Bad news from BBC about us

I wouldn't be too worried by that.
Fleet Street is just as liberal as The Worseington Post.
Press polls attract alot of liberal agitator types, there and here.
Hell, spend a day at Speaker's Corner, and you'd think any serving US President was Joe Stalin incarnate.
I didn't really care what the Brits thought of us when I was stationed there, so why change now, lol?

DaddyDett

USAF Hospital (SGHR)
RAF Lakenheath, Brandon, Suffolk, 1977-1979
 
Consider the source, and then consider the culture war across the globe, and that Britain is busily disarming those citizens who feel so terrible about us.

If they aren't trusted with self defense by their own Government and society, why should I be perturbed at their other strange, twisted world views?

Perhaps they'll feel more confident about the world after Iran has nukes and the means to launch.


munk
 
The Europeans have a diluded world view when it comes to terrorism. You see it all the time. Look at Spain and how they let their votes be controlled by terrorism. To me they should change their flag to a G-String!!!!! Don't get me wrong, I think England is our greatest ally, and I value that, but they weren't attacked. They didn't loose 3K people. They don't get it.
 
Opinions and polls don't really bother me, but I'm confused: how many of the nations listed have recently or are currently receiving large amounts of foreign aid from the US?

Oh, well. You can't make everyone happy. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

I'd be more agreeable with the "money and sex" statement if was getting more of both. (Some playa I am.)
 
The Brits that voted as such can think what they like.:rolleyes:
As it was pointed out to me and the rest of the gang here quite a while back the Brits are "Subjects" and answer to their royalty and Parliament while "We are FREE!!!!":thumbup: :cool: :D and as long as we obey our laws, or at least not get caught, we don't have to answer to anyone and we dayumed sure aren't "Subjects" for which I thank my lucky stars daily!!!!!!!:thumbup: :D :cool:
 
Not everyone over here thinks the way that the BBC and the other left wing news doctors want us to. we have a strange dichotomy here with a bellicose prime minister who is at least as right wing as the opposition, leading a socialist left wing party that thinks the cure to everything is more taxes and more government forms, paperwork, studies, tests, and (mis) management. the latest crime figures came out recently 'crime' is reported by the labour party as 'going down' - what they really mean is that the rate of growth has gone down - 'minor' crimes like mugging, burglary, assault are going up. gun crime is going up (and they thought that removing guns and knives from honest citizens would stop that?) more and more police are requesting to be armed. they all wear body armour now. i think the next election will see a change as people realise they have traded their rights for an illusion of security.

personally i feel the monarchy here is a good thing, as they are the last check on the unbridled madness of a socialist government that has a majority in the house of commons. we used to have a house of lords that had a bit of power (could be overruled by the commons with a 2/3 majority), the socialists did not like the check on their powers and have mostly dismantled the House of Lords, got rid of the independant hereditary peers (hereditary does not necessarily mean 'bad', like 'appointed by the government' does not) in favour of stuffing it with political appointees of their choice. it still gives them a few headaches tho.

you'll find (hate to generalise tho) a lot of the country folk who have been out there for generations, are not terriblly fond of having to give up their right to self defense, to hunt, and to be free from unreasonable government interference and taxation. strangely enough, the socialist labour party's main strength comes from those on welfare and the trade unions (tho we have our kerry's and kennedy's over here too!)
 
Funny how the russians came in against us in practically every category, but they are wearing jeans, listning to crappy glasgow rock (where did that come from), and lusting for beef that they can never afford. ;)

By the way, I edited that statement over and over before posting. I was raised to fear, and mistrust the russians, and I haven't been able to get over it yet. I apologize for any time I let that through, and I will try not to let it get the best of me. It, sadly, is a fact though. I miss you dearly Ronald Regan!!!!!!!!

I'd like to pose some questions myself:

Do you think you would be more or less free without America?

Do you think you could have won either WW without America?

Do you appreciate the sacrifices America made in saving your *&^ in both WW's?

Are you jealous of how well fed Americans are? (Just for you russians.)

Now that one is just for spite. I think you all know that I am fiercely patriotic. I don't apologize for it. I hope I haven't offended any Americans with this post.
 
stayskal.gif
 
FWIW, there are some of us who count ourselves to be among friends here in the Cantina, who also don't support some of the directions of current US foreign policy.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in fully supporting troops who are deployed - they're not the problem. If anything, if the Iraq campaign was to happen at all, I feel that a whole lot MORE boots should have been put on the ground, appropriately supported. Nor do I think that the world would be better if the troops all pulled out, and Saddam was put back in charge. Considering where we've got to, that would be a disaster. Iraq has become a rallying point and recruiting ground for terrorists ... but it was NOT this before the invasion, however nasty Saddam undoubtedly was.

Like many others who live in countries round the world (and many within the US), I feel that this war was started on false pretences, and distracted the US from frankly more legitimate foreign policy goals - like Afghanistan (where Bin Laden is unfortunately alive and well, and where I fully support Canada's escalating role). The misinformation justifying the Iraq invasion has raised some understandable concerns among other countries about the current administration's competence, truthfulness, and trustworthiness. The impression hasn't been helped by things like the Plame affair.

The BBC poll doesn't say anything, in my view, about whether the UK (or the West more broadly) is grateful to the US for past actions (WWII, the Cold War, etc.). Of course we are. It says something worth hearing though, about how the current administration is perceived. I think the world isn't identifying the US administration and the US people as being one and the same - our own political leaders make dumb-@ss and self-serving choices too. In Canada, for instance, we've just thrown out our government over a corruption scandal. But if the American population doesn't send a message to the Bush administration in the mid-term elections, the world will start to wonder a bit more.

Tom.
 
Tom, I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that Iraq was not a
supporter of terror prior to our invasion.
Although not the hotbed of say Libya or Iran, Iraq has certainly done nothing to suppress radical Muslim extremism in the region.
Saddam's genocide of Kurds, and methods of behavior control are a form of terrorism themselves.

Unfortunately, the nature of the war has turned into one that a giant application of might has historically found damned challenging.

There used to be a time when the BBC World Service could be relied on
for coverage of world events the US media didnt bother with.
Unfortunately, the BBC seems to be losing objectivity as time goes on.

DaddyDett
 
The misinformation justifying the Iraq invasion has raised some understandable concerns among other countries about the current administration's competence, truthfulness, and trustworthiness. The impression hasn't been helped by things like the Plame affair.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Fetter

As all the leading intelligence agencies of the world, including that of Britain and the USSR thought there were WMD in Iraq, I don't see this as valid in any way. People supporting the 'we were lied to' argument are primarily on the far far left. I'm not saying you are, but this position, that of Bush lied, is ridiculous. We can agree the information was obviously false.

We apparently agree there is nothing to be done about the situation today but allow the Iraqis to assume the security of their nation when ready. As for your premise that more Boots should have been on the ground, that is a postion not held by Generals in charge of the campaign until recently. It is thought there are not enough 'boot' to continue as is, but rapidly changing conditions in Iraq may make that moot.

To act or not to act; France had no interest in Acting- it was recieving large kick backs from the Food for Oil program.

I think history will judge the US far more kindly than the BBC, France or Germany. It is a fact that Iraq was a destablizing influence in the Middle east, a loose cannon, a potential candy store of resources for terrorists.
I remind detractors that Libya turned in it's WMD materials since the liberation of Iraq, and that with an example of a democracy there the large middle class in Iran will have a role model in which to engage their own ruling clerics from within.

It is a misconception that there is a certain clear 'right way' in the international events of man. The water is always going to be muddy and confused, and hindsight is always going to be 20/20

If I waited for Germany or Canada or France to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions, for instance, there may not be a London or Paris or New York left standing as we know them today. And self serving interests aside, if New York falls, it will be the poor in the Third World nations that suffer, as well as the entire West's economies. If I lived under the umbrella of US protection for fifty years, and justifiably had a distaste for crass culture and MacDonalds, I may not like the US, but I wouldn't forget whose sacrafise allowed me the luxury of the criticism. That certainly does not mean the US has acted well for it's entire history, but it's done an awful lot of good, far more than elites in Europe sipping expresso and flirting with nihilism.




munk
 
Tom. You are among friends here whether you agree or disagree.

That BBC survey went on and on into every aspect of American life (culture, economics, military policy, etc). It wasn't just a statement on the war, or the administration. Most of the world is bitterly anti-American. They are too politically correct to say it, but its not just the administration. In Mexico they shout praises for osama bin laden at soccer matches. Mexico is supposed to be an ally. It is quite frankly bitter jealousy.

I believe you put too much stock in what our liberal media has to say about George Bush. I don't see a change happening at mid term. We were attacked and we are at war. Our Democratic party, of which I used to ally myself with, has offered no good ideas, no solutions, no plan. It hurts me to say this but they have behaved poorly during this entire administration. Additionally they are moving farther and farther left instead of moderating. I don't see them as having any kind of future in the short term and I believe they will loose more seats in the mid term elections. Wonder as you may.

I hope that our support of our president and our war on terrorism doesn't cost us important allies such as Canada. If you were attacked we would have followed you into war without hesitation. Mexico too...:barf: It is unfortunate, but we have no choice but to defeat terrorism and stabalize the mid east whether people disagree with that policy or not. George Bush is doing a good job of that. We have not been attacked again since 911. Why not allow the suicide bombers to use themselves up in Iraq rather than here? IMHO we need to get into Iran ASAP too.
 
Andy is completely right; we are all friends here regardless of our individual takes on Iraq or anything else.



munk
 
I know I'm among friends, gents ... that's why I decided to say something. If I weren't among friends, I'd have simply wandered away (and kept my knives!).

My home, Canada, has largely been a free-rider on the US on security issues since WWII. Unlike many Canadians with my views on Iraq, I'd want to change that - by increasing military spending, by starting up 3 years of mandatory military service etc. ... things that frankly give us more of a right to voice our own opinions on security issues.

Again, I mean no disrespect for any actual soldiers on the ground, or for past sacrifices. But I do have serious questions about the quality of strategic thought within the current administration. I had much more respect for this president's father, for instance - both in his action, and in his restraint. I don't believe George Bush jr. is his father's equal.

t.
 
I believe George Bush Jr is completely his father's superior.

But I also believe Canada has died along with the US in nearly every major conflict we've had in the world requiring armed intervention. I think if things got bad again, Canada and the US have too much in common to throw it away.



munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top