France and Germany are a “small minority” in Europe? That’s good to know because I was under the impression that they were like, you know, how shall I say. . . rather big? Certainly compared to Denmark. And they did not bully or need to bully anyone. European public opinion was overwhelmingly against the war, including in the UK, where Blair is paying for his sins now and it was also true in a great part of the population of the US.
>> America bashing is just so last century.
Your schtick that disagreeing with the policies of the current president amounts to being anti-American is stupid so please take it elsewhere.
I’m simply saying that while the latest quarrel might land the French smelling of roses, it’s not hard to find others that didn’t. And that resistance to American line is not as prevalent as some countries has tried to lead on.
It wasn’t me who brought it up, and yes it probably hasn’t got much relevance to the OP; quite like a lot of other stuff posted in this tread.
I’m much more interested in why the Americans seem so preoccupied with being liked. In some way it’s understandable if being disliked will lead to more terrorism (a point that itself is very contestable, especially if being disliked is coupled with seeming powerful), but I think this goes far beyond that. I have put it to you that it’s never going to happen. Does anyone disagree? Other poorer and weaker countries will never like you, as long as you stay powerful and wealthy, especially countries that struggle with other problems as well, e.g. a widespread Arab delusions of historical grandeur.
It is not a given that the world will hate America no matter what. The USA had overwhelming world support for the first Gulf war and ended up paying a small fraction of the cost as the rest of the world contributed most of the cost.
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 America had all the good will and sympathy of the world.
It has been the awful policies of this government which have squandered all the goodwill and all the sympathy and have created all the opposition.
The report cited in the OP does not show America was consistently disliked, it shows it is disliked much more now than in the recent past. The only explanation lies with the policies of this president.
If Bush had said to Congress: “I propose that we invade Iraq, at a cost of something like $400 billion and the lives of about 500 US servicemen, and the lives of several thousand Iraqi soldiers and civilians, on the off-chance that it may result in fewer Iraqi deaths at the hands of Saddam, and on the off-chance that the something good may come from this, terrorism-wise”, and the Congress approved it, we’d be having a different debate, now, wouldn’t we.
Yes they are a very small minority as a percentage of countries, a minority of total European population, a small minority of total land mass. In what way do you think Germany and France constitute a big percentage of Europe, possible outside economics? I think the previously given link is quite clearly an example of the powerful bullying the weak. Of France trying to bully some Eastern European countries (Poland, Czech Republic). And if you knew of the case, or had read the link – I think you’d agree. As for public opinion being overwhelmingly against the war. You got it wrong. And even if some polls did show so in some countries. So what. There are no pollcracis in Europe to my knowledge.
I’m quite capable of forming my own opinions thank you very much, so in the future please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. I do not consider disagreements of American policy or current government to be anti-American, if such is based in rational argument. I myself have many disagreements with current American policy. I consider the American slur and demonisation being laded out liberally here and there (and often here) to be anti-American. And I consider the fact that only 1% of Jordanians having a favourable view of the US to be anti-American. And I consider the fact that it’s a widespread belief in some parts of the world, that the US orchestrated 9/11 themselves to be anti-American. Etc. What I consider anyone having to resort to using “schtick” and ad-hominems like “stupid” in GD, I’ll keep to myself.
No. It’s Bush ass kissing that is completely passe. Except, of course, for the hardcore group of True Believers®, sailor mentions. You know, the ones scouring under their fingernails for the last possible sediments of excrement they can muster in hopes of justifying the unjustifiable. But hey! don’t go standing in the front of the mirror if you don’t care to see what one looks like.
Personally, I realized Smirk was quite the incompetent buffoon at about the same time he came into the limelight. None of my business said I, for I am not an American. Little did I realize at the time just how much of a negative impact he would have on the international scene. Now, I make it my business to express my through dislike and contempt for him and his criminal posse.
What amazing about this thread is the number of apologists that trot out misinformation as “facts,” and then have the balls to label Arabs in general “uneducated” and produce such gems as “kill them all” without identifying whom those “all” might be. At best, they suffer from the same lack of education they accuse others of, at worst, they have become what they hate. Bloodthirsty fundie ideologues.
On preview: Smith, are you now denying that there was – and is – overwhelming opposition to the invasion throught Europe and the rest of the world? As for “so what,” I’ll let you figure that one out by your lonesome.
You are of course aware of the fact that the “so what” was regarding what some polls did or didn’t show. Well it’s no secret RedFury; I dislike polls with a fury. I’m all for general elections on all and every subject imaginable, the more the merrier. Power to the people and all that – that’s what I believe in. But polls are the work of the devil. So you tell me RedFury why the miniscule percentage of the population polled should have any great bearing on any nation’s policy? Why whatever polling institute or special interest group that craft the polls should have so much power?
The point of this thread is that the view of America in the Muslim world has reached a new low. That is a fact we have to deal with. I believe saying “who cares”? is very foolish and would lead to long term harm to America. America cannot become isolated and cannot live in permanent confrontation with the entire Muslim world. It is foolish to believe anything else. America cannot live in isolation and America cannot choose to live in permanent confrontation with the Muslim world.
Europe and the rest of the advanced, developed, nations would not back America in aggressive policies of confrontation with the Muslim world and the result would be America against pretty much the entire world. No matter what some fools may think, America cannot afford to do this.
President Bush the first is a lesson of how things should be done while the present government is a clear example of how they should not be done.
I think foremost we should evaluate whether the poll given in the OP has any validity. Polls have a tendency to exaggerate trends, extremitise opinions. People, especially I’d imagine for obvious reasons in countries without free press, general elections and all the other trappings of a free democracy, use them to send a message. Being faced with the same question in real-life so to speak, or an election even, most would not take such an exaggerated position. Which is also attested by the fact that another survey just a few months back reported a very large percentage of Arabs had no higher aspiration than moving to the US. It has yet to be addressed how an extremely negative view of the US can be reconciled with a devout wish to move there.
Again I’ll stress that “who cares” was on the polls – since it’s my belief we should not let such a small, special selected, portion of the population decide anything so important, or anything at all for that matter.
I agree with this in its entirety. Since I suspect you’d agree that “uninvade Iraq” is not an option available to the U.S., I’m not going to refight the reasons for the war except to respond to your specific challenge (cite).
The Bush administration has to be more honest about what we’re doing – fighting a war to the death with terrorists – and not let itself be sidetracked by what it thinks will sell during a specific news cycle, as they now admit they did with the WMD thing. As we’ve learned, in the hands of terrorists and their supporters everything is a potential WMD, and whether civilians are murdered by C-4, a biological agent or an aircraft is irrelevant.
Further, it has to do a better job of making it clear that we’re not in a war with Islam. It can do that by a) brutal honesty, b) doing a better job of leaving the countries we invade in a better condition than they were before, c) building better relations with those Islamic or Muslim-majority countries which are not supporters of terrorism and d) dealing more harshly with those countries, like Saudi Arabia, that have been too tolerant of terrorism for too long. In fairness, it looks like Saudi Arabia might have got the message after their own country was attacked; I’m not calling for specific action (diplomatic, economic or otherwise) against them now.
It was commissioned by the US government. Are you daring to insinuate they were wasting money on something useless? Why would they do such a thing? I would guess they thought the information gained from that report would be useful. For the reasons I have already stated I think so too.
The Poll might be overdoing the falling opinion… but still overall its still falling. If its 1% or 10% in Jordan… the fact is that the so called war on Terrorism seems to be fueling hatred of the US. People who hate/dislike are better candidates for terrorism.
So Bushites... do you really think Bush is "reducing" terrorism ? The unpopularity and the arrogance of the US now justifies radical elements in Arab countries. From being fringe lunatics they are now justified as corrrectly condemning the US.
I agree that being rich and powerful does make the US prone to be "hated"... thou a better word would be envious. Still if you rubbing your military power and wealth ACTIVELY on other nations faces... your asking to get hit back. I might give the example of my country where many openly dislike the US but were never a big group. Most would think of the US as a good example or a power to be respected. Quite a few people admired the US and no one would consider them stupid for it... Now if someone says they like the US you see smirks and heads nodding. "Foolish kid". 80%+ of our exchange students go to the USA. The US was always the example to be followed... was.
If you managed to lose a lot of respect in a democratic republic like Brazil I can pretty much imagine how Arabs are feeling.... wounded pride and all. If you think arabs having no love for the US and most hating the US is not relevant to "war" on Terrorism... your pretty sick. What is relevant then to stop terrorism ?
I would hope you’re not as cavalier about civilian casualties caused by the military actions you’re defending. Based on Rumsfeld’s automatic approval of all proposed operations despite expected civilian deaths, it isn’t clear that we’ve been acting in a morally superior way here. Certainly it isn’t clear to those whose hearts and minds we’d like to win over, is it?
Is it clear that we’re not in a war with Islam, based on our actions so far? Are any of those things actually happening? No? Then why believe the administration’s true intentions are otherwise? Shouldn’t you expect something of the sort by now? Well, never mind us - again, the hearts and minds that have to won over are in the Middle East. Why would you expect them to believe in those high-sounding words when they’re at odds with the reality they see around them?
On what basis do you believe the Bush Administration’s true intentions are what you say you’d like them to be?
Ignorant = Anybody who doesn’t agree with you ? :smack:
What makes you think you are any less ignorant than I am ?
I’ve read plenty, probably more than most about the situation, so I can hardly see how I am ignorant, as I have sought out information and studied the situation, which I have used to draw my own conclusions from. You may not like my viewpoints, and frankly I don’t care, but to throw around the ignorant remark shows a remarkable lack of debating skills on your part.
I know all about the terrorists and their so-called reasons. I choose to ignore them, simple as that. I don’t feel their reasons are valid, and they will soon be dead anyhow, probably.
I really enjoyed your posting, 2sense. I just wanted to add, that IMO it is improbable that Daisy cutter is a woman. The nick stands for “the mother of all bombs” and I think that it is much more likely that a man takes I nick like this than a woman…
You’re not wrong at all, as a matter of fact, you are %100 correct.
I’ve already pointed out numerous times, in various threads that I am a He, and not a She. I’ve already stated it once in this thread so far.
I figured too, that people would realize that women wouldn’t usually name themselves after a bomb, but I guess I was wrong on that assumption, seeing as I constantly get addressed as “she”. There was some idiot who addressed me as “honey” in some thread once.
Which just goes to show you that judges can also be as stupid as anyone else. This judge says Iraq is connected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Everybody else, including Rumsfeld and Bush, who are in a much better position to know, say no link has been established. Or do you only believe them when they are rabidly uttering lies?
