How?

Q: Why do the French hate us?

A: Because they're free.

 

i second that mike.

i am sick and tired of listening to all these people on the boards spout off about how people from france, germany, etc. all hate american people...and they couldnt be further from the truth.

these people protesting are not protestig american people. they, just like those protesting in the united states, are protesting b/c they do not believe war is needed.

go around the world and i bet, as an american, you are going to be welcomed in more places than any other nationality...they might wanna chew your ear off about our foreign policy but they do indeed admire us.

 

Mike, you should be used to my rhetoric by now. I was there in '98 for the Cup and before actually. It was more a confirmation of your original post and a retort to the knob-head reactionaries who call the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys" etc.

Theoretically, their revolution was always a very threatening event for American elites since they value equality (egalitarianism) before much else really. The question you should ask yourself is "why would they be more free?" Well, they're not consumed by fear that the world is out to get them. The French and Europeans more specifically understand that it is our myopic and hypocritical foreign policy that is angering nearly every nation on this globe.

Remind yourself also that war is the ultimate failure of leadership.

 

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165

Public opinion surveys like this aren't 100% reliable - often, they can be somewhat iffy in very poor countries, (where it's hard to reach the a representative sample of the population), and in dictatorships (for obvious reasons). But, I'd guess this research probably provides a much more realistic picture of world opinion than the mix of anecdotes and stereotypes that one usually hears.

Edited to say that I think the evidence mostly supports what MikeLastort is saying - anti-Americanism isn't as strong in most places as it's made out to be, and fear/suspicion of the current US government and its foreign policy doesn't necessarily result from strong negative attitudes towards the US and Americans in general.

 

Great thread topic.

Without being overheated, Bush really has the potential to be the worst foreign policy president ever. I don't think there's more than a remote chance he'll be among the worst domestically, but in foreign policy, man, he's doin' some work.

Sometimes it feels like he's a Manchurian Candidate out to destroy us. We're trading France, Britain, and Germany for far weaker nations. The 24 news stations are making it sound like Blair is in some trouble.

I'm a bit too young to have fully aware during Watergate, and I'm by far more alienated from our gvt. than I've ever been.

One thing you always have to keep at the front of your brain: that Rumsfeld was looking for an Iraq connection within hours of the 9-11 attacks. This thing has been in the works for almost 3 years.

 

Does anyone dislike Canadians? Seriously.

We were even welcomed in Lybia this past week with open arms. LYBIA!

 

Going after Iraq was one of Bush's campaign themes. So yeah, this whole let's-get-Iraq thing is hardly new or post-9/11. 9/11 did make the Bushies think they could cynically use 9/11 as one of their fig leafs for their aggression. Their main problem is that nobody bought their attempts to link Iraq with al-Qaeda and OBL, their bluff was called and they folded. In fact, they did even worse than fold. They kept trying to bullshit the whole world about other rationalizations for war after they proved they had nothing in their hand. and so now they have as much credibility as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Bushies' actions have been completely irresponsible because now if they ever DO get any real, useful information about a terror strike or anything else related to this whole situation, nobody outside the few whacko True Believers will believe them seeing as how they've spent the last six months or more taking out full page ads in the Reality Times saying "WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!" And the fault for this irresponsibility will remain strictly with the Bushies.

Now they're desperate enough to try to make their earlier "yer either with us or agin us" bluster stick and the True Believers in the U.S. are sticking their heads in the sand winding themselves up that anyone who is against the war is a "commie" and "America hater" because they've made too big an emotional investment in Bush now to admit the Bushies have lied to us like we're a world of Montel Williamses.

Today's demonstrations are important because they will hopefully give the rest of the world's leaders, except for Blair who has already irrevocably gambled his fortunes on Bush, a reason to stand up to the Bushies' bullying and their childish "We'll go it alone if you don't give us what we want" disregard for the UN.

 

Don't look, there's a conspiracy everywhere. They're listening to us right now.....they're everywhere.

 

Wanderer, I really ought to give up on you, but read joseph's post.

There's a legitimate reasons the liberals here are insufferably arrogant. We really, really DO know more than you.

It's not impossible to be an informed conservative, or be an informed person in favor of this war. Colin and TWUB manage it. But you're just making a fool of yourself.

1. Already, the protests have had an effect. Go to any news site, and there'll be an article on how Britain and the US are softening the resolution thry're gonna put before the UNSC. I saw this several places in the last 1/2 hour.
2. I've also seen some reports that Blair may lose his job over this. Tonight is the first I've heard of this.

It goes without saying that Bush has put every chip, and his pink slip, in the pot on this one.

 

Mike...given that I just went to the rally today, and that in the last week and a half I've become pretty angry, and emotional, my ability to be dispassionate is probably hopelessly compromised. Maybe you can help.

How can Bush "win" this? Because even if we win a quick war, and suffer from minimal blowback, and the occupation goes pretty well...IOW, if this goes 80-90% Bush's way...the negative consequences are pretty massive.

We'll have become an international pariah, and we'll have blown a crippling hole in our budget. And that's a GOOD outcome.

I guess Bush would look like a genius if we found alot of really serious WMD stuff. But he's likely to have a problem there, because this last minute PR offensive is just killing his credibility. And once the media decide you're on the s*** list, that's where you stay. What I'm getting at is this...it's pretty close to the point where the media will treat any "findings" in post-war Iraq like they did explanations of Gore's "internet" comment.

Gore never said "invent," but that's the word the RNC plastered on him, and that's the spin the media constantly echoed. The truth didn't matter. And pretty soon, if it hasn't happened already, Bush's lying will reach a critical mass, and it won't matter if he's telling the truth or not. Every administration utterance will be examined with a fine-tooth comb, in search of anything that can be bashed as untrue.

And I'm being completely honest when I say, a worst case scenario has Dems' making calls for impeachment, and it being popular. Can you imagine what it would be like if the center of gravity of American public opinion becomes that Bush lied to us to get us into this war? The American people expect to be lied to about tax policy or health care. But I don't think they expect it for war'n'peace issues. OK, that's a worst case scenario, but I think it's a scenario that's in a fattish part of the bell curve.

There's a Greek tragedy element to this, because it's plain, now, that Bush's presidency is more likely to be destroyed than saved by this.

Time will tell.

 

Am I, or are you all so sure that you know Saddam Hussein so well? How informed you all must be. Oh please can I just be like you all? When we or someone else gets nailed next I'll come back in here and say the proverbial "Told ya so".

Rationalize this---a land mass the size of California, and 100 people not being able to find something. I mean that's just completely illogical isn't it? I mean there are far more important issues to consider like bi-partisan warfare so we can worry about who the next president will be. You and your ilk are no better than the right wing extremists.

 

Easy to make insults when the truth hurts....

 

Thanks for bringing this conversation back to the center and away from the polar extremes.

 

There are lots of ways that Bush can save this whole fiasco:

-- Saddam leaves Iraq for the Hague (either willingly - yeah right - or in shackes placed on him by Iraqis) and is replaced by a UN-led rebuilding effort, followed by democratic elections where radical Islamists are not elected.

-- Saddam dies of natural causes and is replaced by an Iraqi who immediately espouses democratic elections where radical Islamists are not elected.

-- The very first bullet fired in a US invasion of Iraq is a direct hit on Saddam, killing him. The war ends immediately in victory. This is followed by a UN-led rebuilding effort, followed by democratic elections where radical Islamists are not elected.

So basically the three things that Bush needs are:
1. No more Saddam with very very minimal Iraqi civilian casualties
2. Democratic elections
3. No emergence of an Ayatollah or Taliban-style leadership

If these three goals are all successful, it would be a dream come true for Bush, Americans, Iraqis, Israelis, Europeans, and even most Arabs who find Saddam to be an untrustworthy bastard.

If Bush gets #1 and #3 but not #2, he'll win enough US votes to get re-elected but the rest of the planet will still hate him. If he gets #1 but not #3, he loses his re-election by Jimmy Carter-like proportions. If he doesn't even get Saddam out, he won't even run for a second term.

 

Last chance, Wanderer.

I pointed out the objective fact that regime change in Iraq was part of Bush's campaign, and you called it a conspiracy theory.

Do you not see a problem with that?

That's an interesting issue, Mike. I look forward to the thread you're bound to start on it, since you would never try to hijack a thread.

 

You don't see a problem with a material breach of UN Resolution 1441? God forbid someone should have to honor something they agreed to. You already showed your true colors with this type of thing with the whole Donovan situation. Answer me this oh great pile of information: Why is he not cooperating fully? Why, why, why, why, why? If he didn't have the goddamn things then why not just say,"Go ahead and have at it boys. Here's my scientists, grill 'em from head to toe."

Don't give me any more one more chance bull$hit. Of course they would look at Iraq as an accomplice to 9/11, among other nations. Your myopic view overlooks that it would have been better to go after Saddam BACK THEN WHEN SUPPORT WOULD HAVE BEEN AT ITS HIGHEST FROM THE UN. Hence, the 3 year masterplan----despite economists saying that it wouldn't improve the economy. Now why o why would a Republican want to do something like that? More weak "it's the oil" arguments? We could have had that oil in '91.

 

we didnt need it back then, we need it now

and we could have had saddam's head on a platter back then too if not for the elder bush's pussiness...

 

mike, sarcasm just doesnt come across in type, does it?

 

Wanderer, here's your next post. You can cut'n'paste if it'll help.

Apology accepted.

BTW, if anyone can translate Wanderer's 2nd graf from angry incoherent babbling to English, I'd appreciate it.