Certainly a good rant, Shirley. I have no idea what you are trying to say, but a good rant, in the sense of pure rant if you know what I mean.
Thank you **Princhester **,
I truly have no idea what the gist of it was about either.
I tend to do stream of conscientness ( ?) ranting and sometimes things get ugly.
So, can someone please tell me what the hell Scott Ritter is up to? When I listened to his blather earlier this p.m. I was ready to rip his head off and shit down his windpipe… then got the idea that maybe, just maybe, he’s doing and act.
Any clues? Ideas?
Shirley Ujest may I suggest you read the New York Times and the Washington Post (for non-U.S. dopers arguably the two best newspapers in the country)? I read the Post daily and the Times at least once a week (it’d be more often but it’s a buck in my area) because I’m getting a very different view of U.S. media opinion than you. Precisely that we shouldn’t invade Iraq.
As far as Sparc’s OP is concerned I must admit that at least some of the anti-U.S. sentiment is of U.S. creation and specifically Bush’s creation. I don’t want anti-U.S. sentiment abroad and I’m not a Bush basher and I certainly don’t think that he’s a moron but I do think his foreign policy is lacking and partially to blame for the current situation.
For starters he basically avoided the rest of the world for his first year in office. Not exactly a way for the leader of the world’s sole superpower to win the world’s affection. Then there’s the whole Kyoto Protocols and International Criminal Court brouhahas which didn’t exactly elicit a positive international response. However I leave it to the reader (and another warmed over thread) to decide if his decisions were good on those.
Which then brings us to the current proposed military action on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Bush’s go it alone attitude really riles feathers abroad especially considering the faith that the U.S. claims to have for the U.N. Although everyone agrees that Iraq has been working on weapons of mass destruction there are still doubts that he has managed to create them and that a diplomatic solution allowing weapons inspectors back in place should be tried first. Bush’s claiming that it’s more or less to late for that doesn’t seem to jive with the U.S.'s purported support for the U.N. which leads people to believe that the U.S. is using it’s power and influence as a bludgeon.
If on the other hand Bush does not want to invade Iraq and simply wants to use the pretense as an excuse to get the world to look closer at Iraq his call for invasion still has the effect I wrote about in the paragraph above.
And Princhester there have been plots on German soil and an attempt to blow up the Eiffel Tower, not to mention Australia, the UK and whoever else being on Al Qaeda’s official list of people they don’t like. Furthermore if the U.S. were suddenly to throw in the towel do you really think that the terrorists would simply go “we won” and go home? The U.S. is simply the most visible target for the terrorists to attack but the rest of the western world and the nations comprising the west would be hypocrites to not challenge them. And if they do challenge them they would promptly become targets as much as the U.S. currently is. This is the free world’s problem precisely as much as it the U.S.'s because they are targeting the free world. Don’t let the fact that the U.S. is the primary target confuse you so as to think that the U.S. is the only target.
Gahhhh!!! I clicked submit when I meant to hit preview! This just proves to me that I’m up too late and I have class in the morning. I have more to say (mostly positive U.S. stuff as a contrast) and that definitely wasn’t my final draft so I’ll post more later. Fuck.
Well Asylum given that that was a draft, I won’t comment on it in detail. But can I just point out that my posts (especially my second) are attempting to answer the OP in the sense of saying why the stuff that Sparc is complaining about is happening. And part of that in my opinion is that the man in the street outside the US is not as concerned about the threat you/Sparc percieve as perhaps it should be.
That doesn’t mean that I agree with the man in the street’s perception, fully.
So don’t make it too personal.
Errr, that should be:
“…is not as concerned about the threat you/Sparc percieve as perhaps he should be.”
squeals to a halt
Please note sarcasm was used in my post. These two above examples are, naturally, the signs of the apocalypse.
Princhester, my apologies if I seemed to be taking this too personally because I’m not. I agree with the basic gist of what you’re saying but you stated “…everything I have read before or since that gives a hint as to the aims of the perpetrators seems to me to point to them having an irrational desire to hurt the US. Period.” and that was what got me scratching my head and prompted my response. Since there have been plots on and against European soil how is it just a U.S. problem? No hard feelings, looks like you’re having enough trouble with one of your countrymen in the Coke thread.
Back to my response to Sparc, upon review I’d say overall my post above was almost done except for some spelling errors and a couple of rewrites for better turns of phrase. I suppose I could sum up my post above by saying that I don’t think most of the free world is seeing the forest for the trees and there is much talking past of each other. Even though the U.S. has been the primary target for the terrorists and Bush’s heavy-handedness has understandingly caused alienation, that doesn’t make the terrorism issue solely, or even primarily, a U.S. problem.
On the other hand, since most of the attacks have been against the U.S. there does seem to be an undercurrent thought process in some sectors here that the U.S. should have carte blanche to do what it deems necessary to end the terrorist threat. However I don’t think that the majority of Americans feel this way, just some of the most vocal ones, and unfortunately some of them are people in power.
I think another cause of the U.S. on its own syndrome Sparc talks about is ignorance on both the U.S. and the rest of the western world’s part on what is actually going on in these countries. I think that many Americans are under the impression (and apparently righteously) that many of our of the citizens in other countries feel that, as you said, the U.S. had it coming and that terrorists are now our problem. As I’m sure you can imagine this train of thought has caused some resentment. But I don’t think that our allies necessarily have a complete view of sentiment here in the U.S. in that many of them believe that the U.S. wants to go it alone if no one else is going to agree with us, which we don’t, just some of the more vocal ones I mentioned above. Seeing as how our invading another country would have a global impact (especially for a country with high oil production like Iraq) I can see how this misunderstanding of public opinion would tick people off.
Most likely a lot of the misunderstanding between the two groups comes from our leaders and media not having a full grasp of just what is going on. A recent poll suggests that Europeans and Americans are on the same page on many issues and specifically the war on terror with both groups feeling that the U.S. should get approval from the U.N. before any action is done and that Bush is doing a poor job with the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Although there are points of sharp divide, such as defense spending and opinion on America’s current foreign policy, overall it looks like Europe and America are closer in opinion than either side thinks. However if you listen to the media outlets we seem to be at each others throats and I wonder if our leaders aren’t being informed by them and in return the media outlets are feeding off of the leaders, creating a nice cycle with the end result being the public of the two sides being uninformed and proverbially at each other’s throats.
Hey now, even though I too despise Starbucks cheesy alternative coffee house franchise image (how can you be alternative when you’re a franchise?)they do have good coffee. And since all Starbucks carry the New York Times and there are more Starbucks than cockroaches I’m guaranteed to get a newspaper with more than a five page A section when I travel.
If you think Starbucks have good coffee, you sound like, well, like you need good cup of coffee:)
Give me $100 on US, in the third round, early.
Come get some!