girlfriendred

Do we love these lively debates or what ????

Dr_DoGood

dumas1870:
If only America had atually confronted "the terrorists where they live and before they strike again at your homeland."

Unfortunately there's been an awful lot of funding of terrorists all over the world by America and the West (not least The Taliban itself which received a $30million in aid from the US just 5 months prior to 11/9/2001).

Yes, it's time to tackle this issue head on but what a shame the US government didn't take this view for the 30 years it allowed the IRA to raise funds and arms in the US. It seems this blinkered approach has only been withdrawn when the horror of terrorism was visited on NY, Washington & Pitsburgh.

So... late for WW1, late for WW2 and late for your own president's War on Terrorism.

Christina

I think there are a lot of contradictory messages on here, all of which can't make sense. I think there are hostile anti-American feelings in Europe and UK, of course. That doesn't mean you as an individual tourist will likely be affected by them, though. I am hostile myself for a lot of the same reasons, even though I am an American.

I saw those protests on TV, and I'm sorry, but 200K protestors showing up for something like that is really a very large turnout--incredibly large.

People can't claim that Europeans/British whomever have nothing against Americans, only Bush, as if he had nothing to do with Americans. If you believe that, then I guess you think democracy is a sham and elected leaders don't represent opinions of the people who voted for them. Someone on here says some poll shows the majority of American support Bush in some way -- I don't know the exact nuances of how that was worded, as I thought the majority of Americans now do not think he is doing a great job from the polls I've read. However, for argument's sake, there is a large portion, perhaps around 50 pct, of Americans who do indeed support Bush and think what he does is correct. So, he clearly does have something to do with Americans and I also believe in a country that touts itself as being the ultimate democracy you can't say a President's actions have nothing to do with the populace's opinions.

Some others believe in boycotting countries based on elected leaders or governmental policies, believing that who is elected does reflect a large will of the people, even though it certainly can never reflect the view of everyone.

I have encountered hostility from some Germans because since WWII, they think they are saints now for some reason, and they have lambasted me for American foreign policy even without finding out my political leanings which may even be more liberal than theirs. After all, I don't believe in mixing religion and politics, for one thing. I haven't encountered such behavior from any other nationality, however, only Germans.

flanneruk

Christina:

However many people were demonstrating yesterday it was less than half the number that turned out last winter in favour of keeping foxhunting legal! And far, far smaller than demos we've seen against the war, against globalisation, against the Poll Tax.

Britain's a heavily-populated but physically small country. Getting 100- or 200,000 people together really isn't very difficult or unusual. It's not at all incredible

And all my dealings with the protestors imply they DO think American democracy is a sham. The Gospel According to Michael Moore ("Bush stole it, and his policy is the deviation of a minority&quot is practically Holy Writ among most of them.

The anger, both on the local TV stations and in left-leaning chatrooms, at the burning of the Stars+Stripes at an Oxford demo sums up the prevailing sentiment among even the tiny proportion of Brits demonstrating: the whole of the Bush policy is an aberration from the America they go to for fun, houseswaps with their chums, and NY hangouts almost as good as London.

Britain has an exceptionally robust tradition of raucous dissent. Reaction on the streets to Bush was a great deal more muted than what followed Maggie around for most of her period in office.

And even we Thatcherphile Conservatives didn't take it personally. We'll just do the same to that hypocritical, lying, toe-rag Blair when we have a chance.

Moderation in political debate, we believe, is never a virtue.

Americans should see it for what it really is: a sign we treat you as part of the family.

cparris

First of all the 200,000 was an estimate. Even the police in London say the number who protested was less than 100,000. I heard one British MP say that he didn't agree with Bush but felt that Bush was portrayed completely wrong in the media...as a brash idiot basically ...and he wasn't at all like that in person.
I have found some anti-americanism during my travels, but most of the time people are nice and have treated me and my family well.
As Bush said...it is good to be in a country where people are allowed to protest. At least now they are allowed in Iraq. If the protesters want to protest against the US because we freed the Iraqui people it is their right. I think the Iraqui people might rather live in a free Iraq though.

janis

Thank you flanneruk!!. I try to tell my friends here in the states that while there were some largish demos -- it is just as easy to get 200,000+ folks in Hyde Park for a rock concert by an over-the-hill band. The size of the main one must have really disappointed the supporters/organizers. I was amused by how small the demonstrations actually were after all the doom saying and hand wringing on both sides of the Atlantic.

Heck - I've been in bigger crowds on Oxford Street the weekend before Christmas.

hansikday

Dr. DoGood, what in the world are you trying to say: That America isn't doing enough to fight terrorism? That America didn't do enough in WWI and WWII? Damned if we do and damned if we don't. The fussy "peace-at-any-price" by-standers always complain, but never join the good fight.

dumas1870

stevelondon88, you are right - this is a travel forum. I responded to three posters who made anti-Bush statements. They just can't resist throwing the elbow.

Funny, you should ask only one side to stop. What you did is so typical with liberals, free speech is observed only when they are the ones doing the talking.

stevelondon88

Fair enough, the person called Keith made his comment first, although I have noticed you posting similar messages in the past which is probably why I addressed you.

Let me rephrase this as a general plea,: Can we PLEASE keep this excellent, valuable forum free of this type of discussion? I know where to go for heated political debate and it isn't fodors.com, nor should it be!

ChatNoir

If people would just leave out the political comments to begin with, we would not see other people compelled to respond with the other side of the story.

Sometimes it looks like the anti-bush posters expect a free ride to bad mouth and take cheap shots out of the blue, then get all huffy when anybody dares to come back with a defense of Bush or America.

sheila

No hostile feelings to America round here. There's an American that goes to my gym I don't like very much. but I don't blame your whole country for him...or for your President. You didn't vote for him, after all

On a serious note, most of us would, at the moment, understand the re-election of Bush. After all, as with Blair, there's no realistic opposition, is there?

I won't further intrude on your private grief, but I have to say that 200,000 (or even 100,00) turning up on a working day afternoon in winter is a remarkable number, and certainly not to be seen as a low turnout. God knows what would have happened if it had been on a Saturday.

Any road, you're welcome, and don't let our inherent small "l" liberalism put you off

ParadiseLost

Food for thought, all Democrats btw. Regards, Walter
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.
Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President
Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."  Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.
9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."  Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."  Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10,
2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),  Oct 10, 2002,
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Jacko

Here in NY it's my understanding that a majority (60%) of British approve of our president's visit. In any case, the British seem to be a fickle bunch, one day disapproving of the Iraq war, then, once it began, supporting the US. The truth is the British have been a steadfast supporter of the good work the US does and we appreciate it.

The small turnout (after all, 1,000,000 marched <b>before</b> the war) tells me the disapproval comes mostly from the media. In the US, at least, the media garners approval ratings below even lawyers. They are considered among the most untrustworthy professions in this country.