can somebody please explain.

[T4 Primera]

I don't think anyone here would disagree that the world needs to be rid of Saddam Hussien.

The disagreements as I see them seem to be centred on how and when it should be accomplished, the possible future repercussions of the course of action that has been taken, and why the decision was made to invade Iraq at this point in time.

I make my distinctions between Bush and his supporters/detractors as follows:

I believe that those who support the war do so for noble reasons including human rights, freedom and liberty. That refers to the people.

I believe that those who oppose the war (me) do so because they believe it was a premature act and that important preconditions first needed to be in place to minimise future conflicts arising in the aftermath of this one.. That refers to the people.

I believe that the real reasons for the decision to invade Iraq are not the same as the reasons being announced to the people of the world; and that agendas besides those of human rights and world security are simultaneously being persued. That specifically refers to the Bush and Blair administrations.

Now if criticism of Bush or Blair is offensive to their supporters, I can only say this - you trust them, I don't - we both have our reasons.

[boingo82]

Originally posted by taranaki
... I've also seen millardo and cbass treated with ... ignorance.
Is ids too complex for you guys to understand ...or whatever other half-baked accusations you want to throw in?

Thanks for the name-calling and accusations of low mental capacity. That may be part of your problem, as though that isn't necessarily anti-American, it is definitely rude.

As for the actual question, there have been quite a number of posts by many of you, (Cbass, Moppie, and Taranaki coming immediately to mind ) that would easily be considered offensive, if not entirely anti-American. Want an example? There is a thread going about threat levels in an individual member's daily life, where each person would post up something to the effect of "I'm not afraid of being bombed because I'm in a small town" or "I'm scared 'cause NYC is a big target" or whatever. A certain aforementioned member entered said thread, and said (and I quote) " I live in ******* ***, and I'm not a terror target. This is because my country doesn't go around angering other nations to the point that people are willing to kill themselves to fight back at me. "

The post had to be nuked because it was inflammatory and immediately provoked somewhat of a flame war...but even if it hadn't, it was damned insensitive, seemingly implying that anyone residing in the USA deserves this risk simply because of where we reside.


ON THE OTHER HAND.....

Yes a lot of name-calling has been coming from the other side also...a lot of people have been assuming that an anti-war stance means you WANT Saddam in power - and I think ALL of us agree that Saddam is hardly a good leader.

In conclusion...as has been said above, both sides need to take a step back and evaluate the situation and conversation before they post...a lot of nice arguments have turned into off-topic flame-wars with a single poster's click...

I have become more enlightened to other opinions in this forum, but when posts are made in a very inflammatory tone, it is hard to overlook that and see through to the base message.

(Also I am still a little pissed that when I DO bother posting in here, I'm usually either ignored entirely or immediately called an idiot. If you disagree with my opinions, tell me WHY, or if my opinions are too stupid to bother analyzing, tell me that. )

[Prelewd]

Boingo, I have read your entire post, thought about it, and do not think you are an idiot.

I think you SHOULD "bother" posting here more often because while one single poster's comment can start a flame, one single poster's comment can also change the topics perspective as well. The more the merrier.

[T4 Primera]

Boingo, your post, along with those of your fellow Americans, certainly go a long way towards answering the question which started this thread - thank you.

[boingo82]

No, thank both of YOU...I have done quite a bit of lurking in this forum, and though I don't necessarily agree with either of you 100% of the time, I have found your posts informative. I especially respect that although you (T4 Primera) in particular do not agree with the war, you have occaisonally argued on the other side of things when a staunch anti-war poster was "going off", so to speak..
Also I have seen both T4 Primera and Prelewd reevaluate your opinions and change them in light of new information. That makes them so much more valuable than those people who would pick a stance and absolutely REFUSE to listen to anything from the other side.
Any case, your comments mean a lot to me.

Also, I think people need to remember that not everything's black and white...I'm thinking of a certain "Either you're anti-war or pro-war, otherwise you have no opinion" discussion....why can't a person look at a war and see that with every event there are both pros and cons..the important thing is to evaluate those pros and cons and decide which weigh more heavily to you. Why can't a person be 60% pro-war and 40% anti-war? But I'm rambling..

[taranaki]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


Naki
From at least one American's point of veiw it does seem that you continuously bash Bush and a majority of americans who support him will take it personal as a attack on the US. I myself do because you cannot see it from our perspective. Your vision is one sided to say the least. Mine is from three different perspectives,

1rst I'm from the US
2nd I'm former military and have been over there and seen what he's done
3rd I've got family over there fighting him now.

I have seen first hand why the world needs to be rid of him and our President is not going to back away from this.

I'll go back to the question at the top of the thread here - why does an attack on Bush constitute an attack on the U.S.?I have no difficulty separating the man from the country,but it would appear that a lot of Americans seem to think that George Bush IS America.

[Prelewd]

Originally posted by taranaki


I'll go back to the question at the top of the thread here - why does an attack on Bush constitute an attack on the U.S.?I have no difficulty separating the man from the country,but it would appear that a lot of Americans seem to think that George Bush IS America.

The majority of the people in the US elected George W. Bush as their representative to the world. The people that stick behind Bush, and voted for him might see it as critisizing their president critisizes their vote. Some might view it as having to pick between two idiots, Gore or Bush, and I think that's what frustrates most people. The fact that there was an almost 50-50 vote between them kind of divides the country. If Bush won by a landslide, I don't think you'd see so many Americans disliking him so much, because they have actually voted for him, and whatever he does that is supposedly wrong is their fault. The Gore votes see it as someone elses fault. I can't say the tables wouldn't be turned if Gore won the election either.

I also think that while Bush's black and white speech might be bad in the "you're either with us or against us" terms, it can be good in terms of making decisions and actually getting things done; he's not all wishy-washy like some other elected officials. He's a statesman in the fact that he's getting something good done for the world, despite if he has any secondary motives or not.

[1985_BMW318i]

He's a statesman in the fact that he's getting something good done for the world, despite if he has any secondary motives or not.

That pretty much sums it up:frog:

[taranaki]

Sorry,but I would apply that more to the French.Regardless of their interests in Iraq,any government that refuses to take part in a war is smarter than those that do.

[1985_BMW318i]

Sorry,but I would apply that more to the French.Regardless of their interests in Iraq,any government that refuses to take part in a war is smarter than those that do.

Like always the French spend more time concerned about themselves. While the US sees the bigger picture. We want safety and freedom for everyone on this planet. Your statement only served to remind me of how many times the US has come to their aid.

[taranaki]

You are entitled to your opinion.Mine is that Bush is not looking to benefit anyone but his friends in the oil industry and himself.

[1985_BMW318i]

You are entitled to your opinion.Mine is that Bush is not looking to benefit anyone but his friends in the oil industry and himself.

Why are you certain that Bush is only in this for himself and the oil industry?

[taranaki]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


Why are you certain that Bush is only in this for himself and the oil industry?

because all of his reasons for invading have proven to be at best selective[Saddam is not the only evil dictator in the world], or at worst,completely without foundation.[If he had any chemical weapons,he's had plenty of opportunity to use them.]

[1985_BMW318i]

He is certainly one of the worst dictators, But not for much longer

[taranaki]

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
He is certainly one of the worst dictators, But not for much longer

No,but I can't think of any country that has ever become a stable,civilised and successful democracy as a result of a U.S. military coup such as is happening in Iraq.