I am just using your post as an example from which to make a statement, so this is not really directed towards you. I think that a big problem with US & the rest of the world (especially Europe) is that they are afraid of us. I think that their "oppose no matter what" strategy attests to this. I know that there is some sentiment (I just don't know how widespread it is - which is why I am using "I think") that the US is embarking on a new policy of world hegemony, imperialism, or whatever you want to call it. They fear that Iraq is merely step 1 in this plan - that the US will now begin to use its sheer power (economic, military, etc.) to dictate how the world behaves and to take out governments as it sees fit. In this instance, a quick, effective Iraq war could actually create more fear as it would prove our ability in such matters. Again, this is just a lot of perception in the wolrd, and the administration's various comments about Germany, France, etc. have not always helped. Even though many Americans think it would be cool for the US to have near full control of the globe, others fear it, including our allies. The best thing we can do after this war is prove its uniqueness and our disinterest in making a carreer of continuing such acts.
it's been 12 yrs and Hussien has not obliged to UN requirements. Something has to be done in order to give the UN a backbone. France wants 30 more days of inspections...what the hell is 30 more days going to accomplish? hell...it has been 12yrs of this crap!!! What it will do, is not allow us to have war until around 6 months from now because of the heat of summer in Iraq. I live in Saudi Arabia (Dhahran), and it gets hot here. The more we wait the more weary our soldiers get.
Yeah, this has been on my mind, the part about Iraq being step one. When Bush talks about turning Iraq into a model or example for the rest of the ME, what are they supposed to think? Isn't that like a slap in the face to them? On our side, it looks like "yeah, we will make them a modern democracy." In the rest of the ME, they see "if you aren't controlled by us, your against us." Part of diplomacy is understanding the views of other nations and cultures.
rimbaud: I agree with much of your observation, and I share much of your worries. But the de facto existence of an American empire is inevitable because of America's sheer size and its (innocently intentioned) presence in the world and the demise of the USSR. When India and Pakistan both tested nukes, who was the country that came out and spanked them both through trade sanctions? the US. Hell, when Morocco and Spain arm-wrestled for small rock in the sea, they needed Colin Powell making phone calls to calm things down. The Iraqi crisis showed us how incompetent and irrationally organized the UN could be. It was not the US that failed the ideals of collective security under the UN, but rather the (unelected) UN bureacrats who made a living precisely because the UN is corrupt and incompetent. The American empire did little in the first decade of Pax Americana because of the Clinton Administration's lack of direction in foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy was going the same way until one September morning forced the focus of the American empire to the Middle East. I think we are seeing the beginnin of the fourth world war, which would be a lot like the last, Cold War. The object of the war was the transformation of the Arab world, its total modernization and voluntary rejection of Islamic fundamentalism. The tactics will vary from country to country, from intense pressure to reform to outright invasion and conquest. The major piece of the puzzle would be the containment of Saudi Arabia (where most of the hijackers came from). This prospect does seem daunting, if for no other reason than the realization that the next cold war would cover much of the best parts of our lives. Collective security would live on even with the death of the UN when the new Europe is as strong in real strength as it is strong in moral courage. It is impossible for America to renounce its empire and it is immoral to do so. I am not an American. Do I wish to see a world without tyrants or dictators, a world where relationships between nations are governed by a competent and just world body? I dream of it everyday. But failing that, I'd rather live and have my children grow up in a world dominated by America and its allies, than alternatives by France, Russia or China. ps. I use the term "empire" very loosely. America would have even less control over its alllies than Athens enjoyed in its empire. I use it more as a shorthand to denote the (unrivaled)American influence in the world.
The USA could never become imperialistic and take out governments they did not like. The people of the USA would not stand for it, and as a republic we would vote in leaders that would run the government differently. Personally, I think Bush will use this as a stepping stone to get other governments to get in line and not sponser terrorism. After taking out Iraq, watch Iran start cooperating a lot more. DD
You are missing the point - we are talking about fears in the world outside of the US. I think the fear of the US government would extend to the people going along with it. Besides, even if they had faith in the American people, two years gives enough time to do a lot of damage (in their mind). sino, Just to clarify, those are not really my concerns, for much of the reason DaDa stated...I am just pointing out that I have heard such things and have come to this conclusion based on my own educated guesses/observations. And I think it is far more useful for US relations and worldwide propaganda to understand such fears instead of just saying "France sucks, they are p*****s, they just hate us because we are Americans, etc." as that is nothing but ignorant.
This is a major reason the US should at the very least listen to the "old guard" and respect their opinion. The US has moved beyond a lone superpower our military budget increase for this year is larger than the next three nations combined military budgets. (From DaDakota's thread thx.) We are in a position that the world is watching very carefully to see how we handle this crisis and use our overwhelming power. Our actions will determine our alias for decades to come. The major problems will arise if Iraq uses WMD against the US or Israel. Israel showed great restraint during the last war, i'm not sure that will happen if WMD rain down on Tel Aviv.
Well, at least until they become veterans, then screw 'em. The unbelieveable gall and hypocricy you have, to blast someone for not supporting our troops, after you went to such great lengths to argue against a homeless shelter for veterans. Yeah, these words sum up your actions today. Did those homeless vets not risk their lives for your safety? They're our troops too. And all you can do is sit at your computer and find fault with a plan to give them a damn roof over the head, a place to get their lives in order, and get back on their feet. And you oppose it. Supporting our troops? Why should he, you don't.
I believe England, Spain, and at least 1 ME country are supporting the war. Unless we recently made some annexations that I missed, that constitutes international support.
Well jeez, Moniker. Me and my Australian relations oppose the war. Do we constitute an international coalition? No, sorry, us, England, Spain and an unnamed ME country does not signify international support. Sonny, I responded to the Gallup poll in the thread about the anti-American devil Chicks. I also said in that poll, and it bears repeating, there are only two countries in the world in which more than half of the people support this war: the United States and Israel. The English are overwhelmingly against it. Blair's acting with public opinion and many in his own party and his own cabinet opposing him. It's not just France. It is the people of every single country in the world except the US (barely) and Israel. Kinda weird in the face of that to be so pissed off at the French or the Dixie Chicks, wouldn't you say?
Oops. The third graf in that last post should have read "I also said in that thread..." I didn't mean to say that info could be found in the poll. I got it from a senior editor of Newsweek who was on Peter Jennings coverage of the speech tonight.
Speaking of Peter Jennings, ABC, Ted Koppel - Nightline. Did you watch it? I heard this on the program Does the fact that foreign intelligence is saying that Saddam has already armed one of his Republican Guard divisions with chemical shells and Saddam says he has no chemical weapons bother you? This intell isn't confirmed yet though, but as a confirmed fact what would you think?
I didn't see Nightline, no. But I'll answer anyway. I really don't doubt either that Iraq has chemical weapons or that Saddam's a liar. I guess when the "nukes within six months" and the Al Qaeda ties prove to be false, lying and possessing chemical weapons is grounds for unprovoked invasion. If so, we'd better get busy. There are a whole lot of countries with chemical weapons with liars in charge. One of them even has nukes that can reach Houston and has said he'll use them if threatened, but that's a "regional" problem, we don't need to talk to them about it. Or is it that, in the face of invasion whose clear intent is to kill him or remove him from power, he had the gall to arm his soldiers with chemical weapons? I mean, people actually acted offended that they would have the nerve to threaten us with the worst of their weapons. If we threatened to remove leaders from other countries, would they be more polite? Or is it the defiance of the UN resolution that justifies the war and makes it so very urgent? Even if it weren't so weird that we have chosen to virtually unilaterally enforce UN resolutions against the UN's will, pretty much calling them irrelevant weenies into the bargain... Even then, this standard for war also calls for us to pre-emptively invade Israel and remove Sharon. In other words, no. My opinion remains the same as the vast majority of the citizens of the world -- that the US government has failed to make the case that this unprecedented, pre-emptive invasion is necessary right now. Show me he's got a nuke pointed at us that can make the trip or that he helped out with 9/11 and I'm there. As it stands, it's not even close.
There is no proof of a 9-11 link, but I suspect he is involved somehow. I was reading about Salman Pak, a location in Iraq where they trained terrorist. I think a lot of people feel that Iraq is behind 9-11 somehow.
i agree this stance is possible on the news here tonight there was a story about vets from WWII, most had the exact same view as Batman
You need to preface this sentence with "in my opinion". I, like many Americans, happen to agree with Batman on this one.
Let's get one thing straight. I support our troops. I believe in the job they are doing. However, just because they fight for our country does not grant them a "lifetime pass" to do whatever they want without consequence. These people must return to society and contribute. They must continue to abide by the laws of the United States. When veterans return to our country and are unable to hold down a job, they have failed in this mission. If this is the result of psychological trauma, then fine, give them treatment. However, if this is the result of a substance abuse problem -- getting started on drugs is a voluntary choice -- then they must be prepared to deal with the repurcussions -- as any other citizen would. I am for the veterans shelter, I have stated this repeatedly. I am against its location.
You're thinking of Palestinians who were dancing in the streets. And probably Saudi Arabians as well. Iraq and also Iran don't have the same anti-American sentiment.
A lot of people do believe that. Almost half of Americans in one poll believed that the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqi. Because people do believe it doesn't make it true. Saddam arming and helping Al Qaeda is like the U.S. arming and helping Al Qaeda. Bin Laden wants Saddam dead. He's been saying that for years. If someone wants you dead, you don't arm them and train them. You'd be signing your own death warrant. I can accept that Bush wants to attack Iraq. I think it's a big mistake to try and make up reasons such as Iraq having nukes, and a 9/11 link that don't exist. I've said before that there are plenty of legit reasons not to like Saddam, but those legit reasons are weakened every time stated evidence is misrepresented or non-existent.
