That is my assumption as with Vietnam. Some soldiers are good, some are bad. Unfortunately, the bad get the press.MattTheSkywalker said:Their stories are that we are not brutally killing people wholesale, we are doing everything we can to foster good relations, etc.
Given on a level playing field. I doubt you'd be able to stop "dirtier" tactics unless you closed all borders and clense your own staff (like the Muslim priest who threw in a grenade right before the way, still can't get over that one).MattTheSkywalker said:But I must say, the rest of the world is no match for American might...
My impression is that this is where you'd have a problem. You level the city, one crazy army guy fires a nuke at his own base...blah..blah..blah...
Point taken. Put that way, it does make sense.MattTheSkywalker said:Both of those nations are state terror sponsors; no one denies this.
Our strategic goal is to bring about change throughout the region; we invaded Iraq to plant those seeds by hastening reform there, and allowing that to serve as a model.
Unfortunately, it appears to serve as a lightening rod for hardliners and the state sponsored terrorists. Now its just a matter of time and bloodshed until it becomes the "beacon" of change that you are professing.
But I do see the point. Eventually, the terrorism will stop and it will be free. There is no other way at this point, because you can't back down no matter what happens now.
As you know, trading with terrorists never works out.

On a somewhat related note, I can't believe that some countries back out because of this. So what if one or ten people get captured and are threatened with beheading. "Needs of the many..."