• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Young Iraqis Overwhelmingly Consider US Their Enemy Poll Says

You know Canada exists right? We decided to solve our problems diplomatically. The young US also did many of those things. England actually got rid of slavery before the US.

Oh Hoity Toity for Canada! What a weak ass response. England was a prime mover for slavery in America to begin with and made a fortune from it.
 
Oh Hoity Toity for Canada! What a weak ass response. England was a prime mover for slavery in America to begin with and made a fortune from it.

Then England realized the evil of it and made it illegal before the US had to have a war over it. Most of England's colonies broke away peacefully some sooner, some later. There is also reform, as at the time most of the population did not want independence and would most likely be satisfied by simple reform. That worked for Upper Canada, they diplomatically negotiated more autonomy and democracy.
 
Last edited:
Then England realized the evil of it and made it illegal before the US had to have a war over it. Most of England's colonies broke away peacefully some sooner, some later. There is also reform, as at the time most of the population did not want independence and would most likely be satisfied by simple reform. That worked for Upper Canada, they diplomatically negotiated more autonomy and democracy.

Canada was still captive until the middle 1800's, meanwhile America ran away full speed and became a dominant player in the world while Canada was killing off it's own natives. No....many of England's colonies broke away only after violence.
 
It needs to be asked exactly why do IRaqis feel this way. I would not assume that it is primarily because of the invasion, because from reporting it seems that the incompetence of the occupation matters more, they cant believe that the US was that incompetent without nefarious intent.
 
Canada was still captive until the middle 1800's, meanwhile America ran away full speed and became a dominant player in the world while Canada was killing off it's own natives. No....many of England's colonies broke away only after violence.

America was not a dominant world player until much later in its existence. it was not a world superpower right out of the gate. America was pretty much alone in breaking away violently: Canada, Australia, its African and Asian holdings, the British West Indies, Guiana, the Middle East, etc. all broke away peacefully. Not to mention the colonies they still hold. They may have had violence at some point but the final independence was granted peacefully.
 
My guess from the top of my head, about why Iraqis feel this way:

The post-war reconstruction was an utter mess. Insurgency, violence, instability. For many Iraqis, everyday life became worse than before the invasion, regardless of political ideas -- first you have to be able to fill your belly and feed your family, and be somewhat safe, only then, you can worry about questions of freedom and tyranny.

Then, culture probably plays a role, too. The invaders were from a different civilization, Westeners, who were considered alien by Muslim Arabs, and anti-Western feeling were and are strong anyway in the Muslim world. Even many Muslims who dislike Saddam or jihadists, don't consider the American way of life a model worth emulating.

None of that was the case in post-WW2 West-Germany, where many people quickly became rather fond of the Americans. An additional plus for the Americans in West-Germany was the new hostility towards the USSR and its East Bloc: Common Germans hated the Soviets even more than the Americans, so quickly, Americans were considered defenders and allies against an even worse threat.
 
Canada was still captive until the middle 1800's, meanwhile America ran away full speed and became a dominant player in the world while Canada was killing off it's own natives. No....many of England's colonies broke away only after violence.

Interesting ahhh revision of history. I seem to recall part of out 'ran away full speed' involved killing off it'd own natives as well... not sure the moral line you are drawing there.

Course climate, geography, and natural resources didn't factor in... just pure 'Merican love of 'freedom' and representation at tax time...

But do love the 'captive' comment... not sure how you define captive, but it is amusing anyway... reminds me of 5th grade neener neener smack talk... :peace
 
America was not a dominant world player until much later in its existence. it was not a world superpower right out of the gate. America was pretty much alone in breaking away violently: Canada, Australia, its African and Asian holdings, the British West Indies, Guiana, the Middle East, etc. all broke away peacefully. Not to mention the colonies they still hold. They may have had violence at some point but the final independence was granted peacefully.

I really don't need to cut and paste all of England's violent loses between the 1700's-1900's. There were plenty of ass whoopings to remind them of their weaknesses. A bunch of teenagers reminded England of their weaknesses in Chittagong.

1812.........as incompetent as it was, placed the US way above England as a world power.
 
I really don't need to cut and paste all of England's violent loses between the 1700's-1900's. There were plenty of ass whoopings to remind them of their weaknesses. A bunch of teenagers reminded England of their weaknesses in Chittagong.

1812.........as incompetent as it was, placed the US way above England as a world power.

You mean when the US lost the war? The US did not really emerge as a significant world power till WWI, Britain's vast empire made sure of that. When did Chittagong get independence? It revolted but it never won independence, but Bangladesh did get independence from Pakistan. Please tell me of these colonies that broke away violently and I mean broke away, not just revolted.
 
What I am saying is taking a problem and doing everything in your power to ensure that the problem won't go away and indeed increases in magnitude is dumb.

The United States is no island, and our land borders are far from secure.

What makes you think the problem is going away?
 
Not having a voice in the way you are governed is stupid.

How herd do you feel in the way you're governed? Oh, did I misspell that?
 
It needs to be asked exactly why do IRaqis feel this way. I would not assume that it is primarily because of the invasion, because from reporting it seems that the incompetence of the occupation matters more, they cant believe that the US was that incompetent without nefarious intent.

Bingo!
Young men in an occupied country, seeing their 'government' subservient to the occupying force, maybe having friends and relatives who died resisting the invasion, seems kind of naive to blame them for seeing the occupiers as enemies. Just because they're not very white, not anglo, not christian, doesn't mean they don't have the same emotional reaction to force that Americans would. Americans wouldn't ask about the intentions of an invading, occupying army- they'd concentrate on tossing them out and sort out the details later. Why assume someone else should have a different reaction?
 
Bingo!
Young men in an occupied country, seeing their 'government' subservient to the occupying force, maybe having friends and relatives who died resisting the invasion, seems kind of naive to blame them for seeing the occupiers as enemies. Just because they're not very white, not anglo, not christian, doesn't mean they don't have the same emotional reaction to force that Americans would. Americans wouldn't ask about the intentions of an invading, occupying army- they'd concentrate on tossing them out and sort out the details later. Why assume someone else should have a different reaction?

It is not the force that is the problem, they believe that the USA is this great power and at the time of the invasion and occupation we had a great military (Obama is well along the path of gutting it) and so when they see a blind eye turned to crime, to the rise of of the militants, when they see such stupidity as the disbanding of the Iraq Military, when they see the abuse of Iraqis done by Americans both in the prisons and in their cities and villages they assume that this was the intent of Washington, because how could it not be...it was obvious, everyone knew, and then it went on for a long time. My wife did 3.5 years in Iraq, I know of some really nasty ****. When units come home they had a after deployment dinner with families, with a show, one of the shows was a 45 minute video of the Armored Cav unit she was in blowing **** up and wasting people, that is all they showed for 45 minutes, and man oh man these soldiers loved watching their best of reel. It was pure sadism. (Note: and the Battalion Commander by all rights should have spent 40 years in prison, yet he was not brought up on charges, it all went away (except that he had to retire)).


And we wonder why Iraqi youth dont like America??!!
 
Last edited:
We also won and had 200+ years to kiss and make up


Apples to oranges comparison.
1.)Japan took place during a regular war and encompassed a regular surrender from a state. The War in Iraq was a literal invasion and occupation of a country that was not militarized and served no threat to us.
2.)Japan also retained their native government and government officials were not purged. Iraq we occupied their state, overthrew their government, and essentially gutted every government official in the "de-Baathification" of the country/government.
3.)In Japan we did not put into power a sectarian authoritarian official. In Iraq we put into power a sectarian authoritarian who many saw/see not better and possibly worse than Saddam
4.)In Japan as a result of the Allies occupation a civil war did not break out and a civil war continued once we left Japan. In Iraq a civil war did break out during our occupation and it also continued once we left
5.)In Japan the Allied occupation effectively rebuilt the infrastructure and the Japanese government was able to deliver basic social services to the population as a whole. In Iraq massive fraud broke out during reconstruction of the country and reconstruction essentially did not occur.
6.)In Japan a massive terrorist organization did not form out the allied occupation. In Iraq a massive terrorist organization did form out of the occupation.
7.)
10mu9tk.png

https://books.google.com/books?id=SC4X1muvigYC&pg=PA338#v=onepage&q&f=false

People comparing Iraq to japan or German should take a history lesson. Then take it again.
 
How herd do you feel in the way you're governed? Oh, did I misspell that?

At least we still have free speech. Last time I checked Canada didn't.
 
People comparing Iraq to japan or German should take a history lesson. Then take it again.

Well, depends. People who assume all cases are equal certainly have it wrong.

Obviously there are fundamental differences between the invasions/occupations of Japan, Germany and Iraq.

But why did some work out, while the other didn't? You have to *compare* them to find the crucial differences.
 
At least we still have free speech. Last time I checked Canada didn't.

Attaboy.
Your 'free speech' is a worthless abstract construction. Your free speech extends as far as the government allows, which makes you as free as everyone else in the world.
 
I'm so glad America brought freedom to the Iraqi's.

Letting the eagle soar over Iraq really did us some good in the end, eh?
 
Last edited:
Attaboy.
Your 'free speech' is a worthless abstract construction. Your free speech extends as far as the government allows, which makes you as free as everyone else in the world.

Think what you wish. We don't have hate speech laws.
 

Think what you wish. We don't have hate speech laws.

You have the same degree of freedom as everyone else in the world- you're free to do whatever the government allows.
Some folks in third-world coutries have freedoms you don't have. So what?
 
You have the same degree of freedom as everyone else in the world- you're free to do whatever the government allows.
Some folks in third-world coutries have freedoms you don't have. So what?

Your hate speech laws will silence the truth. I would rather hear everything. No matter who it offends.
 
Your hate speech laws will silence the truth. I would rather hear everything. No matter who it offends.

Well. you can't. Say whatever you want, I mean. Can you. You can only say what you're allowed to say.
 
Gee, hard to imagine people who saw their home occupied by a foreign army most of their lives would hate the occupiers.
 
Back
Top Bottom