> this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans.
Perhaps that is a warning sign that we should heed? When even our allies are glad to see us brought low, that suggests that perhaps maybe we have not been as well behaved as we should have been.
When something bad happens to them or they get scared, they're going to start screaming for us to help them.
When there's a problem somewhere else, they're still going to insist that we fix it and complain that we didn't do it "right". Interestingly enough, there are very few problems that they can handle on their own and the value of their cooperation is "iffy" at best (see Afghanistan).
When you point out that they're impotent, they always point to their GDP and never point to what they can do.
They'll keep selling us stuff and buying from us.
The only thing that will change is that they'll feel better about insulting tourists. So much for "old world class".
Agreed. I'm no supporter of the wars being waged, I marched in London in 2003 and personally think "terror" should be somewhere down the list of global concerns at present in the face of environmental pressures and the financial issues. If the resources being expended on these wars by our governments was instead spent on ending our dependence on oil by developing clean fuel technologies or on setting the foundations for a new, more stable economic system, we'd all be far better off.
However, that can't take away from the fact that the troops, working men and women from this city, this country and from all over the world doing a professional job and putting their necks on the line in this specious global conflict. To dismiss their contributions as "iffy" does them a grave disservice.
Comments
> this article just drips with glee at the plight of the poor, dumb 'mericans.
Perhaps that is a warning sign that we should heed? When even our allies are glad to see us brought low, that suggests that perhaps maybe we have not been as well behaved as we should have been.
Why?
What are they going to do different?
When something bad happens to them or they get scared, they're going to start screaming for us to help them.
When there's a problem somewhere else, they're still going to insist that we fix it and complain that we didn't do it "right". Interestingly enough, there are very few problems that they can handle on their own and the value of their cooperation is "iffy" at best (see Afghanistan).
When you point out that they're impotent, they always point to their GDP and never point to what they can do.
They'll keep selling us stuff and buying from us.
The only thing that will change is that they'll feel better about insulting tourists. So much for "old world class".
I don't think it's fair to describe Britain's contribution in Afghanistan (or indeed Iraq) as "iffy".
And not just Britain.
Agreed. I'm no supporter of the wars being waged, I marched in London in 2003 and personally think "terror" should be somewhere down the list of global concerns at present in the face of environmental pressures and the financial issues. If the resources being expended on these wars by our governments was instead spent on ending our dependence on oil by developing clean fuel technologies or on setting the foundations for a new, more stable economic system, we'd all be far better off.
However, that can't take away from the fact that the troops, working men and women from this city, this country and from all over the world doing a professional job and putting their necks on the line in this specious global conflict. To dismiss their contributions as "iffy" does them a grave disservice.
> They'll keep selling us stuff and buying from us.
Yes of course. But but in a ratio of closer to 1:1 selling to buying. They won't keep lending you the money to buy stuff.