Question to all Brits.

[VashTheStampede]

After scouring the net I found an artical from one of you newspapers and am wondering if it is representative of most Citizens of England or just a crazy few. USA Rogue State (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12005343&method=full&siteid=50143)

[TimTwoFace]

As a Canadian, I read a lot of this stuff in our papers, too. You know, writers defining the US as a bit of a rogue-state that bullies countries and jumps to action too quickly, and Canada as the calmer, more peaceful brother that sits back and does things, but usually not punctually. Perhaps this particular article is going overboard a tad, but I will agree that I do see some valid points in this argument. (Dude, I'm just not a fan of Dubya myself...I still liked Clinton a lot more, personally.)

Anyway, I know I can be kinda risking my rep by saying such a thing on Independence Day of all days, but I'm just giving an honest read on the topic. :)

-Tim

[Frozen]

Hmmm... I'd say the majority of the British public can be divided into three groups:

Group 1: Don't care about the USA or world politics.

Group 2: Think the US is a crazy, gun-totin' war-machine.

Group 3: Sympathise entirely with the plight of the US, understand the pain it suffered after 9/11, and recognize the need to take the fight to Bin-Laden etc.

That's a pretty distinct polarisation, and there are shades of grey in between... I'm sure the more learned Brit's around here like SJJ will be able to paint you a more elaborate, articulate responce, but that's the impression I get from my observations...

Just in closing, I think the prevailing attitude from all three camps is, however, that the US operations in Afghanistan might have kicked the Taliban in the nuts, they haven't removed the real threat of Bin-Laden...

[James]

Originally posted by Frozen
Hmmm... I'd say the majority of the British public can be divided into three groups:

Group 1: Don't care about the USA or world politics.

Group 2: Think the US is a crazy, gun-totin' war-machine.

Group 3: Sympathise entirely with the plight of the US, understand the pain it suffered after 9/11, and recognize the need to take the fight to Bin-Laden etc.

That's a pretty distinct polarisation, and there are shades of grey in between... I'm sure the more learned Brit's around here like SJJ will be able to paint you a more elaborate, articulate responce, but that's the impression I get from my observations...

Just in closing, I think the prevailing attitude from all three camps is, however, that the US operations in Afghanistan might have kicked the Taliban in the nuts, they haven't removed the real threat of Bin-Laden...

I think Frozen put it pretty much as I would have (in a condensed none waffle format).

The US has not a very good reputation in the UK or Europe (if I may be so bold....)

I think the sympathy for the September 11th and the current foreign policy are viewed entirely seperately. The negative attitude that comes across through that article is aimed at the governmental actions rather than at the American people.

Simply put, the 'Brits' are very uncomfortable with President Bush's recent political actions and as of which does not affect how the feel or felt about the atrocities of last year.

The feeling over here (and I do clearly generalize for 58 million people) that the US military lacks a certain control in it's operations - whether that is true or not isn't for me to say - but the general impressions that come through the media through this campaign and the Gulf War is that the American military occasionally seems blind to it's own failings and refuses to learn from their errors or admit them publically.

As an example, I have a friend who was in the Gulf who said that the British Military vehicles had to paint indentifcation marks on their roofs. Not from fear of Iraqi attacks, but from the 'friendly fire' the were regularly suffering from US planes. In fact, statistically, I think (and if someone has the figures which prove or disprove this then please post them) that the UK and other allied forces suffered more casualties from US friendly fire than they did from Iraq.

As of which, there is a lingering concern about the US military professionalism. There has concern about Bush ever since his election (not a popular outcome as I think nearly ALL Brits would agree) and his frankly rather poor foreign policies. These two issues combined is reflected in the media report.

There is also an issue of responisibilty which has compounded the outlook of the US, and that is the debateable issue of immunity to war crimes. Should the US have immunity? France seems to have agreed and managed to get a 7 year immunity themselves. An interesting ethical issue.

The issue might be a little political, but here is a link if you want to read up on it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/63331.html

So what can I summarise? Well, the US government is getting very negative publicity at the moment, and most of it I think most British feel is justified. Whether it is or not is another matter - as is sympathy for the US citizens for the attack last year, a very seperate issue.

[Joe Wagner]

WOW! As an American citizen I know that there is and will always be a lot of backlash against my country but personally I think this is outrageous. The current climate in the world today seems to be to completely ignore the events that lead to a war on terror and focus on what the US is doing to fight against these scum bags. As of right now the reports of 40 dead in a bombing have yet to be proven, much like the reports of 500 dead in Jenin when in fact the PLO later had to chagne their reported lies and reduce the number to 5, fewer than the amount of Israeli troops that died in ambush attacks within the city.

The reason the US will not join the world court is because of the potential politicality of the trials. Right now the UN seems to be filled with countries that are willing to bash Israel for defending their country yet sing the praises of the terrorist leader Yassir Arafat. They have already tried setting Sharon up for a trial and were ready to crucify Isreal for the Jenin "massacre" even after the PLO admitted they had "distorted" the facts.

With every military operation there will always be accidents - I'm sorry but it's a fact of battle. I can not think of one war where innocent civilians or friendly fire has not taken place. The US military is constantly trying to create new ways to prevent this from happening and has even created smart bombs and new techniques of finding terrorists areas to prevent these from happening but no operation is perfect. The alleged Afghan massacre occurred in an area that has already been proven to be a hideout for Al Quida and Taliban fighters and they have used churches and civilian homes to hide in before so they could easily claim that a wedding was taking place - taking a page out of the PLO's playbook and making them look for sympathitic to the world at large.

One thing that I find amazing is that if any other country were attacked the way we were on 9/11 they would run over any obstacle and track these terrorists down where ever they go - yet when the US does the same thing we are considered a rogue state and looked upon as a war mongering nation instead of a country that's trying to make the world safer not only for ourselves but for countries all over the world.

-Joe!

[Frozen]

Originally posted by JJWspider



One thing that I find amazing is that if any other country were attacked the way we were on 9/11 they would run over any obstacle and track these terrorists down where ever they go - yet when the US does the same thing we are considered a rogue state and looked upon as a war mongering nation instead of a country that's trying to make the world safer not only for ourselves but for countries all over the world.

-Joe!

With respect, people in mainland England lived for decades in the knowledge that the IRA could have struck at any time... and they did. You don't need to tell us about losing lives and loved ones to terrorism...

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Frozen


With respect, people in mainland England lived for decades in the knowledge that the IRA could have struck at any time... and they did. You don't need to tell us about losing lives and loved ones to terrorism...

I can understand where you're coming from Frozen. I lived in England for a couple of years in the early to mid 80's. While we were there my parents decided that over a weekend they were going to go shopping in London with the Air Force church group they belonged to. Well they switched times with another couple and went a week earlier - good thing to because exactly one week later a car bomb went off directly outside of the building they would have been standing outside of - the schedule even had them right there at the exact time the bomb went off.

I think the point I was really trying to make is it seems like whenever a country finally fights back against terrorism they are treated worse than the culprits that committed the act. Look at how much trouble the EU and UN has tried to cause for Israel but they refuse to put restrictions upon Arafat - every once and a while casually begging for him to do something. When a country takes action it seems to get bashed by all of their allies (the US has been guilty of this to occassionally with Israel and even the UK when they raided IRA areas) and I think that in todays world these countries need to find a way of supporting each other instead of bashing the war against terrorism because if we give in now we really haven't accomplished anything in the way of a more peaceful world for any of us to live in.

-Joe!

[Frozen]

This isn't the time ot the thread to be debating the legitimacy of Bush's actions - the question is what the British think of those actions, and SJJ and I have answered as best we could. If you'll forgive me, I'm not getting involved in a further debate about what the US should be doing...

[James]

I agree with Frozen.

As much as would like to go into Bush's specific foreign policy I'm sure I'd just do more harm than good ;)

I'll finish off just by saying I think it's good for all in the US who are as shocked or uncomfortable with these comments as JJW has pointed out, to still look at these foreign opinions with an open mind. If you don't agree like JJW that's fine - I just hope that people will value the outside opinions as much as their personal views.

As a country we gain nothing out of showing negativity to a close ally. For us to do so shows there just might be an issue worth looking at here. From an outside perspective, it does look like the US military is occasionally, out of control. Before you declare it is not true, you have to ask why do other countries feel uncomfortable with the US actions? We support the same ethos so why such negative press? We don't do it to irritate, we do it because we are concerned.

As I have said in other threads candidly, I think there are issues with US - a country I do have a great respect for - that it appears the the nation is uncomfortable to answer, or perhaps even address. No nation is perfect, most especially (and I'd certainly recommend if you are looking news from a foreign perspective, choose a paper slightly more dependable than the Mirror! Certainly not an aspect of my culture thay I'm proud of! :D)

All I'm trying to say is that sometimes partiotism can be distorting. To have belief in your country is a great nation building trait and one that the US has built it's mighty global position on, but it can sometimes make some issues look very different inside to how they outside.

All I ask is that when you all come to you opinion on this matter, that you consider both 'inside' and 'outside' with the same objectivity. Studying them both will give yourselves greater insight.

I hope I've not offended anyone in this post if I have pushed the envelope too far - just take it as another perspective to a deeply complex argument where there is probably no real answer.

[Psycho Fox]

Yes there is a bit of that from Canada too. All of them like the Brist are behind the people but as for the goverment well maybe this will shine some light on it

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patrotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and mind has closed, the leader will have no need seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the Citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done and I am Ceasar.

-Julius Ceasar


There are people that also think Bush has been sniffing a bit too much gas due to his funny quote like:

"I want to make sure everybody who has a job wants a job"
Umm shouldn't that be I want to make sure everyone that wants a job has a job? since everyone that has a job probally wants one or they would quit.

"The caribou love it. They rub against it and they have babies. There are more caribou in Alaska than you can shake a stick at." (on the Alaska pipeline) I think Bush needs to take Sex ed.

"I hope I stand for anti-bigotry, anti-Semitism, anti-racism. This is what drives me." I hope so too

"The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country." No duh

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." So did Bush travel back trough time or something?

For NASA, space is still a high priority." Thanks for clearing that up I though it was hot dogs.

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." Getting shot doesn't hurt it is the bullet going through you.

So there are people that questions Bush's IQ thus why there is critism of the US outside the US.

On the freindly fire front there are people that think the US is cowboys that shoot first, shoot some more and then when everyones dead ask some questions. Take the Canadain Troops that got hit. The Canadain Armforces told the US they were training there. The 2 jets passed over the training area and quickly left the area then turned around and came back and attacked the Canadain Troops. The American pilots didn't check with intel what was there even though they already safly left the area, they just came back and blew it up.

Oh and I should point out that there are people like me that also citize their own nation just as much as they do the US. It is health in a democracy to allow such critism.