The USA/9-11/Iraq/bin Laden abroad

[prberk]

Hey Steve, I was just curious about how the USA's tragedies and war were now "playing" in Europe among "the people." I know that Tony Blair is coming out publicly to support us in attacking Iraq, but how is the situation (and even America itself) seen recently by Englishman. I thought maybe you would have some "everyman" thoughts for perspective.

And I really would appreciate similar commentary from anyone else outside of the USA. It just occurred to me that this forum would be a great place to find friends from abroad to ask....

Hey, it may not be specifically Disney, but it certainly was in his spirit to seek international understanding! :wink:

 

[wdwmagic]

The war on terror remains the number 1 news item here in England on a daily basis. I watch English news stations, and the only american news channel that we get, Fox news, and both run very similar stories. Fortunately the members of the UK goverment (well at least those that are important), are very much in line with the US policies, and will back the USA all the way.

I would also say that the typical person on the street also has total support for the USA, and really does see an attack on the USA to be the same as an attack on the UK.

The UK is in a bit of a tricky spot, as we are surrounded by european countries (looking in the direction of France and Germany) who seem to have governments with very short memories, and who seem to back Iraq for some crazy reason. I will never understand why that it is. Our government therefore has to tred delicately, but I am very pleased with how Blair is handling things so far. It is very good to him over in the USA with Bush, and to see them standing together speaking of the same goals.

 

[tenchu]

Originally posted by wdwmagic
The war on terror remains the number 1 news item here in England on a daily basis. I watch English news stations, and the only american news channel that we get, Fox news, and both run very similar stories. Fortunately the members of the UK goverment (well at least those that are important), are very much in line with the US policies, and will back the USA all the way.

I would also say that the typical person on the street also has total support for the USA, and really does see an attack on the USA to be the same as an attack on the UK.

The UK is in a bit of a tricky spot, as we are surrounded by european countries (looking in the direction of France and Germany) who seem to have governments with very short memories, and who seem to back Iraq for some crazy reason. I will never understand why that it is. Our government therefore has to tred delicately, but I am very pleased with how Blair is handling things so far. It is very good to him over in the USA with Bush, and to see them standing together speaking of the same goals.

The only problem I've got so far is that Blair is virtually commiting us to war without ever recalling parliament and discussing it with his MP's.

I think President Tony forgets it's a democracy sometimes.

 

[Erika]

Originally posted by prberk


And I really would appreciate similar commentary from anyone else outside of the USA. It just occurred to me that this forum would be a great place to find friends from abroad to ask....

Prberk, I belong to a club for sponsors of children (Childreach, CCF, etc) and you would be amazed at how many people received beautiful, teary letters form their children's families after 9/11. Any village that had access to the media knew about the tragedy, and the families were all so worried.

I added a Pakistani child to my little family earlier this year and I was a little nervous how the family would feel when they found out he had an American sponsor. His parents have been so welcoming and so sweet-- it's been a very nice cultural exchange in light of all that has happened. And in a way I feel like I am doing my little tiny part to fight terrorism.

 

[MKCustodial]

Down here, even though I don't follow much the whole political world, I understand that our president has decided to stay out of it. He understands America's position but is not gonna get involved. And the people have kinda the same opinion. The major opinion down here, though, is that we feel Clinton had a better approach to South American countries than Bush... I'm sorry to say, but he's viewed as a dumb cowboy down here, and many think he had every reason to attack Bin Laden (even though war is NEVER a good thing) but that he's jumping the gun on attacking Iraq.

 

[tenchu]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
Down here, even though I don't follow much the whole political world, I understand that our president has decided to stay out of it. He understands America's position but is not gonna get involved. And the people have kinda the same opinion. The major opinion down here, though, is that we feel Clinton had a better approach to South American countries than Bush... I'm sorry to say, but he's viewed as a dumb cowboy down here, and many think he had every reason to attack Bin Laden (even though war is NEVER a good thing) but that he's jumping the gun on attacking Iraq.

My personal view is that someone had to do something about Iraq eventually.

Saddam has been keeping weapons inspectors out for years, when that was one of the main sanctions imposed on him.

If he keeps on breaking these rules that the UN lay down, then he should be punished.

Unfortunately, any action upon Iraq will almost certainly result in massive civillian casualities, as the human shield appears to be one of his favourite defense stratagies.

 

[mwitkus]

Originally posted by MKCustodial
Down here, even though I don't follow much the whole political world, I understand that our president has decided to stay out of it. He understands America's position but is not gonna get involved. And the people have kinda the same opinion. The major opinion down here, though, is that we feel Clinton had a better approach to South American countries than Bush... I'm sorry to say, but he's viewed as a dumb cowboy down here, and many think he had every reason to attack Bin Laden (even though war is NEVER a good thing) but that he's jumping the gun on attacking Iraq.

I know this will not be appreciated by many of my fellow Americans but I have to say some of Bush's latest actions have led many Americans to once again think of him as a "dumb cowboy" as well. While he did gain a lot of approval in his response to 9/11, he seems to be a bit "war happy" and is losing a lot of the approval (at least around my circles) in his latest reactions to the Iraq situation. Not to say that there isn't something that needs to be done about the situation with Iraq, but many of us aren't sure that Bush's methods are the best... And no, I'm not sure what methods would be best either.

 

[ACE]

dda

Originally posted by mwitkus


I know this will not be appreciated by many of my fellow Americans but I have to say some of Bush's latest actions have led many Americans to once again think of him as a "dumb cowboy" as well. While he did gain a lot of approval in his response to 9/11, he seems to be a bit "war happy" and is losing a lot of the approval (at least around my circles) in his latest reactions to the Iraq situation. Not to say that there isn't something that needs to be done about the situation with Iraq, but many of us aren't sure that Bush's methods are the best... And no, I'm not sure what methods would be best either.

I find it very amusing that in 1998 when Clinton said we should attack Irag if Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, the Democrats were all for it. Of course Saddam let them in and we backed off.

Now Saddam won't let inspectors in, (hasn't since '98) and Bush is a "cowboy" because he wants to do something about it. Of course the Democrats don't support it now because it's not Clinton or another Democrat.

So tell me what's changed since '98?

P.S. When Saddam does attack and kill Americans, don't sit back and say "Why didn't our government do something to prevent it?"

P.S.S. Clinton was offered Bin Laden while he was President and turned it down. So do we blame the government for 9/11.

:wave: ACE

 

[alee4eva]

I know this will not be appreciated by many of my fellow Americans but I have to say some of Bush's latest actions have led many Americans to once again think of him as a "dumb cowboy" as well. While he did gain a lot of approval in his response to 9/11, he seems to be a bit "war happy" and is losing a lot of the approval (at least around my circles) in his latest reactions to the Iraq situation. Not to say that there isn't something that needs to be done about the situation with Iraq, but many of us aren't sure that Bush's methods are the best... And no, I'm not sure what methods would be best either.

Well, I both agree and disagree with that. I live in New York, only twenty minutes from the city. And here everyone is still super patriotic. I personally lost three people close to me in the disaster and the shock has not even begun to wear off. And I was lucky, my immediate family were all fine. but i know people who suffered many more devestating losses than me. Here in the state of new york everyone is still very bush happy. Same with like half of New Jersey and parts of Connecticuit, and I believe DC is still too. But when I travel around the country it's like some people weren't even affected. The other day I heard a couple from MA (no offense) talking on their cell phone about how they did all the "touristy things" like visit the MET, Statue of Liberty and "GROUND ZERO!!" I wanted to hit them over the head with my umbrella and say "oh yes, lets go see where my best friend's father's body lays rotting, and where thousands of other innocent people lost their lives." I guess, just the mega tourism in the area shows how people are forgetting the devestation it caused.

In response to Bush being "war happy," i know he's said some really moronic things, like calling Korea, China, and Russia (im not sure which three) the axis of evil. And he definitely isnt my favorite president. But he has done a lot for the victims and kept us safe since 9/11. He is a dumb cowboy, but i think that's what we need. We don't need a politician who behaves so high above us that we are never quite sure what he's thinking. We can trust someone who's the average joe (or George) in this case. Besides, he doesn't make all the deciscions, he's got Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice to advize him on all that stuff. So we have a kick as* cabinet and a cowboy for a president. It seems to be a formula for safety to me.

 

[mwitkus]

Originally posted by acellis_99
dda

I find it very amusing that in 1998 when Clinton said we should attack Irag if Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, the Democrats were all for it. Of course Saddam let them in and we backed off.

Now Saddam won't let inspectors in, (hasn't since '98) and Bush is a "cowboy" because he wants to do something about it. Of course the Democrats don't support it now because it's not Clinton or another Democrat.

So tell me what's changed since '98?

P.S. When Saddam does attack and kill Americans, don't sit back and say "Why didn't our government do something to prevent it?"

P.S.S. Clinton was offered Bin Laden while he was President and turned it down. So do we blame the government for 9/11.

:wave: ACE

1. I never said I was a Democrat.
2. I never said I was a fan of Clinton.

My concern is that Bush seems to be a bit blood thirsty and that makes me nervous. I would prefer that peaceful actions be taken prior to jumping into a larger War and losing more of my fellow Americans. Is that always possible? Of course not, but let's at least give it a few good tries. Call me a wimp, but the situation scares me and he seems a bit too eager to get involved in more war games for my liking.

 

[ACE]

Originally posted by mwitkus


1. I never said I was a Democrat.
2. I never said I was a fan of Clinton.

My concern is that Bush seems to be a bit blood thirsty and that makes me nervous. I would prefer that peaceful actions be taken prior to jumping into a larger War and losing more of my fellow Americans. Is that always possible? Of course not, but let's at least give it a few good tries. Call me a wimp, but the situation scares me and he seems a bit too eager to get involved in more war games for my liking.

1. I never said you were. (I'm a reg. Democrat)
2. I never said you were. (Neither am I)

We've tried "peaceful actions" for 4 years. Believe me, I'm retired military (Navy) with a son who will be old enough for the military soon and I don't want my shipmates or our children dying in war. But if we don't do something before he gets his hands on nuclear weapons, then alot more people will die.

Also, all those countries that won't support us should realize they aren't safe either. If Saddam will test weapons on his own people just think what he might do to the surrounding countries.

Anyway just my .02.

:wave: ACE

 

[Dawnie]

Originally posted by tenchu


The only problem I've got so far is that Blair is virtually commiting us to war without ever recalling parliament and discussing it with his MP's.

I think President Tony forgets it's a democracy sometimes.

I agree with that. Sure Saddam's a threat, no one's gonna deny that for one second, but at least consult the rest of the country before committing to sending our troops into a war that will destabilise the whole Middle East even more than it is destabilised now.

 

[Tramp]

...we wouldn't be having this conversation if the UN were more effective...after all, they represent the world community and imposed resolutions on Iraq which have been repeatedly violated...IRAQ lost the war in '91 and agreed to certain terms, most of which they have violated including, and most important, unfettered weapons inspections ... of which NONE have occured since 1998....and the UN stands by with their fingers up their nose.

...so because the UN tied our hands in '91 and didn't let the coalition finish the job, we find ourselves, once again, confronted with choices of epic consequences...we either preemptively destroy Iraq's ability to build weapons that can ultimately hold us hostage if not kill us, or sit on our hands, rattle our sabres and hope we are wrong.

Imagine, if you can, a similar scenario after World War 2...maybe we should have let the Nazis rebuild in France...I don't think so.

...about Bush being stupid...IMHO, the guy has trouble articulating...he's not a 'feel good' Clinton type and will never speak as well as Clinton...and ever since he came into office he's been presented with one MAJOR crisis after another including the bursting of that fictitious economic bubble that Clinton rode on for 8 years...Bush has a full plate of problems...give him a break....I'll take a 'regular old cowboy' in the Whitehouse ANY day before that no good, morally bankrupt, do nothing phoney we had for a President in the 90s...

oops, forgot...Clinton DID bomb an Aspirin factory in Sudan, didn't he?

 

[Al]

Originally posted by Dawnie


I agree with that. Sure Saddam's a threat, no one's gonna deny that for one second, but at least consult the rest of the country before committing to sending our troops into a war that will destabilise the whole Middle East even more than it is destabilised now.

I agree with that also. Its a big decision, and something that once started, its gonna be almost impossible just to "back out".

 

[disney_nutter]

i do think that britain should do something about iraq, but lets also think about this, this is a war agaisnt terrioism, then y doesnt britain do something about the troubles in northern ireland. we are a part of the uk and yet the only thing that seems to happen over here is that someone comes and talks to both sides, on friday we had a visit from Dr john reed(a good scots man) and yet all they do is talk. if britain is willing to go after iraq it should also be willing to go after the terroist living in the uk. Lets remember that innocent people have died here, kids have lost their parents and parents have lost kids. I think blair needs to sort things out in his own country before fouscing on over seas.

 

[tenchu]

Originally posted by disney_nutter
i do think that britain should do something about iraq, but lets also think about this, this is a war agaisnt terrioism, then y doesnt britain do something about the troubles in northern ireland. we are a part of the uk and yet the only thing that seems to happen over here is that someone comes and talks to both sides, on friday we had a visit from Dr john reed(a good scots man) and yet all they do is talk. if britain is willing to go after iraq it should also be willing to go after the terroist living in the uk. Lets remember that innocent people have died here, kids have lost their parents and parents have lost kids. I think blair needs to sort things out in his own country before fouscing on over seas.

I see your point and agree totally with you, but it's soooooooo much easier for him to send troops into a 'lesser developed' country, and bomb the living daylights out of them, where civillian deaths arent going to be taken so seriously.

The fact the war on terrorism has not been taken to NI has been largely over looked by the press.

If the people responsible for the troubles in NI have any sense, they will have seen after 9/11 that terrorism does not go down well with the public lately. Especially since the IRA used to do a lot of their fundraising in America.

I would imagine a lot of that money will have dried up.

 

[Legacy]

Well... as a recently joined US soldier I guess my opinion on this whole mess should be made known....

I personally feel that this whole thing with Osama is the main priority, and it should remain that way. Yes, the situation with Saddam is serious, but it has been this way since '98 unfortunately. The UN will have blood on their hands if Saddam does take the offensive on effectively the entire world. Saddam is not the US's priority... bin Laden is. What I am afraid of is that Saddam's actions are going to distract Bush, his advisors and the military and allow Laden to launch another attack. Call me a conspiricy theorist but I believe that a probable alliance between a middle-eastern cult leader and middle-eastern dictator has been established all in the effort of putting out the light of Liberty on this side of the world. That is a scary thought for me going into the service right now. I have to say though that if I have to go to the Middle-East for any reason I would prefer to go to put a bullet in the head of the malnutritioned bast@rd who convinced a people that we are the devil then a fat coward who can't appear in public himself. I am afraid that this whole situation may be a lot bigger then any of us expect. And if it is I pray for God's guidence for this nation that he would allow to hold no quarter against our enemies.

Just a soldier's thoughts.......

 

[disney_nutter]

If the people responsible for the troubles in NI have any sense, they will have seen after 9/11 that terrorism does not go down well with the public lately. Especially since the IRA used to do a lot of their fundraising in America.

to tell u the truth it has not gotten better but worse from 9/11. We are having no more bombings but we clearly see the ira,uvf using kids as cover for there acts. people are being forced to move houses. kids as young as 9 are out fighting and this done by these so called freedom goups. I think most people here thought that becuase of 9/11 that these acts would stop as we saw what terrosim has done to another country. but can i just say and i am sorry if anyone takes this the wrong way, but sooner or later the ira will start bombing main land uk and this will be the wake up call bliar needs.

 

[jmarc63]

Originally posted by disney_nutter
i do think that britain should do something about iraq, but lets also think about this, this is a war agaisnt terrioism, then y doesnt britain do something about the troubles in northern ireland. we are a part of the uk and yet the only thing that seems to happen over here is that someone comes and talks to both sides, on friday we had a visit from Dr john reed(a good scots man) and yet all they do is talk. if britain is willing to go after iraq it should also be willing to go after the terroist living in the uk. Lets remember that innocent people have died here, kids have lost their parents and parents have lost kids. I think blair needs to sort things out in his own country before fouscing on over seas.

Correct me if I'm wrong or stray from the exact reasoning but is'nt the fued between the IRA and the UK because of UK polocy toward Northern ireland and doesn't concern its self with matters outside of the UK/ Northern ireland idology? Where the terrorist threats from the Middle east affect free democracy as a world wide threat The US seen as ther leader of the free world? I beliver there are diffrent threats. I donit think the IRA is going to nuke the US like the middleast would.

 

[disney_nutter]

Originally posted by jmarc63


Correct me if I'm wrong or stray from the exact reasoning but is'nt the fued between the IRA and the UK because of UK polocy toward Northern ireland and doesn't concern its self with matters outside of the UK/ Northern ireland idology? Where the terrorist threats from the Middle east affect free democracy as a world wide threat The US seen as ther leader of the free world? I beliver there are diffrent threats. I donit think the IRA is going to nuke the US like the middleast would. [/QUOTE

this is a war agaisnt terrosim, if u are going to stop it, start some were people have had to live with it for almost 30 years. I cant go to certain area, i cant go out with certain peolple becuase they are catholic and i am protestant. People have died innocent people have died, i lost both my parents to the ira. And yet we sit back and let n. ireland destroy itself. As techu said the ira gets its fundingrasing from the usa so y worry ab it.