How widespread is the use of anti-Islamic material in the US military?

ATW, I understand. Since our last talk, when things were already getting terrible for you, things have gotten worse. The Pirate Party have made a mockery of German politicians, and Dortmund made a mockery of Bayern. I know it's tough. So if this letter they put together makes you feel good, then good for you. If you believe that being, for example, a victim of rape makes someone an expert rapist, then good for you, but that is not true. If you believe that the horrors Hirsi Ali endured during her childhood were Islamic, then good for you, although all the things she mentions are cultural practices inconsistently applied across Middle Eastern countries.

Why don't you post a picture, cheer yourself up.

 

It's not even debatable that they are THE bullies, except among small pockets of the American population.

Every aggressive government military action today has a reason. For a certain piece of land. For resources. For a variety of things. But no need or reason has compelled any government to establish 100+ overseas military bases on a planet with 200+ countries. Ever. That's an insane number, even when compared to history, especially when adjusted.

Do you understand the significance of this situation as a central problem in world politics? Barely anyone else does this. The whole world combined can probably not match this number.

There is a reason for other countries not doing it: because it's considered a security threat and it is therefore not allowed lest it gets treated as a sovereign attack. If we apply this logic to the current empire, then You have threatened security semi-permanently in over 100 different locations. What do you think is the outcome of this? Did you really think that technology would advance and spread, and people will get educated yet continue to tolerate this kind of sovereign enslavement? Military micromanagement? Did you think that the rest of the world wouldn't start seeing on TV/media the conflicting messages the same government projects internally and externally? Did you think that your country would spend more on its "defense" than any other country in history, and the rest of the world would sit back and relax?

All the while, you sit there believing what? That this is necessary? Necessary for who?? A country which believes that it's security is more important than the security of other countries cannot be the international arbitrator of fairness, equality, democracy in other countries. That goes for any single country IMO.

If this is about: you got to do what you got to do... then you're no different than the very people you call terrorists. That's their motto. What they believe is right, and must be achieved by any means necessary. Is that what you stand for?

Like I said. Power Seekers come in all colors, creeds, cults, countries, religions, races, everything. That's all they are. We all lust for power, and we all find it incredibly difficult to rescind our own power, all the time. These are just the people who are most addicted and desparate for power, but they have different options, depending on what their paths to power were.

Why should you even have to face these security threats? As American people, why should you feel unsafe despite having the most expensive defense? Why should you worry about being kidnapped in certain places? Why should you worry about your passport getting stolen? Is this really the best balance or structure for defense spending vs real security? Does it make sense to lose money, privacy and civil liberties in order to achieve enough security to potentially spend money freely and privately?

All Americans get a vote, but not all of those that are governed by America get a vote. In your understading of history, has that kind of situation ever ended well? Some people will keep filling the historic puppet roles: "America is different, we are freedom-seeking people who attacked the natives of our land, we are the peace seekers and only real users of an atomic warhead, we care about self-defense and establish 100+ bases overseas, we hate people who don't conform to popular government though this is how we achieved independence, etc." Yes I'm aware things are not that black and white, and I am exaggerating to make a point. The point is: do you treat other people's "mistakes" the way you treat your own "mistakes"?

These problems don't exist because you're American. It has nothing to do specifically with Americans. These problems exist because this is how empires behave, this is how power acts. This is just the latest model, slightly modified from the last one to pass through the usual "checks", and you guys follow suit. I have faith in America though. A country full of rebels and immigrants originating from various periods/places in history... possibly the only chance we have at an empire breaking the cycle. But that hasn't happened yet unfortunately, so till then... I'mma keep preachin.

 

This statement doesn't mean anything. People point fingers, some are right, and some are wrong. There are billions of people who would point the finger in the same direction. There are Americans who point the finger in the exact same direction with the exact same justification. Maybe you are against people pointing fingers at all - imagine what kind of person would support such a position.

It's basically the equivalent of me saying: Nazi ATW is posting on the BBS... again.

There is 0 information in those sentences, you just needed a place to insert your personal insult.

 

If you want to say 50 bases (less than half of most estimates), then ok, it's 1 base for every 4 countries. By the same token, some countries are too small to be relevant, so we should adjust the 200+ count too. These are technicalities that don't change the fact that this level of overseas extension is historically unprecedented.

1) Yukio Hatoyama. This man's political career was ruined for the reasons which you claim don't exist. Japan can say that, but Japan will deal with the consequences. Similarly, MANY CITIZENS OF MANY COUNTRIES who have the same option are jailed, beaten, tormented by the people which shockingly and unpopularly support the presence. Did you know this takes place on a wide scale?

2) America respects sovereignty as long as it is happy with what's naturally happening. America does not respect the sovereignty of several Latin American countries, several African, most Middle Eastern and many far eastern countries. If we took the list of countries in the world, those that it doesn't respect would far outnumber those that it does respect, while the huge majority would be neutral because there are no conflicting "interests" either way.

There is a limited and known set of countries in the world. Why would we even sample? We can analyze the whole spectrum. There is no need to take one or two examples when it is possible to score/rate the US 1/10 in its treatment of each and every sovereign.

3) There is absolutely nothing wrong with Japanese people which requires the military presence of the United States and which should preclude them from defending themselves militarily. Moreover, there is nothing uniformly wrong with Japanese people, just like any other people.

4) What does the population of Saudi Arabian want?

5) Can you please provide some examples of how American hegemony is more beneficial to the world than detrimental, as you've claimed above? or are you going to cite some areas where this has benefitted the world? We don't need that, I can cite a whole bunch of things that are better thanks to America and Americans. I am asking how you've determined that this benefits the world.

Please, don't fool yourself, you are certainly not fooling most people who are at this point mocking the stated moral basis of this strategy. It is aggressive and adversarial enough when you guys uniformly, almost like zombies, cite the bottom line response to why all this is happening: to protect our interests. This is, in itself, begging for war because it makes the assumption that every country in justified in seeking whatever it unindependently deems to be its interests.

But to actually take it a step further and say this is best FOR THE WORLD, you are only proving my point by tooting the same horn that the British Empire did when it was engaging in its own imperialism, murder, theft, etc. British scientists and philosophers, many well-respected to this day, boasted about how the Indians benefitted from their presence. When they left the country, shame all over their face, is when they realized they took a country that was developing and moving upwards and rammed it so far into the ground that they couldn't control the riots anymore. They were not as good at turning the rioters image into terrorists (credit to Gandhi for that).

Everything you're saying has been done in the past, said in the past, and failed in the past. It's a fully tried and tested model with minor modifications based on the most recent set of kinks. But whether it's crap or perfect doesn't change the fact that it is a model for imperialism.

Your model is slightly newer, just to pass the smell test. It won't have the names of definitive features which were irrevocably chained to the model, just like the last model cleansed itself of the previous labels. You don't hear your government ever using the word imperialism, though this word was freely used to describe the same activity in the past.

Anyways, the good thing about this model is that failure is in-built. It kills itself, as it always has, as it always will. The thing that I'm sad about is how many people have to die in that failure process to keep the thing running as long as possible. I refuse to believe Americans won't save themselves - mainly because they appear to be in a unique position for an imperial power: within the borders and outside the legal entities, it is fully democratic.

 

Wth are you talking about? I'm not Saudi Arabian. I understand the Rulers of Saudi Arabia are close allies with your government and government allies, but that's not relevant to this thread.

 

yawn.

 

Are we supposed to take you seriously after you voted Muslims as the "ethnicity" you hate most?