Report: 92% of Afghans don’t know about 9/11; 40% think US out to destroy Islam

[Hobo1]

also some news for numbers people

if 51% of Dems 51% of Independents,, and 85% of republicans believed it was Iraq...the statement the majority of all 3 believed would apply, as well as, as my suggestion that republicans would be by far the most likely to believe such a thing.

Ok, I will give you that point. The average American tends to be misinformed about the details of most foreign policy issues. The reason is this issues are complex and the facts are often intentionally distorted and "spun" by unnamed sources close to the White House, or outright lies - the name Dick Cheney jumps to mind.

Honestly, in a Representative Democracy, every citizen should not be required to possess an encyclopedic knowledge of every issue, foreign or domestic. That is why we have elected officials - to have a complete grasp of important issues and to vote in the country's best interest.

That people tend to believe and support the positions espoused by their chosen political party is to be expected - because that is the way the system is supposed to work.

Having said that, the system seems broken, distorted by money and special interest influence, and simply stupid elected officials.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Ok, I will give you that point. The average American tends to be misinformed about the details of most foreign policy issues. The reason is this issues are complex and the facts are often intentionally distorted and "spun" by unnamed sources close to the White House, or outright lies - the name Dick Cheney jumps to mind.

Honestly, in a Representative Democracy, every citizen should not be required to possess an encyclopedic knowledge of every issue, foreign or domestic. That is why we have elected officials - to have a complete grasp of important issues and to vote in the country's best interest.

That people tend to believe and support the positions espoused by their chosen political party is to be expected - because that is the way the system is supposed to work.

Having said that, the system seems broken, distorted by money and special interest influence, and simply stupid elected officials.

I can see that on complicated issue, but when something is as clear as night and day, and such a huge event...we should not have to have this kind of pure ignorance...our Democracy can;t work hoping that our Elected leaders will be smart enough to not do what the dumb people who elected them want always...we need smart people to elect smarter people to office...If we asked in 1944 who bombed pearl Harbor , and 70% said China...I would be amazed...because then , there use to be some value on being smart...now many in America seem to see being smart as bad, intellectual curiosity is not a trait looked for in leaders...any dunce who can just repeat what ever is needed as fact can win ....they say they are for something, so are you, later if needed, your against it...at same time...not like anyone will care.

People like to blame politicians,,,but realy its America getting dumber and not taking the time to put good leaders into office thats hurting us..its the peoples fault, not the politicians. If we did our jobs, we would not have to worry about them, as they would be doing other jobs...or be better at the one they have.

at least in Afganistan they have excuse, they have had war for 30 years and no education system.

 

[Rick]

Saddam is not even worse Dictator in 30 years...and americans did not agree to die in Iraq for that...if that was our goal, we have about 20 more nations to invade now...

Yes, He was the worst. And you don't know what people agreed to die for - you only have your own opinion, nobody elected you spokesman. As for your 20 more nations, we can only do what we can do, so we did the worst.

But I tell ya, it just aint fair. Cry my eyes out every night over poor ol' Saddam.

 

[Rick]

And to think it only cost a trillion bucks or so of borrowed money

That's another issue - it's expensive to fight a Pee See war.

a little over four thousand soldiers' lives

,

Death=free wars still await invention.

In exchange, we have the satisfaction of having watched a tinpot dictator, one of many around the world, being hung.

Balderdash, we got the absolute worst, and in the most strategic part of the world, a person who sooner or later would have gotten nukes.

With your logic, we shouldn't have fought hitler, because there were still dictators in the world after we got him.

 

[PLC1]

That's another issue - it's expensive to fight a Pee See war.

Particularly when it's charged to the national MasterCard.

Death=free wars still await invention.

Which is something to consider before launching any military adventures.

Balderdash, we got the absolute worst, and in the most strategic part of the world, a person who sooner or later would have gotten nukes.

With your logic, we shouldn't have fought hitler, because there were still dictators in the world after we got him.

I think you'd have a hard time supporting the idea that Saddam Hussain was as bad as Hitler, or even as bad as any of these guys:

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe
Unemployment and inflation high.
2
Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan
Darfur continues to be a hotbed of violence.
3
Kim Jong-Il, North Korea
Runs the world’s most repressive regime.
4
Than Shwe, Myanmar
Delayed access to aid after devastation.
5
King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia
Most oppressed women in the world.
6
Hu Jintao, China
Controls all media and represses religion.
7
Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran
Permits execution of juveniles.
8
Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea
No national elections, controls media.
9
G. Berdymuhammedov, Turkmenistan
Restricts religion, represses media.
10
Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya
Reports of torture are common.

Nor was he a threat to the United States. The guy who was, and still is, a threat is Bin Laden, and he's still out there, plotting attacks, and thumbing his nose at us.

 

[Rick]

Particularly when it's charged to the national MasterCard.

Right. Moral of story: Don't fight wars in a Pee See manner.

Which is something to consider before launching any military adventures.

Oh YAAA!! I never thought of THAT! Let me jot this down .... I'm sending emails to the military and DOD right away.

I think you'd have a hard time supporting the idea that Saddam Hussain was as bad as Hitler, or even as bad as any of

The thrust of the comment was obviously NOT that saddam was as bad as Hitler, but Saddam could have BECOME another hitler, except that unlike in the 1930s, we short-circuited that SOB before he could become that big a killer.

Nor was he a threat to the United States

.

Neither was hitler until the US violated its neutrality. The US could have easily opted out of war with hitler by reaffirming our neutrality and stopping aid to the UK. Is that what we should have done?

The guy who was, and still is, a threat is Bin Laden, and he's still out there, plotting attacks, and thumbing his nose at us.

Saddam caused the deaths of a MILLION people just in the iran-iraq war. Bin Laden is a tiny speck in comparison.

 

[Hobo1]

I can see that on complicated issue, but when something is as clear as night and day, and such a huge event...we should not have to have this kind of pure ignorance...our Democracy can;t work hoping that our Elected leaders will be smart enough to not do what the dumb people who elected them want always...we need smart people to elect smarter people to office...If we asked in 1944 who bombed pearl Harbor , and 70% said China...I would be amazed...because then , there use to be some value on being smart...now many in America seem to see being smart as bad, intellectual curiosity is not a trait looked for in leaders...any dunce who can just repeat what ever is needed as fact can win ....they say they are for something, so are you, later if needed, your against it...at same time...not like anyone will care.

People like to blame politicians,,,but realy its America getting dumber and not taking the time to put good leaders into office thats hurting us..its the peoples fault, not the politicians. If we did our jobs, we would not have to worry about them, as they would be doing other jobs...or be better at the one they have.

at least in Afganistan they have excuse, they have had war for 30 years and no education system.

First, let's leave out any comparison with Afghanistan - which is light years behind the rest of the world.

However, I must say I agree with most of your points. In terms of both historic events and current events, most Americans are clearly far less informed than they were in the past. Furthermore, they are so poorly informed that the voters have seem to be able to perform their vital function in a democratic republic: to be a group of informed individuals able to cast an intelligent and informed vote.

And I say that with regard to both right and left political philosophies. In other words, we have stupid liberals trying to push a philosophy they don't understand completely ... and the same thing on the Republican side.

The American political system is seriously broken. And to prove the point, one must only look at the recent legislation that has come off the President's desk - from fixing health care to fixing Wall Street. Shoddy work at best.

 

[PLC1]

Right. Moral of story: Don't fight wars in a Pee See manner.

"In a Pee See manner" means fought on credit. Understood, and agreed: Don't fight Pee See wars.

Oh YAAA!! I never thought of THAT! Let me jot this down .... I'm sending emails to the military and DOD right away.

Too late. The CIC and his Congress obviously didn't consider that fact while rattling sabers and planning six month wars in which we'd be greeted as liberators.

Maybe next time they are contemplating whether to start a war would be the time to send that email.

The thrust of the comment was obviously NOT that saddam was as bad as Hitler, but Saddam could have BECOME another hitler, except that unlike in the 1930s, we short-circuited that SOB before he could become that big a killer.

Oh, I see. So, this was an invasion to prevent a tinpot third world dictator, one of many, from becoming another Hitler in control of one of the most powerful nations of the world.

Neither was hitler until the US violated its neutrality. The US could have easily opted out of war with hitler by reaffirming our neutrality and stopping aid to the UK. Is that what we should have done?

Hitler wasn't a threat to the USA? We had the option to keep out policy of isolationism and stay out of WWII? Gee, I had no idea.

Godwin's Law raises its head once again.

Saddam caused the deaths of a MILLION people just in the iran-iraq war. Bin Laden is a tiny speck in comparison.

A million? Really? And Iran had no fault in that at all.

Bin Laden was our enemy, and still is. Bin Laden is still thumbing his nose at the US and plotting terror attacks. Why do you think that is?

Personally, I think it is because we went after the wrong targets. Do you agree with that?

 

[Rick]

"In a Pee See manner" means fought on credit. Understood, and agreed: Don't fight Pee See wars.

Nope, you don't get it. A Pee See war is using million dollar a copy cruise missiles to off one islamofascist, so that you don't blow up the other islamofascists next door.

Too late. The CIC and his Congress obviously didn't consider that fact while rattling sabers and planning six month wars in which we'd be greeted as liberators.

Whether ignorant iraqi dessert peasants who've been brainwashed their whole lives grasp that they're being liberated is not offered by me as a reason to off saddam.

Oh, I see. So, this was an invasion to prevent a tinpot third world dictator, one of many, from becoming another Hitler in control of one of the most powerful nations of the world.

Tinpot dictator??? Where the hell do you get THAT? Saddam had one of the world's largest militaries. He had attacked three neighboring countries, and had plans for a trans-arab empire. He CERTAINLY would have gotten nuke weapons by now. Baghdad had the most dense air defense system in the world. He launched the first gassing attack since world war one. He launched the first IRBM attack since world war two. He caused a million deaths in the iran war. He killed 650,000 domestic political enemies. By any standard, Saddam was an entirely first rate dictator of the worst kind.

Hitler wasn't a threat to the USA? We had the option to keep out policy of isolationism and stay out of WWII? Gee, I had no idea.

One can only say to libs - read past page ten in your history book.

A million? Really? And Iran had no fault in that at all.

It didn't - once again read up and get a clue.

Bin Laden was our enemy, and still is. Bin Laden is still thumbing his nose at the US and plotting terror attacks. Why do you think that is?

As if there is some cosmic law of the universe insuring that you only have one enemy at a time. Bin Ladin isn't dead because we are fight a phony war against him.

 

[PLC1]

Nope, you don't get it. A Pee See war is using million dollar a copy cruise missiles to off one islamofascist, so that you don't blow up the other islamofascists next door.

Oh, I see.
Actually, I agree with that. If we're going to wage a war, then we should wage a war, all out, to win it. If we're not wiling to go all out, we should not go at all.

I also think we should pay for a war as we go along, and not charge it, don't you?

Whether ignorant iraqi dessert peasants who've been brainwashed their whole lives grasp that they're being liberated is not offered by me as a reason to off saddam.

It was offered by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Going to war was not up to you, was it?

Tinpot dictator??? Where the hell do you get THAT? Saddam had one of the world's largest militaries. He had attacked three neighboring countries, and had plans for a trans-arab empire. He CERTAINLY would have gotten nuke weapons by now. Baghdad had the most dense air defense system in the world. He launched the first gassing attack since world war one. He launched the first IRBM attack since world war two. He caused a million deaths in the iran war. He killed 650,000 domestic political enemies. By any standard, Saddam was an entirely first rate dictator of the worst kind.

And yet, it didn't take long for us to take over his country and depose him, did it? It was the "nation building" afterward that was the problem. No, "tinpot dictator" is the best description of his regime.

One can only say to libs - read past page ten in your history book.

Is that because you can't come up with a real response?

It didn't - once again read up and get a clue.

Your contention is that Saddam Hussain killed a million people. OK, maybe so, but you didn't offer any backup for that statement.

As if there is some cosmic law of the universe insuring that you only have one enemy at a time. Bin Ladin isn't dead because we are fight a phony war against him.

Bingo! The war on terror, in which Bin Laden is the real enemy, is a phony war. It is so much easier to keep people in line when there is a perceived enemy still around, and Bin Laden fills that need. Until a new enemy comes along, we'll keep fighting Bin Laden and his AlQaeda terrorists, but won't actually go in and get him. Doing so would put an end to the need to have a war at all.

 

[Rick]

Oh, I see.
Actually, I agree with that. If we're going to wage a war, then we should wage a war, all out, to win it. If we're not wiling to go all out, we should not go at all.

I also think we should pay for a war as we go along, and not charge it, don't you?

Nooooooo.... that's an arbitrary and stupid idea. We were still paying for WWII decades after the war - again, do you think we made a mistake fighting that because we couldn't "pay as you go"?

It was offered by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Going to war was not up to you, was it?

False - it was just a stray comment by someone, and not offered as a reason to go to war, and you can't prove otherwise.

And yet, it didn't take long for us to take over his country and depose him, did it?

Nope, because we had gigantic forces there, and we are the world's premier military power. That you would lose to us doesn't qualify you as "tinpot".

Is that because you can't come up with a real response?

No, it's because your throw-away comment reveals fundamental ignorance of world history, and I wasn't put in this world to tutor the ignorati (unless I'm paid). YOU tutor YOU.

Your contention is that Saddam Hussain killed a million people. OK, maybe so, but you didn't offer any backup for that statement.

Again, read up - tutoring you appears to be a nearly endless task, and I'm not signing up for it.

Bingo! The war on terror, in which Bin Laden is the real enemy, is a phony war. It is so much easier to keep people in line when there is a perceived enemy still around, and Bin Laden fills that need. Until a new enemy comes along, we'll keep fighting Bin Laden and his AlQaeda terrorists, but won't actually go in and get him. Doing so would put an end to the need to have a war at all.

Which is it? Bin Laden is a real enemey or a perceived enemy? Remember during Bush's administration when libs kept saying afghanistan was the REAL war? Make up your mind.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Oh, I see.
Actually, I agree with that. If we're going to wage a war, then we should wage a war, all out, to win it. If we're not wiling to go all out, we should not go at all.

I also think we should pay for a war as we go along, and not charge it, don't you?

/QUOTE]

go all out, depends on what you call win the war though as well...win the war does not mean destroy the nation and bring it to its knees always...and you can't always win the war, by just going all out as some seem to think we should do in all cases.

also I think its a stretch to say pay for all wars, 100% at the time...would hate to see it come down to lose a war, rather then run up some debt. ( though we should cut spending in other areas and not reduce taxes many times when doing it for sure

Can't always be lucky like in WWII and profit off them...Just think of the UK had tried to fight on its real budget...not sure how there income was to debt then, but guessing they ran up a decent debt...would hate to have seen them just say we give up, don't want to have debt.

 

[Hobo1]

Oh, I see.
Actually, I agree with that. If we're going to wage a war, then we should wage a war, all out, to win it. If we're not wiling to go all out, we should not go at all.

I also think we should pay for a war as we go along, and not charge it, don't you?

go all out, depends on what you call win the war though as well...win the war does not mean destroy the nation and bring it to its knees always...and you can't always win the war, by just going all out as some seem to think we should do in all cases.

To win a war means to demoralize the population to the point where they loose their will to fight. This may mean different things in different wars.

Where battles are being fought by conventional armies with conventional equipment, then conquering the opposing military may be sufficient to bring the general population to its knees.

However, in some place like Afghanistan or Vietnam, or the American Revolutionary War, battles are fought against insurgents or guerrilla warfare fighters. The tactic is to have a quasi-organized militia that lives among the local population which makes a combatant impossible to recognize from a non-combatant.

The militia is supplied basic supplies (food, water, first-aid, etc) by the local population. Combat equipment is generally portable, and often improvised. The fighting tactic is to secretly train together, disperse, then gather at a battle point, to fight a skirmish. Once the element of surprise is lost, then the soldiers melt back into the general population again.

This second type of war, the insurgent war, which can bring great military forces to their knees through attrition. Eventually, the superior military force gets frustrated and goes home.

Very few generals have ever been successful in fighting and winning wars against insurgents. Two of the greatest are Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great, and the strategy is to strike fear and terror into the hearts of all who would dare oppose us. It isn't a pleasant thought to think of killing civilians, and burning their villages, but THAT is the way you win the hearts, minds and respect of those who that would oppose us.

If you can't stomach the thought of such terror, then don't go to war! We are in Afghanistan without a mission - and innocent people are dying. Many, many more innocent civilians that were killed in the 9-11 attack! Thank about that. America, disguised as NATO, are the terrorists in Afghanistan -and I sympathize completely with the Afghan people who think we are there to destroy them.

We should just get out of Afghanistan and focus on fighting al-Qaeda, not Taliban, using black ops and other clandestine methods. And let the Afghanistan people have their country back.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

To win a war means to demoralize the population to the point where they loose their will to fight. This may mean different things in different wars.

Where battles are being fought by conventional armies with conventional equipment, then conquering the opposing military may be sufficient to bring the general population to its knees.

However, in some place like Afghanistan or Vietnam, or the American Revolutionary War, battles are fought against insurgents or guerrilla warfare fighters. The tactic is to have a quasi-organized militia that lives among the local population which makes a combatant impossible to recognize from a non-combatant.

The militia is supplied basic supplies (food, water, first-aid, etc) by the local population. Combat equipment is generally portable, and often improvised. The fighting tactic is to secretly train together, disperse, then gather at a battle point, to fight a skirmish. Once the element of surprise is lost, then the soldiers melt back into the general population again.

This second type of war, the insurgent war, which can bring great military forces to their knees through attrition. Eventually, the superior military force gets frustrated and goes home.

Very few generals have ever been successful in fighting and winning wars against insurgents. Two of the greatest are Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great, and the strategy is to strike fear and terror into the hearts of all who would dare oppose us. It isn't a pleasant thought to think of killing civilians, and burning their villages, but THAT is the way you win the hearts, minds and respect of those who that would oppose us.

If you can't stomach the thought of such terror, then don't go to war! We are in Afghanistan without a mission - and innocent people are dying. Many, many more innocent civilians that were killed in the 9-11 attack! Thank about that. America, disguised as NATO, are the terrorists in Afghanistan -and I sympathize completely with the Afghan people who think we are there to destroy them.

We should just get out of Afghanistan and focus on fighting al-Qaeda, not Taliban, using black ops and other clandestine methods. And let the Afghanistan people have their country back.

of course they could win, the US could "win" like that to...we could bomb the nation till almost no one left alive if we felt like it, just lay waste to cities...but what would that gain us? more people world wide hate us, our allies turn on us, and the ones we did not kill seek revenge...

And under your idea...that is the only war we can fight...any war thats not that...we just sit back...they attack us, we do nothing...unless we just want to slaughter the civilians as a goal...

these are not realistic options

 

[Rick]

of course they could win, the US could "win" like that to...we could bomb the nation till almost no one left alive if we felt like it, just lay waste to cities...but what would that gain us? more people world wide hate us, our allies turn on us, and the ones we did not kill seek revenge...

And under your idea...that is the only war we can fight...any war thats not that...we just sit back...they attack us, we do nothing...unless we just want to slaughter the civilians as a goal...

these are not realistic options

We bombed japan and germany into the stone age in WWII, the world's first nuclear war. Have they turned on us? Did we lose our allies? Did any come over here and seek revenge?

Nooooooooo...........

Back to the drawing board with your theories.