[quote] Tony Blair's days are numbered, he has not got the backing of the people that elected him (I being one of them) so therefore his actions are undemocratic. <hr></blockquote>
Who'll replace him/The Labour party? He has the backing of the majority of the party, both cabinet and backbenchers, and the official opposition (the Conservative party) are in no position to win the next general election (as well as being supportive wrt war in Iraq).
Unless something really bad, nay, catastrophic (and attributable to the government) happens Labour will probably win the next election.
<strong>Europe doesn't have an unhealthy fascination with the U.S. It's just not as isolated as the U.S. so they read newspapers that include the U.S. in the news.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you seriously going to try and tell me that the international section of European media coverage isn't dominated by the U.N.
Do you guys have million-person marches to protest tax hikes in Jakarta? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>And there is not a disproportionate amount of xenophobia in Europe, at least not relative to any other country in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Relative to the United States I would say it is disproportionate. You won't see anti-Europe/China/Mexico marches here that go million-strong.
You won't see semi-popular political parties run on anti-immigrant tickets. It's been a good half-century since we've seen that.
[quote]<strong>You will not be hated if you go to Europe even if you don't have an "I hate Bush" T-Shirt. You will most likely be hated anywhere if you acted like an arrogant bastard though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And my merely being American labels me in Europe as an arrogant bastard.
[quote]<strong>"Bush's mere existence" didn't give rise to anti-U.S. feelings. Bush's inappropriate behavior has given rise to an anti-Bush sentiment. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Even before he got elected?
What behavior?
[quote]<strong>If you're going to say that the anti-Bush sentiment began the day he took office and that's proof that they're all blindly biased, that's not true either. They knew his politics, and the history of death in Texas prisons, long before he took office.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fair, but it's also ignorant to assume that Bush started Texas' death penalty craze. It's wrong, as well.
[quote]<strong>Trial by jury has been replace with trial by military tribunal. Not the same. Has all trial by jury been eradicated? No. Has some of it been dismantled? Yes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How much of it?
Where?
Examples?
If you're going to start levying charges against my nation I'd appreciate a bit of backing.
[quote]<strong>Most would agree that "economic, diplomatic and military sanctions" are an attack on self-determination.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't speak for "most", speak for yourself. If your points are valid enough you don't need to fabricate supporters.
I don't see how that necessarily attacks self-determination.
[quote]<strong>Columbia should be able to grow as much cocaine as it wants, regardless of what the U.S. says. If the U.S. moves to change Columbian internal policy, then even you'll have to admit that the U.S. is attacking Columbian self-determination (in this example.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Columbia wants anything from the U.S. they will have to change. They like our help, do they not?
[quote]<strong>European media has become far better than the current state of U.S. media. Historically that might not have been the case, but a quick read of Irish & English papers gives a much better view of the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is such a joke I don't know how to even start addressing it. European media cannot hold a candle to American media, not even close. I've got quite a few European professors and colleagues that wouldn't be able to contest your argument they'd be laughing so hard.
European media is melodramatic, sensational and tabloidized.
There are some very very good outlets, but the majority is so agenda-driven it's not even worth paying attention to.
I can only read media in Spanish or English. I get my impressions of European media from European folks who work in media and American journalists who have worked overseas, managing editors of foreign papers and magazines.
The tabloid market in Europe is substantially bigger than that of the U.S. And the credibility given to the tabloids by the local population is incomparable.
I have the same concerns that you have. I can certainly offer no assurances that what you fear cannot happen. My understanding of open source material leads me to believe that what we both fear will not play out.
The U.S. is adamant in its intentions to destroy Iraq and dominate its landmass. WHY? Accomplishing this will place the U.S. in position to dictate terms to Syria, terms of an existential nature.
The day we arrive, the Iraqi oil for Syria will be under our control. Syria cannot survive as a military power without it. We will also have a military force dug in on their border that can roll over them, and we have the will to do it.
One can see that the Iranian theocrats are becoming increasingly shrill and provocative. They rightly fear their own people, and rightly believe that the U.S. and Britain will destabilize their regime, in my humble opinion. Syria and Iran clearly understand the thinly veiled threat to them that the U.S. occupation of Iraq represents.
We will be pulling out of Saudi Arabia after the Iraq action. The logic of the Saudi situation will change. The U.S. will treat Iraqi oil in three ways: a commodity, a weapon, and a benefit for the Iraqi people. It is easy to see that the greatest potential resulting from the Iraq action is to dominate the Muslim fascist states. I do not understand why we would spend this treasure in order to abandon Israel. There is absolutely no profit to be made from attacking Iraq other than political and existential.
We want the terrorism to stop to ensure our own safety, of course. But stopping it entails a long campaign that will be directed against the aggressive Muslim states.
As I see it, this sort of military action also holds the key to a safe future for all the Middle East peoples. In this sense, we hope initiating the Iraqi action, to provide the safety and progress which is necessary in the Middle East to create a positive future, and make ourselves safe as well.
I believe, from statements President Bush and others have made, that they clearly see the logic of the war. Briefly stated: Israel wants peace and secure borders, and the Arabs in power want the destruction of Israel. As president Bush has indicated, the only opportunity to resolve this lays in a transformation of Arab policies, not Israel's. In particular, the U.S. refuses to deal with any ?Palestinian? entity that is not peaceful and democratic.
He has also articulated a U.S. goal of a peaceful and democratic ?Palestinian? entity by 2005, which leads to a mutually agreeable solution to the war with Israel. By my way of thinking, 2005 is the target date for the political/military defeat of the Islamic totalitarian states of the Mid East.
Basically, the U.S. position is that the only foreseeable solution to the U.S. problems which 9/11 crystallized, is the military defeat of the Islamic totalitarian regimes. This would include the resolution of the war against Israel on the basis of Israel?s need for defensible and peaceful borders.
This is the way I read it. I also believe that the future is fraught with danger and the events I portend are not assured. Both our nations are engaged in a desperate war which we cannot avoid and which promises to overthrow the political arrangements of the past and present.
Finally, I believe the U.S. will not abandon Israel because the U.S. cannot, for its own safety, allow such a friend as Israel to be harmed. There are too many potential forces arrayed against us to do anything cynical or tricky. We are now in the trenches. In about a month, we shall see, huh?
[quote] Just before the peace march, my youngest daughter had a birthday party. One of the mums there told me that she came from Iraq. ?Will you be marching tomorrow?? I asked. She looked cross. ?No,? she said. ?And I don?t think you will find many other Iraqis marching. We hate Saddam. We want George Bush to remove him, the sooner the better.? ?But Nadia,? I said, ?surely, two wrongs don?t make a right.? ?Perhaps,? she replied. ?But, whenever I talk to a peace protestor, I ask what else I should do to free my country from a horrible dictator. They never seem to have a useful answer.?
<hr></blockquote>
I dont want war, but then I dont live under Saddam's rule...... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Well, I haven't chimed in yet. No need to let the thread die.
First, I am happy to live in a country where we are allowed to criticize our government. Thank God for that.
Second, I disagree with the message of the protests. I support action at this point.
Third, despite the hundreds of thousands across the U.S. and Europe demonstrating, the American public still overwhemlmingly supports action. This has been so since Powell presented his case.
Fourth,I agree with those here who say that often, these things are more like social events for people rather than actual causes. Perhaps not for all.
Fifth, Tony Blair has one hell of a lot of balls. He has a 34% approval rating and he's out every day supporting a war. I always looked at him as a sort of political opportunist, but I have to give the man credit here.
Now, on to what bothers me. There are basically four types of thinking on war:
1) Those who support war as a primary option to solve conflict. (hawks)
2) Those who support war when there is a reasonable case to made that it is, in reality, really the only option.
3) Those who oopose war under most circumstances. They would not support war unless we were attacked/invaded. They will negotiate until finally convinced otherwise that war is the only option.
4) Those who oppose war under all circumstances. "War is never the answer" (doves)
I fall into the middle-upper part of #2. I believe force is a valuable and essential component of foreign policy. It shouldn't be over-used, but when it is, it should be used swiftly and blindingly.
What bothers me is this: I saw these interviews with two protesters in Philadelphia.
Reporter: "Do you think Saddam has WOMD?"
First person: "Probably"
Reporter: "Shouldn't we do something about it then?" (paraphrased...not that leading)
First Person: "Well, so what if he does?....That doesn't mean we should have a war"
Next up: A nice looking redheaded twenty-something girl:
Reporter: "Why are you here today?"
Second Person:"To oppose the war.....war is never the answer and it is never necessary under any circumstances"
I just don't get this kind of thinking. It's irresponsible. Oppose the war, fine. But do so because you think there is another valid option.
[quote] And my merely being American labels me in Europe as an arrogant bastard. <hr></blockquote>
Please tell me your kidding with this shit.
[quote] Third, despite the hundreds of thousands across the U.S. and Europe demonstrating, the American public still overwhemlmingly supports action. This has been so since Powell presented his case. <hr></blockquote>
Can you give some numbers. The polls I've seen didn't indicate that at all.
So many valid opinions what a great board. We all know there is no bleached white shining right answer to the problems of the world today. What does one though, I agree with the other people in here that think opposing any kind of war is just irresponsible. A preemptive strike in this case could save lives I think, and its strange that people don't realize this. Another thing with all those people who think of Bush through what they read in the headlines, me coming from west texas, where he is from have met him in person as a young child, I am told I went easter egg hunting with his daughters in church but that I cant affirm because I was so little. The fact of the matter is he's a human being and its just so strange that the all the violent peace lovers identify him as an idiot, imagine the pressure from being a president that has to recover a nation that was as violent as pearl harbor? I can't think of another president that had to cope with as much, the world trade center, pentagon, anthrax attacks, and the shuttle disaster.
Though I feel I indentfiy myself with more liberal beliefs than most, I do respect him all that he is doing for aids research, and bringing our economy off of fossil fuels.
And the fact about containing and sanctions? they aren't working, and they hardly do. Sanctions would only work if they are used against a big nation, not one that is small and self sustaining. Look at pre-WW2 germany did it work then?
To say that Europe didn't like us before and just hates us even more now is in reality a stupid argument. It's completely baseless and devoid of any truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think it is a pretty reasonable statement. I know many Europeans that didn't like the US. Actually, most of my European friends have always had demeaning remarks for Americans in general. Usually comments about them being stupid and ignorant of the rest of the world, arrogant in their 'superiority', etc, etc. I have heard these comments for many, many years. I am originally from the Carribean, and i must say, that visiting there as a child, I remember other kids down there saying I was some stupid yankee. (of course I argued "no, I am Canadian"). I have a few Serbian friends, one of whom cheered when he watched footage of 9/11, since he felt they deserved it for bombing Yugo (under Clinton). A polish lady I know told me once that when her family was deciding where to move to when they left Poland, the US was not on the list, not because she hated America, but she didn't want to live with a bunch of ignorant cowboys.
These feelings have been around for many, many years. The reasons are numerous, from resentment of your wealth, spread of Americana across the globe, perceived lack or culture, perceived arrogance in your rightness and might and many other reasons. But mainly, the feelings were not outright hatred and often there were only fairly light-hearted jabs about your gun-craze or hillbilly personas. Recent outpouring of anger towards the US seems like a fuse has been lit on a powder keg that was already builting up.
Anyway, anti-us feelings are not new, they are just much more vocal and pronounced.
There's an increasing understanding (based on actually reading US policy documents and governmental think-tank reports) that wherever global opinion -- or in fact, ANYTHING, diverts from "American interests" then those interests will come first even at the cost of international consensus, diplomacy and compromise. And that "American interests" is a phrase increasingly interchangeable with "Pax Americana." At this point, I get accused of hysterical use of over-emotional language.
Unfortunately, "Pax Americana" is a central plank of the policy document, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defenses</a> which is the "cornerstone of Bush's foreign policy" and was written by six members of the US administration. It says that at times, other countries self-determination will be curtailed where it conflicts with US interests, and that this will be enforced by economic, diplomatic and military sanctions for those that disagree -- and this includes Europe.
Again, I'll get accused of hysteria. But read the damn document. I'm not making it up, and I'm not being conspiracy minded, nor provocative. ALL countries right to self-determination goes as far as conflict with "American interests."
People ask, "Why are Europe getting so uppity?" and the answer is, "Because we can see that rather then work WITH us and curtail your ambitions, and curtail the reach of the Pax Americana, the time will come when you will just declare us "irrelevant" and attempt to run the world.
Oh, hold on a minute ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Europe is known for always acting in the best interests of other nations, forsaking their own interests? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> And the US is wrong for acting for their own interests?
And my merely being American labels me in Europe as an arrogant bastard.
Please tell me your kidding with this shit. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I known years ago, when my friends and I were considering backpacking through Europe, one of the common peices of advice was "don't have anything on you that would make people think you are American. Put Canadian flags on your packs and jackets. You want to make sure you aren't mistaken for an American, everyone there thinks Americans are arrogant." This was 10-12 years ago and I heard it from teachers, relatives and friends, both European and Canadians who had been to Europe. They words were varied, but the message was always the same. But, I guess they were all making it up...there wasn't any anti-US sentiment back then.
I known years ago, when my friends and I were considering backpacking through Europe, one of the common peices of advice was "don't have anything on you that would make people think you are American. Put Canadian flags on your packs and jackets. You want to make sure you aren't mistaken for an American, everyone there thinks Americans are arrogant." This was 10-12 years ago and I heard it from teachers, relatives and friends, both European and Canadians who had been to Europe. They words were varied, but the message was always the same. But, I guess they were all making it up...there wasn't any anti-US sentiment back then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just stereotypes of people seing US via the Cow-boy moovies and never bring their ass there (or where blind by their stereotypes). And stereotypes are ridiculous and illogical : if US people are arrogants and have no culture, how can they be the first power of the world ?. A quick analysis destroy this kind of stereotype.
But you should have add in this listing of stereotypes, that US people are franck, courageous and sympathic. Replying to stereotypes is annoying, but you have to do it in the better way, to not promote it.
If something bring up a stereotype, better him demonstrate that you are the reverse (for the bad things) of the stereotypes, rather than saying to him to go to hell. It will not change generally change his stereotype, but he will think that at least he knows one people who is great. And if he knows several people like this , he will discover that like every countrie there is fine people and a huge DIVERSITY.
Like everyone, i have stereotypes on every subject, stereotypes that disapear if i try to know more the subject : that's why it's so important to meet differents peoples from differents jobs and differents countries and listen to what they have to say.
Totally agree with you Powerdoc. I was only relating my experiences to show that anti-US sentiment in Europe isn't new. Negative stereotypes are new. Negative feelings toward US aren't new. Stereotypes should be resisted. But, they do exist and have existed for a long, long time.
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
This is just stereotypes of people seing US via the Cow-boy moovies and never bring their ass there (or where blind by their stereotypes). And stereotypes are ridiculous and illogical : if US people are arrogants and have no culture, how can they be the first power of the world ?. A quick analysis destroy this kind of stereotype.
But you should have add in this listing of stereotypes, that US people are franck, courageous and sympathic. Replying to stereotypes is annoying, but you have to do it in the better way, to not promote it.
If something bring up a stereotype, better him demonstrate that you are the reverse (for the bad things) of the stereotypes, rather than saying to him to go to hell. It will not change generally change his stereotype, but he will think that at least he knows one people who is great. And if he knows several people like this , he will discover that like every countrie there is fine people and a huge DIVERSITY.
Like everyone, i have stereotypes on every subject, stereotypes that disapear if i try to know more the subject : that's why it's so important to meet differents peoples from differents jobs and differents countries and listen to what they have to say.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
Who'll replace him/The Labour party? He has the backing of the majority of the party, both cabinet and backbenchers, and the official opposition (the Conservative party) are in no position to win the next general election (as well as being supportive wrt war in Iraq).
Unless something really bad, nay, catastrophic (and attributable to the government) happens Labour will probably win the next election.
<strong>Whose ass would you rather kiss: Germany's or America's?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If we keep this up, we'll all be united in kissing China man ass pretty soon..
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>Europe doesn't have an unhealthy fascination with the U.S. It's just not as isolated as the U.S. so they read newspapers that include the U.S. in the news.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you seriously going to try and tell me that the international section of European media coverage isn't dominated by the U.N.
Do you guys have million-person marches to protest tax hikes in Jakarta? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>And there is not a disproportionate amount of xenophobia in Europe, at least not relative to any other country in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Relative to the United States I would say it is disproportionate. You won't see anti-Europe/China/Mexico marches here that go million-strong.
You won't see semi-popular political parties run on anti-immigrant tickets. It's been a good half-century since we've seen that.
[quote]<strong>You will not be hated if you go to Europe even if you don't have an "I hate Bush" T-Shirt. You will most likely be hated anywhere if you acted like an arrogant bastard though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And my merely being American labels me in Europe as an arrogant bastard.
[quote]<strong>"Bush's mere existence" didn't give rise to anti-U.S. feelings. Bush's inappropriate behavior has given rise to an anti-Bush sentiment. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Even before he got elected?
What behavior?
[quote]<strong>If you're going to say that the anti-Bush sentiment began the day he took office and that's proof that they're all blindly biased, that's not true either. They knew his politics, and the history of death in Texas prisons, long before he took office.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fair, but it's also ignorant to assume that Bush started Texas' death penalty craze. It's wrong, as well.
[quote]<strong>Trial by jury has been replace with trial by military tribunal. Not the same. Has all trial by jury been eradicated? No. Has some of it been dismantled? Yes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How much of it?
Where?
Examples?
If you're going to start levying charges against my nation I'd appreciate a bit of backing.
[quote]<strong>Most would agree that "economic, diplomatic and military sanctions" are an attack on self-determination.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't speak for "most", speak for yourself. If your points are valid enough you don't need to fabricate supporters.
I don't see how that necessarily attacks self-determination.
[quote]<strong>Columbia should be able to grow as much cocaine as it wants, regardless of what the U.S. says. If the U.S. moves to change Columbian internal policy, then even you'll have to admit that the U.S. is attacking Columbian self-determination (in this example.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Columbia wants anything from the U.S. they will have to change. They like our help, do they not?
[quote]<strong>European media has become far better than the current state of U.S. media. Historically that might not have been the case, but a quick read of Irish & English papers gives a much better view of the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is such a joke I don't know how to even start addressing it. European media cannot hold a candle to American media, not even close. I've got quite a few European professors and colleagues that wouldn't be able to contest your argument they'd be laughing so hard.
European media is melodramatic, sensational and tabloidized.
There are some very very good outlets, but the majority is so agenda-driven it's not even worth paying attention to.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
True, but why the press discribed Bush this way?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For quite spurious pretexts in my opinion, regardless of his politics, he's not that bad and he pausitively embiggened the British language.
I´ll bet that the only one you know of those I use is bbc.
<a href="http://www.faz.net/s/homepage.html"; target="_blank">Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung</a>
<a href="http://www.information.dk"; target="_blank">Information</a>
<a href="http://www.weekendavisen.dk"; target="_blank">Weekend avisen</a>
<a href="http://www.dr.dk"; target="_blank">Danish Broadcasting Coorporation</a>
<a href="http://www.politiken.dk"; target="_blank">Politiken</a>
So you know the in and outs of the collective european medias
The share of bad tabloid news sources are probably equally shared on both sides of the water.
The tabloid market in Europe is substantially bigger than that of the U.S. And the credibility given to the tabloids by the local population is incomparable.
2) To link it to the subject of this thread: Those going to the streets saturday was not tabloid readers.
I have the same concerns that you have. I can certainly offer no assurances that what you fear cannot happen. My understanding of open source material leads me to believe that what we both fear will not play out.
The U.S. is adamant in its intentions to destroy Iraq and dominate its landmass. WHY? Accomplishing this will place the U.S. in position to dictate terms to Syria, terms of an existential nature.
The day we arrive, the Iraqi oil for Syria will be under our control. Syria cannot survive as a military power without it. We will also have a military force dug in on their border that can roll over them, and we have the will to do it.
One can see that the Iranian theocrats are becoming increasingly shrill and provocative. They rightly fear their own people, and rightly believe that the U.S. and Britain will destabilize their regime, in my humble opinion. Syria and Iran clearly understand the thinly veiled threat to them that the U.S. occupation of Iraq represents.
We will be pulling out of Saudi Arabia after the Iraq action. The logic of the Saudi situation will change. The U.S. will treat Iraqi oil in three ways: a commodity, a weapon, and a benefit for the Iraqi people. It is easy to see that the greatest potential resulting from the Iraq action is to dominate the Muslim fascist states. I do not understand why we would spend this treasure in order to abandon Israel. There is absolutely no profit to be made from attacking Iraq other than political and existential.
We want the terrorism to stop to ensure our own safety, of course. But stopping it entails a long campaign that will be directed against the aggressive Muslim states.
As I see it, this sort of military action also holds the key to a safe future for all the Middle East peoples. In this sense, we hope initiating the Iraqi action, to provide the safety and progress which is necessary in the Middle East to create a positive future, and make ourselves safe as well.
I believe, from statements President Bush and others have made, that they clearly see the logic of the war. Briefly stated: Israel wants peace and secure borders, and the Arabs in power want the destruction of Israel. As president Bush has indicated, the only opportunity to resolve this lays in a transformation of Arab policies, not Israel's. In particular, the U.S. refuses to deal with any ?Palestinian? entity that is not peaceful and democratic.
He has also articulated a U.S. goal of a peaceful and democratic ?Palestinian? entity by 2005, which leads to a mutually agreeable solution to the war with Israel. By my way of thinking, 2005 is the target date for the political/military defeat of the Islamic totalitarian states of the Mid East.
Basically, the U.S. position is that the only foreseeable solution to the U.S. problems which 9/11 crystallized, is the military defeat of the Islamic totalitarian regimes. This would include the resolution of the war against Israel on the basis of Israel?s need for defensible and peaceful borders.
This is the way I read it. I also believe that the future is fraught with danger and the events I portend are not assured. Both our nations are engaged in a desperate war which we cannot avoid and which promises to overthrow the political arrangements of the past and present.
Finally, I believe the U.S. will not abandon Israel because the U.S. cannot, for its own safety, allow such a friend as Israel to be harmed. There are too many potential forces arrayed against us to do anything cynical or tricky. We are now in the trenches. In about a month, we shall see, huh?
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
[quote] Just before the peace march, my youngest daughter had a birthday party. One of the mums there told me that she came from Iraq. ?Will you be marching tomorrow?? I asked. She looked cross. ?No,? she said. ?And I don?t think you will find many other Iraqis marching. We hate Saddam. We want George Bush to remove him, the sooner the better.? ?But Nadia,? I said, ?surely, two wrongs don?t make a right.? ?Perhaps,? she replied. ?But, whenever I talk to a peace protestor, I ask what else I should do to free my country from a horrible dictator. They never seem to have a useful answer.?
<hr></blockquote>
I dont want war, but then I dont live under Saddam's rule...... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
First, I am happy to live in a country where we are allowed to criticize our government. Thank God for that.
Second, I disagree with the message of the protests. I support action at this point.
Third, despite the hundreds of thousands across the U.S. and Europe demonstrating, the American public still overwhemlmingly supports action. This has been so since Powell presented his case.
Fourth,I agree with those here who say that often, these things are more like social events for people rather than actual causes. Perhaps not for all.
Fifth, Tony Blair has one hell of a lot of balls. He has a 34% approval rating and he's out every day supporting a war. I always looked at him as a sort of political opportunist, but I have to give the man credit here.
Now, on to what bothers me. There are basically four types of thinking on war:
1) Those who support war as a primary option to solve conflict. (hawks)
2) Those who support war when there is a reasonable case to made that it is, in reality, really the only option.
3) Those who oopose war under most circumstances. They would not support war unless we were attacked/invaded. They will negotiate until finally convinced otherwise that war is the only option.
4) Those who oppose war under all circumstances. "War is never the answer" (doves)
I fall into the middle-upper part of #2. I believe force is a valuable and essential component of foreign policy. It shouldn't be over-used, but when it is, it should be used swiftly and blindingly.
What bothers me is this: I saw these interviews with two protesters in Philadelphia.
Reporter: "Do you think Saddam has WOMD?"
First person: "Probably"
Reporter: "Shouldn't we do something about it then?" (paraphrased...not that leading)
First Person: "Well, so what if he does?....That doesn't mean we should have a war"
Next up: A nice looking redheaded twenty-something girl:
Reporter: "Why are you here today?"
Second Person:"To oppose the war.....war is never the answer and it is never necessary under any circumstances"
I just don't get this kind of thinking. It's irresponsible. Oppose the war, fine. But do so because you think there is another valid option.
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Please tell me your kidding with this shit.
[quote] Third, despite the hundreds of thousands across the U.S. and Europe demonstrating, the American public still overwhemlmingly supports action. This has been so since Powell presented his case. <hr></blockquote>
Can you give some numbers. The polls I've seen didn't indicate that at all.
Though I feel I indentfiy myself with more liberal beliefs than most, I do respect him all that he is doing for aids research, and bringing our economy off of fossil fuels.
And the fact about containing and sanctions? they aren't working, and they hardly do. Sanctions would only work if they are used against a big nation, not one that is small and self sustaining. Look at pre-WW2 germany did it work then?
We all have to learn from our mistakes.
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>
groverat,
Your generalizations are just wrong. I'm sorry.
<strong>Please tell me your kidding with this shit. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think he is, and that's one of the main reasons he's wrong.
<strong>
To say that Europe didn't like us before and just hates us even more now is in reality a stupid argument. It's completely baseless and devoid of any truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think it is a pretty reasonable statement. I know many Europeans that didn't like the US. Actually, most of my European friends have always had demeaning remarks for Americans in general. Usually comments about them being stupid and ignorant of the rest of the world, arrogant in their 'superiority', etc, etc. I have heard these comments for many, many years. I am originally from the Carribean, and i must say, that visiting there as a child, I remember other kids down there saying I was some stupid yankee. (of course I argued "no, I am Canadian"). I have a few Serbian friends, one of whom cheered when he watched footage of 9/11, since he felt they deserved it for bombing Yugo (under Clinton). A polish lady I know told me once that when her family was deciding where to move to when they left Poland, the US was not on the list, not because she hated America, but she didn't want to live with a bunch of ignorant cowboys.
These feelings have been around for many, many years. The reasons are numerous, from resentment of your wealth, spread of Americana across the globe, perceived lack or culture, perceived arrogance in your rightness and might and many other reasons. But mainly, the feelings were not outright hatred and often there were only fairly light-hearted jabs about your gun-craze or hillbilly personas. Recent outpouring of anger towards the US seems like a fuse has been lit on a powder keg that was already builting up.
Anyway, anti-us feelings are not new, they are just much more vocal and pronounced.
<strong>
There's an increasing understanding (based on actually reading US policy documents and governmental think-tank reports) that wherever global opinion -- or in fact, ANYTHING, diverts from "American interests" then those interests will come first even at the cost of international consensus, diplomacy and compromise. And that "American interests" is a phrase increasingly interchangeable with "Pax Americana." At this point, I get accused of hysterical use of over-emotional language.
Unfortunately, "Pax Americana" is a central plank of the policy document, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defenses</a> which is the "cornerstone of Bush's foreign policy" and was written by six members of the US administration. It says that at times, other countries self-determination will be curtailed where it conflicts with US interests, and that this will be enforced by economic, diplomatic and military sanctions for those that disagree -- and this includes Europe.
Again, I'll get accused of hysteria. But read the damn document. I'm not making it up, and I'm not being conspiracy minded, nor provocative. ALL countries right to self-determination goes as far as conflict with "American interests."
People ask, "Why are Europe getting so uppity?" and the answer is, "Because we can see that rather then work WITH us and curtail your ambitions, and curtail the reach of the Pax Americana, the time will come when you will just declare us "irrelevant" and attempt to run the world.
Oh, hold on a minute ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Europe is known for always acting in the best interests of other nations, forsaking their own interests? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> And the US is wrong for acting for their own interests?
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>
And my merely being American labels me in Europe as an arrogant bastard.
Please tell me your kidding with this shit. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I known years ago, when my friends and I were considering backpacking through Europe, one of the common peices of advice was "don't have anything on you that would make people think you are American. Put Canadian flags on your packs and jackets. You want to make sure you aren't mistaken for an American, everyone there thinks Americans are arrogant." This was 10-12 years ago and I heard it from teachers, relatives and friends, both European and Canadians who had been to Europe. They words were varied, but the message was always the same. But, I guess they were all making it up...there wasn't any anti-US sentiment back then.
<strong>
I known years ago, when my friends and I were considering backpacking through Europe, one of the common peices of advice was "don't have anything on you that would make people think you are American. Put Canadian flags on your packs and jackets. You want to make sure you aren't mistaken for an American, everyone there thinks Americans are arrogant." This was 10-12 years ago and I heard it from teachers, relatives and friends, both European and Canadians who had been to Europe. They words were varied, but the message was always the same. But, I guess they were all making it up...there wasn't any anti-US sentiment back then.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just stereotypes of people seing US via the Cow-boy moovies and never bring their ass there (or where blind by their stereotypes). And stereotypes are ridiculous and illogical : if US people are arrogants and have no culture, how can they be the first power of the world ?. A quick analysis destroy this kind of stereotype.
But you should have add in this listing of stereotypes, that US people are franck, courageous and sympathic. Replying to stereotypes is annoying, but you have to do it in the better way, to not promote it.
If something bring up a stereotype, better him demonstrate that you are the reverse (for the bad things) of the stereotypes, rather than saying to him to go to hell. It will not change generally change his stereotype, but he will think that at least he knows one people who is great. And if he knows several people like this , he will discover that like every countrie there is fine people and a huge DIVERSITY.
Like everyone, i have stereotypes on every subject, stereotypes that disapear if i try to know more the subject : that's why it's so important to meet differents peoples from differents jobs and differents countries and listen to what they have to say.
[quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:
<strong>
This is just stereotypes of people seing US via the Cow-boy moovies and never bring their ass there (or where blind by their stereotypes). And stereotypes are ridiculous and illogical : if US people are arrogants and have no culture, how can they be the first power of the world ?. A quick analysis destroy this kind of stereotype.
But you should have add in this listing of stereotypes, that US people are franck, courageous and sympathic. Replying to stereotypes is annoying, but you have to do it in the better way, to not promote it.
If something bring up a stereotype, better him demonstrate that you are the reverse (for the bad things) of the stereotypes, rather than saying to him to go to hell. It will not change generally change his stereotype, but he will think that at least he knows one people who is great. And if he knows several people like this , he will discover that like every countrie there is fine people and a huge DIVERSITY.
Like everyone, i have stereotypes on every subject, stereotypes that disapear if i try to know more the subject : that's why it's so important to meet differents peoples from differents jobs and differents countries and listen to what they have to say.</strong><hr></blockquote>