Unfortunately, that’s exactly what many on this board do want.
He said that “Most of Europe” supported the invasion. Not “Most governments in Europe”. Given that the war was overwhelmingly opposed by the population of almost every European country, and the governments who supported Bush did so against the wishes of almost their whole electorate, that’s a misrepresentation.
Aw, criminey. Well then, let’s no longer say that England was bombed during WWII. It was a few people in mostly London who were bombed. We wouldn’t want to misrepresent the facts. Incidentally, Hitler didn’t kill the Jews. He was busy with Fuerering.
Cite?
I’d like to think that foreign policy take into account the people who it will affect as well as protect.
Bah! Too many to cite individually. On everything from policies on terrorism, Iraq, Israel/Palestine to trade, Kyoto, and the ICC, the President gets bashed for going against “world opinion”. The job of the President is to do what’s in the best interest of the United States. Sorry if that cheeses off you folks in the hinterlands.
My guess is that Bush isn’t too concerned about foreign opinion; government or popular. As Lib wrote, he’s not answering to the people of Europe. His remarks were more likely intended for an American audience. Despite the internet, most Americans don’t have ready access to people from other countries. The American media gives minimal coverage to foreign news and, as any true believe knows, anything they say bad about Bush is just part of being the liberal media. So if Bush says he has widespread popular support in other countries, most people are going to believe it. And then they’ll figure if he’s being supported so well, it must mean he’s doing something right.
You could also cite this thread.
who in this thread wants American foreign policy to be decided by non-americans?
Godwin’s Law.
And you clearly need to brush up on your WW2 history. Heard of Coventry?
All of us evil communist athiest Democrats who want to defile the superior bloodline of America, of course. Just ignore him, responding to garbage like that post just gets him his jollies and gives him a reason to stay.
Is pretending that he has the support of almost an entire continent for his invasion of a foreign country, when he has nothing of the support, not potentially damaging for longer-scale American interests?
Not to mention Belfast, North strand and Wexford, which aren’t in Britain
What can I say? Aside from getting reelected, Bush has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn’t give much of a damn what anyone thinks, except his cronies and the beneficiaries of his policies.
The man is going to do whatever the hell he wants to do, and justify it in any way he thinks the people will swallow.
Pardon me for being a spoil sport, but I, for one, do think that if 90% of our allies’ population is against something, that should lead one to caution on the matter (and certainly caution in saying that “Europe supports us”). The fact that the French was the only European country where the leadership wasn’t intimidated by America’s posturing says a lot about France and more about the other European governments.
Nah, you really need to be more objective. Lets look at the list of European countries that were in the coalition of the willing .i.e. those countries that supported Bush as signatories to the coalition.
United Kingdom(60.3)
Spain(40.3)
Portugal(10.5)
Denmark(5.4)
Netherlands(16.3)
Iceland(0.3)
Italy(58.1)
Estonia(1.3)
Latvia(2.3)
Lithuania(3.6)
Poland(38.6)
Czech Republic(10.2)
Slovakia (5.4)
Hungary(10.0)
Albania (3.5)
Macedonia(2.1)
Romania (22.4)
Bulgaria (7.5)
Turkey(68.9)
Croatia(4.5)
Slovenia(2.0)
Ukraine(47.7)
Total represented population in support of Bush in Europe at the start of the war is 421.2 million.
Lets look at the European countries that were opposed.
France(60.4)
Germany(82.4)
Belgium(10.3)
Russia(143.8)
Belarus(10.3)
Greece(10.6)
Total represented population opposed in Europe at the start of the war is 317.8 million.
By my reckoning, 57% of Europe supported Bush at the start of the war. Even presidential elections in the US are rarely show that much support fore the winner.
Certainly you can argue the merits of that support, as well as the legitimacy of support by national governments contrary to polls within the various countries, but to challenge Bush’s assertion that most of Europe was behind him is just plain incorrect.
You mean apart from the U.K., Spain, Portugal, Poland, much of Eastern Europe (who were publicly ticked off by the French for so doing)?
Not even a nice try. My response was to On everything from policies on terrorism, Iraq, Israel/Palestine to trade, Kyoto, and the ICC, the President gets bashed for going against “world opinion”.
Heard of “mostly”?
Hasn’t this been rehashed a thousand times already? Yes a large part (if not majority) of Europe (population-wise and country count) supported America in Iraq because a majority of European governments supported the USA and because in Europe we’re governed by representative rule and hasn’t yet descended to rule-by-poll, rule-by-the-street, rule-by-mob or any other such stupidity.
Though I’ve become somewhat accustomed to it, the arrogance and smug condescension shown by some purportedly liberals still manage to amaze me, as they choose to wave away any support by European countries as just sucking up to Bush or buckling under pressure, etc. never stopping to think that it might represent genuine support. Especially as the same people often accuse Bush of arrogance.