If you were against the war....

If you were against the war and everything goes the best it could, the Iraqi's welcome us in, limited deaths on both sides, etc. Would you give credit as Bush and Blair doing the right thing?

Probably Blair. He wasn''t leading, but the war was still unpopular with his people, so its sorta iffy with me.
I still wouldn''t think that Bush did the right thing, however, I think his motives are not sound, just an opinion, and more importantly he led the war even when it was unpopular with his own people. Also the damage he did to foreign relations will be around a while. I don''t care if we build giant chocolate factories that spew candy all over Baghdad, Bush f*cked America up over this. And again, IMO, thats his first priority and charge, to not f*ck America up.

My issue was never those that you mentioned, but the results for the stability of the Middle East. So, I''m not giving or taking credit from anyone for a year or two until the true results can be seen. If Iraq under new self-governance develops with the help but not interference of western nations, and makes significant strides for its people, and the middle-east does not sink further into Islamic Militarism and anti-western sentiment as a result of a perceived unilateral war, then I will gladly sing the praises of Bush/Blair. I think I''ve proven in the past that when I''m wrong, I''m the first to admit it, and that I keep an open mind about results.

There''s nothing I''d rather be than wrong in this particular case.

""Would you give credit as Bush and Blair doing the right thing?""

Which would be... pissing off the world?

I think Bush handled it the worst possible way he could have. I would almost expect terrorist attacks in the US after this.

I just wonder if this war with middle east will be satisfactory for Bush or will he go against someone else"… and as far as I can see, if he really want this war on terror"… there will always be someone else to pick a fight with"…To me even though I don't hold Bush as the greatest leader, I still give a benefit of the doubt that he might meant well but gave a bad execution of his proposal for this war, and in turn has unfavorable response"… not to mention it seems that with his desperate attacks it's like he wants to divert everyone's attention from the US economical state"… still it's only my opinion!

Well, if the Axis of Evil remark is to be believed, North Korea should be next, no?

"Mex" wrote:

Well, if the Axis of Evil remark is to be believed, North Korea should be next, no?

I''d say Iran. The whole point is to stop nations from becoming like North Korea.

I agree as far as I talk with my co-workers, everyone said Iran will be next!

Which would be... pissing off the world?

I think Bush handled it the worst possible way he could have. I would almost expect terrorist attacks in the US after this.

No matter what we did, we would have ""pissed off the world"". People already have their opinions formed about the USA, this conflict is not going to change it in either direction. It does however give them a platform to say how they feel about the USA.

If all went well beyond expectations and Iraqi''s were dancing in the streets and praising the US and they went on to become this fantastic nation of wealth and prosperity people would still find fault with the US for some reason or another. Especially GWB.

No matter what we did, we would have ""pissed off the world"". People already have their opinions formed about the USA, this conflict is not going to change it in either direction. It does however give them a platform to say how they feel about the USA.

I dont think so. Sure, we have our problems with others, but Clinton managed to start a war somewhere and he didn''t have protests in about every country including America. Gulf War I had very few protests at all, mainly because we waited until Iraq attacked somebody. We didn''t this time. Its all about how you go about it, and GWB ruffled as many feathers as possible going about this.

Good points Pyro, but I think even without this war people are pissed at us. They''re pissed at our relationship with Israel, pissed we had tanks in the ""Holy Land"" IE Saudi Arabia, pissed we bombed the ""Aspirin Factory"", etc, etc. I don''t think this is only a GWB thing like many people are saying. It''s an excuse for people that hate him, and there are a lot, to criticize him more openly.

To tell you the truth I''m sick of this Anti-American sh*t. It''s old and tired. I do however find it extremely ironic that certain nations are condemning the US. Russia, China..CHINA of all people, Germany, France...I think it would be relatively easy to point out times in recent history where each of these nations has acted in a very, very ""unfavorable"" manor. Yet lets pile on the US.

And I agree somewhat about the Clinton thing, I also think that Democrats protest more in the streets and voice their opinion against actions much, much louder than Republicans do. Not pointing fault at Dems or Republicans, just telling you what I think.

I think the point about democrats was way off base.

Democrats can discuss conflicting ideas openly. Dont get me wrong, Democrats have just as many nutbags as Republicans. However, Republicans think that those that dont think like them or dont agree with them are the enemy at worst or ""tolerated"" at best because they are ill informed.

Of course, this is in my personal experience and my own opinion. I cant talk politics with my Republican friends or I have to choose my words carefully lest I be the butt of joking insults. Up until the last few years, I havent had any Democrat friends to discuss issues with.

I''m sorry if I offended you, but I don''t think it''s off base at all actually. I could say your comment about Republicans not being able to discuss issues was equally off base.

I''m an Independent so I don''t really care one way or another for either party. I do think you have way more protestors who are Democrats. I live in one of the most Liberal parts of the country, as it looks like you do to, (SF bay). I had to sit in 2 hours of traffic because protestors blocked all the major roads. Do they think that this is going to get people to sympathize with them?

I also personally think the Democratic party is suffering from a lack of good leadership. They don''t seem to stand for anything. However, I would vote Democrat in a heartbeat if they would put up someone who was worthy.

I wanted McCain to become president, not Bush, but he didn''t get the support. I think he would have handled this whole issue much better.

I think what I''ve listened to and heard for my entire life has led me to believe that Democrats protest more. I''m sticking to my guns on this one.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

I think the point about democrats was way off base.

Democrats can discuss conflicting ideas openly. Dont get me wrong, Democrats have just as many nutbags as Republicans. However, Republicans think that those that dont think like them or dont agree with them are the enemy at worst or ""tolerated"" at best because they are ill informed.

Of course, this is in my personal experience and my own opinion. I cant talk politics with my Republican friends or I have to choose my words carefully lest I be the butt of joking insults. Up until the last few years, I havent had any Democrat friends to discuss issues with.

Wow. I disagree with you. I was in our College Democrat club and when I said I was for private social security accounts it was like I was saying I''m for killing babies. They couldn''t stand anyone that went against what they thought ""Democrats"" stood for.

I only have one republican friend so I don''t have a lot of experiance talking about things with Republicans.

I wanted McCain to become president, not Bush, but he didn''t get the support. I think he would have handled this whole issue much better.

I respect McCain but he''s nuts. I think he would have done thigns with Iraq the same as Bush but would have done much worse with North Korea.

While I agree that there was some anti-americanism going on in the world, the actions that the us has taken these past 2-3 years have incensed it more.

It''s just that Dubya, his speeches and actions in the UN just cement the basic image of Americans that people have - arrogant, ignorant, and believes he has to be the saviour of the world, even tho no one has asked him to butt in.
I think they could have totally turned around the image of the US after the WTC attacks. The ""War on Terrorism"" came off as pretty dumb here in the media. The ""Attack Iraq!"" campaign ... well, no need to comment.

There''s just a lot of ignorance going on in the world, on all sides. Me, I love most americans I''ve met here. In other forums, like Fark, it''s depressing.

And there''s also that freudian thing, that the US represents some kind of parent-figure country, and all the other countries feel they have to kill them to free themselves... Something like that.

Anyway, I hope this war ends soon.

I respect McCain but he''s nuts. I think he would have done thigns with Iraq the same as Bush but would have done much worse with North Korea.

lol, I think that''s what did him in, being nuts that is. I''d like to think he''d be able to tone it down if he were elected, apparently I was in the minority.

Do you think he''ll try to run again?

Me, I love most americans I''ve met here

See, we''re not all evil monsters.

IMHO, I honestly think that the majority of Americans are very nice, and I''d hope people who don''t like America can separate the difference between what the Gov''t. does and what the citizens do.

Well you may think that the peace loving hippies who are accusatory and close minded are the mainstream Democrats or Liberals, but I say they are the fringe. Unless, like you mentioned, you live in the San Francisco Bay Area or similar region. The nutty fringe percentages are much higher here.

My Republican friends ARE very mainstream and not fringe fundamentalist conservatives. They know of Rush Limbagh and laughed at his Clinton rants but dont regurgitate his propaganda.

Well regardless of the truth, I''m glad I''ve found a place to challenge myself with perspectives from persons in other countries. I also like the fact that others value the ""what if''s?""

Well stated Fang.

Well regardless of the truth, I''m glad I''ve found a place to challenge myself with perspectives from persons in other countries. I also like the fact that others value the ""what if''s?""

Well stated again.

I really enjoy discussing/reading all of this with you guys.

t''s just that Dubya, his speeches and actions in the UN just cement the basic image of Americans that people have - arrogant, ignorant, and believes he has to be the saviour of the world, even tho no one has asked him to butt in.
I think they could have totally turned around the image of the US after the WTC attacks. The ""War on Terrorism"" came off as pretty dumb here in the media. The ""Attack Iraq!"" campaign ... well, no need to comment.

Here''s what I don''t get: If we''re so ignorant, arrogant, and slow as how a lot of people in the world think, how come we''re so much more succesful than the rest of the world?

I think the big problem is that the rest of the world is far to the left than the United States. Bush is right of center which hurts him no matter what. Opinion on the U.S. has been on the decline for over three years so this isn''t all Bush''s fault. Most of the support after 9/11 was false and I think it''s been proved to be.

I frankly really don''t give a damn about what a lot of the world thinks of us. We''re screwed either way. If we don''t do something we get blammed and if we do we get blammed. People were against the US becaues of the sanctions on Iraq. I just think a lot of the world needs to grow up.

BTW: I think it''s in the American character to be ""arrogant"" and brash. It''s who we are and who we''ve always been. The whole thing about being an American is that we want it now and how we want it. Fast food, cable TV, the internet, etc.

""Here''s what I don''t get: If we''re so ignorant, arrogant, and slow as how a lot of people in the world think, how come we''re so much more succesful than the rest of the world? ""

Well, first, I don''t mean ""ignorant"" as in Dumb. More like ""not caring for anything outside the US"". Definitely not ""slow"". In my view, it was the industrial revolution and all the technological advances that made you so successful this and the last century. What I hear too often from other non-americans is ""explotation of our country!"", no matter what country it is

""I frankly really don''t give a damn about what a lot of the world thinks of us. We''re screwed either way. If we don''t do something we get blammed and if we do we get blammed. People were against the US becaues of the sanctions on Iraq. I just think a lot of the world needs to grow up. ""

Nah, that''s not true. That''s a comment I''ve been hearing a lot from americans lately. It sounds like you''ve just given up.

I think what happens is that the bad moves get much better publicity than the good ones. It''s like Bill Gates. He donates tons of money to worthy causes, but people hate him for... well, you pick a reason. Same with the US - I''m not aware of any good things you''ve done in Mexico, but i can list a whole bunch of issues that have been getting publicity in the press here (Immigrant killings, racism, the water thing, oil, sweatshops, Nafta, all that).

What do you mean grow up?

""BTW: I think it''s in the American character to be ""arrogant"" and brash. It''s who we are and who we''ve always been. The whole thing about being an American is that we want it now and how we want it. Fast food, cable TV, the internet, etc.""

I think being brash is cool. But arrogant? Are we using the same definition?

(ar•ro•gant

Pronunciation: (ar''u-gunt), [key]
"”adj.
1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.)

I frankly really don''t give a damn about what a lot of the world thinks of us. We''re screwed either way. If we don''t do something we get blammed and if we do we get blammed. People were against the US becaues of the sanctions on Iraq. I just think a lot of the world needs to grow up.

I agree with most of that. However, like I said before, its a matter of how GWB has slung the dice. Sure, damned if you do and damned if you don''t as far as other countries opinions goes, however one way is cheaper, will not get people killed, and will piss off people less, which is what it''s all about anyway.

Also, being an American, I think other countries declining opinion of America is grounded in some real world problems. The worst of which, IMO, is that we have done something to pretty much everybody at some point, with the exception of the old USSR. Almost any part of the world has had us meddling with them at some point, to help or hinder, whatever. So we have had our fingers in almost everybodies pies, trying to do good and save the world, like any empire before us has. And the ugly side of our version of do-gooding is that people get dependent, and blame us when something goes wrong. We get people dependent on us, and when thier life goes to sh*t, were to blame. Is it necissarily our fault? No, but it''s the payment for getting involved in the first place. Not necissarily saying its a bad thing to help other countries, just saying, I don''t think theyre really all just crazy, or that they all just need to grow up, I think its just karma, which is a bitch

I think what happens is that the bad moves get much better publicity than the good ones. It''s like Bill Gates. He donates tons of money to worthy causes, but people hate him for... well, you pick a reason. Same with the US - I''m not aware of any good things you''ve done in Mexico, but i can list a whole bunch of issues that have been getting publicity in the press here (Immigrant killings, racism, the water thing, oil, sweatshops, Nafta, all that).

Let''s take Mexico for an example. We give a lot of money to Mexico each year to help fight the drug war, tourist, clean up the curruption in your government, etc. NAFTA is the pefect example of what we''ve done for Mexico (and Mexico for us). Companies are helping the Mexican economy get up to speed. Yes, it''s going to start at as a labour manufacutring economy but it has to.

I don''t under stand why only 38% of Mexicans (saw this figure on the news) think America is a good country. I think we should get that 38% working visa''s and into this country.

I''m for allowing anyone who wants to work in the US, go to school, etc to be allowed to enter the country. I''m pro-immigration.

What do you mean grow up?

Stop blamming the US for everything. You have anti-free trade people saying that we''re stealing things from poor people, which just isn''t true. The United States gives more aid than any other country. I would like to hear more ""Thank you''s"" and less ""The great evil that is destroying the world"" We''re 33% of the worlds economy and a lot of people have jobs because of these ugly Americans.

I think being brash is cool. But arrogant? Are we using the same definition?

Arrogant meaning: We want it our way, now, and we don''t care what you think.

I think its just karma, which is a bitch

I don''t think it''s karma. To be frank, most of the world would be living under dicators if it weren''t for the United States. Do we do things wrong? Yes. All the time. I have no problem of people pointing out that we''re not perfect but I would like people to judge us by both our good and bad. I don''t hear Americans trashing other countries when they do bad things (well except the French). Disagreeing with the United States is fine. It''s not about that. But, 50k Americans died in South Korea so they wouldn''t be taken over, I don''t think any American Soldier should be stabbed. EVER.

I just wish the media world wide was less biased. The world wide media is highly biased against America. I watch/read it so I can know what people think but Bush isn''t a Cowboy. He isn''t out there to steal the Iraqi oil. People call Bush a simple minded fool but it''s these nuts comparing him to Hitler and saying the war is all about oil.

I''m one of those dumb Americans that feels that when America got hit and got hit hard no one but the UK has really stood by us out of are normal ""Allies."" I believe that we''re in a world war against the whole Middle East. It won''t take war in every nation but the whole area needs to change and war will be required in Iran and maybe Sirya. France could have been more like Canada and not joined the allies and just sat back. They went out of their way to bribe countries to vote against us. We were bribing countries too but France needs to stop telling smaller countries to ""shut up."" Did that get much play world wide? No. What would have happened if Bush told Mexico to ""sit down and shut up"" it would be all over the world.

No one (world wide) is paying any attention to the Iraqi exiles in America or Europe that are cheering Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair for trying to give them back their country. We should have never supported Iraq. We should have taken him out in 91 but we didn''t.

To be frank, most of the world would be living under dicators if it weren''t for the United States.

But thats exactly my point, and I now see that maybe karma was a poor choice of words. I didn''t mean that we deserved what we were getting for helping them. I meant that most of the world has been meddled with by us. Good or bad, it doesn''t matter, the fact is that most of the state of the world today can be attributed to us in one way or another. Then the economy starts tanking, sh*t happens, and the only common thread among everything is that the US f*cked around with it. Its simple logic, and I don''t think it''s wrong in all cases. I think there are some places we did alot of good, but as you admit, there are some places we f*cked up.

Whatever we''ve done to the world, good or bad, we are now facing the consequences of it. Supporting dictatorships in the 80''s against the Russians, for example.

The US tells the world how they''re gonna free the Iraqi people and bring them democracy and that''s all good but at the same time they bypass the U.N. Nice showing of democracy there guys. That''s what I have a hard time to swallow. The U.N. should police the globe, not the US.

Was France gonna use the veto? Was Russia gonna do it too? China? At this point, probably. Because they felt there was no urge to go at war and that the U.N. inspectors needed more time to do their jobs. And before posting ""Nuke France"" and other racist bullsh*t please keep in mind that Russia is in first place for the use of the veto with the US in second place. France is far behind.

The US tells the world how they''re gonna free the Iraqi people and bring them democracy and that''s all good but at the same time they bypass the U.N. Nice showing of democracy there guys. That''s what I have a hard time to swallow. The U.N. should police the globe, not the US.

Why should the U.N. police the world? What in the history of the U.N. makes you think it''s just a great orginzation? The U.N. does not have a good track record at all when dealing with dictators: Lybia on the Human Rights group, Iraq and Iran in charge of the disarminate group, etc.

Was France gonna use the veto? Was Russia gonna do it too? China? At this point, probably. Because they felt there was no urge to go at war and that the U.N. inspectors needed more time to do their jobs. And before posting ""Nuke France"" and other racist bullsh*t please keep in mind that Russia is in first place for the use of the veto with the US in second place. France is far behind.

Saying you don''t like the French isn''t racist. French isn''t a race. Russia said they wouldn''t veto (The quote from the NY Time is that Putin said he would not shoot Bush in the back).

Why should the U.N. police the world?

Because they are United Nations, not just one country. That''s world wide democracy and I, as well as a sh*tload of people accross the world believe in that Ulairi.

Saying you don''t like the French isn''t racist. French isn''t a race.

Semantics, the result is the same. Reducing a country and its people to an opinion is not a sign of intelligence. Especially considering that this opinion is shared by most of the world and even a significant portion of the American people.

Not according to the latest poll numbers. CNN/Gallup says 76% support the action. The protestors are in the minority, a rapidly shrinking minority.

CNN/Gallup says 76% support the action.

Which is pretty indicative of American reaction. I fall into that camp who was very much against war when it was avoidable, but now that it is upon us I''d like to see us act decisively, avoid as many innocent casualties as possible, move quickly toward resolution and then rebuild. While I do not agree with the pretexts for the war, right now I feel that it''s more important to show the eighteen-year-olds hauling weaponry across the desert that we believe in them. I have no personal support for GWB, but that doesn''t absolve me of the responsibility of treating our own troops with respect and honoring the sacrifice they''re willing to make.

I don''t think that poll shows that any more people are necessarily happy with the war, or support the methods that brought us to war, but that we recognize reality and will come together when needed. That''s not to say there won''t be fallout later.