USA Image problem?

Seems like part of the problem is that the US is if anything too open. I wonder if he had been caught in similar circumstances in many other countries whether he would have recieved a trial of any description or whether he would have just dissappeared?

 

Not sure, but I agree with you

Ironically, if America censored their media perhaps the public would not be so easily swayed against the war... There are so many anti-war messages aired on television or in the paper, which I imagine most Americans watch and take to be their only source of information on the war... Since that source doesn't support the war, neither do they...

I imagine that if there was more support shown on television, most people would have more faith in America :roll:

 

They're also mad at the contiuing casulaties and very slow progress. Mnay think this is just a lost cause. Many supported the war because of the WMD's, but there turned out to be none,and now they really have no reason to support the war.

 

Actually you are quite correct IMO. I do not advocate any kind of state interference with the media however there is no doubt that most people are easily influenced by whatever position the media takes on issues.
Another thing I have noticed is that much of what Europeans highly critical of the US use as ammunition when they level charges at the US comes from partisan political groups within the US, many of which (US groups) will not hesitate to distort the truth or even knowingly use falsehoods to promote their agenda and attack the opposition.

 

Sorry but that is the line the media hands out but I don't buy it. Most of the people I knew and talked with who supported the war weren't that concerned about the failure to find any WMDs. That was more of a Democratic anti Bush political issue.
Many who have become disenchanted with the war feel that it is taking too long to turn things over to the Iraqis and that enough American blood has been shed in order to help the Iraqis overcome their brutal dictatorship and became a free nation, if that is what they want to do. Despite what many would have you believe nobody I know thinks for a minute that any benefit in terms of oil or any other benefit will be forthcoming to the US. They think that the US is spending it's own blood and treasure in order to benefit people who, for the most part, do not appreciate the sacrifice.

 

just because no wmds were found does not mean there were none..they could still be sitting in an underground vault or in a warehouse in syria ...lord knows sadam had the money to build such a vault and the power to keep it secret ..of course its a moot point at this stage..democracy is not going to flower in iraq or any other fly blown arab country anytime in the near future ...too bad ,for them , and us..

 

Recurrent argument that holds no water. The object of the war was officially to find and destroy these weapons, and they weren't found. Whether or not they were there, it can only be brought up as an argument for the statement that the war was lost.

I agree with smeghead and others (still too much of a shock to say I agree with Grieg ) that most people are too eager to believe what the media and certain other biased groups feed them, which is a very negative view of the US. Much can be said that does not make the US look very good, but what the majority of Europeans seem to believe is utter nonsense. If they're asked for a source on their claims it is invariably some conspiracy theorist or other. Granted these are not wrong by definition - they are wrong by logic.

 

Anyone else really impressed that we've had a topic that mentions Americans, Iraq, WMD and worst of all, Bush and yet has avoided any name calling and hair pulling.

 

The object of the war was not "officially" to find and destroy the WMDs. That was certainly part of it but not all.

And there was, of course resolution 1441 which dealt with other issues besides WMDs also.

 

No, but that is what the media advertised to the public, and as far as the public are concerned that was the only reason...

Likewise, I don't think that the news should be totally censored by the government, although over the past 30 years it seems that the media has become an extremely powerful determinant of national and international policy... Governments are often elected in accordance with how appealing their commericals are, which isn't necessarily a great thing either... The media does need to be regulated to a small extent to prevent it from having too great an effect on the bearings of society... With all due respect, news reporters are not politicians or military strategists

Some censorship, such as the censorship of violent material in childrens programs, is fine

 

Very.

I was a little worried about it, and did quite regret posting it after the first few posts started churning over old ground that had aroused passions before, but it looks like I need not have worried.

 

The "war" in Iraq, if one can label it that, was simply a bad decision by the USA President. The USA, meaning the President, simply does not realize that we "won" the war when we captured Sadam. Case closed; pack up and leave.

The present "government" of the Iraquis will fall as soon as the USA leaves, in a bloody civil war.

What I do not understand is why this "skirmish" is getting so much attention in the USA. With USA casualties some 3,000 men, it simply does not rate the coverage it gets. In Viet Nam, we lost 40,000 men. In WW2, we lost some 200,000 men, if memory serves me correct.

Iraq? I couldn't care less about it. The USA simply needs to leave it to its fate, and I say that as a lifetime Republican.

I feel the "war" was simply an excuse for certain Americans in power to attempt to use national policy to further their own personal enterprises. In a nut shell: oil.

- Greg

:smok:

 

The oil argument has been debunked at length here. I believe there's several threads about oil and Iraq around here that provide a good explanation why no American company is actually profiting from Iraqi oil at this moment in spite of the fact that Iraq is now under American "control".

The only way oil can still be brought up as a reason for the war is that indeed, Iraq has lots of it. Creating stability in the region, which the Neocons foolishly thought they could do, would guarantee the steady supply of oil to the West, even though American companies would not directly benefit from this.

 

Regarding oil. Recently US brought plan and are still pushing for law to be passed in Iraqi parliament calling for privatisation of Iraqi oil reseves which are still nationalised. Since 1/4 of US consumed oil comes from US administrations nightmare in Venezuela this could be seen as important.

Basicly i don't agree that Neocons wanted to create stability but rather establish larger US military presence in the region and move US forces from Saudi Arabia to Iranian and Syrian border thus establish new balance of power in the region and protecting Israel. If you belive neocons had US interest in mind you should look at some of their pre Iraqi war ideas (like their ideas for Israeli- Palestinian negotiations that were send to Netanyahu when he was in power).

 

The entire object of the wars was not WMD but the primary excuse that was used was. As is shown in the quote you have cited.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to provide a plausible scenario wherein the US stands to directly gain from Iraqi oil. Since Iraqi oil is sold on the open market at market prices how exactly were they evil neocons planning on cashing in?

ps...10-12% of us imported oil comes from Venezuela, not 25%

 

I think we we gave everyone in the world a cookie wed all be good

O and about the news thing I agree with you, all i hear is bad things american troops are doing over there.

 

Oil in not the reason for invasion, nor the benefit of the US as a whole, It is a by-product of the invasion that some companies benefit from contracts, not only oil but arms etc.

After no WMD were found, it seams strange that the fact he was a dictator with appalling human rights abuses, etc were put to the front, when there are so many other countries with similar credentials that have not been attacked.

North Korea, Zimbabwe, Brazil etc.

These other countries do not have the oil reserves that Iraq has and therefore fuels (pardon the pun) the conspiracy theorists.


IMHO

 

Grieg it seems that you don't understand that when privatisation of oil starts US and UK firms will buy their stakes/rights in the Iraqi oil. Do you think current Iraqi administration would sell rights for their oil to for example Chinese or Russian firms even if they would give the best offer? Think again.
They the big corporations will get the money from the oil and not you or any other US oil consumer will benifit. Do you think that they have your or general US interests close to their harts? Probably no, as big bussines interests lies only in their own wallet. If you want to benefit buy Exxon, KBR/halliburton or BP stock, becouse that is only way you can benefit from this war.

 

True, but it would be naive to deny that oil is at least an indirect factor. The Gulf region is where a significant percentage of the worlds oil comes from thus it is important to world economic stability. That lends a priority that is not present in North Korea or Africa.