swphreak Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Check this out: Since for sum reason I cant get an address for this (It must be for AOL members only.... arn't I special ) I just saved the pic and put it on my webspace It's about what European AOL Members thought about the US and the efforts against Irag and terrorism. I think I'm amazed, but then again, I keep hearing that everubody hates us (United States) Note: The polls arn't scientific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I keep hearing that everubody hates us (United States) It makes me feel sad to hear people say that. Foreigners may hate the US war policies in Iraq and such, but don't start thinking they hate all Americans/all American ideals because of that. I don't like people who dislike all Americans because of what people like Bush are doing/have done, but I don't like people who go 'OK, so they hate Americans' every time they hear someone oppose the war on Iraq either. It's not being 'anti-American' to be pacifistic; it's being Anti-War. Germany has been in more wars than I can count; UK has had everything from Viking invasions to frequent terorrist attacks. France has also had a good deal of wars. And Norway alone lost 5000 soldiers in WW2 (which equals 300 000 American soldiers dying), and that's just one of the countries in World War 2. France lost 40 000 in a single battle. Then there is the revolutionary wars (Norway-Sweden, French nationals-French Monarchs, French-British in the USA..), the 13-days war, the crisis in Bosnia... it's just too much **** to list. Maybe it's time to give battle-ridden Eurasia a break? Bush and the war-friendly people keep saying it's "your war" when we oppose the war. Then, when Germany for good reasons say they want out, the USA call them "Euro-wimps". If it's "The Americans' war"; if it's solely between them and Iraq and the rest of the world has nothing to do with it; why do they have to pull the rest of the world in? People who hate all Americans are just plain out generalizing. Don't listen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Well this is old news but it WAS arrogant superpowers that helped build Europe after WWII... But I guess things have changed... :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I personally don't like the survey either. You should be able to dislike the US war on Iraq without calling the USA an arrogant superpower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I would to partially agree with how they feel about us. After all, we feel the need to get into other countries affairs and such at the wrong time. The war on Iraq is our war, not thiers at all! So leave Europe out of this as Dagobahn Eagle said. I don't think Americans should be hated as a whole, but rather the government that has become corrupt to say the least.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by krkode Well this is old news but it WAS arrogant superpowers that helped build Europe after WWII... But I guess things have changed... :| That's a bit different. Nazi Germany invaded other countries. Iraq did that once too (kuweit) and america did the same. Now the situation is different ... Iraq is not invading other countries. So please don't compare those two wars ... (yet). Since I'm an european, you now know my opinion on the subject. In short: Bush is a dangerous man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Get the Democrats back in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 YD! It is you! Where have you been? As far as Europeans' views of America, I can't say I blame them. As an american, I find that most of us our elitist, and self centered, and i find it very disturbing. Is this war necessary? From what we have been given, it would seem only somewhat convincing to us Americans, and it's our government pushing for the war. Now there may still be some sort of information that Bush has at his disposable that is fueling this drive to war. Some sort of info, that completely justifies our actions, at least for America. This info may be too sensitive to release or might compromise human lives or even threaten to injure further the shaky relationship between America and Iraq. So, as of now, with what we've been given, it seems that the war may be justified, but not thoroughly justified. And that's how America sees it. Imagine, being a foreign power and you are being told you should help us attack, but we can't prove it's absolutely necessary to go to war, just show you some sordid, circumstantial evidence that somewhat displays the need to attack, but if you decide not to help us, we shall forever remember your lack of action and support in our time of need. It seems bullish and downright rude of our nation to act in such a manner, nor do I approve of it. But I still believe that Bush is acting on information that we have yet to learn and therefore is acting in the best interests of our nation and maybe the world. But on the flipside, I don not blame the rest of the world for viewing us as warmongers, for without the information that absolutely proves the neccesity to attack Iraq, and then to ask another nation to risk her lives and her peace on "our word" is both bold and presumptious. For many a man has given his word, only to later be found a liar and fortunist. It is abundantly clear, however, that we, the United States of America, are going to war, with or without of the aid of her Allies. I will neither abandon my nation in her time of need, nor will I seek to undermine the very government that places us in this dire situation. I will support her as I may, because I have faith that there is more evidence than I, and average american, can even fathom that depicts without reprehension nor shadow of a doubt, that Suddam Hussein represents a clear and present danger to the health and well being of America and her people, and maybe even the entire world. It is on that faith that I pledge my allegiance to such a country as the united states. It is on that faith that I cast my vote for who I thought would lead this country with the best intentions and with the most foresight of her future, and it is still with that very faith that I would endure the hardships that my country may encounter due to her stance on global terrorsim and Iraqi's dictatorship. I love my nation, even though she may have her fair share of faults about her. So in the end, she may not be perfect, and I don't blame the Europeans one bit of their distaste for America, but she is my home, and it is my President that leads us down the path to war, and it is my brothers, sisters, and friends that will go off to fight this war, and I refuse to turn my back to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 USA Sucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle It makes me feel sad to hear people say that. Foreigners may hate the US war policies in Iraq and such, but don't start thinking they hate all Americans/all American ideals because of that. I don't like people who dislike all Americans because of what people like Bush are doing/have done, but I don't like people who go 'OK, so they hate Americans' every time they hear someone oppose the war on Iraq either. It's not being 'anti-American' to be pacifistic; it's being Anti-War. Germany has been in more wars than I can count; UK has had everything from Viking invasions to frequent terorrist attacks. France has also had a good deal of wars. And Norway alone lost 5000 soldiers in WW2 (which equals 300 000 American soldiers dying), and that's just one of the countries in World War 2. France lost 40 000 in a single battle. Then there is the revolutionary wars (Norway-Sweden, French nationals-French Monarchs, French-British in the USA..), the 13-days war, the crisis in Bosnia... it's just too much **** to list. Maybe it's time to give battle-ridden Eurasia a break? Bush and the war-friendly people keep saying it's "your war" when we oppose the war. Then, when Germany for good reasons say they want out, the USA call them "Euro-wimps". If it's "The Americans' war"; if it's solely between them and Iraq and the rest of the world has nothing to do with it; why do they have to pull the rest of the world in? People who hate all Americans are just plain out generalizing. Don't listen to them. U can read my mind. Creepy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wraith 8 Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by NL_Ackbar USA Sucks! dont do that Ackbar. even with the smiley.. that will turn into a flame war. im not going to argue on this point tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Young David That's a bit different. Nazi Germany invaded other countries. Iraq did that once too (kuweit) and america did the same. Now the situation is different ... Iraq is not invading other countries. So please don't compare those two wars ... (yet). Since I'm an european, you now know my opinion on the subject. In short: Bush is a dangerous man. I see what you're saying, and just to clarify. I wasn't comparing the wars. I was merely pointing out the attitude they have towards their former "helpers." But then, I do realize that things have changed. But maybe the comparison may be active one day if Iraq starts doing "stuff." btw, Welcome back! Long time no see Much welcome backness to you too, Duder!! How goes life? You should be able to dislike the US war on Iraq without calling the USA an arrogant superpower. Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 I think a better comparison could be Germany after World War 1. They were after other countries too (they weren't bad guys in WW1, though), and they lost territory after WW1. So basically, they were left with less than what they started out with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle I think a better comparison could be Germany after World War 1. They were after other countries too (they weren't bad guys in WW1, though), and they lost territory after WW1. So basically, they were left with less than what they started out with. After WWI, France and the UK were out for revenge against Germany aswell which would also play a role in WWII... I don't support this war at all and if it happens, I will not support anymore actions. Some say it's all about the oil, some say it's to finish what Bush had started. Idk what the motive is (other than the supposed terror threats ) exactly, but it shall hopefuly become clear. I just hope we take care of North Korea anyway we can rather than Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Here's another poll, on who's the greatest threat to peace in 2003 (vote to see the results): http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted February 15, 2003 Author Share Posted February 15, 2003 Wow, I am at a loss with words.... So what are we supposed to do? Let Saddam get away with breaking that treaty about not building certain weapons or whatever? Jus let Bin Laden walk free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Imperial Sardaukar I don't think Americans should be hated as a whole, but rather the government that has become corrupt to say the least.... Name one proven way the government is corrupt, besides going actively to war against terrorism. And YD, Bush is a dangergous man, IF you are a terrorist. Look, its not like we are going to invade Mexico and Canada and France after this is over. We aren't warmongerers. We can, however, see when someone poses a serious threat to the United States and to the World as a whole. We aren't just going to war for the heck of it. If you'd remember, it was proven Iraq had biological and chemical weapons, and he was supposed to destroy them. We have not seen a single shred of evidence that he has. And, if you are thinking straight, that means he still has them. He's used them before, he'll use them again, but this time it won't be Kuwait. And answer me this. Most of ya'll probably want more inspecters, right? (i'm assuming you don't just want Saddam and his terrorist buddies to get off with absolutely nothing changing.) you want to give the inspecters more time to make certain war is neccessary, no? Because the inspecters are making progress? The inspecters are there to find Saddam's weapons, yes? They certainly aren't there to verify Saddam's destruction of such because if he had destroyed them he would just give us proof and be done with this mess. The only other reason would be confirm Iraqi noncompliance, which i doubt any of you would be satisfied with. So, if the Inspecters confirm Iraq's noncompliance, we go to war now. If we let the inspecters have more time and they find all Saddam's weapons, we go to war then. So my question is this. What the heck are the inspecters doing, besides giving Saddam more time to prepare? If they fail or are blocked, we go war, if they succeed, we go to war. What's the point? As a threat to peace, sure America is starting a war, so you can call us a threat to peace if you want. But what is peace? Is there ever really peace? Iraq and much of the Muslim nations openly oppose us, that doesn't sound like peace. Palestinian suicide bombers kill innocent Israeli civilians. That doesn't sound like peace. Iraq had/has biological and chemical agents, terrorist training compounds, and enormous ammounts of money used to build secret palaces at the expense and oftentimes the lives of his people. That doesn't sound like Saddam has been preparing for peace these past 12 years. Sure, call the US a threat to peace if you want, it doesn't matter. Peace is just a word that one side uses to ignore the danger on the other. As long as there are people and countries that hate others, there will never be peace in this World. As long as we have weapons, we will fight. My definition of a pacifist is someone who refuses to face the world around him. War is an inseparable part of our diverse societies. Not that we should seek out war, but that we must do what is too often neccessary to protect ourselves and our ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak Wow, I am at a loss with words.... So what are we supposed to do? Let Saddam get away with breaking that treaty about not building certain weapons or whatever? Jus let Bin Laden walk free? No. But: We could start by dropping this whole "If you are not with us you are against us!" type rhetoric. It's not really helping at all. It makes it seem that if anyone expresses a difference of opinion in the way we are planning on taking action then it immediately makes them an idiotic peacenik, or an enemy, or at the very least sympathetic to our opponents. Of course that's not totally accurate, but we are on the verge of totally alienating a few long-time allies who feel they are not being heard by us. We are presenting a tough guy attitude to the world at a time that we should be seeking out every friend we can muster. If that takes a little more time, then maybe it should be taken. We need to lose the cowboy/ gunslinger attitude of "I don't really need anyone's help, but if yer comin along for the ride, fine... just don't get in my way!" The problem with being the top gunslinger in town is that everybody will start lining up to try to bring you down. If we adopted an official stance of "We are trying to do what's right here, but we REALLY need everybody's support and help now to do it properly. How can we all get on the same page to eliminate these threats to us all?" I think we would be seen in a better light. We act sometimes like we are the only ones who could be threatened with these weapons Saddam holds, but the truth is these could end up anywhere in the world. We aren't the only nation to ever be affected be terrorism. In fact we have had it really easy compared to many parts of the world. Destroying terrorist organizations is in the best intrest of every citizen of the planet. We need to be trying to work with everyone to get them on our side. Other nations and other citizens have as much to lose as we do if these weapons get loose in the world, and I'm sure they know it. I don't think that most people in the world have a problem with the goals we are trying to achieve, just the way this administration has been presenting it's plans for achieving those goals. War has been made to be completely inevitable, with no other options; and any other suggestions are scoffed at with no impression of ever being seriously considered or even listened to. But I personally believe we have reached a point where that time has passed, and we will now have to follow through with this course of action and live with all the consequences (even if that is rampant anti-American sentiment worldwide.) If the war goes well, quickly, and with little "collateral damage;" and all claims against the Iraqi regime are proven fully accurate; and the current government is fully removed from power; and the Iraqi citizens dance in the streets as a result of American liberation; THEN maybe the world will change it's mind about us and this course of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Here's another poll, on who's the greatest threat to peace in 2003 (vote to see the results): http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html Of course we are a threat to international peace. That's because we're a large part of the International Police forces. We are the executioning arm of the UN. We enforce the polocies made by the UN in hopes to keep the people of the world. Would it be right if we decided to "keep the peace" and not attack after 9/11? What about Kuwait? What about now? If we "keep the peace", how many thousands...no...millions of lives will it cost when weapons of mass distruction go unregulated and unrestrained? How long until anarchy? and how long until apocalypse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Of course we are a threat to international peace. That's because we're a large part of the International Police forces. We are the executioning arm of the UN. We enforce the polocies made by the UN in hopes to keep the people of the world. Would it be right if we decided to "keep the peace" and not attack after 9/11? What about Kuwait? What about now? If we "keep the peace", how many thousands...no...millions of lives will it cost when weapons of mass distruction go unregulated and unrestrained? The UN's main goal is world peace. Not peace trough war, but peace trough peace. 9/11 and World War 2 and the Cold War is not like this at all. We've got three camps here: Those who want to enforce UN resolution trough military means; those who want to do it trough peaceful means; and those who don't care. I don't think there are anyone left in the last camp. STTCT's rant thread comes to mind. Rogue15's post on slapping.. if a little baby screams, is it okay to slap it? Yes, according to Rogue15 and probably everyone in the first camp. If they do something wrong, let's punish them severely. In the USA, this camp is represented by the Republican Party. Now, how do we know that Iraq won't stop if we increase security in Iraq? Not number of inspectors, because they have already done their job. I'm talking about recon stuff, security, and survelliance, to keep Iraq from keeping the weapons we by now know they have. Just that Iraq has WOMD doesn't have to mean he'll use them. How long until anarchy? and how long until apocalypse? I'm not even going to answer that, I'll let someone else do it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 I'm curious when does Europe consist of just three countries? One reason World War II occured was because the League of Nations was weak and had no way to enforce it's resolutions. The UN is now in danger of becoming another League. If the United Nations is unwilling to back up it's resolutions with force, then those resolutions become powerless. Countries such as Iraq, North Korea, and others will laugh at them and will not comply. Why should they? Especially if the UN won't do a thing. Face facts Iraq has be in breach of the UN's resolutions. If the UN does nothing then it will become a powerless and meaningless institution. The recent resolution past by the UN stated sever consquences would occur if Iraq does not fully comply with the resolutions and past resolutions. Iraq has yet to fully comply. So what should the consquences be? Should they be more time, or maybe thats to sever? The UN now stands on a cruecial line. Do they step up and enforce their resolutions or do they allow themselves to become ineffective? -------------------------- For those who think it is just Britain backing the US your wrong. Many countries support our action, including Spain. The fact of the matter is that naming the countries that oppose the US is just better news. The fact that it give off the impression that the US is totally alone is just a side effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Just a question to everyone: Do you want to go to war at once, or continue the inspections? And answer me this. Most of ya'll probably want more inspecters, right? (i'm assuming you don't just want Saddam and his terrorist buddies to get off with absolutely nothing changing.) you want to give the inspecters more time to make certain war is neccessary, no? Because the inspecters are making progress? The inspecters are there to find Saddam's weapons, yes? They certainly aren't there to verify Saddam's destruction of such because if he had destroyed them he would just give us proof and be done with this mess. The only other reason would be confirm Iraqi noncompliance, which i doubt any of you would be satisfied with. So, if the Inspecters confirm Iraq's noncompliance, we go to war now. If we let the inspecters have more time and they find all Saddam's weapons, we go to war then. So my question is this. What the heck are the inspecters doing, besides giving Saddam more time to prepare? If they fail or are blocked, we go war, if they succeed, we go to war. What's the point? But the weapon inspectors are making progress. If you would just take your time to listen to what Blix and the other guy (can't remember the name) has to say, then perhaps you would know that they are there to find out wether or not they have WoMDs and to find out if the nuclear program has been revived, and that they have yet not found any proof that they have. Iraq has shown themselfes more cooperative. You say that if they had destroyed their WoMDs they would simply show proof of it. But how can you show proof that you have destroyed something? And about Powell's "evidence" for Ireaq having WoMDs, Blix told the security council that there were nothing that gave reason to belive that the Iraqis knew about the inspections in beforehand, as Powell said that they had. There should not be war in Iraq. The inspections are working, and the military pressure Iraq has on them helps them to be more cooperative. We should increase the inspections and still maintain a certain military pressure, and then we might very well get a peaceful solution to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 (Admiral, I said three camps, which is just another way of saying three debating/arguing groups) I think Admiral saw what I missed. Yes, the UN needs to be made stronger. We all say that we should let the UN handle this and not the USA, but how CAN the UN handle it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle I think Admiral saw what I missed. Yes, the UN needs to be made stronger. We all say that we should let the UN handle this and not the USA, but how CAN the UN handle it? Different countries are reponsible for different things. I don't remember which country that is responsible for helicopters, but they are using them so the inspectors have to drive in these hummers with UN painted on the side, so that they lose all sprise and when they get to a factory they have to wait an hour to get in. THis "ruling body" seems more like the Articles of Confederation where the states controlled all the power and Congress couldn't do squat. They couldn't enfoce anything. If you can't rule yourself no one will respect you. In other words if the UN can get its own people to do anything how will they get others do obey them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Just a question to everyone: Do you want to go to war at once, or continue the inspections? But the weapon inspectors are making progress. If you would just take your time to listen to what Blix and the other guy (can't remember the name) has to say, then perhaps you would know that they are there to find out wether or not they have WoMDs and to find out if the nuclear program has been revived, and that they have yet not found any proof that they have. Iraq has shown themselfes more cooperative. You say that if they had destroyed their WoMDs they would simply show proof of it. But how can you show proof that you have destroyed something? And about Powell's "evidence" for Ireaq having WoMDs, Blix told the security council that there were nothing that gave reason to belive that the Iraqis knew about the inspections in beforehand, as Powell said that they had. There should not be war in Iraq. The inspections are working, and the military pressure Iraq has on them helps them to be more cooperative. We should increase the inspections and still maintain a certain military pressure, and then we might very well get a peaceful solution to this. Exactly, inspections are working, and they are gettting closer to finding out what Iraq has, WMDs. Look, it would make absolutely no sense for Iraq to be hiding its proof of compliance with 1441. If they had any proof, they would have fully cooperated and shown it by now. Ok, so the inspecters are making progress, great. That means when they finally succeed, then we go to war. So what does that gain us? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! I don't want war, but i can see clearly enough that it is neccessary at this point. Inspecters are worthless, merely a ploy by the UN to stall the decision of war and ultimately and unintentionally help Iraq. Oh, and Eagle, you're slapping a baby analogy doesn't fit. A baby doesn't know what it is doing is wrong, and it can't fully comprehend and learn that what it is doing is bad (which crying isn't even neccessarily so). Saddam, on the other hand, has been warned fully, and given time to come forward. He hasn't. He has continued for over 10 years to disobey the UN and hide his weapons and/or proof of their destruction. He knows what he is doing is wrong, and he has done it before. Therefore he should be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.