I don't know if it always means showing their true colors. The US is the one invading foreigners. The point is, when you put foreign invaders and local nationalists together, you're going to get violence a lot of the time. Afghanistan and Iraq are such cases. The point is that the Americans throw the first stone and are still throwing those stones. The locals of those nations don't exactly have many places to go. Americans can just go back to America. And since it is costing us a fortune to stay there, anyway, it will be mutually beneficial (but especially to us) if we just left.

lancer 1 put it pretty well.

gg

__________________
Freedom for the Muslim Women

You mean like all those mass graves we found and keep finding?

WTF? How do we profit from Iraqi population infighting?

Now here I think your on to something. . .

__________________
232 years ago, this is who we were. . .
"A republic, if you can keep it." ~ Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

232 years later, this is what we have become. . .
http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/war-...a-we-rule.html

A bit dramatic, WS, but you might be right in your prediction of anti-Americanism. However it might not so justified as you see it IMO.

The United States has played (and continues to play) its part in good and bad roles around the world. That said, I might flirt with POLITICAL JEDI's position that the US is one of if not the most benevolent hegemon(s) the world has seen (not that I condone that role PJ ). In the contemporary terms of modern states, it's hardly the most benevolent; however (caveat: I'm not much of a history student) in terms of past hegemonic powers, I'd say the United States is relatively benevolent compared to powers in similar positions as ours. I'm certainly willing to be proved wrong.

Now, besides how I feel the the United States past actions should be viewed in the coming decades, I'm going to agree with your prediction that our controversial foreign 'adventures' will be dwelled upon in a very negative fashion. I'm relatively young but it seems to me that criticism itself of the US has become not only a powerful international political force (political capital for democratic and autocratic leaders alike) and business force (political frameworks reinforcing local opinions reinforcing what populations want to hear in their media)--but also simply a fashionable opinion. I haven't done the research, I haven't interviewed people abroad, I haven't even interviewed Americans that have been abroad; but that just seems to be the inclination from the limited experience I've had. I'd say the globalization of information flows is a crucial influence, and is unparalleled in shaping how history views a hegemonic power.

And seeing some contemporary judgements of the United States, i.e. yours WS, people on here, people on campus, some news articles; seeing these judgments, I doubt it is going to be a fair assessment. Powerful states like the United States have projected their authority throughout the history of modern nation-states, nevermind the history of organizations with the power/authority to extract revenue. Why isn't your assessment a fair one, IMO? Personally, I can't even imagine the worst-case scenario of a state given the opportunity that the US was given. Although the sentiment, "well, it could be worse," is not a blanket excuse for US actions, I'd personally like to see some balance in discussions of American power projection in the world.

This may be seen as an opportunity to jump on me as some blind patriot or apologist for US atrocities. I don't see myself as either, but feel free to accuse.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne