I just want to say--- Thank You --- to Tony Blair and the Brits for standing with us in this time of crisis.
I hope now that this country can distinguish between those who are it's true friends and those who profess to be, especially those who have had a long history of having it's hand out for our tax dollars. Again to our British friends, I for one thank you.
Though I'm out of the country (Canada) I heard that yesterday in Montreal, Quebec the fans booed during the US national anthem at a hockey game vs. the New York Islanders. And I have to say I am SO DISCUSTED!!!
For years our "dear" French Canadian brothers have struggled to seperate from the rest of Canada. I say now we should pay them to GO!!! as long as they take our fool of a Prime Minister with them!!!!!!!!
No question there are diverse opinions throughout the world on this conflict, but I personally AM embarrassed by our government and the people of Quebec!!!
Militarily we have little to offer, that's for sure, but we certainly could offer support. Instead "we" take the side of maniacs over the side of freedom and democracy and that alone is revolting to my sense of right or wrong.
Well said Kuki,
As one who is farther left (geographically) than you, I agree. Don't get me going on that Seperation BS. Booing the National Anthem is pretty low, we don't like it when ours has been booed. It's just common courtesy.
Bush or Saddam? that's a no-brainer(well maybe some peaceniks need help with that one). And don't forget the "Rent-a-Protestors" who are at nearly every major event. I have a day-job to attend to so can't and won't join them.
Heard on the news a couple of protestors got smucked by an irrate driver on Burrard St. Guess they were never told not to play in traffic during rush hour! Better than protesting in Iraq...what would have happened then?
I think there is a litlle stupidity on both sides here. The U.S. congress changing the name of their french fries and french toast to "Freedom fries" and "Freedom Toast" is quite absurd as well. I, for one, am now boycotting all "American" fake cheese products and will only eat French cheeses from this day forward. (You can't trust a cheese that doesn't melt.) ;0) Anyway, my point is that it's really easy to look at this war as a football game, rather than the very serious and sober event that it is.
Thanks to Kuki and our 'real' Canadian friends. Like he said, there is Canada and then there is 'French Canada'. Guess which one I never have cared for. <G> As for the Brits that are supporting us, no it isn't just those in Parliment. I have many good friends that are Brits and they are behind us and thier PM Blair. Those that protest are those that get noticed is all. I would also like to toss in our great Aussie friends who have even thrown in thier troops, no mere lipservice from those blokes, they back us with actions! We should support our friends and not those that wish to build themselves up on the blood of our people and our friends like France is wanting to do. They are demanding that the US and UK have no say-so in rebuilding Iraq and the new government there, but they are the ones that should run it! The French government is right at the bottom of my list right now as far as having any respect for them. They disgust me at this point.
When this is over, and it will be very shortly, we will be able to hold up to the world those WMD that they all claimed did not exist and let them see the joy of a free Iraqi people.
Oh, come on Ron, the British troops, just as our troops, are doing what they are told to do, and from all appearances are doing it extraordinarily well. Just like everybody else of good will, I'm holding my breath that every single one of them will come home safely.
But just as the British people and many Americans, I refuse to confuse my feelings about these fine young folks with my feelings about the cause they are engaged in. I never understood why after Vietnam so many who were against the war took their anger out on the returning troops. I trust that will not happen again.
But the fact that 40,000 British troops are doing their jobs as ordered doesn't change the fact that the Brits as a whole, along with most of the rest of the people of the world, don't support the cause. Fighting and winning doesn't change that, nor should it. And being Americans, and owning the most spectacular and impressive war machine ever conceived, doesn't automatically make us right.
I have respectfully stood for the national anthems of many lands, and only a true boob would show the sort of disrespect Kuki describes. But the words of a pretty good journalist from the 1950's also hold true: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." The journalist was Ed Murrow and he was speaking of the then junior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy.
AR- Respectfully, I disagree with your opinion. This post is not directed at you personally, but at the general group of war opposers. I do however have the most respect for you , AR, that even when your country is doing something you feel is wrong, you still respect our military, and support them personally. That means so much to me.
I think the majority of the Brits & most all the US military DO support the war. We would not be doing so well if we did not. A job well done is only done well when those who are doing it support it. Those who oppose the war are simply louder for the simple fact that they did not get what they want. Those who support the war don't feel a need to shout.
But even that aside... with all the people in the world, one will never make EVERYONE happy. In the end, we have to protect ourselves and our friends. We have already spent too many lives, tears, and years gaining and then KEEPING our freedom to let it waste away in the hands of a sick and twisted ruler like Saddam. No matter what people assume or think, in the end there is only the truth. And the truth here is that Saddam has and would use WMD or other illegal weapons to attack the US, and countless other countries along the way, for the only reason being that we are free.
I am reminded of the Sept. 11th attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. I remember and uproar of people just furious that "we" did not see this coming..... why couldn't "we" stop this? "Dam the government for allowing this to happen!", and "They should have stopped this!", and "Why didn't they know this was going to happen?" were just a few of the many statements I heard at that time. Fast forward a few years, when Iraq (Saddam) has sold or given his WMD to various terrorist groups and the US and allies have once again lost thousands and thousands of civilians to terrorist attacks. Fast forward a few years to when Saddam is killing not only his own people, but ours using bioligical weapons, or even chemical weapons. What would you have said? Would you place blame on the government? ??
I'll tell you what my reaction would be... I would play back all the warnings by the Bush admin. and then I would play back all the protests and anti-war demonstations.
You want the government to protect the freedom and people of the US, yet you do not want to head the warnings? "Lets give Saddam another chance" you say! Well if you trust his word so much, then why don't you take a trip to Iraq! Hell, become an Iraqi citizen if you are so discusted with the US actions, and have such sympathy for Saddam (who tortures and kills his own family and anyone who disagrees with him). In most cases, I really feel that the those in the US who oppose the war, only oppose it because it came from a Republican party. Had it been a democrat in US office, most of those opposers would be supporters.
We don't want Iraq to be like us in the United States.... we only want them to be free from a sadistic ruler. As a free country, they can keep there beliefs, religons, practices, rituals, etc. But they can also live without fear, and have a say in what their own country does.
I used to be in the military, and my husband still serves. I have such respect for the President of the US for using the military for what it is meant for, the fight to protect our freedom and our citizens. Our US soldiers are not stupid or naive. Many of them have college degrees (my husband has two), they are not only following orders, they know why they are doing what they are doing.... they know what they are doing is right.
In conclusion, this is my opinion. Thankfully, a part of that freedom we protect serves the purpose of allowing all US citizens to express their opinions. Even though I get sad and sometimes angry when I hear opposing opinions, I am thankful to hear them... Because it means that our freedom still lives. I gladly (and sometimes frustratingly) listen to all opposing opinions, even though I strongly disagree. Like I said, it represents a part of our freedom, which many countries do not have.
Let's be honest, most of those who oppose the war, will likely never change their opinion, and most who support it, will always support it. In the end, we SHOULD just listen to each other, shake hands, and do what we feel is right. Be it protesting, or boycotting. In the end, we are still free, even though we often disagree.
What I do not tolerate is disrespect for the military or the United States in general. Burning the flag of the United States makes me literally sick! It is that flag which will allow you to vote your opinion if you do not like the current leadership. Hold it up and speak, shout, or even cry your opinion.... but don't burn the symbol that allows you to do these things! On military bases, at 5 pm every night, the US National Anthem play loud over the base speakers. Every car stops, every person pauses, every military member salutes, completely still until the last note has been played. And every day that I hear it, I make it a point to pray for our civilians, and our military. It really is a sight to see if you have never seen it before. The entire base frozen, out of respect. These are not people just following orders. These are people who do what they know is needed to keep our country safe. THAT is why we are so strong, and free.
Nice to read your views. I believe you are wrong in so many ways that I can't even count them, and this is certainly not the place to try. In my case at least, what I believe has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics.
I'm sure you are right that most in the military support the cause. That is very natural in any volunteer fighting force. In saying that the Brits do not support the cause, I was speaking of the country as a whole, where the latest polls I saw said that the war has a 19% support level. We can agree that the number is much higher in the military itself. And, the overall number will probably rise a bit as hostilities ramp up, because the very natural emotional support for the troops is sometimes communicated as support for the cause.
But fundamentally the world is against the effort, and in my view it should be. I'd love to debate you about it, but as I say, this isn't the place. I'm just glad you agree that we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
This is the place to hope that the Americans, the Brits and the Aussies come home safely and soon, and that the innocents of Iraq are spared. I hope your husband is not in harm's way.
We can not base our national security on foriegn opinion. So what France..Germany or others may think is not important to me. Maybe their objections to us taking out Sadam are motivated by things other than moral issues. As far as how well our men fight has nothing to do with politics.......men in battle fight for the men to their left and right. Common survival in a hostile environment. Has nothing to do with politics or patriotism.
I do agree that getting our troops home as soon as possible is very important regardless of how one feels about this "war". I applaud the right of dissenters to the "war" to protest it. Not many countries allow such freedom of expression. Can anyone honestly say that the world won't be a better place without the current regime in Iraq?
I am English and like most of my fellow countryfolks I am very much in favour of this war,Saddam Hussein has to be stopped once and for all.We know that if the present regime in Iraq is allowed to continue ,in future it will be our children and grandchildren who are going to be placed on the frontline and that is not the legacy we want to leave for them.
I did not vote Tony Blair into power but I support him all the way,President Bush might not have the eloquence of some but he has had the courage to stand by what he knows is right.It may appear that the anti-war lobby in the U.K. is stronger than the war supporters,that is because they are making more noise than the rest of us,we prefer to get on with our lives as normal .
God Bless the armed forces fighting to not only free the Iraqis from the horror of the Hussein regime,but fighting for the rights of you and I and all mankind to live our lives in peace.
We Brits, love our American cousins and I for one cannot wait until the day dawns when we leave the European Union and become your newest State!!.
I personally could care less about Iraq and who may or may not be in charge of the place. What I care about is some lunatic anywhere, not just in Iraq, getting nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and dispersing them to other lunatics who would use them on the U.S. in the blink of an eye.
Are there people out there who believe it would never happen? Yes. Many of them have been in the streets "protesting ", believing all we have to do is to be nicer to people.
Look at history. Has there ever been a more generous, caring , giving people than Americans? No. Where were all the "protesters " after 9-11? Why weren't they in the streets "protesting " the deliberate, cold blooded murder of several thousand people, and not all of them Americans? Because it basically happened here, to us, and no one gave a damn.
Burying you head in the sand leaves another part exposed and as someone once said, appeasement only means you will be the last one to go.
I don't feel Iraq as a country was a direct threat to America.I do firmly believe they have aided terrorists, have ties with them and would have definitely armed them with whatever they could develope to use against us. How would it feel to see half of NYC, Miami, L.A. etc destroyed? How many would then be blaming the Government for NOT doing enough to stop it before it happened? Well, we are trying to stop it before it happens and look at what we get.
I would be very interested to know when all the dust settles just what all shows up in Iraq with " made if France " stamped on it ! It is so very obvious France has some little secrets and dealings that they don't want to come out. They have been so vehemently
opposed to anything against Iraq that if they themselves had a strong military they would probably have sent troops to aid Iraq.
I wish that the war had never started. I wish the terrorists had not attacked us on 9-11.
I wish that all people everywhere could walk in peace and dignity anywhere they choose to go. I know it could be so if everyone in the world felt that way.
But I am not so foolish as to believe that everyone does feel that way.
Bless the troops, be they British, Australian or American. May their draw be fast and their aim true. We need them.
CP your opinions were so much on the mark. I thank you for expressing what I believe. I do not believe the polls that say only 19% support the war in Britain (Blair did win in Parliament) ... these polls usually are taken from a sampling of maybe 1,000 people. I'm disgusted by the protestors in the streets and the media coverage of them. The vast majority of American's support our President and our troops as well as the Brits and Aussies. It would be nice (but shocking) if the liberal media would cover the people who are backing the troops and our President. I'm disgusted by the French - they have been cowards for decades. Yes, the french have a connection with Iraq - and it's very good oil contracts. Yes, the french will always let someone else fight. I think when we've won this war it will be time to reassess all the monies we give/"loan" some of these cowardly countries.
I cruise the Emerald Princess, Eastern Caribbean on April 16, 2012
CP, I am very much in agreement with what you wrote. I support what our country is doing right now because I believe that while we can't do away with evil completely, we are called to limit it. I do not want innocent people to be hurt or die, and my heart is heavy in regards to that. I do want our country to stand up and protect us. From what I have seen so far, it appears that we are trying to fight this war with the minimum of harm to the Iraqi people. I have not seen or heard of any thing that would make me ashamed of my country. I am very proud to be an American citizen and I support our troops and what they are doing for us. I also am thankful for the support of the British and the Aussies and others who are aiding us.
I said "I believe you are wrong." Certainly no sin in that. You believe I'm wrong. No sin in that either. Remember, we said "no yelling."
CruzNut. . .
I always get a good laugh out of people who don't believe polling data unless it's polling data that matches their own point of view. The usual slam is to challenge the sample size which is always quite small, but in this day and age--due to tremendous sophistication in sample selection--is quite accurate. The margins of error stated are correct, and lots of people (not just in politics) stake lots of money and credibility on the accuracy of these techniques. But if you still don't believe in sampling, I have a suggestion: Next time you go to the doctor for a blood test, tell him to take it all.
You are right about a couple things: most Americans do support the war (I believe those polls too). And the French do have an interest in Iraqui oil. So my question for you is, that being the case, why did they not support the war? They're endangering their place at the trough by their pacifism. Their economic self-interest would have been better served by joining in. Despite protestations that the oil will go to Iraqis, those who have been paying attention know that the US is already bidding contracts to our own firms for extraction and processing. And it's no coincidence that Mr. Cheney still receives a one-million-dollar-a-year stipend from Halliburton to this day. The French could easily be shut out of the windfall.
Ron. . .
To the best of my recollection, we protested 9/11 with a vicious attack on Afghanistan's terror infrastructure, which was more or less successful, and which had the near 100% support of the American people, including me. That protest continues, we are told, with continuing efforts to root out terrorism and protect our nation. This task has sometimes been carried out with Keystone Kops efficiency, nevertheless it too is supported in principle by virtually everyone. In other words, Ron, protests didn't happen after 9/11 because virtually nobody was against the war in Afghanistan, and virtually everybody was united in grief at what had happened. Bottom line: there was nothing for civilians to protest about.
Kinda makes sense when you think about it, doesn't it?
Winston Churchill was vilified for wanting to confront Hitler militarily.
Learn further from history...
Neville Chamberlain was praised for his "appeasements" of the "Fuhrer."
If, in the 1930s, there had been a superpower to do in Europe what we are doing in Iraq
today, history would contain a far different lesson. Today's irony is that those most vocal in their protests and critiques of American foreign policy will benefit from the action we are taking. They will benefit in the reduced likelyhood that their protests may be interrupted by chemical or biological terrorist attacks. A further benefit they will derive is that victory will give us access to even more sand for them to stick their heads in.
God bless our troops and protect the innocents on all sides!
Post Edited (03-23-03 14:35)
I may dwell on the land, but I live at sea!
Sensation 2/03 I disembarked, but never really left the ship.
Sensation 04/05 The vessel made me do it!
Summit 03/06 to Hawaii, Where God left his fingerprints, in memory of Margaret.
Carnival Freedom (March 08)
\X\Mercury (January 09)
Who was yelling? Still trying to figure that out AP.
My perception of what you are saying is this... We did not protest the war in Afghanistan because we were attacked, and thousands of people lost their lives, and tens of thousands more lost friends and loved ones. Therefore, we should wait until Saddam uses the chem and bio WMD that we KNOW he has to kill thousands of people before we do anything? If someone points a gun at my head, I am not going to wait until he pulls the trigger before I fire at him. I am going to kill him before he kills me or others.
What is so hard to understand about that?
If you really truley believe that Saddam has or had no plans to attack or help attack Americans with his WMD, call me.... because I have a really nice piece of desert on the Euphrates river to sell you.
Also, I said it once and I will say it again.... I am not "wrong" in my opinions, just as you are not wrong in yours. To say an opinion is wrong, is like saying that Saddam is a humanitarian. An opinion is always true to the individual who holds it.
As for the poll arguement... Some polls are acurate, some are not. It depends on who is conducting it. To compare it to the withdrawl of blood for medical testing is ridiculous. Bloods' seperate characteristics are only evident when seperateing the contents with a machine that is made to do so. You will not get a different HIV result, for example, by taking blood from the foot instead of the arm. However, if you pick one person from Florida, and then another from Utah, the opinions will be different. To make this analogy is silly in my opinion (opinion being the key word here).
Guess it depends on which polls you want to look at. The latest ones I saw state there is a 58% approval rate for PM Blair. I also talk weekly to friends that happen to be British and they are supporting him and the USA and most of the folks they know are also supporting this action. They are afraid and there are some conflicting statements being heard over there because of the notorious liberal media in Europe and the French yellling at everyone that is likely to listen.
Just got this by e-mail,,,,thought you might like to see it,,,after looking at this thread,,,,
A friend just sent this to me.
A friend of mine is an officer in the naval reserve.
A few weeks ago, he was attending a conference that
included admirals in both the US and the French
At a cocktail reception, my friend found
himself in a small group that included an admiral
from each of the two navies. The French admiral
started complaining that whereas Europeans learned
many languages, Americans only learned English. He
then asked. "Why is it that we have to speak
English in these conferences rather than you have to
Without even hesitating, the American admiral
replied. "Maybe it is because we arranged it so that
you did not have to learn to speak German.
I'm going to end this here because it is becoming silly.
1. The blood test comment was a joke--a very old joke in the survey research world. Of course it isn't a comparable thing. However, as you say, some polls are reliable, some are not. The ones that are not are the parlor games played by TV networks, newspapers and websites that ask stupidly unprofesionnally framed questions and publish raw responses from a self-selected sample. If they are honest they label themselves as "non-scientific." The ones that are reliable are those that publish a margin of error (ME), which indicates a specific sample was scientifically chosen. For business purposes I often read research findings which have been consistently reliable despite very low samples. I read one yesterday with a sample size of 150 and a margin of error of +/- 7%. Based on experience with the polling company's past work, I'm sure the results will turn out to be reliable. My point was that sample size is not a predictor of the accuracy of the poll, as someone had claimed in this string. Simple as that. End of story.
2. If you don't mind, I won't take you up on your offer of a piece of desert, because I am neither stupid nor naive. Of course I believe Saddam would attack us if he could. But the important part of that statement is "if he could." In opposing the war, I have personally been in favor of keeping the pressure on so that he is incapable of exporting his terror. Hans Blix and his merry men are clearly boobs and are in the pockets of the French and others. Neverthless, up until the day they left, they had by definition held the use and export of WMD's by Saddam in check. That is all we needed for the short and intermediate term. Yes, it was frustrating. Yes, it was hard to watch the endless and seemingly fruitless UN verbal sparring matches. Yes, it is hard for Americans to see themselves as only one voice among many. However, if the United States had a semblance of skilled diplomats, we could have held the line, and assured our safety from his WMD's until they were discovered, or until we could convince others that the string had run out.
To do that would have taken something rare in the United States: patience. Perhaps even the patience of Job. But if we want to be a moral superpower as well as an economic and military one, we must often exhibit that patience. I am not a Pollyanna, nor are most people who oppose the war. We understand Saddam as well as you do. We simply have a different, and we think better solution. You will claim it doesn't work. I will reply that we weren't patient enough to let it work. That is where we differ, nowhere else.
So you were quite wrong in your analysis of "what I was saying." What I was saying is that almost all Americans realized and understood that there were no good alternatives to the war in Afghanistan, and therefore there was no objection. What I was also saying is that roughly 30% of us in this country and a majority in the rest of the world believe that there are good alternatives to the present war. This does not mean that we believe Saddam is a good guy, or that he is not dangerous, or that he should be given free rein to export his terror, or that we should put up with him indefinitely. The French are wrong about a lot of things, but they were right in saying that war is always failure. In this case failure was not necessary, at least not yet.
That's really all I will say on this, since the talk here is supposed to be more or less about cruising.