Therumancer said:
Suiseiseki IRL said:
Two words for you. WHAT-EVER.
I started off merely assuming you had an uncomfortably strong stiffy for your nationality but nearing the end there I could barely understand what you were trying to say. If I wanted to I could replicate your argument with the sentence "I believe you are misinformed and America is brilliant I hate foreigner's because I have a loose grasp of history and my argument becomes a little wikkle odd now because I start to slurry whirly woo woo woooooo."
But instead of being so childish I will sum up British history for your briefly.
'Empire invents tool of war. Enters an age of invention and discovery. Discovers new land that they would like to reap of resources. There are some natives. Britain sends massive, massive colonisation party fitted with a build your own country toolbox (Weapons, recorces ect)A hundred prosperous year go by and Britain globally acting as a ****. All the natives that found America first are enslaved and all the military is over in America. Britain starts getting on Americas tits. America says, "hang on, we have all the military and all the money. We could start our own empire and stop fecking about with these bastards!"'
And so they did. And then gone on to inherit their former dictators flaws. The end.
Anyway I have no idea why I am responding in such an incoherent and strange way, I guess you must have nicked my sanity somewhere around the point you made assumptions about a British persons mental state and now I cant write in a manner that stupid people like say... you, would be able to understand.
Or to summerize the last two quotes I've gotten. People decided to slam Americans. Instead you got slammed back, hard and accuratly, and now you and Chipperz are throwing a tantrum about it, since you can't even win the "slam" game since you point out problems with America and the job it's doing, and I'm able to be the same way right back at the brits with my "loose" grasp of history (and honestly dude, this is an internet debate. Everything we're discussing is loose... imagine how long these posts would be if either of us started getting into paticulars. We'd turn this into a heated collegiate discussion of the sort not even hardend Academics can 'settle').
The only "serious" point I will address is the bit about America being underequipped and trained to engage in an antiseptic occupation. In the end nobody is equipped or trained for this kind of thing because it ultimatly comes down to how many boots you can put on the ground. The only nations who could conceivably swamp the region with enough people are China or Russia and they probably wouldn't since they would come as actual conquerers rather than trying to engage in a police action. Britan couldn't do it, France couldn't do it, Canada couldn't do it, nobody could succeed better than we have under these circumstances.
A fair criticism on the point is of course that we created the circumstances ourselves through our morality and listening to international comments on the subject more than we should have. You would be entirely correct if you were to point out that engaging in an antiseptic police action of xenophobic religious fanatics that want you dead on their home ground is stupid. The threat could have been more easily addressed by simply wiping the entire region out, which is incidently what our military is designed to do. But we did not do this for a number of reasons, among them the fact that we listened to the rest of the world, and tried to deal with the problem in a moral fashion rather than an effective one.
For people abroad who criticize American action, and their own troops being involved, or whatever else, I am one of those who is quick to point out that they would be even more unhappy had we just leveled the region with WMD and mass bombing (real bombs, not concrete loads). The fact that we didn't largely at the request of other nations, and screaming about 'near genocide' and whatever else (and ignoring the illegal financial ties many of the protesters had to the region). As far as I'm concerned a lot of these troop committments and such became justified when we agreed not to do such things. What's more nobody else's forces in the region seem to be doing any better than we are overall (despite what they might claim) for the same reasons.
When it comes to Britan had someone flown a plane into Parliment as part of a xenocidal religious crusade, I don't think Britan would view things quite the way they do now. Let's not forget that while people cry about the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was also hit, AND there was a third plane on it's way for either The White House, or Capitol Building (it's debatable which) which we were able to stop. It was a decapitation strike aimed at our goverment. I think international critics don't fairly consider how they would react had they been the target. Guaranteed it would be a lot more heavy handed than what the US is doing.
That rant aside, one final point:
I NEVER mentioned the Queen, Tea and Crumpets, or any other mocked-british behaviors. So do NOT act like I did. I responded in a fashion taking Britan very seriously. Countering serious criticism with serious criticism.
If you don't like being knocked back, don't knock others. Let's not forget who threw the first stone here about insulting Americans on chat modes.
This is my final post on the subject. I don't mind others having the last word, but I *DO* hope it's fairly mature.
R is not an excuse when a thread gets complicated. 
