Recent Study showing GB and America popularity dropping!

[PeachMonkey]

I would hardly consider the UN (my analogous neigborhood watch) in "collusion" with the terrorists.

Nor would anyone else outside of Ann Coulter-Goebbels and her heel-snapping band of fellow propagandists.

Now, WHY are we the guarantors of safety?

You might as effectively ask HOW are we the guarantors of safety? In the post-Cold War period, our effectiveness in this role has been substandard. In fact, other than deterring the Soviet Union itself, our effectiveness in that role during the Cold War was pretty bad.

We were, however, awesome at illegally invading Panama, conquering Grenada, and planting brutal, genocidal regimes through revolution throughout Central and South America and Asia. U-S-A!

 

[Tgace]

It wouldn't have even been appropriate for anyone else to act against the Taliban after 9-11.

The United States was the country that was attacked; NATO invoked the mutual defense clause. The US chose to act against the Taliban because they were harboring terrorists that attacked the US, and various NATO members chose to assist.

Should China settle our military disputes for us?

The question was more rhetorical than factual. For all the "support" no other nation gives a rats *** when it comes down to it. Much like when your neighbor says "gee thats too bad anything I can do for you" when you have a tragedy.When inside the major emotion is "glad that didnt happen to me". Nothing intentional, its just the way it is.

 

[PeachMonkey]

The question was more rhetorical than factual. For all the "support" no other nation gives a rats *** when it comes down to it.

I'm just not sure where you came up with that idea. European pilots flew radar warning patrols over the United States while our AWACS were engaged in combat. Canadian, German, French, Turkish, English, and other NATO forces have died in and continue to serve in Afghanistan as part of the continuing response to 9/11.

If you percieve less concern at the current point, I would imagine that's a response to the US' heavy-handed, unilateral, devil-may-care behavior since that time... it tends to dilute any support and sympathy people provide.

 

[Blind]

TGace
I have heard this before, I wouldn't say people don't give a rats *** but you may be right when speaking of the politicians. When France made a terrorist bombing in 1985 in New Zealand America said and did nothing. If you want to look it up type in Rainbow warrior bombing on Google.(of course France bombed a nuclear testing protest ship-so you may think it was a legitimate target-except that we weren't at war) I am not saying that America necessarily should have done anything, but it seems that it decides that the time to act on terroism is only after terrorism has been committed in it's own country(and by another, it didn't bomb itself after Oklahoma). For the record Powell stated New Zealand did punch above its weight in the war in Afghanistan....so here we have a case of NZ sending its people into harms way for an act committed against America when America had not done so for us, I am glad we did...it just smarts a bit hearing the line we are the only ones doing anything and no one else would have, I hope you are not one of the Americans who thinks it was America that single handedly won WW2.

Bringing me to my point, for the most part the politicians act in the way they think will keep them most popular while not completely sinking their country. Why Bush went into Iraq is still beyond me, I wouldn't be surprised if partly it was because Saddam tried to kill his dad.

Hunting down and ferreting out all these terrorist cells is, I believe, a worthwhile thing. However this war in Iraq is illegal (and perhaps worse seemingly mostly inneffective), ie the grounds cited to start it were that it was a threat to America. Then it kinda changed to we the American people are providing a humanitarian service and liberating the people of Iraq from the cruel Saddam in tandem with the fact that terrorists may be gaining support there. I still say it is rubbish, most of the terrorists on the attack were Saudi, and while the war may have killed a few potential terrorists for the most part it has been a waste of life, certainly a waste of Americas money and to a much lesser degree a waste of all the countries money that participated. I have very little doubt that with the warning America gave Saddam as many terrorists as were able left the country. Since then thousands have been killed and I wonder how many were actually part of the Taliban.

I personally admire men who have to go to war and accomplish what they do, what I will not admire is the reason that America placed them there. There are a few people getting rich off this war (a big point IMO)and when it is over and America has left, most likely leaving the country in a position where peace keepers are required if recent conflicts are anything to go by(I have friends in Canada and NZ who still doing that job in a few places), there will have been thousands of deaths, millions spent, the threat of terrorism will still be there, and the guys who own stock in all the weapons companies in America will be a lot better off. Who is America to go into a country on a humans rights mission anyway? Where will it stop? This line of thinking heads towards freedom and liberty for all(fine print: who think and act like we do). If America can start a war to free Iraq and thats the only justification it requires then I can see much worse happening in future.

Just my thinking.

 

[Hengest]

The question was more rhetorical than factual. For all the "support" no other nation gives a rats *** when it comes down to it. Much like when your neighbor says "gee thats too bad anything I can do for you" when you have a tragedy.When inside the major emotion is "glad that didnt happen to me". Nothing intentional, its just the way it is.

The fact that the British government has supported the US from day one in the "War Against Terror", and continues to do so, despite the popularity problems it's caused them at home, apparently counts for nothing. There are currently 9,000 British troops in Iraq; 75 have given their lives supporting the US in this conflict. Could you give a rat's **** about them?

 

[Tgace]

No, please dont think we Americans dont appreciate our friends and their sacrifices. I think it speaks volumes when you look at who is with us (in Afganistan at least, I can understand the Iraq difference, but its a case of "finish what you started" at this point IMHO). All the same, I dont think any other nation would have "done" anything about the Taliban if we would have just launched a couple of cruise missiles at Kabul after 9-11....

 

[Tgace]

I would like to think that if Iran nuked London, we'd have Marines in Theran ASAP....

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I agree with you guys here.

I think we should pull our troops and "support" out.

Of Everywhere.

Bring em all home, and leave the world to police itself. After all, Its none of our buisness, and as you say, no one wants us there.

So, pull all our troops and forces out of Iraq. Our Bases in Europe. Everywhere.

.

No because thats exactly what you did in Cosovo, or Bosnia I cant remember which, you just pulled out and look at the country now. This was started by our nations therefore we must repair the country the best we can before pulling out, not leave it war torn and ravaged. IMO

 

[Corporal Hicks]

No, please dont think we Americans dont appreciate our friends and their sacrifices. I think it speaks volumes when you look at who is with us (in Afganistan at least, I can understand the Iraq difference, but its a case of "finish what you started" at this point IMHO). All the same, I dont think any other nation would have "done" anything about the Taliban if we would have just launched a couple of cruise missiles at Kabul after 9-11....

I'm glad that Britain did join the Americans in this war against terror, it shows that even though the Americans really dont actually need any British Millitary support it was more of a political factor to support the Americans, and shows national friendship. I mean yeah I can face it, you guys have a big enough army of your own, you really dont need us there but the fact that our troops wanted to go just goes to show something. Not only that its a fact that Britain is still trying to keep itself as a powerful nation by tagging onto America, when in truth its not going to be that way, we dont have an empire anymore.

The trouble with Britain (I know because I live there) is that there are too many people who simply do not accept the truth and think that nasty things dont go on in the world. They are seperate from reality if you like, I really cant believe this nation (British) is more worried about political correctness in its language rather than worrying about that death that could befall their own troops. The majority of people here are sick of all this political correctness crap, maybe they should stop asking the people who think the war is wrong and get to the majority who actually see something in this conflict that is good.

 

[Flatlander]

The trouble with Britain (I know because I live there) is that there are too many people who simply do not accept the truth and think that nasty things dont go on in the world. They are seperate from reality if you like, I really cant believe this nation (British) is more worried about political correctness in its language rather than worrying about that death that could befall their own troops. The majority of people here are sick of all this political correctness crap, maybe they should stop asking the people who think the war is wrong and get to the majority who actually see something in this conflict that is good.

I agree with you on a few points here. To start, good point about people not accepting the truth. The fact is, there are far more western citizens with opinions on world events who haven't really sought to understand what's going on. People are so unaware, its scary.

Secondly, I appreciate the point about seeing something good in what is going on. Its not terribly pragmatic at this point to focus specifically on only the question of whether we or they should be there. Iraq is currently occupied, Saddam is out, it is done. Perhaps more useful energies would be directed toward discussing the future of Iraq, rather than the past. The truth is, as TGace pointed out, the US is waaaaay past the point of no return in Iraq, and must see through to the end what they have begun.

 

[OUMoose]

The truth is, as TGace pointed out, the US is waaaaay past the point of no return in Iraq, and must see through to the end what they have begun.

Agreed, but the question is who has the plan for the end? Has anyone in power even mentioned a plan to get out? If so, could they please let us in on at least a high-level idea of their outline? I'm not asking for details that would somehow jeapordize national security, but saying "our fighting men and women WILL be out of harms way in the middle east within 18 months" would be better than nothing. Then again, there's no money in a cessation of hostilities.

 

[Cryozombie]

No because thats exactly what you did in Cosovo, or Bosnia I cant remember which, you just pulled out and look at the country now. This was started by our nations therefore we must repair the country the best we can before pulling out, not leave it war torn and ravaged. IMO

Oh no... its not the same as Cosovo...

You missed the point of EVERWHERE.

Not just where we are fighting, I mean places like Our Freindly bases in Europe, Japan etc... Cuz no one wants us there.

 

[Phoenix44]

Here's the story about the poll, BTW:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4185205.stm

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Oh no... its not the same as Cosovo...

You missed the point of EVERWHERE.

Not just where we are fighting, I mean places like Our Freindly bases in Europe, Japan etc... Cuz no one wants us there.

Ah, now I get you! Sorry I thought you meant the pulling out part. But you have a point. its such as shame really that even your allies seem to turn against you!
At the start they are all like "go go go its all good!!!"
Then as soon as something goes wrong its like, "well you shouldnt have done that!"
The fact as somebody said earlier, its done, so lets continue and get it over with!

Regards

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Here's the story about the poll, BTW:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4185205.stm

Thanks, looks like I got some of the stats wrong, cheers for the find phoenix!

Regards

 

[Tgace]

If there is any "good" thing about GB's re-election its that he now has his "legacy" to think about. The pressure is going to be on to try and come up with some type of acceptable conclusion to some things he started. Or at least a viable plan.

 

[heretic888]

If there is any "good" thing about GB's re-election its that he now has his "legacy" to think about. The pressure is going to be on to try and come up with some type of acceptable conclusion to some things he started. Or at least a viable plan.

His decisions in the new term thus far indicate what you are talking about is the furthest thing from his mind.

Attempting to constitutionally ban gay marriage, appointing religious fanatics as the head of women's health departments, privatizing social security (thus disenfranchising the lower and most of the middle classes even more), appointing a clearly biased "true believer" as head of the CIA, and appointing Condoleeza Rice (who failed appalingly as our National Security Advisor) as Secretary of State does not indicate a calm, rational thinker concerned with any kind of far-off "legacy" or "future of the state"...

This is the part where those of us who didn't vote for Bush can say "I told you so".

 

[Cryozombie]

This is the part where those of us who didn't vote for Bush can say "I told you so".

Yeah!

 

[Erik]

The bulk of Europe and Asia who used to be our friends are disguested with the USA for what they see as being true.

(I travel a lot and studied abroad several times, speak French & German and a little Mandarin. I am marrying a N. African moslem and my family is Methodist, like the Bush family. This is what I have been hearing for a long time.)

This is what people say about us now:

1) A fraudulent election (4 years ago) in the country that prides itself upon good elections. This looks like hypocracy.
2) Invaded an innocent country for oil, to boost our economy, and to secure the Bush administration in DC, to get people to talk about something other than (1) above. Nobody bought the WMD arguement outside the USA. I don't think Blair even believe it and I highly doubt that Powell did. There were TV shows in France and Germany discussing his body language at the UN when he made our case for invasion. They see the USA have a fake election and then attack a country for a lie. This scares them a lot.
3) People are terrified of a righ-wing religious group taking over the most powerful country in the world (for now) through dishonst means (1) and then go start a war ostensibly against another religion, just like the crusades. This is extra-scary in an era of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons.
4) Backing Israel, who the world mostly sees as being facists. Our press and attitude about Israel is uniquely American. NOBODY is so strongly biased toward one group against the other (Palestinians).

I'm not claiming any of this is true or untrue, just how we're seen nowadays, which was the original idea of this thread.

 

[Blind]

I totally agree with that being the perception(among people who bother to ponder these things), a lot of sense, though #3 I havn't run across anyone thinking outloud yet. My personal belief is that oil was the major reason. I think in terms of protecting the future of America, gaining more influence in that field was a smart move, the rest is just smoke-screen.

I don't think Bush is soo stupid that imagined he would catch terrorists by invading Iraq, nor that he really cares about the Iraqi people sooo much that he would send in tens of thousands of troops/and spend billions to save them from Saddam. As for being a threat to America, just how was Saddam going to get the weapons there assuming he had WsMD? I doubt his long range missile capability expanded a lot after Kuwait and even then he couldn't hit anything.

Whats left to pick from as the real reason? Maybe it is a combination. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter now, prime concern is how he will get out of there without leaving the place worse than when Saddam was in power. Ah well it is an interesting time to be alive.