foreign oppinions of the US

[reor]

I'm european and i have a very ambivalent impression of americans. I'd like to live in amerika for it's "bigger and better" attitude, like food or cars and the great weather and sites. Some parts like florida or california are very appealing, because it seems there are alot of beautiful people there.

But other parts seem either too ghetto-y or too hillbilly and narrow-minded. The US also seem abit "agressive" and military extrovert. On the other hand this "world police"-role may be good to damp the other side of the globe.

Damn, i suddenly feel so small and fragile!

 

And Bush seems like a complete idiot. The photos, the quotes... (How can anyone still question evolution after all this?)

"There was two major conflicts in Europe, World War I and World War II."

"We got to be wise about our energy policy. I happen to believe in nukyular power. I believe nukyular power -- I know nukyular power is renewable, and it protects the environment."

"I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place."

 

That's just my opinion, but i will give you more if you want.

[PhDP]

Wow. Posts like the above really make me cringe. Not because I'm an American, but because that kind of unsupported, ill-grounded "experience" is so prevalent in the world today.

 

It's certainly not ill-grounded, he asked us about our experience, what we see around us. I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but I also think the reaction against the United-States as a whole is completely out of proportion. Perhaps you misunderestimate how the perceptions of many people were changed by this administration. The image of the United-States was generally good and it has deteriorate at a very fast pace since Bush is in office, it's hard not to see that. Books mocking Bush are best-sellers, and many of "his" speeches ("the axis of evil") were played and ridiculed again and again in the media (while, ironically the expression was coined by a Canadian). Even the most conservatives parties don't support Bush openly, it was interesting to see the Conservative Party of Canada jumping on the first occasion to bash the American ambassador. And the left is appealing to voters by saying how bad the United-States are and how voting for the right will lead us to the same path. I've never witness anything like that before Bush, but now, the adjective "American" is now a word commonly used to discredit a policy.

 

Outside the United-States, we generally don't get many information about the positions of the Bush administration on specific policies, what we know is its stance on the environment, foreign policy, and, quite often, we're fed bits of information about the religious right and the mishaps of the administration. Where I live, for historical reasons, those are really sensible issues, and Bush is unpopular on those 3 issues.

[Dak]

Dak: As a matter of interest, where are you from (I mean originally). I am guessing you are French, right?

 

Nope, i'm originally from england. Why'd you think I was french, out of curiosity?

 

I suppose if we are judged by Rambo movies, we're in trouble although even these movies had their origin - the abysmal treatment by the left and the MSM of our own Vietnam veterans. I don't see where you get the "fat" idea from our movies. The image presented is thinner than the reality in any developed country.

 

I can't think of a single person on the floor of my office building who is obese. I already cited the World Health Organization statement that obesity is now a global problem. My guess is that many in the rest of the world want to believe Americans are obese because obesity is the last great acceptable prejudice. You would have to tell me the source of this irrational characterization.

 

Now, there's no point trying to logically debate these views with me 'cos 1/ i dont really hold them, and 2/ they're not logical

 

But anyway: the fat stereotype is merely a significantly overblown version of the truth. america has an obesity problem. america has large portions. ergo (so the stereotype goes), americans are fat. your attempts to portray yourselves as anorexically thin in your movies is merely an attempt to cover this up .

 

and to add to what phil said: bush really hasn't done you any favours. from his 'athiests arent american', to his ban on stem-cell research 'cos he's a religiouse zelot, to his 'lets invade the world' attetude, to his inability to speak, to any number of other things, these perseptions lead many to believe that he's a bit of a pillock, and the fact that you voted him into office kinda paints you in a bad light in the eyes of many.

[Pangloss]

I wouldn't have voted for Bush

 

Doesn't that pretty much indicate the true source of your judgement in this issue? The fact that you would never have voted for George Bush under any circumstances (since you didn't list any), is an obvious indicator that you were predisposed to judge anything that he did during his administration in a certain manner.

 

 

I've never witness anything like that before Bush

 

I have. It's almost exactly like the way conservatives treated Bill Clinton. Imagine that.

 

You'd think liberals would have learned a lesson from the impeachment. Instead they launched the ABB bandwagon and leapt head-first into the same sort of nonsense.

 

The problem isn't that people have issues with the Bush administration, Phil. The problem is when their issues are actually just thinly disguised categorical hatred of the Bush administration that is ideological and partisan in nature, not logical and reasoned.

 

 

Outside the United-States, we generally don't get many information about the positions of the Bush administration on specific policies, what we know is its stance on the environment, foreign policy, and, quite often, we're fed bits of information about the religious right and the mishaps of the administration. Where I live, for historical reasons, those are really sensible issues, and Bush is unpopular on those 3 issues.

 

First thing you've said that makes sense to me. Thanks for passing that along.

[PhDP]

Pangloss,

 

Doesn't that pretty much indicate the true source of your judgement in this issue? The fact that you would never have voted for George Bush under any circumstances (since you didn't list any)' date=' is an obvious indicator that you were predisposed to judge anything that he did during his administration in a certain manner.

 

The problem isn't that people have issues with the Bush administration, Phil. The problem is when their issues are actually just thinly disguised categorical hatred of the Bush administration that is ideological and partisan in nature, not logical and reasoned.[/quote']

 

It's unfair to discredit my experience just because I'm not a centrist. Anyway, it's not the issue, the topic is the perception of nonamericans of America. The fact that I'm a leftish have nothing to do with the lack of popularity of Bush in Canada and Quebec, nor the fact that it's now common to use "American" as pejorative when it comes to politics and economy. Even if I was a pro-Bush right-winger, I would have saw a big change in the perceptions of the US. I do not feel comfortable at all when a party is discrediting something because it "looks American", like it was the mark of the beast, but it's what's happening since Bush took office. I also share a lot of concerns about the direction the current administration in foreign policy/environment with my compatriots, and I think many of those concerns are reasoned, but I don't share the idea that what's American is bad or that hating bush is a valid or even relevant political stance. It's not because I talk about what's going on in my surrounding that I'm thinking the same thing,

 

I have. It's almost exactly like the way conservatives treated Bill Clinton. Imagine that.

 

I know how the American conversatives treated Clinton, but it has nothing to do with the topic. Under Clinton, the US were certainly a lot more popular than now, and I never saw a wave of conservatives in the world mocking aggressively Clinton and his administration, nor did many political parties won election by attacking Clinton. It has nothing to do with the democrats being perfect and the republicans being evil, but if you ask me about the impact of the Bush administration on the opinions on my compatriots, Bush is really doing everything to be hated. Modern Quebec is deeply rooted in secularism, pacifism and a recent poll shows were more concerned about the environment than the rest of Canada. Is it surprising that, around me, most people dislike Bush and his administration ?

 

There's an interesting article on the subject here

[Pangloss]

Pangloss' date='

It's unfair to discredit my experience just because I'm not a centrist.

[/quote']

 

I'm not discrediting your opinion, I'm disagreeing with it. And the comment I did make has nothing to do with whether or not you're a centrist. It was reflective of ideological partisanship versus objective judgement. There is a difference.

 

Saying that objective assessment is just another form of ideology called "centrism" is just another way of bringing everyone down to the level of partisan bickering and pointless demogoguery.

 

But I do thank you for your posts, they've been very educational (and I'm not being sarcastic). What I'm learning from this topic is that Europe is no different from America when it comes to being lead around by the nose, being politically correct, jumping on convenient bandwagons, and not questioning what they're told.

 

That's a shame, I'm sorry to hear it.

[Jim]

It's certainly not ill-grounded' date=' he asked us about our experience, what we see around us. I wouldn't have voted for Bush, but I also think the reaction against the United-States as a whole is completely out of proportion. Perhaps you [i']misunderestimate[/i] how the perceptions of many people were changed by this administration. The image of the United-States was generally good and it has deteriorate at a very fast pace since Bush is in office, it's hard not to see that. Books mocking Bush are best-sellers, and many of "his" speeches ("the axis of evil") were played and ridiculed again and again in the media (while, ironically the expression was coined by a Canadian). Even the most conservatives parties don't support Bush openly, it was interesting to see the Conservative Party of Canada jumping on the first occasion to bash the American ambassador. And the left is appealing to voters by saying how bad the United-States are and how voting for the right will lead us to the same path. I've never witness anything like that before Bush, but now, the adjective "American" is now a word commonly used to discredit a policy.

 

Outside the United-States, we generally don't get many information about the positions of the Bush administration on specific policies, what we know is its stance on the environment, foreign policy, and, quite often, we're fed bits of information about the religious right and the mishaps of the administration. Where I live, for historical reasons, those are really sensible issues, and Bush is unpopular on those 3 issues.

 

 

Tell me this: Who do they perceive is the victim of the Bush policy? Surely not the Iraqi people.

[PhDP]

But I do thank you for your posts, they've been very educational (and I'm not being sarcastic). What I'm learning from this topic is that Europe is no different from America when it comes to being lead around by the nose, being politically correct, jumping on convenient bandwagons, and not questioning what they're told.

 

I'm from Quebec, in theory it means I'm a Canadian, not European. But let's face it, except in a very few number of countries, like (I think) Poland and Israel, the United-States are as unpopular as ever. It's just that, here, the change in the perception of Quebeckers towards the US between the Clinton and the Bush era is simply astonishing.

 

Tell me this: Who do they perceive is the victim of the Bush policy? Surely not the Iraqi people.

 

For the environment, we're all victims, although other countries, like Canada, aren't doing much effort either, but we've signed and ratified Kyoto, so we can be even worse than you are and still criticize your stance. About the war in Iraq, you know why it's unpopular as much as I do.

[bascule]

For the environment, we're all victims, although other countries, like Canada, aren't doing much effort either, but we've signed and ratified Kyoto, so we can be even worse than you are and still criticize your stance.

 

Kyoto is a farce. It's anticipated to prevent an increase in global mean surface temperature which is less than the precision to which the global mean surface temperature can presently be measured, i.e. the temperature savings are undetectable by today's technology.

 

That's not to say that the Bush Administration's environmental policies have been anything but abominable, but seriously, Kyoto is a joke.

[Jim]

For the environment' date=' we're all victims, although other countries, like Canada, aren't doing much effort either, but we've signed and ratified Kyoto, so we can be even worse than you are and still criticize your stance. About the war in Iraq, you know why it's unpopular as much as I do.[/quote']

 

 

My mistake in asking generally about Bush's policies when I meant to limit this to Iraq policy. I understand why the policy might be unpopular to the people paying the price - Americans & Brits primarily. My question is why other countries get their knickers in the twist as if the US is victimizing someone with the war.

 

So, let me rephrase:

 

From a foreign perspective, please explain to me who is the victim of US Iraqi policy? The Iraqis?? Does anyone honestly think the Iraqis would be better off under Saddam, Uday & Qusay?

 

Please explain the mindset of foreign countries who act as if the US is victimizing someone with this war.

 

Anyone?

[Dak]

My mistake in asking generally about Bush's policies when I meant to limit this to Iraq policy. I understand why the policy might be unpopular to the people paying the price - Americans & Brits primarily. My question is why other countries get their knickers in the twist as if the US is victimizing someone with the war.

 

So' date=' let me rephrase:

 

From a foreign perspective, please explain to me who is the victim of US Iraqi policy? The Iraqis?? Does anyone honestly think the Iraqis would be better off under Saddam, Uday & Qusay?

 

Please explain the mindset of foreign countries who act as if the US is victimizing someone with this war.

 

Anyone?[/quote']

 

the main people who payed the price werent the us or the uk, but the iraqis. they were the ones who had to tolerate the brunt of the war; just compare us/uk vs iraqi casualties, damage to cities etc if you dont believe me.

 

many iraqis claim that it was better under saddam. sure, if saddam had been neatly removed from power it might be different, but -- so the argument goes -- the fact that much of their infrastructure was destroyed (intentionally targetted in the sieges), also resulting in high rates of unenployment, many of their civillians killed, and the govournment that replaced sadam nicer, yes, but also weaker and less able to protect the civillians from criminals and religiouse extremists, makes iraq worse now than it was under sadam.

 

that would tend to form a large part of foreign disaproval of the us/uk attack of iraq. the abscence of WMDs also plays a part.

[Jim]

the main people who payed the price werent the us or the uk' date=' but the iraqis. they were the ones who had to tolerate the brunt of the war; just compare us/uk vs iraqi casualties, damage to cities etc if you dont believe me.

 

many iraqis claim that it was better under saddam. sure, if saddam had been neatly removed from power it might be different, but -- so the argument goes -- the fact that much of their infrastructure was destroyed (intentionally targetted in the sieges), also resulting in high rates of unenployment, many of their civillians killed, and the govournment that replaced sadam nicer, yes, but also weaker and less able to protect the civillians from criminals and religiouse extremists, makes iraq worse now than it was under sadam.

 

that would tend to form a large part of foreign disaproval of the us/uk attack of iraq. the abscence of WMDs also plays a part.[/quote']

 

I know they suffered and I know some, particularly the Sunnis, may pine for the days of Saddam but my question is whether you really believe that on balance the Iraqis have been victimized to an extent which justifies the anger against US policies demonstrated by other countries. Even if you don't factor in the opportunity for liberty granted the Iraqi's, but judge this purely by the degree of terror with Saddam vrs the degree of danger from the current situation, I do not see how you can think that this equation is so lopsided that US policy deserves anger from the outside world.

 

Again, I can understand why US and British citizens have the standing to be outraged at the loss of their lives and capital; what I don't get at all is how the French, Germans and other such countries could possibly get up in arms by our taking Saddam down. Please note that polls both in 2004 and 2005 found the Iraqi's to be quite optimistic.

 

Interviewers found that 71% of those questioned said things were currently very or quite good in their personal lives, while 29% found their lives very or quite bad.

 

When asked whether their lives would improve in the coming year, 64% said things would be better and 12% said they expected things to be worse.

 

However, Iraqis appear to have a more negative view of the overall situation in their country, with 53% answering that the situation is bad, and 44% saying it is good.

 

But they were more hopeful for the future - 69% expect Iraq to improve, while 11% say it will worsen.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4514414.stm

 

So what that we didn't find WMDs. If these countries did not pay any price and if, on balance, we benefited the Iraqi's, I can see why they would think us foolish for spending our blood and capital but please explain the source of the outrage.

 

I'm not being combative here; I would genuinely like to understand the thinking.

[Severian]

Kyoto is a farce. It's anticipated to prevent an increase in global mean surface temperature which is less than the precision to which the global mean surface temperature can presently be measured, i.e. the temperature savings are undetectable by today's technology.

 

Are you implying that the US didn't sign up to Kyoto because they want more stringent measures to be taken?

[PhDP]

That's not to say that the Bush Administration's environmental policies have been anything but abominable, but seriously, Kyoto is a joke.

 

It's possible, but in term of foreign policy, it's not a popular move, especially in Europe. However I'm curious to know why you think Kyoto is a joke, can you back this up ? I consider myself an environmentalist, but somehow I'm always in disagreement with the major "green" groups because of their opposition to nuclear power, to GMOs and the kind of researches they're promoting... But for once I agree with them over Kyoto. You might have good reasons to disagree on the details of the protocol, but surely, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere can't be a bad idea.

 

I understand why the policy might be unpopular to the people paying the price - Americans & Brits primarily. My question is why other countries get their knickers in the twist as if the US is victimizing someone with the war. [...'] From a foreign perspective, please explain to me who is the victim of US Iraqi policy? The Iraqis?? Does anyone honestly think the Iraqis would be better off under Saddam, Uday & Qusay?

 

Declaring a war is a serious thing, what angered many Europeans and many other people around the world, is the idea of a preemptive stike against a country for no sufficient reason. You make it sounds like the Iraq war was between Iraq, the US and the UK, I think everyone on this planet ought to be concerned when a country is attacking another. It's not really about wether the Iraqis are better now than before, we were told Saddam was a treat, that he had WMDs and that Bush couldn't wait for the weapons inspectors to do their job, he didn't even seemed to care about resolution 1441. France, Germany, Canada aren't not "victims", but we can strongly disagree with the way America is acting with other countries. The French, in particular, were appalled by the reactions of the US against them, even if their stance was more moderate than Germany's stance on Iraq.

 

Also, like Pangloss said, the way Bush is expressing himself cannot constitute an argument against the policy of his administration. But politics has much to do with communication, when Bush is saying, essentially, that God is on his side, that the war is a crusade, or when he's speaking about the axis of "evil", he's undermining his chance of being taken seriously.

[Jim]

Declaring a war is a serious thing, what angered many Europeans and many other people around the world, is the idea of a preemptive stike against a country for no sufficient reason. You make it sounds like the Iraq war was between Iraq, the US and the UK, I think everyone on this planet ought to be concerned when a country is attacking another. It's not really about wether the Iraqis are better now than before[/b'], we were told Saddam was a treat, that he had WMDs and that Bush couldn't wait for the weapons inspectors to do their job, he didn't even seemed to care about resolution 1441. France, Germany, Canada aren't not "victims", but we can strongly disagree with the way America is acting with other countries. The French, in particular, were appalled by the reactions of the US against them, even if their stance was more moderate than Germany's stance on Iraq.

 

 

 

 

Your objection, then is procedural, not substantive? You do not disagree that this war benefited the Iraqi people but their well being is subordinate to the way in which the war was declared? You feel misled and because you weren't in control of events, "its not really about whether the Iraqis are better now than before?" I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but this seems to be the logical extension of what you are saying.

 

With respect to your procedural complaints, it is easy to build a good case that the US action was justified. While I believe this case is solid, I believe it is frivilous to say that the US did not at least have a good faith basis for acting.

 

You act as if this were a war against the Iraqi people instead of against an odious regime that had invaded a US ally, lost and then flouted the armistice agreement. Twelve years of procedures followed during which Saddam never came clean as to what happened to his WMDs. He could easily have produced irrebutable proof that he had destroyed his WMDs yet, for whatever reason, he simply chose not to comply.

 

You seem to think that Resolution 1441 (finding Iraq to be in material breach of its obligations under prior UN resolutions) passed in the Fall of 2002, depended on the existence of WMDs. This is not accurate. It was not the UN or US's job to establish that Saddam had WMDs. It was Saddam's burden to prove that he had fully disarmed.

 

I certainly never said war is not a serious matter. However, the US can be a stalwart ally once it determines its strategic interests are involved and in 2003 the time had come to determine whether the US was serious about making Saddam pay the price of the peace. Libya certainly was paying attention even if much of the West was asleep to what was at stake.

 

This constant fixation on WMDs is a smoke screen. The existence of WMDs at the exact time of the invasion was inherently a risky call. We were on the outside looking in and, with hindsight, now know that it was very possible to be mistaken. However, our good faith belief was evidenced by the fact that US troops carried suits into battle to protect themselves against chemical weapons. Again, as I said, the burden was on Saddam to come clean and the fact that he did not is additional evidence of his irrationality. This was after he had invaded a US ally, attempted to assassinate a former US president and paid the families of terrorists.

 

Iraq is better for the war. The world is safer without Saddam and with Libya deciding not to risk a continuation of its substantial WMD program. The objection that the US lacked procedural grounds for going to war is without merit.

 

All of which aside, to win this argument I don't have to prove that I'm right. I merely have to prove a good faith argument which should be enough between trusted and important allies. Instead of giving any benefit of the doubt, the reverse seems to be occurring.

 

 

Also, like Pangloss said, the way Bush is expressing himself cannot constitute an argument against the policy of his administration. But politics has much to do with communication, when Bush is saying, essentially, that God is on his side, that the war is a crusade, or when he's speaking about the axis of "evil", he's undermining his chance of being taken seriously.

 

Style is important and Bush is not the great communicator. However, I would hope that Europeans are sophisticated enough to judge us on substance.

 

FWIW, I don't recall Bush referring to the Iraq war as a "crusade." Europeans can't seriously be worried about invoking God. This is hardly the first time an American president told the country it would have the help of God in a time of war:

 

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

 

How about this one delivered at the conclusion of a military operation:

 

Good night and may God bless our wonderful United States of America.

 

Here's yet another American president, in a "theologically intense speech," shamelessly invoking God in a time of war:

 

Yet, if God wills that [war] continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

 

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

[Pangloss]

I'm curious to know why you think Kyoto is a joke' date=' can you back this up ?

[/quote']

 

You actually haven't encountered any explanations of the problems with Kyoto? Or you're just asking for his position on it? Surely someone so in touch with environmental issues is familiar with the shortcomings of Kyoto.

 

We can get you some background reading if you need. It's certainly been a frequently-discussed subject around here!

[Dak]

in line with the OP, im going to throw some stuff in -- seperated from my own views by being blue -- that represents the stereotypical oppinion of many people.

 

in other words, blue stuff isn't my views and isn't aimed at jim; its just an example of foreighn oppinion of the us.

 

I know they suffered and I know some, particularly the Sunnis, may pine for the days of Saddam but my question is whether you really believe that on balance the Iraqis have been victimized to an extent which justifies the anger against US policies demonstrated by other countries.

 

I believe it's possible. there's certainly evidence to suggest that things are worse now than they were before sadam was removed.

 

in line with the OP: what pisses some foreighners off is a percieved common oppinon amongst americans that no amount of badness inflicted on the iraqis could fail to be justified by the fact that they are now in possetion of the One True Form Of Govournance.

 

Even if you don't factor in the opportunity for liberty granted the Iraqi's, but judge this purely by the degree of terror with Saddam vrs the degree of danger from the current situation, I do not see how you can think that this equation is so lopsided that US policy deserves anger from the outside world.

 

US and UK. and again, possibly. which is better: to live and work in a relatively stable and moderately advaned (eg, has some modern infrastructure, like electricity, water, hospitals etc) country lead by a despot, or to live, unenployed, in a democratic country that is unstable, lacking in infrastructure and plagued by religiouse extremists and criminals that the govournment is too weak to supress.

 

now... for many people, in many areas of iraq the above is the case. for many others, in many other parts of iraq, the above is not the case. for me, the question is the extent of the unenployment, the lack-of-hospitals etc caused by bombing etc, and how easy/difficult it would have been to avoid the situation by waging the war differently/handling the revovery differently.

 

in addition, the UK (and i believe the US) sought permission from the UN to wage the war. permission was not granted, and the UK and US ignored this fact and attacked anyway.

 

Now, that in itself is a bit shitty. if you agree to accept the desisions of the UN, and ask for its permission to wage war, to then turn around and ignore their ruling and invade anyway, that's unquestionably bad in one way or another.

 

this probably accounts for the majority of the official disaproval from countries; the league of nations had problems with controling the larger countries military actions, which played a large part in the overall failure and breakdown of the organisation. i'd guess the UN doesnt particularly want to go the same way, BUT if it's larger voluntary members will not accept UN rulings, and the only ones that will are the smaller ones that can be forsed, then the UN will unavoidably become a tool for the larger countries to exert their will on the smaller ones.

 

Again, I can understand why US and British citizens have the standing to be outraged at the loss of their lives and capital;

 

compared to the loss of lives -- and countered by the securing of the oil supply -- i think the capitol loss is irrelevent.

 

as for loss of lives, approximately 40,000 non-military iraquis died in and following the war, whilst only 2,500 US/UK soldures died¹. as far as loss of life, the iraqis suffered greatest.

 

lots of americans think these 2,500 allied military deaths are more significant than the 40,000-odd police/civilian deaths; mouning your 'martyrs' for democracy, whilst overlooking the significant loss of civilian iraqi death caused by your 'democratic' war.

 

as a little commentary on the persieved skill of your troups -- america had under twice as many troups in iraq as the UK², but suffered about 25 times as many casualties¹ which is seen as a result of the trigger-happy, gun-ho and poorly trained state of your troops.

 

it is also suspected by many british that the majority of our military deaths are the result of american friendly fire, 'cos your soldures are crap. In truth, about a third/quater of british troups died in non-combat situations, and most of those were non-friendly-fire. friendly fire was a problem, but I couldnt find any info about US-inflicted v UK-inflicted friendly fire.

 

I would like to point out that when two of our challanger tanks mistook each other for enemies, resulting in the only loss of a british tank in the war and the death of three tank-crew, this was seen in UK as a harsh yet probably unavoidable incident. When a british fighter was downed by a us missile, this was seen as poorly trained american soldures being crap again, despite the fact that our only military deaths before that point in the war had come from two recent crashes of british helecopters whilst trying to land, killing the people on board (just under half of which were american).

 

So yeah, aren't stereotypes fun and completely grounded in logic and fact

So what that we didn't find WMDs.

 

tbh, i kinda agree with you. afaik, there was a (justified) war, and we refrained from conquering iraq under the condition that they allow weapon inspectors in -- they broke this agreement, so we re-commenced with the invasion. the lack of WMD is irrelevent.

 

the argument against WMD is somewhat more relevent agiainst the UK, because there are suggestions that Blair falsely over-represented the possibility of WMD in order to justify the war to the UK populance.

 

If these countries did not pay any price and if, on balance, we benefited the Iraqi's, I can see why they would think us foolish for spending our blood and capital but please explain the source of the outrage.

 

possibly because two large countries invaded a smaller country to get what they wanted, resulting in the loss of several thousands of civilian lives, in an age where we can realistically expect to avoid war and on a continent that is volotile and has already been the theater of two world wars, neither of which we wish to see repeated.

 

'cos their arrogant bullies who like to throw their weight around

[PhDP]

Jim,

 

My objections are both procedural and substantive. We all live on the same planet and all countries have to act responsively, I think the US government did not on the case of Iraq.

 

About the idea that you just need to prove "good faith", I don't agree. It's insufficient, you cannot just do anything and justify it by saying it was done in "good faith". The US and UK governments had the responsibility to do anything in their power to know if there was WMDs before invading Iraq. Not only they exaggerated the treat posed by Saddam, but they even refused to let the weapons inspector do their job. Was Saddam the most cooperative guy in the world, no, but what did you expect ? Anyway, he was cooperative enough for Blix to be optimistic about the outcome. And when the war began, he said there was probably no WMD in Iraq. The rest is history... Also, I don't know how we can put too much emphasis on WMDs and the link between Saddam and al qaeda, those were the reasons used by the administration to convince the american people.

 

You're right, the world is safer without Saddam, he was a treat, albeit a minor one, but I think this question is a diversion, the real issue is; is the world safer with the war in Iraq. I don't think so, Americans should be worry by the impact of the war on the image of the United-States in the middle-east. However, I'm not interested in a large scale debate about the war in Iraq, we've deviated from a topic about the opinions of nonamericans of american foreign policy to a debate about the rationale of the war in Iraq.

 

Style is important and Bush is not the great communicator. However, I would hope that Europeans are sophisticated enough to judge us on substance. FWIW, I don't recall Bush referring to the Iraq war as a "crusade." Europeans can't seriously be worried about invoking God. This is hardly the first time an American president told the country it would have the help of God in a time of war

 

Many people are worry about it (not just europeans). Personally, I don't think it's very important, but it does feel really strange. However, there's a very important distinction in the quotes you've given and what Bush said. It's something to say "god bless you", it's something else to look like you think you're Jeanne D'Arc.

 

About the "crusade" thing; http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/terrorism.htm

 

You actually haven't encountered any explanations of the problems with Kyoto? Or you're just asking for his position on it? Surely someone so in touch with environmental issues is familiar with the shortcomings of Kyoto.

 

I can see the impact of Kyoto on politics, but I don't know much details about Kyoto itself. The objective is noble, according to a study by italians reseachers, it's also cost-effective. But there's perhaps a better way.

[Severian]

Nope' date=' i'm originally from england. Why'd you think I was french, out of curiosity?

[/quote']

 

erm.... your spelling looks a little... French. (Sorry)

[Severian]

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!. Your a SICKO. I am not FAT.

 

No use denying it. We can see your piccy in your avatar, and the camera never lies...

[Dak]

erm.... your spelling looks a little... French. (Sorry)

 

I'm dyslexic. my spelling is retarded. any similarities to french are entirely coincidental