Pre-war opinion is really not that important now. If the war goes well, everybody is going to jump on board.
Do not equate a tiny faction of extremists who are 'anti-any war' with "the world speaking". A very small minority of people protested against this war. These were some of the most radical, out-of-touch political thinkers on planet earth. At one of the largest demonstrations in Houston, only 1 in 13,000 Houstonians held beliefs strong enough to attend an anti-war rally. You are correct -- the people have spoken -- and Bush is granting them what they requested.
The demonstrators are vocal, but how much of a population do they really represent? During the whole crisis, French and German politicians were in the forefront of anti-American sentiments, their behavior bordering on demogogery. Politicans do not speak for the world. Certainly UN bureaucrats do not speak for the whole world either.
C'mon man...do you honestly believe that there aren't people who disagree with this war based on what they think is right? While I'll concede the world has it weirdos (I'm one), everyone who is anti-war is not an extremist.
The problem of the anti-war movement now is not that the war would go badly, but rather a quick war with few deaths. After the liberation of Iraq, the anti-war people, especially the rational ones, will have to say to the Iraqi people dancing in the streets that they had opposed their liberators. I think the anti-war movement lost a lot of credibiliity with its opposition in the Afghan war
DaDakota, Since it seems this war will happen regardless of what the world thinks about it, I share your wishes for a quick resolution followed by a return of our good standing with our allies. Jorge, First off, when it comes to this kind of stuff, personal attacks are less than irrelevant. But even were they not, you give at least as good as you get. What the hell was that Rudyards crap? It is you, pal, who is out of touch with reality. Just stick your fingers in your ears, sing la-la-la, and go on believing whatever you want. This poll is not outdated. It is from yesterday. It also states that the trend is such that when the president speaks, support rises momentarily and then falls back again. The trend is against support, not for it. And as much as you try to marginalize those who oppose this war, you cannot ignore the numbers. They are real. And, again, the Zogby poll clearly shows that the vast majority of those opposed to the war have never attended an anti-war protest. I know you would like to infer that anyone who doesn't show up on Allen Parkway and wave a sign is in strong support of Bush, but that just isn't true. And, as I've said many times, I support our troops too, *******. Stop suggesting I don't. It is imminently possible to do this while opposing the conflict. I am sorry you are too dumb to understand that, but it really isn't my problem.
I respectfully disagree. Had Bin Laden been captured and we didn't have "Terror Alerts", I'd might agree.
Do you think we would be safer if Al Quida and the Taliban are still ruling Afghanistan? Don't agree that AQ is at least crippled? The problem with public opinion is that it is fickle. Sure there is a hardcore anti-war population and a hardcore anti-American one in Europe, but no democratic politican is obligated to pay attention to protests as long as those do not translate into votes come election time. When election time comes, a politican who backed a successful war would probably fare better than one who opposed it staunchly to the end.
You said that the anti-war movement lost a lot of credibility. I have to disagree. The Afghan war was a direct result of 911, which of course made war absolutely necessary. I don't recall much anti-war protests of that war. (Although I could be wrong.) The problem with the coming war in Iraq is whether or not it is necessary. Based on what the Bush administration has told us (or lack thereof), many anti-war folks don't see its purpose. Apparently most of the second and third world don't see it either. You're right about election time. '04 here we come!
The post-war question in the trans-atlantic relationship between America and Europe is not whether America would return to "good standing" with France and Germany, but whether F and G could return to good standing with the US. A successful Iraqi invasion without specific UN approval will convincingly demonstrate the irrelevance of France once and for all. Other countries and much of world opinion would jump on the American bandwagon (the rules of the jungle still apply to most of the world). F and G occupy no strategic location, nor do they offer any real benefit of alliance due to their anti-American population and lumbering economy. When an ally actively worked to undermine your actions, that ally is not worth to keep. America should not keep unworthy allies. In fact, the former Eastern bloc is now much more important than Old Europe, which is old and useless. Plus their people are friendly to the US and the true callings of liberal democracy. The death of the US-France relationship would have no long term disadvantages.
I love the "Iraqis will be dancing in the streets" line I've heard time and time again, here and on tv. These people sure were dancing in the streets. . . on 9/11 and when our Shuttle broke apart. Make no mistake, Iraqis will never love us. They still have problems with us, religious ones included. Do people really believe that an Iraqi who lost a loved one from US military action or our embargo is just gonna say, "Well, it's all Saddam's fault," and start cheering our troops? And you know what's gonna happen, the second Iraqis complain about the way things are being handled post Saddam, there are gonna be the "why you ungrateful. . ." comments left and right. I'm just asking for a little perspective. Here's to a better tomorrow.
I offer one word as evidence: Kabul People will only be too happy to be rid of Sadam. You really don't know the feeling of being opressed by a totalitarian police state.
The opinion of the world never becomes irrelevant, we need only look back to Somalia to witness the power of opinion. Opinion also played a powerful hand in the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. America cannot stand to be viewed as a bully, this is why the first Gulf War ended earlier than it should have. Give our troops support, but keep your opinion and let others hear it in an appropriate manner.
We had never been to war with Afghanistan before. Also, the people in Iraq were better off before the first gulf war. There was a time when Saddam was our buddy. I just think there's a difference. I don't think Iraqis are gonna be uprising or anything, but I don't expect them to e dancing in the streets when Saddam is gone. Maybe after we finally leave. It's not like they are going from a brutal regime to democracy, it's brutal regime- US occupation/martial law- Iraqi democracy.
One crucial difference here: the US occupational government would not execute people because they are political dissidents. Not to mention the Kurds, Shiias, and the torture chambers, career rapists...et al. Even if the Iraqis do not have democracy right off the bat, they would at least have someone much much much more civilized to rule over them. And that makes a great difference in people's lives.
