• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Why do UK people see Bush as a bigger threat than Hussein ?

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 126
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"The British public sees President Bush (news - web sites) as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), a poll published on Tuesday showed. The poll, commissioned by Channel 4 Television, asked 1,000 people whether they believed Bush was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam. Forty-five percent agreed while 38 percent disagreed."
What's going on ???
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The British are still angry that we kicked their butt 225 years ago!
 
"The Hood"
Posts: 8521
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"a greater threat to world peace "
Sort of depends on how the responders understood that sentence.
If you take that sentence to mean "which of the two do you think will initiate a war in the next few weeks" - the results make sense. Heck - even I think that the correct answer to this meaning is "Bush". That does not necessarily mean that I don't think that he SHOULD do it, just that he WILL do it.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This is nothing new for Western Europe. It's partly a manifestation of anti-Americanism which has found comfort on the continent for quite some time, but there are other issues as well. The US and Europe have different values and priorities and this is one expression of that.
The US generally believes that "action talks, BS walks", as it were. That is, words only mean so much, you have to back up what you are saying with concrete action eventually. The US is a nation of do-ers. Straight talk, followed by action, is valued. The haughty are generally looked down upon. Also to be looked down upon are people who won't take action even when required, and especially if it's to protect themselves. Diplomacy has its place, but it is not something that can be strung out forever without concrete results. In fact, there are some instances in which diplomacy isn't even appropriate or at best of limited value.
On the other hand, Western Europe seems to fashion itself as a very civilized place where anything can be resolved through diplomacy. It does not matter how long it takes to achieve these goals, eventually they can be reached through diplomatic means. The protocols and process of diplomacy are equally as important as the results sought. Straight talk is often not appreciated as it dances around protocol. Given a fair shot, even the most ruthless can be successfully negotiated with in order to achieve some desirable outcome.
Regarding international institutions, the US generally doesn't have much use for them. We cannot see giving others a say in how we operate, particularly when we are usually the ones whose troops are on the line, or who are footing the major portion of the bill. We like to think that we are willing to take a stand for what we believe is right, even if it isn't popular or places ourselves at greater risk. Of course what we believe is "right" doesn't always jive with what Europe thinks is "right".
On the other hand, Western Europe has placed great stock in international institutions. For one, they have been the bedrock of security for the region. For another, these international institutions give some nations a level of international power and prestige they might not otherwise have. Additionally, these international institutions are seen as giving them some amount of influence over greater powers, or at least levelling the playing field. For some nations, international institutions are simply a way to provide a counter to the US.
More specifically to the question at hand, 9/11 has changed the landscape. The US now views potential or likely threats in a much differet manner than previously, and definitely in a different manner than Western Europe. After 9/11 many people were asking what we could have done to prevent it, and the policies being undertaken by the US government now are partly in response to that question. The US sees itself at war, and Iraq is just an extenstion of that war.
Western Europe on the other hand generally does not view 9/11 with the same eye that we have. Yes it was a terrible event, but the fault lies ultimately with the US anyway, so what do you expect? They do not make the connection between Iraq and 9/11 that most Americans do. This is of course a fundamental difference in views that colors all our perceptions.
The US has accepted the fact that there will be more terrorist attacks on its soil of a 9/11 magnitutde, whereas many in Western Europe apparently believe that by not provoking radical islamists further, they may be able to avoid such attacks. Since there are going to be more attacks of that magnitude anyway, if we follow the American line of thought, then we might as well do what we can to hit them before they hit us. If they are going to try to attack us anyway, it does no good to simply try to stay below their radar and hope they ignore us.
Also, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are big in Europe, often going hand-in-hand together. On the other hand, we're not really anti-anyone in the US (well, we're trying to be anti-French, but even that's half-hearted). Many Europeans question our motives and see our protection of our interests as displays of arrogance. We're viewed by them as this bullying behometh pushing its weight around, whereas we see it as just protecting our interests the same as any other nation protects theirs. A difference in this though is that our actions often have wider reaching affects than those of other nations, and we may not always show sensitivity to this. I think we've already had the "anti-American" debate though and probably anything else I could say on the issue has already been covered elsewhere.
Keep in mind I'm not indicting either side for their views, just trying to objectively cite the differences where I see them without claiming that either side necessarily is right or wrong.
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Abadula there is a bunch of reasons:
I fear that they have more to do with european - american relations than with concern of the common european with the well-being of the arabic world.
- europeans are really quite pacifistic. Between 400 p. Chr. until 1945 every 20 to 50 years there have been wars between european nations or inside the societies.
1914-18, 39-45 we had 2 wars, both started by Germany, which hit the civil population extremly hard. In my city, which is a very old one, only 15% of the buildings are from before 1939. Rest was destroyed. We haven't seen this mess but have grown up with these pictures and with some anecdotes of our grandpas and grandmums.destruction
(And more even with pictures of concentration camps, btw.).
Americans participated in that devastating wars, lots of them died in the liberation of europe, but they have not the experience of a suffering civilian population.
If this pacifism is justified is another question.
- Europeans don't trust George Bush. Europeans see him as loudmouth and cowboy who does not know what he does. Has a lot to do with european prejudices against americans as being culturally simplistic.
- Europeans are afraid that a war would further heat up terrorism.
- Europeans tend to see this war in the tradition of our "great colonialistic/imperialistic past". Europeans feel pangs of conscience concerning our own imperialistic past.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I should add that I always appreciate Axel's views on these subjects as he can give us a much better insight than we would otherwise have. All we can do as Americans generally is state our perceptions of how Europe might view things.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thank you, Jason. Or how did those guy say in Security Council the other day: I admire the great expertise shown by the previous speaker, or something sort of such.
In that discussion I am not a typical European or West European, because I see some justification in this war, and the mayority of all countries from Portugal to Russia do have a different opinion (I say mayority, I am no lonely cowboy).

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The US generally believes that "action talks, BS walks", as it were. That is, words only mean so much, you have to back up what you are saying with concrete action eventually. The US is a nation of do-ers. Straight talk, followed by action, is valued. The haughty are generally looked down upon.
[...]
On the other hand, Western Europe seems to fashion itself as a very civilized place where anything can be resolved through diplomacy. It does not matter how long it takes to achieve these goals, eventually they can be reached through diplomatic means. The protocols and process of diplomacy are equally as important as the results sought. Straight talk is often not appreciated as it dances around protocol. Given a fair shot, even the most ruthless can be successfully negotiated with in order to achieve some desirable outcome.
[...]
Keep in mind I'm not indicting either side for their views, just trying to objectively cite the differences where I see them without claiming that either side necessarily is right or wrong.


We all know that those are generalizations. Of course there are hands-on-type of guys in Europe and planning-freaks in America.
Planning might not be bad. My sister sometimes have project meetings with Americans and she complains about their over-enthusiastic style.
She says that the Americans present their stuff internally like hardcore salesmen. And at the end of their presentation, its like that (she says):
American guy: Now. You are going to start this great project with me?
My little sister: May we first talk about some points I have noted.
American guy: Ina, you are not going to start this great proyect with me??
My little sister: Lets first discuss some points.
American guy: Gee Europeans
Then they discuss the points and my sister says its good for the proyect.
---
I often felt that there is some excess of trust in Europe in a "professional planning process". I more than once have experienced people who sell themselves as great planners, dont know anything and are a great danger for a company. ...and seen too much co-workers believing this trash. But that's my personal experience.
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 126
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have one more question to ask ---
Suppose the US/Iaq war is over and Hussein is killed or exiled, do you think USA homeland security status will get better or worse ? DO you think USA will get more or less threat and/or attack from his enemies ?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think it will remain the same.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
do you think USA homeland security status will get better or worse ?
Better simply because one potential source of WMDs will have been eliminated.
DO you think USA will get more or less threat and/or attack from his enemies ?
This is relative I think. Probably it will stay pretty much the same. Of course I've never bought into the argument that any action which may be morally "right" should not be taken merely because it might raise the chances of terrorism. The only thing I think that could reduce the risk of terrorism appreciably is Islamic terrorists suddenly had a change of heart concerning Jews, Christians, and free secular non-Muslim societies.
 
Cindy Glass
"The Hood"
Posts: 8521
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:
I have one more question to ask ---
Suppose the US/Iaq war is over and Hussein is killed or exiled, do you think USA homeland security status will get better or worse ? DO you think USA will get more or less threat and/or attack from his enemies ?



I think that we would be fools to let that impact our decision. Basically that would be allowing ourselves to be bullied into changing our behavior based on fear of the USA homeland security status instead of moral conviction.
I imagine that the situation might even get worse for a while. It will certainly rile up a few Iraqis who would consider terrorism as an acceptable retaliation. I also expect that they would get support from assorted extremist groups out there.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 204
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Suppose the US/Iaq war is over and Hussein is killed or exiled, do you think USA homeland security status will get better or worse ? DO you think USA will get more or less threat and/or attack from his enemies ?


The real threat is from Al-Qaida not Iraq. Yes, Iraq does have a lot of WMDs (and oil ) but then think about the latest news on N.Korea's and Iran's Nuke's.
Answer: Status of threat remains the same.
-ST
 
Abadula Joshi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 126
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think it will remain the same.


If it doesn't improve homeland security status and doesn't reduce any terrorism threat, then may I ask why war ? why now ?
and is it worthwhile ?
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:

If it doesn't improve homeland security status and doesn't reduce any terrorism threat, then may I ask why war ? why now ?
and is it worthwhile ?


Abadula,
Saddam is fooling around for 12 years with UN and the weapons inspectors.
After the US had put lots of military in the region, he suddenly discovered that "small" missiles and other things. Suddenly he was becoming more cooperative.
Mohammed Attah (a leader of the 09/11 terrorists) established a "Islam group" for better understanding of muslims and non-muslims inside of the University of Hamburg. The University gave him the room and he was recruting others to hijack planes and fly those planes into buildings where people were working.
Maybe the democracies should give a signal that there are times when we don't like fooling around.
Maybe sometimes the hard way works better than accepting everything to avoid war.
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I should add that I always appreciate Axel's views on these subjects as he can give us a much better insight than we would otherwise have. All we can do as Americans generally is state our perceptions of how Europe might view things.


I second Jason opinion. Axel is an international treasure.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:
"The British public sees President Bush (news - web sites) as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), a poll published on Tuesday showed. The poll, commissioned by Channel 4 Television, asked 1,000 people whether they believed Bush was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam. Forty-five percent agreed while 38 percent disagreed."
What's going on ???


It could be that they believe he's not smart enough to understand the long-term ramifications of his actions. His administration has squandered whatever goodwill the European countries have towards America.Its not suprising however, but I guess America has gotten the leadership it deserves. Also bear in mind thst the US is the only superpower left with enough weapons to destroy the world several times over. Now combine that with someone who's not very smart and you have a very deadly combination and threat to world peace.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
Also bear in mind thst the US is the only superpower left with enough weapons to destroy the world several times over.


That's right! Everbody else with enough weapons to destroy the world several times over isn't a superpower. :roll:
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:
If it doesn't improve homeland security status and doesn't reduce any terrorism threat, then may I ask why war ? why now ?
and is it worthwhile ?


Because I believe that ultimately Sadaam is a destabalizing force in the region and that sooner or later he will launch missiles at Israel and draw the whole area into possibly nuclear war. But also because I think the people of Iraq have suffered long enough and it is time to remove the beast of baghdad.
In the long run, removing Sadaam will reduce terrorism in the world if we continue to punish states that support terrorists.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 225
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:
"The British public sees President Bush (news - web sites) as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), a poll published on Tuesday showed. The poll, commissioned by Channel 4 Television, asked 1,000 people whether they believed Bush was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam. Forty-five percent agreed while 38 percent disagreed."
What's going on ???

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Speaking as a Brit, I guess I can try and offer an opinion as why a significant proportion of the population oppose war in Iraq.
First of all Im pretty sure that everyone here after September 11th supported the US in its stance on terrorism, and the resulting campaign in Afghanistan.
I also think that a significant proportion of the population would like to see Saddam removed from power.
The biggest obstacles to support though are:
a) Bush's motives for the war. I can safely say that the majority of Brits think that Bush is a total idiot. We also dont trust Bush. We believe that Bush's close ties with the oil companies, that Cheney's relationship with Haliburton, is just *too* convenient.
b) That our support is taken for granted. Mr Rumsfields recent comments have been seized by the press here and interpreted as that well, we're pretty superflous to the Iraq campaign. It doesnt matter who you are, if someone offers you help, and you brush that help aside, dont be surprised if they dont rush to help you in future.
c) A significant proportion of our population is Muslim. Since Sept 11th relationships between the Muslim community and the rest of the UK has become strained. The war on Iraq will only seek to strain this relationship further
d) The general population isnt entirely convinced of Iraqs threat.
e) A lot of people that I know here view Ariel Sharron as more of a destabilizing influence in the Middle East than Saddam Hussein.
I admit, we're faced with the contradiction that we want rid of Saddam, but theres a significant anti-war movement. I dont think we're willing to placate (is that the best choice of word?) Saddam however. We're more than willing to fight, as was shown in the Falklands, Gulf War 1 and Bosnia. But there is this feeling that Bush and his cronies are in it to line their own pockets.
Im opening myself up to being flamed here, but what the hell, ill-informed or otherwise, its just my 2 cents/euros/pence.
Cheers,
Mark
[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Like the voice of Turkey, Sharon is a recent product of the voice of the people.
Always we hear, Iran and North Korea are bigger threats. Why does not the US go after them instead? Why is it US responsibility to deal with them at all? Why is not it the responsibility of China to reign in North Korea? China stopped the US at the DMZ about half a century ago. The US has tried on North Korea.
Why the US does not deal with Iran? When Jimmy Carter was president, I was ashamed of the way the US handled the situation. I'm sure if we had not elected a cowboy from another era those hostages and the US would have been held such a very long time. How long would you have us be held hostage? Four hundred days becomes twelve years one day at a time.
You say it's all about oil and lining our pockets. This is categorically, unquestionably just a self serving lie. US has not made big money in Kuwait. Can you explain why?
George Bush has taken a stand against another evil empire. Maybe at the moment it does not seem the best decision. But he, and the US, can say we are trying to form a more perfect world.
Chirac looks like a bigger threat to me. Those of you siding with the tyrant, how can you hold your head up?
 
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
We have empirical data about the change in terrorism as a response to military action. What's ever happened with Khadafy and the Libyan state sponsored terrorism?
That was another case where the French refused to cooperate. How can there be a City of Light in a country of darkness? Betrayal is such an ugly act.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think the most intersting line is: I can safely say that the majority of Brits think that Bush is a total idiot.
That is such a bizarre thought. Does anyone really think a total idiot could get elected president of the United States? I'm not sure what the basis of this is. Because he is not a good public speaker?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 580
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think the most intersting line is: I can safely say that the majority of Brits think that Bush is a total idiot.


True story. Maybe it's to do with all the gaffs he makes :
http://www.bushisms.com/
And the fact he looks like a chimp.
T.
[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Don Kiddick ]
 
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think the most intersting line is: I can safely say that the majority of Brits think that Bush is a total idiot.
That is such a bizarre thought. Does anyone really think a total idiot could get elected president of the United States? I'm not sure what the basis of this is. Because he is not a good public speaker?


Thomas,
I guess it springs from how the media likes to portray Bush over here, particularly in political satire; the gaffs he makes in his public speaking from time to time dont help this.
If its any consolation the same political satirists are quick to portray Blair as a weasel.
 
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
You say it's all about oil and lining our pockets. This is categorically, unquestionably just a self serving lie. US has not made big money in Kuwait. Can you explain why?


Rufus, if thats your real name,
I know this has been argued elsewhere, and I agree, the US as a nation doesnt need Iraqi oil as it has sufficient reserves of its own.
However the perception over here is that by invading Iraq, Bush, Cheney, Rice et al will *personally* profit from the war. And perhaps it is this perceived act of greed and self interest that has garnered so much support against the war.
Im not going to get embroiled in this any more. Someone asked why people in the UK view Bush as a threat, and why there is antipathy towards invading Iraq. As a UK citizen, Ive tried to offer insight as to why this might be.
Like many opinions it may not be entirely justifiable to others. But that is for another thread and one that I am not personally wanting to get involved in.
Regards,
Mark
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
US has not made big money in Kuwait. Can you explain why?


May I have courage to tell you how much money US has made out of Kuwait war.
Source is "The Week", a reputed weekly magazine of India.

Please take your time and go through it.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:

True story. Maybe it's to do with all the gaffs he makes :
http://www.bushisms.com/

I looked over the "gaffes" and I don't actually see too many gaffes. I see some mispronunciations (but he has a Texas drawl). This one for instance: "You've heard Al Gore say he invented the internet. Well, if he was so smart, why do all the addresses begin with "W"?" Don't you think that is a pretty funny joke? Why would anyone assume the Dubya was serious when he said it? I think the anti-Bush stuff comes from a general anti-America attitude that ultimately derives from an anti-semitic atitude.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Source is "The Week", a reputed weekly magazine of India.

I'm not sure what the article is trying to say. Is it claiming that everyone saw the weapons of Deseret Storm and thought they were really cool and so they bought them? What does selling F-16s to Singapore have to do with Desert Storm? It seems like the author just assumed that the only reason anyone bought a weapon from a US company after Desert Storm was because of Desert Storm. Just because "B" came after "A" does not mean that "A" caused "B".
And the total cost of the war expressed by the Pentagon is only their cost. It doesn;t reflect the billions of dollars in loast wages and productivity caused by the calling up into the reserves of hundreds of thousands of American workers.
This line is a dead giveaway, "Contrary to US expectations, the Afghan war did not yield much in the form of arms orders." I don't know anyone who expected the Afghan War to generate major arm sales. It was always assumed that the fighting in Afghanistan was going to be done by Afghanis and that we would only have a supporting role. And everyone here assumed that it would all be over fairly quikly once it started. The only mistake made by the media here was to assume that the major push wouldn't start until the spring.
 
Don Kiddick
Ranch Hand
Posts: 580
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Type "bushisms" into google and see how many hits you get. IMHO he makes more than the average amount of gaffes. You can disagree but all I'm telling you about (like Mark)
is the about the feeling in the UK.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think the anti-Bush stuff comes from a general anti-America attitude that ultimately derives from an anti-semitic atitude.


Maybe in BizzaroWorld. I've literally no idea how you've come to that conclusion.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:

However the perception over here is that by invading Iraq, Bush, Cheney, Rice et al will *personally* profit from the war. And perhaps it is this perceived act of greed and self interest that has garnered so much support against the war.


Except for the fact that people in those positions in the US move all of their assets into blind trusts and couldn't tell you what they were invested in. So because many are ignorant of the facts they just blindly believe misconceptions?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
However the perception over here is that by invading Iraq, Bush, Cheney, Rice et al will *personally* profit from the war. And perhaps it is this perceived act of greed and self interest that has garnered so much support against the war.


[ Just a note ahead of time Mark, I appreciate your response and if it sounds like I'm flaming you here, I'm not. I'm merely taking you at your word that this is a widely held view and addressing that in a general context. ]
I can see why people could get this perception. What it doesn't address is why the US public is so much in support of this war. If anything, it seems to conveniently ignore US public support or worse, to write it off as some masterful brain-washing and propaganda campaign over an ignorant populace. Actually, to seriously think that we would place our forces in danger and risk the lives of so many innocents merely for a few bucks is not only paranoid fantasy but also rather insulting.
On a separate note... One of the funnier things I have heard out of Europe lately was today when some EU official stated that if we don't operate under UN mandate then the EU may not contribute towards reconstruction of Iraq. Aside from the fact that this is a morally vacuous stance, we are talking about one of the largest oil producers on the planet. I have a feeling that Iraq will be funding much of their own reconstruction.
And in this vein, after the war, there's a popular American saying that some of these countries (France and several others) are going to be made aware of: "Payback's a bitch". I suspect there will be public pressure to divert funds, contracts, and to some extent trade, away from some countries and towards others. We don't have the best economy in the world, but the economy of these other countries is in far far worse shape than ours. I'm sure Angola for instance, the US being their largest donor, knows what the result of an abstension or negative vote would mean. And this isn't simply a concern for the smaller countries. I'm certain that economic dealings with France, Germany (whose economy is in shambles), Russia, and China may also be re-examined.
 
Mark Fletcher
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think the anti-Bush stuff comes from a general anti-America attitude that ultimately derives from an anti-semitic atitude.


I could see that this might be the case in the Middle East, but else where, no. Id say its more likely that the current levels of anti-Americanism are more likely attributable to the anti-Bush attitude resulting from Bush's foreign policy.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I'm certain that economic dealings with France, Germany (whose economy is in shambles), Russia, and China may also be re-examined.


British/American rating agentures seems to be very prone to Germany bashing. That's one of the reason why DAX (german DOW) is nose diving. We are testing the 2.200 line (>70% loss in comparision to record highs in spring 2002, hitting 1995 (!) lows).
(This might be a chance for people who have some extra money for investment, cause its really cheap. Better wait some days more.)
Today the organization of mechanical engineering (very important sector, here) reported problems in negotiations with american customers for political reasons.
All those problems won't change the general anti-american attitude.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
I could see that this might be the case in the Middle East, but else where, no. Id say its more likely that the current levels of anti-Americanism are more likely attributable to the anti-Bush attitude resulting from Bush's foreign policy.


And what foreign policy would that be? Because I noticed the anti-Bush stuff started in Europe well before Iraq was an issue. And are you saying that the Europeans loved Americans when Clinton was president? That doesn't fit in with my memories.
 
Don Kiddick
Ranch Hand
Posts: 580
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

What it doesn't address is why the US public is so much in support of this war. If anything, it seems to conveniently ignore US public support or worse, to write it off as some masterful brain-washing and propaganda campaign over an ignorant populace.


Didn't the US government brainwash it's populace into believing communism was in some way inherently evil... doesn't sound that farfetched to me.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And what foreign policy would that be? Because I noticed the anti-Bush stuff started in Europe well before Iraq was an issue. And are you saying that the Europeans loved Americans when Clinton was president? That doesn't fit in with my memories.


There was anti-Americanism in Europe, including the UK, when I was there from 89-92. It's lurking there for quite some time, always waiting for the latest cause du jour to give it some excuse to raise its ugly head. I concur that in some circles does go hand-in-hand with anti-Semitism, but this isn't true in all cases of course.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
Didn't the US government brainwash it's populace into believing communism was in some way inherently evil... doesn't sound that farfetched to me.


And you are saying that communism isn't evil? And you base this opinion on the performance of communism under which leader? Stalin? Mao? Pol-Pot?
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I'm certain that economic dealings with France, Germany (whose economy is in shambles), Russia, and China may also be re-examined.


So you protest when France is trying to "bully" East-European countries, but it's Ok for the USA to do the same?
Speaking about "economic dealings", I have no problem admitting that international politics is little more than "economic dealings", but what I cannot understand is why does the USA need certain "morale support" for its war on Iraq from countries whose "morale support" was simply bought?
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

And you are saying that communism isn't evil? And you base this opinion on the performance of communism under which leader? Stalin? Mao? Pol-Pot?


Khrushev? Bregnev? Gorbachev?
And as a person who actually lived under communism, not just was fed anti-communist propaganda, I will claim that communism was not evil.
 
And inside of my fortune cookie was this tiny ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!