Conquer Club

Why does the world hate America?

Because its full of Americans?

Kidding.

We don't hate America. We laugh at you. America is the greatest unintentional source of amusement the world has.

Oh, plus Bush is a c**t. Wait, that statement is a tad redundant, huh. In more than one way.

As for Iraq. I would only have invaded had I the full backing(or damn near close to full) of the international community. We'll blame that on Bush and other American poiliticians not understanding the concept of diplomacy.

vtmarik wrote:Sure, Bush has complicity in the whole thing, but that doesn't mean that the rest of Congress is beyond reproach. What was the vote on the war?

Every single person in the majority (republican and democrat) is just as culpable as the President. The only difference between the two parties is the distance each traveled to get away from the vote after the lies were exposed.

EDIT: Did I get your post right OnlyAmbrose?

A similar thing happened in the UK, with the two main parties voting for the war. I think it's the problem of the electoral system in the US and the UK, where they're both first-past-the-post (I'm not sure what the American term for this is). In both countries, both parties were too scared not to vote for the war, for fear of upsetting the "floating" (or whatever the US term is) voters.

I believe France & Germany found it easier to oppose the war because of their systems of PR. The political parties don't have so much to lose if they stick to points of principle.

Concerning reasons for the war: I remember that there were three major reasons put by the coalition Govts to their respective peoples:

1. Iraq was complicit in 9/11.

2. Iraq was in breach of the Gulf War 1 peace treaty and had WMDs. Further negotiations on inspections etc were not viable, because the Iraqis were lying.

3. Hussein was a bad man, and we needed to get in there and change the regime so democracy would flourish.

My 'ear to the ground' includes an interest in Middle East politics. I knew that the Baathists hated al-quaeda, in part because they were an established secular party with members from the minority Christian community and sunni arabs. As such, al-quaeda and its Islamist philosophy were opposed to Hussein and Baath Party control of Iraq. It was also clear that Hussein supported semi-secular groups opposed to Israel, like Fatah. The error in this first reason for the war was in conflating the complex of militants operating in the ME sphere.

The establisment Australian Press was ambivalent on the second reason. I didn't know whether Iraq was complying with the treaty prior to the invasion, but my view was that the US and its allies seemed to be acting with unseemly haste. Many European governments, presumably with access to the same information as the Coalition governments (and that was my 'ear to the ground' assumption) wanted to continue with sanctions and inspections.

The third reason was the only one I was sympathetic to. The problem here is where do we stop? The list of countries we could attack and occupy based upon the behaviour of their governments is a very long one indeed.

Finally, it is my understanding that the NY Times or the Washington Post or both have apologised to Americans for their pre-war reporting. These organisations need to be functioning properly for US democracy's sake. What we see and read is critical to our own ability to judge the performance of our leaders.

As previously posted, I was against the war from the start, as were millions of others. However, we now need to stay for as long as it takes to get the country back on its feet.

I agree with what you said there, Mr Toad, and you reminded me there of the 9/11 thing - that never even got off the ground in Britain, because the idea of Saddam Hussein having anything to do with Al-Qaeda was obviously ridiculous, and anyway, British Intelligence quickly put the kibosh on that.

Nevertheless, it was amongst many, many reasons put about by the Republican administration, and it was another reason I thought the whole thing stank - they just seemed to be putting as many arguments as possible, regardless of how plausible they sounded - just to see which arguments would float and which would sink.

I've never been clear on why the Republicans invaded. Have you? Establishing a supply of oil is definitely a factor, but beyond that, it's a mystery to me.

I think foriegners hate America mainly because of Bush. That's the biggest reason for the last six years.

Skittlesandmnms wrote:I think foriegners hate America mainly because of Bush. That's the biggest reason for the last six years.

The French have hated America long before it was cool. I think it started when the US refused to give moral support to the French Revolution.

vtmarik wrote:

Skittlesandmnms wrote:I think foriegners hate America mainly because of Bush. That's the biggest reason for the last six years.

The French have hated America long before it was cool. I think it started when the US refused to give moral support to the French Revolution.

I didn't know that. But let's face it, why didn't youse? Surely getting rid of the ancien regime should have been right up your street. Got complacent, I bet.

lol.

"The Brits declared war on the US. The US declared war on spain. Spain declared war on the Brits, and in the confusion, France declared war on itself. and lost."

-dave barry

well... the french revolution was... pretty ugly. not as bloody as the US one... but 40000 deaths by guilliotine isnt exactly good

Skittlesandmnms wrote:lol.

"The Brits declared war on the US. The US declared war on spain. Spain declared war on the Brits, and in the confusion, France declared war on itself. and lost."

-dave barry

well... the french revolution was... pretty ugly. not as bloody as the US one... but 40000 deaths by guilliotine isnt exactly good

So 40,000 people were killed by guillotine? Note also, there was a terrible incident where all the prisoners in a prison were killed by a mob...

Are you saying that the French Revolution was a bad thing? I'd be surprised if you were - the American Revolution, American Civil War and the Second World War all had good outcomes, but lots (LOTS) of people died in them. Are you saying none of these fights should have been fought?

Stopper wrote:I didn't know that. But let's face it, why didn't youse? Surely getting rid of the ancien regime should have been right up your street. Got complacent, I bet.

Wait, no, wrong event. My bad.

It probably started when Washington and went after Genêt tried to use American sailors to capture British ships during France's war with Britain. Then the US refused to sponsor the Treaty of Versailles, saying that it was too harsh.

Those aren't the only reasons of course, but that's probably how it began.

vtmarik wrote:

Stopper wrote:I didn't know that. But let's face it, why didn't youse? Surely getting rid of the ancien regime should have been right up your street. Got complacent, I bet.

Wait, no, wrong event. My bad.

It probably started when Washington and went after Genêt tried to use American sailors to capture British ships during France's war with Britain. Then the US refused to sponsor the Treaty of Versailles, saying that it was too harsh.

Those aren't the only reasons of course, but that's probably how it began.

Nah, I was just joking. You didn't need to do all that...

Stopper wrote:

Skittlesandmnms wrote:lol.

"The Brits declared war on the US. The US declared war on spain. Spain declared war on the Brits, and in the confusion, France declared war on itself. and lost."

-dave barry

well... the french revolution was... pretty ugly. not as bloody as the US one... but 40000 deaths by guilliotine isnt exactly good

So 40,000 people were killed by guillotine? Note also, there was a terrible incident where all the prisoners in a prison were killed by a mob...

Are you saying that the French Revolution was a bad thing? I'd be surprised if you were - the American Revolution, American Civil War and the Second World War all had good outcomes, but lots (LOTS) of people died in them. Are you saying none of these fights should have been fought?

no not at all. im just trying to piece together a semi valid arguement lacking a point, from the remnants of my 9th grade history class.

Stopper wrote:Nah, I was just joking. You didn't need to do all that...

I know, but I got my facts wrong so I kinda did have to. It's the principle of the thing.

I think that the then administration was genuinely wanting to establish a major Arab US ally. It might be related to oil, but my gut says that was a side-benefit to the idea of having a stable democracy in Iraq. The irony is that they thought that Iraqis would embrace a new regime, even one closely associated with the US, and did so little preparatory work on post-baathist Iraq.

I don't think the Bush admin. is run by bad people, or stupid people. They have a different view of the world to me. I think that the first term Bush admin. was driven by idealism - they genuinely wanted to make the world a better place, and that they were genuinely perplexed when Iraqis expressed dissatisfaction. They had vision and purpose, if not my vision and purpose.

I'm not certain that they could have predicted the scale of outside interference in Iraq, how it has become a magnet for terrorists. However, now they should put their heads down and get as many troops in there as are necessary to restore a functioning state, the polls and casualty lists be damned. They, and we, owe Iraq that.

Simon Toad wrote:I think that the then administration was genuinely wanting to establish a major Arab US ally. It might be related to oil, but my gut says that was a side-benefit to the idea of having a stable democracy in Iraq. The irony is that they thought that Iraqis would embrace a new regime, even one closely associated with the US, and so little preparatory work on the post-baathist party.

I don't think the Bush admin. is run by bad people, or stupid people. They have a different view of the world to me. I think that the first term Bush admin. was driven by idealism - they genuinely wanted to make the world a better place, and that they were genuinely perplexed when Iraqis expressed dissatisfaction. They had vision and purpose, if not my vision and purpose.

I'm not certain that they could have predicted the scale of outside interference in Iraq, how it has become a magnet for terrorists. However, now they should put their heads down and get as many troops in there as are necessary to restore a functioning state, the polls and casualty lists be damned. They, and we, owe Iraq that.

I can appreciate your conclusions on the administration, but do you really think injecting more troops onto a people who think they're being invaded is going to lessen the insurgency?

yeah... this whole 'war or terrorism' is just like adding gasoline to a fire

Yeah, I do actually. Australia & NZ do it in the Pacific. You put in enough troops to make sure that any trouble will be controlled, and have a large contingent of humanitarian workers there to actually kick-start the country.

Now, in Iraq, "a large number of troops" means a fair sight more than it does in the Solomons or East Timor, and it also means specialist troops - urban warfare, desert rovers, and the like. And we all need to prepare for large numbers of casaulties, among both military and humanitarian workers.

This is the price we must pay for the mistakes made when the invasion began.

Stopper wrote:

vtmarik wrote:

Skittlesandmnms wrote:I think foriegners hate America mainly because of Bush. That's the biggest reason for the last six years.

The French have hated America long before it was cool. I think it started when the US refused to give moral support to the French Revolution.

I didn't know that. But let's face it, why didn't youse? Surely getting rid of the ancien regime should have been right up your street. Got complacent, I bet.

Yeah, French wanted the US to help them because they had done the same for us in the American Revolution, however Washington wisely realized how this would be bad for his foreign affairs because their opponents were the British and surprisingly enough, America's leading trade partner. So Washington came up with the policy of neutrality and did not support either in the war.

EDIT: theres more to the story but its not really needed here.

Stopper wrote:

Skittlesandmnms wrote:lol.

"The Brits declared war on the US. The US declared war on spain. Spain declared war on the Brits, and in the confusion, France declared war on itself. and lost."

-dave barry

well... the french revolution was... pretty ugly. not as bloody as the US one... but 40000 deaths by guilliotine isnt exactly good

So 40,000 people were killed by guillotine? Note also, there was a terrible incident where all the prisoners in a prison were killed by a mob...

Are you saying that the French Revolution was a bad thing? I'd be surprised if you were - the American Revolution, American Civil War and the Second World War all had good outcomes, but lots (LOTS) of people died in them. Are you saying none of these fights should have been fought?

The French Revolution was a good thing. What came out of it, The Reign of Terror, wasn't.

Then the US refused to sponsor the Treaty of Versailles, saying that it was too harsh.

Question: Why was Hitler able to take control of Germany?
Answer: Because the German people, in the midst of their worst economic depression ever, were searching for a strong leader to pull them out of that depression.

Question: Why were the Germans in a depression.
Answer: The $33 billion (million?) of reparations charged from the Treaty of Versailles.

I think most people will tell you that the Treaty of Versailles was a bad treaty.
It's why the Allies rebuilt Germany after WWII instead of tearing it down. And look at how Germany turned out after WWII. Also, I'm not sure if the Senate refused to ratify the treaty because it was too soft. I know Wilson wasn't a fan of it, but I believe the Senators had their own reasons.

Well, we all know what came out of the treaty of Versailles.

Simon Toad wrote:Yeah, I do actually. Australia & NZ do it in the Pacific. You put in enough troops to make sure that any trouble will be controlled, and have a large contingent of humanitarian workers there to actually kick-start the country.

Now, in Iraq, "a large number of troops" means a fair sight more than it does in the Solomons or East Timor, and it also means specialist troops - urban warfare, desert rovers, and the like. And we all need to prepare for large numbers of casaulties, among both military and humanitarian workers.

This is the price we must pay for the mistakes made when the invasion began.

Yeah, but American policy has always been "Hearts and Minds." That was our policy after WWII when we rebuilt Germany like ertang said, and it was our attempted policy in Vietnam as well as Gulf War I.

Sure, that'll work, but at the same time it won't exactly raise that region's opinion of us. I don't think the US'll go for it.

Probably right, the US won't do this, but it's what's needed, I think.

Simon Toad wrote:Probably right, the US won't do this, but it's what's needed, I think.

It's one solution, definitely.

vtmarik wrote:

Simon Toad wrote:Yeah, I do actually. Australia & NZ do it in the Pacific. You put in enough troops to make sure that any trouble will be controlled, and have a large contingent of humanitarian workers there to actually kick-start the country.

Now, in Iraq, "a large number of troops" means a fair sight more than it does in the Solomons or East Timor, and it also means specialist troops - urban warfare, desert rovers, and the like. And we all need to prepare for large numbers of casaulties, among both military and humanitarian workers.

This is the price we must pay for the mistakes made when the invasion began.

Yeah, but American policy has always been "Hearts and Minds." That was our policy after WWII when we rebuilt Germany like ertang said, and it was our attempted policy in Vietnam as well as Gulf War I.

Sure, that'll work, but at the same time it won't exactly raise that region's opinion of us. I don't think the US'll go for it.

Yeah from what I understand the US is the only country that from the beginning has rebuilt or aided the countries that it defeated in war. You can see it even in Afghanistan and Iraq. We did it to Japan and Germany as you said and, from what I understand, we did somethings that GB considered to be favorable for them after the American Revolution.