Heaven forbid the leader of the free world, the representative of democracy, should ever, EVER even CONSIDER listening to the majority of the world, much less his own country. :rolleyes:
Good point, Rune! Well, “good” for a Yurpeen.
One need only regard Spain, where fully 10% of the population concurred with the decisions of thier governance! Which governance, wisely, decided to ignore the carping and calumny of the the numerical majority, and to adhere to the opinions of those who demonstrate the most clear-headed position.
After all, this democracy thing can go too far, and lead to the “mob rule” of the majority. If only they had taken heed of the political wisdom of Gen. Franco, the much beloved El Caudillo, and prevented such needless displays as an “election”, they might not have been tossed out on their collective ass.
He may or may not be the “leader of the free world”, but he took an oath as President of the United States.
Good point, elucidator! Well, “good” for a stupid yakeee. :rolleyes:
Or perhaps we should look at Germany? Which despite its vocal anti-Iraq war stand currently has the most disliked government since Adolf Hitler. Anyway Spain didn’t put the matter of Iraq out for a general poll, and as such there’s just no-way you (despite your undoubtedly amazing perception) or me or anyone else can know what the numerical majority thinks. The only thing we do know is that their democratically elected government at the time supported the US.
:rolleyes:
I see what you’re saying, but your post is (presumably) unintentionally misleading. Allow me to clear up a point or two.
Becoming a signatory truly means nothing beyond the desire to see the topic debated. Figuring America would just go in with or without debate, what hard really could have come from trying? These countries weren’t so much the “coalition of the willing” as they were the “coalition of the curious.”
Just for the record, I’m not trying to be hostile with this post.
– Imran
Guh, this is why Preview is your best friend.
What harm, not what hard. This board needs an edit button.
– Imran
re Bush’s grasp of reality: aren’t we overlooking something here?
In the neoconservative worldview being reluctant to wage a war of aggression is grounded in cowardice or stupidity at best, and nefarious motives at worst.
So, overstating European support for the war on Iraq must be, in Bush’s view, not self-serving at all, but rather gracious and forgiving. We should be grateful for it.
Closer to 60-65% once we remove the non-European sectors of Russia and Turkey, but still NOT ‘most of Europe’.
LOOK AT THE CITES. The vast majority of the population of Europe opposed the war.
Their govenments acted against their wishes. They’ve already been punished for that in Spain, a result likely to be repeated across the continent. And if I’m not mistaken, ‘rule-by-poll’=‘democracy’?
Yes. It wasn’t ‘mostly’ London that was hit. ‘Most’ is getting throughly misused at the moment.
Without dabbling to much in the country vs population debate… I’d like to comment that Turkey didn’t much seem a “coalition” member. Also countries that didn’t support or oppose the War seem to have been left out ?
Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden… etc…
After all he said “MOST of Europe” supported him… not that more supported vs opposed him. So your calculations are off. 
so, are you saying that Bush’s decisions and positions on the emphasized points aren’t part of his foreign policy? what parts of his policies on Iraq, or Israel/ Palestine will affect American citizens? if Bush want’s America to play as world Cop, he’s sure as hell going to have to listen to world opinion.
Not even a nice try yourself.