posted on October 15, 2004 08:18:46 AM new
U.S. Reputation Goes Downhill In Worldwide Polls
Most Think Iraq War Did Not Aid In Global Terror War
POSTED: 9:43 am EDT October 15, 2004
LONDON -- America's reputation around the world is hurting, according to a series of coordinated polls published Friday from 10 countries, including many of the United States' closest allies.
In eight of the countries where the surveys commissioned by major newspapers were conducted, more people said their view of America had worsened in the past two to three years than improved. That question was asked in nine countries.
By big margins, those questioned said the war in Iraq did not aid the global fight against terrorism.
And in eight out of 10 nations, those polled said -- often in landslide proportions -- that they hoped to see Democrat John Kerry beat President George W. Bush in next month's election. Bush won backing from a majority of respondents only in Russia and Israel.
The polls were conducted in Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Israel and Russia, with results to be published in the participating newspapers on Friday. Not all questions were asked in every country.
On average, 57 percent of those questioned said their opinions of America had worsened over the past two to three years, compared with 20 percent who said their view had improved. That question was asked in nine of the countries, but not in Russia.
Seventy-four percent of Japanese, 70 percent of French, 67 percent of South Koreans, 64 percent of Canadians and 60 percent of Spaniards said they had a worse opinion of America now than two to three years ago.
Only in Israel did more people say their view of the United States had improved than worsened in the past two to three years.
In that period, which began just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States has led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While much of the international community backed the invasion to oust the Taliban, Bush's decision to invade Iraq has fueled anger around the world.
However, many of those polled separated their feelings about the U.S. government from their views of the American people. Sixty-eight percent said they had a favorable opinion of Americans.
Asked whether American democracy remained a model for other nations, 52 percent of those asked said yes and 42 percent said no.
In Britain, Mexico and South Korea, more people thought the United States was no longer a model, while in Canada, Russia, Japan and Israel, majorities said it was.
Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in seven nations - including Britain, America's closest ally in Iraq - said the war there was not helping the world fight against terrorism, while 35 percent said it was, as Bush contends.
People in all 10 countries were asked who they hoped to see win the White House on Nov. 2, and the result will make Kerry wish they had a vote.
The Democrat was favored by healthy to enormous majorities in eight of the nations - 72 percent supported him, compared with 16 percent for Bush in France.
In South Korea, it was 68 percent for Kerry and 18 percent for Bush; in Canada, 60 percent to 20 percent; in Spain, 58 percent to 13 percent; in Australia 54 percent to 28 percent; and in Britain 50 percent to 22 percent.
Bush came out on top in Israel by a margin of 50 percent to 24 percent and in Russia, 52 percent to 48 percent.
The newspapers involved were La Presse in Canada, Le Monde in France, the Guardian in Britain, El Pais in Spain, Asahi Shimbun in Japan, JoongAng Ilbo in South Korea, the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age in Australia, Reforma in Mexico, Haaretz in Israel and the Moscow News in Russia.
The sample sizes in the 10 polls varied from 522 people in Israel to 1,417 in Australia. Margins of error were mostly around 3 percentage points, but varied between 2.6 and 4.38.
The polls were conducted on different dates from September through early October.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 15, 2004 12:28:33 PM new
Israel is the only one of those countries that has learned that sometimes force is the only way to maintain the peace. None of those others have been in a major war during most of their population's lifetimes.
"74 percent Japanese, 70 percent of French, 67 percent of South Koreans"
All three of these countries have had major invasions on their own soil in their parents or grandparents lifetimes. Theh have been taught that war is wrong for any reason, and are afraid to support it.
"72 percent of the French support Kerry"
Gee, what a shocker. This one is just so easy, I'm not even going to comment further.
Also remember that NONE of these countries have to take into consideration being the single super power of the world. Being the leader does imply certain responsibilities. If we don't fight terrorism, who will, Spain? They've already shown their resolve against the terrorists, haven't they?
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on October 15, 2004 12:53:35 PM new
Israel is the only one of those countries that has learned that sometimes force is the only way to maintain the peace. None of those others have been in a major war during most of their population's lifetimes.
"74 percent Japanese, 70 percent of French, 67 percent of South Koreans"
All three of these countries have had major invasions on their own soil in their parents or grandparents lifetimes. Theh have been taught that war is wrong for any reason, and are afraid to support it.
World War II 1939-1945
Korean War 1950-1953
In case you have forgotten some of the parents and grandparents that you seem to have written off with your comments above are still alive. Did you ever stop to think that maybe some of the countries have learned from their past mistake and don't rush into war?
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 15, 2004 12:59:29 PM new
"World War II 1939-1945
Korean War 1950-1953
In case you have forgotten some of the parents and grandparents that you seem to have written off with your comments above are still alive. Did you ever stop to think that maybe some of the countries have learned from their past mistake and don't rush into war? "
Those are the two limits I set my post on. Those three countries were all invaded during those two wars.
This is why I said "in their parents or grandparents lifetimes." There are very few people STILL IN POWER who even remember these wars. I didn't say the survivors were all dead, but they are for the most part POLITICALLY irrelevent. How many people today really UNDERSTAND or even LISTEN when they hear an old WWII vet ramble on about the big war?
No one under the age of 70 really remembers those wars. There are very few 70 year olds making going-to-war decisions.
And these parents taught their children that "war is bad." Not necessarily that sometimes you have to defend the peace. The current generation in power in these three countries has NOT been in a significant defensive war.
[ edited by replaymedia on Oct 15, 2004 01:01 PM ]
posted on October 15, 2004 02:02:42 PM newAnd these parents taught their children that "war is bad." Not necessarily that sometimes you have to defend the peace. The current generation in power in these three countries has NOT been in a significant defensive war.
And you are assuming that kids also do what there parents them to do and will always think like their parents. Have you forgotten that people do think for themselves and can form their own opinions? Not everyone thinks like a republican.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 15, 2004 02:03:51 PM new
I agree with replaymedia's comments.
----
But for me personally I don't care what the other countries think of us. We do what's in our best interests, just as they do. If anyone pays attention France and Germany [as well as others] did what they felt benefitted them....illegal trades with saddam in the Oil-For-Food program. They didn't support us because then THEIR OWN interests would have been/WERE interupted. too bad.
---
My Japanese DIL tells me the political climate in Japan is slowly changing. Many are coming to believe, and support political change, in building up their own Armed Forces capabilities.
---
I thank God we're more like Israel in that THIS President, as well as their leaders, are willing to put a stop to the continuing terrorism. Willing to make changes to stop it.
kerry is NOT going to talk terrorists out of accomplishing their mission. NOR is he going to help our cause by offer nations like Iran fuel to aid their building of a nuclear weapon system.
posted on October 15, 2004 02:10:00 PM new
With Bush left in office there will not be a country left to defend or worry about terrorists because Bush will have started World War III and the entire world will be a nuclear holocaust.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 15, 2004 02:32:19 PM newSome appear to think kerry has a 'magical wand' of fairy-tale fame and can put us back pre-9-11 'to live happily ever after' in every way possible.
The democratic foreign policy didn't work under clinton....and it won't work again under kerry. Reality has to be faced and we have a President and an administration willing to do so...right now.
The terrorists aren't going to decide to leave us alone because kerry's elected. Returning to the way clinton dealt with N. Korea isn't going to be any different when kerry uses it with Iran now.
Liberals just don't get it. We're not in a race for popularity ....we're in a fight for our survival. The liberal's don't see that either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 15, 2004 02:41:41 PM newBut for me personally I don't care what the other countries think of us. We do what's in our best interests, just as they do. If anyone pays attention France and Germany [as well as others] did what they felt benefitted them....illegal trades with saddam in the Oil-For-Food program. They didn't support us because then THEIR OWN interests would have been/WERE interupted.
Linda, once again I question why you again bring Germany up about the illegal trade with Saddam as the report from Congress did not mention Germany. As the report stated, it was Russia, China and France and they are also investigating numerous American companies so we'll see how far that investigation goes.
And I already explained to you why Germany did not go into Iraq. Germany will not send troops to an offensive war because their constitutional law will not allow it, just a defensive war. But Germany will not start a war or go in bilateral.
We do whats in our best interests...... now thats a grain of truth. We went in because we want something out of it. We don't just "liberate" people because we're kindhearted. If we did that we would have lots of countries to pick and choose from.
My own opinion is if we don't give a damn about what others think about us then we should at least drop the pretense. If we want to revive the Roman Empire in the 21st century lets be upfront about it. At least everyone in the ancient world knew where they stood with Rome. No surprises there.
By the way Kerry never said he was going to "talk" to the terrorists, he stated he would find them and kill them wherever they are.
If you want to use Israel as a good example of peace thats a slippery path. Without the massive welfare aid in arms they would have been long gone without US backing.
posted on October 15, 2004 02:44:43 PM new
linduh says, "We're not in a race for popularity ....we're in a fight for our survival"
Well, linduh loves war and slaughter and would like to see it continue....not a normal person at all.
The foreign policy worked under Clinton....we didn't have a multi-billion dollar war that has no end in sight. Other countries didn't hate us.
Then she says, "But for me personally I don't care what the other countries think of us."
Ya but YOU personally aren't in Iraq, are you ?
linda, we live on the earth....there are other countries....nobody's going anyplace....so it really is a good idea(to mentally normal people) that we get along. Continually slaughtering each other , despite it's proponents like you, is not a good way to live.
Your attitude is one of the reasons so many people hate us...YOU are part of the problem.
linduh, we can't kill everybody and take over the world even if you want to.
The United States does NOT rule the world nor should it. If it is strong it can get along through intellect not barbarism. If the US acts like a terrorist, how will they tell us apart from the other terrorists?
People don't hate people they like. I know that's simplistic but that's for linduh who knows only hate in her life. Friendships are grown and nurtured...you can't make friends by killing them. No wonder you have none.
posted on October 15, 2004 02:58:03 PM new
hello trai -
once again I question why you again bring Germany up about the illegal trade with Saddam
and once again I'll answer because I've read it.
And I already explained to you why Germany did not go into Iraq. Germany will not send troops to an offensive war because their constitutional law will not allow it, just a defensive war.
And I believe I've also stated here that Japan is the same way...and yet they've promised $1.5Billion dollars to help in Iraq.
We went in because we want something out of it. We don't just "liberate" people because we're kindhearted.
And I and many others totally disagree with your opinion. There were different reasons given for our going in...but the major one was the threat saddam present to the world that the UN/US and UK had been dealing with for 14 years. We gave saddam last chances to comply with all those resolutions...he didn't...too bad...wrong choice.
If we did that we would have lots of countries to pick and choose from. I'm sure you must be aware of all the countries we have troops station in....especially since a ton were put there under the clinton administration...he called them 'peace keeping troops'. And that's part of the reason we're so over extended now.
My own opinion is if we don't give a damn about what others think about us then we should at least drop the pretense.
I don't agree that we don't care....I don't care. I think this President has tried to work with other countries but they weren't going along because of THEIR OWN best interests. He did have the support and votes [15-0] of the UN Security Council telling saddam 'last chance to comply'. Not like he didn't try. But with FRANCE saying 'no matter what' we will not/ever give our permission for an invasion....President Bush did what he and the last three administrations said needed to be done. Regime change and removal of saddam.
Kerry never said he was going to "talk" to the terrorists, he stated he would find them and kill them wherever they are.
LOL...I know what he said....his credibility is totally shot, imo, with all the different positions he's taken. AND he did talk to Iran in making his offer to help them with the fuel. Otherwise how could they have refused his un-American offer. He'd sell us out in a minute....peace at ANY cost....just like he did in Vietnam.
If you want to use Israel as a good example of peace thats a slippery path. Without the massive welfare aid in arms they would have been long gone without US backing. True, because America policy, no matter the party in office, has ALWAYS defended Israel...and I hope we always will.
The US would not be in the same position...we CAN pay our own way. I don't see it as a 'slippery path'. I see it as getting fed up and deciding you're not taking this crap anymore. Build those walls, they're working....let it be an unpopular decision to the rest of the anti-Jewish world. Too bad again...it's keeping more of the population alive. And that's what we need to continue doing here....NOT worry about being popular and do what is necessary to protect our nation.
Kerry has also made it clear that IF we're attacked AGAIN...he'll got after them. But I seriously doubt he'd EVER do a pre-emptive strike like clinton and this president did in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 15, 2004 03:19:02 PM newand once again I'll answer because I've read it.
I cannot agree as thats like condemning someone before any proof or even a trial so its wrong to besmirch them.
It now turns out from the reports that Saddam did comply with the UN resolutions about dismantling weapons. There were none there and one cannot argue with that. Countries said last chance to comply but they didn't say go to war alone. The reasons for going were wrong.
It was Cheney that started cutting back troops under Bush Sr.
Linda, remember when Russia started invading other countries and everyone screamed that they were godless commie pinkos? They claimed they were fighting terrorists too and it was in their own national strategic interests. Why do you think Bush has been so quiet about the human rights violations in Chechnya.
You think the US can afford to go this alone? Bearing all these costs? Myself I do not think so..... we are now mortgaging off the next four generations to pay these bills that is if the empire lasts.
posted on October 15, 2004 03:19:35 PM new
If Kerry is such a fart smeller, and the furriners love him so much, why don't they elect him president of the United Nations?
posted on October 16, 2004 12:59:49 AM newThe war in Iraq is not a fight against terrorism. Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US.
Reamond, you're in denial...total denial....no doubt about the fact the world saw saddam as a threat.
Even clinton and Bush1 said he was a threat to others...that's why the clinton administration passed the Iraq Liberation Bill. He had womd, that was proven. He used it and NEVER accounted for what happened to the large quanities the UN inspectors said he had. Many countries intelligence believed he had womd....and we all know he was paying the Hamas terrorists. Who knows who what other terrorist groups he may have been funneling his illegal oil-for-food money into.
saddam was a terrorist supporter.
Many, myself included, still believe saddam did have womd and got rid of them before the invasion. But even if he didn't, on his own he presented a constant threat to everyone in the ME, including Israel....he was NUTS. And after 9-11 any president who didn't take action against that threat...would have been prosecuted for failing to defend this Nation. I can hear it now...'everybody in the world knew saddam had been a threat for 14 years, heavens he even used womd against his own people. How much more proof did you need to have before you did your job?'
But no one in this administration has EVER said saddam WAS involved in 9-11. Only that he presented a threat all by himself and that intelligence did see AQ members who made contact with him or those in his regime.
posted on October 16, 2004 01:38:12 AM newI cannot agree as thats like condemning someone before any proof or even a trial so its wrong to besmirch them.
Well...what can I say. I've read that Germany was selling saddam illegal weapons...banned by the sanctions put in place by UN agreement. Don't shoot the messenger. But the point is all four countries were acting in THEIR best interests, which was against our best interest. China, Russia, France, Syria all benefitted from their deals with saddam. Illegal deals. And Germany, France and Russia also had oil contracts they were going to put in place if they could get UN agreement to remove the sanctions. That was a HOT topic during that time. Of course, they wanted the sanctions removed....we didn't for obvious reasons.
It now turns out from the reports that Saddam did comply with the UN resolutions about dismantling weapons.
Sorry, trai...no he didn't. Had he we wouldn't have gone to war. The ball was in his court...abide by the UN sanctions and NO UN agreement would have been reached. It was because he wasn't in compliance that this came down the way it did. Period. His fault totally. He didn't comply with any of the previous resolutions set by the UN.
There were none there and one cannot argue with that.
Sure one can . Small quanities WERE found in Iraq....just not the stockpiles the world thought he had. Just this week I read an article that spoke about the nuclear parts, radio-active, that were in Iraq and now are missing. And one can, and I do, argue they very easily could have been transported to another nearby country....or destroyed during the months it took us to get there.
Bottom line is....he was seeking to rebuild his weapons....he was crazy...he hated America and it wouldn't have been very long, imo, until he sold them to some terrorist group to use against us.
Countries said last chance to comply but they didn't say go to war alone.
trai - Please read the last resolution....it very clearly stated there would be severe consequences if he didn't comply this time.
Besides we don't need the UNs permission to defend ourselves. Least not yet....and hopefully kerry won't get in so it won't ever be the case.
The reasons for going were wrong. Well...more than 1/2 of this nation disagrees with you. We removed a long term threat....to his own people and to the world. Took one terrorist supporter out of commission. That's a good thing.
It was Cheney that started cutting back troops under Bush Sr.
Nope, sorry just not true. The Bush1 administration recommended because we were in peace time we reduce our troop level by 20-25% over a period of years. clinton reduced it over 40%...the military personnel was cut in half...there wasn't even money to buy spare parts for the aging machines we did have. And he didn't replace any as they became unusable either.
clinton reduced our troops so much...and then sent more troops around the world than anyone had done before him during peace times.
Get the picture? clinton didn't value our military and neither does kerry. And we hopefully have learned after this experience that we should never reduce our troop levels as low as was done. Or we'll end up right back where we are right now....troops stretched too thin.
Linda, remember when Russia started invading other countries and everyone screamed that they were godless commie pinkos? They claimed they were fighting terrorists too and it was in their own national strategic interests.
Yes, I remember. But the difference I see that I believe you are forgetting is that as the USSR invaded...they took over and stayed. We don't came it as part of our country. We have always liberated...helped...and then most troops have been withdrawn. Very much UNlike how the USSR did.
Why do you think Bush has been so quiet about the human rights violations in Chechnya. I think he already has just a little too much on his plate right now, without taking on any more problems. With Iraq, Afghanistan, N.Korea, now Iran. Where are all the other countries? Why aren't they doing something about it? Why do some on the left blame us for getting involved where they think we don't belong...and then also complain when other issues aren't being dealt with by the US? We can only do so much....and we do what we can, imo.
You think the US can afford to go this alone? Bearing all these costs? Myself I do not think so..... we are now mortgaging off the next four generations to pay these bills that is if the empire lasts.
We're not bearing it alone. We're not fighting it alone. We did not go in unlateraly either. Even kerry's telling his supporters he'll have our deficit cut in have in four years. You don't believe him? If a tax-and-spend-ultra liberal says he can do it...then a moderate republican President can do it even better.
posted on October 16, 2004 05:59:34 AM new
How is kerry going to fund the military needed to go and "kill" the terrorists?
How is kerry going to fund anything for that matter?
You speak of the debt President Bush is getting us into... kerry would be 4 times worse...
kerry would "ask" the UN and after all the months of bickering, he may do something... President Bush does have the best interests of the US at heart... that is the man we need, not some "global tester"...
posted on October 16, 2004 06:16:05 AM new
Trai no matter what the facts are about military cuts under Bush Sr. Linda will have some sort of spin on them to get her point across.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 16, 2004 07:42:36 AM new
Linda, you're flogging a dead horse. The evidence is in and we jumped the gun. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
posted on October 16, 2004 10:18:48 AM new
NYACK, N.Y. - More than 2,000 people opposing the war in Iraq, including the father of an American beheaded by terrorists, are sending Iraqis personal photos with protest messages to show “what Americans are really like.”
The pictures, from all around the country, are meant to be a counterpoint to the infamous images of Americans abusing Iraqi prisoners. Each photo shows at least one sign, usually handmade. Some specifically criticize U.S. actions in the war while others simply extend sympathy to Iraqi civilians.
“With deep shame, we apologize for the suffering our country has brought to the people of Iraq,” says a banner in a photo showing 11 people in Vancouver, Wash. Three elderly people in Minneapolis declare, “All our children long for a new day.”
Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas was executed last spring by an al-Qaida-affiliated group, holds a sign in his photo that says, “I am sorry and ashamed for the tremendous loss my government has caused the Iraqi people.”
“I truly feel that what the United States government has done to the once-sovereign nation of Iraq is atrocious and shameful,” he said in a phone interview. Berg, whose opposition to the war predates his son’s execution, will be in Washington on Wednesday when the project is formally unveiled by the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
Undercutting U.S. troops?
The peace group, which organized the project, said it wants Iraqis to know that most Americans were shocked by the photos of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqis prisoners and many regret a war being waged in their name.
A veterans’ group, however, believes the project undercuts U.S. soldiers.
Jerry Newberry, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said, “This type of thing only serves to undermine the effort and the sacrifice of our military in Iraq. These people on the face of it seem to have a political agenda. ... It implies that what we’re attempting to do in Iraq is shameful.”
The White House had no comment, spokesman Ken Lisaius said.
The project was sparked by Kaia Svien, a 57-year-old Minneapolis teacher, who said she was “just dumbstruck” when she saw the Abu Ghraib prison photos.
“It was the power of the photographs that brought home the message,” Svien said. “So I thought, ’Can’t we use photos in another way to respond to this and hope they will be as powerful? Maybe we can show them what Americans are really like.”’
She took the idea to the Nyack-based Fellowship, a 90-year-old group with a history of pacifism and activism. Staffer Hossein Alizadeh made it a national project, asking local peace groups to spread the word.
Speaking as 'ordinary Americans'
About 400 pictures came in from more than 100 cities and towns. Half of them are being burned onto CDs for distribution Wednesday to news media that reach Iraqis, said Fellowship spokeswoman Jennifer Hyman.
“We thought it would be great if we could speak as ordinary Americans to ordinary Iraqis,” said Alizadeh. “Since the United States went in there, the Iraqis have seen nothing but violence, so they have a very negative opinion of Americans. We hope that after they see these photographs, they will pause for a second and think, ’At least we have a few friends, there are people who care about what’s happening.”’
He said that despite the signs in the pictures, the project is “not about condemning any government.” Hyman said the peace group wants to stop the deaths of U.S. soldiers as well as Iraqis.
There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000. As of Friday, 1,086 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the Defense Department.
'We're not their enemies'
Bruce Hawkins of Northampton, Mass., a retired physics professor who sent in a photo of 16 people in a Quaker meeting house, said, “The intent was to send a friendly message to people. We’re not their enemies and they’re not ours.”
The sign in his photo says, in part: “We pray for the humane treatment of all prisoners and the continuing healing of human hearts.”
A group of 27 people stood for their portrait on the steps of St. Francis Xavier College Church in St. Louis after their weekly anti-war vigil. One of their signs says, in Arabic, “Our hearts are full of pain and sorrow for the Iraqi prisoners.”
William Quick, a lawyer from Lincoln Heights, Mo., who took the picture, said the church was used as the background to show that “being Christian does not mean being anti-Muslim.”
Mimi Pukuma, 29, of Philadelphia, posed with three friends and a sign that says, “We apologize from our hearts for the suffering our government is causing innocent Iraqi people.”
“I’ve been writing letters to the government, going to anti-war vigils and so on but that’s impersonal in many ways,” she said. “This seemed like I could in some small way express my sadness to Iraqi citizens.”
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 16, 2004 10:34:50 AM new
Yep....a few crazed lefties are at it again...just like during VN. This is how they show their support for those brave soldiers putting their lives on the line. sick.....just sick.
Jerry Newberry, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said, "This type of thing only serves to undermine the effort and the sacrifice of our military in Iraq. These people on the face of it seem to have a political agenda....It implies that what we're attempting to do in Iraq is shameful."
But it's very typical of the fanatics on the left.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 16, 2004 10:59:17 AM new
And just what ARE kerry's plans IF he's elected? Especially since 9-11 didn't change him much.
"According to the Times article, Kerry's first step upon taking office would be to go to the U.N. "to deliver a speech recasting American foreign policy."
This, despite the latest evidence of the U.N.'s glaring failures in Sudan (where it has done nothing to stop genocide) and Iraq (where it allowed Saddam Hussein to embezzle $11 billion from the oil-for-food program).
Kerry also would redouble efforts to reach a deal with North Korea and Iran despite their unwillingness to abide by earlier accords. And he would appoint "a top-level envoy to restart the Middle East peace process" despite the collapse of this approach four years ago.
Kerry is offering Clinton redux. This focus on diplomacy and law enforcement, on treating Al Qaeda as if it were the Medellin drug cartel, may have been a plausible posture in the 1990s, when terrorism appeared to be a low-level nuisance.
But 9/11 changed everything. Now we know that the jihadists would gladly incinerate one of our cities if they could get their hands on a nuclear bomb--and they won't be deterred by the prospect of being arrested afterward.
Bush gets it; he was transformed by 9/11. His policy implementation has been shaky, to say the least, but at least he has shown a sense of urgency in combating terrorism and weapons proliferation that was missing in the 1990s.
Kerry claims a similar sense of purpose, but he told the Times that the attacks on America "didn't change me much at all." That's a lot scarier than having a president who's clueless about "the Internets."
http://www.cfr.org/pub7443/max_boot/the_man_who_was_unchanged.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner
Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll--the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Re-elect President Bush
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 16, 2004 11:03 AM ]
posted on October 16, 2004 11:26:42 AM new
From the same gentleman who said no wmd was found in Iraq.
---
Duelfer: 'A lot of material left Iraq and went to Syria'
Iraq Survey Group head does not rule out Saddam's transfer of WMD
Posted: October 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Oct. 6, Charles Duelfer, an adviser to the CIA, did not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
Duelfer agreed that a large amount of material had been transferred by Iraq to Syria before the March 2003 war.
"A lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria," Duelfer said. "There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points. We've got a lot of data to support that, including people discussing it. But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."
So see....while even the experts aren't sure if they were taken somewhere else...the kerry supporters are just positive he didn't have any and that we were wrong to invade. To me, that's taking saddam's side against your own country when there's no definitive proof either way.
edited to add: [for those who think we just should have left saddam alone]:
edited again to add - first he became known as Hanoi John....now he's earning the name Tehran John - Will he ever be on American's side? I don't think so...too long of a pattern to be ignored, imo.
---
COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Tehran John: Pro-Iranian lobby funding Kerry
Whistleblowers disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars given candidate
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been given to Kerry from the pro-Iranian lobby, possibly influencing the presidential candidate's startling call to provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, according to Iran's Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy chairman Aryo Pirouznia.
With top Iranian officials openly calling for the development of nuclear weapons within the next four months and overwhelming intelligence indicating Iran is seeking to create a nuclear arsenal, Kerry has been insisting as president he would provide Tehran with nuclear fuel as long as it is used for peaceful purposes only, remind anyone of clinton and N. Korea deal? a position that has many Middle East analysts baffled.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40911
--------------
And on top of having endorsements from the socialist party and the commmunist party of America....he also has a group of approx. 700,000 Muslims that are planning on dumping their Florida voter ballots. [shaking my head here].
That article can also be viewed by clicking on the above World Net Daily link above.
posted on October 16, 2004 11:55:12 AM newa large amount of material
And none of that "material" was shown to be WMDs.
The brass fact is that the sanctions and inspections were working exactly as designed.
Bush lied or is an idiot.
Whenever all intel sources say exactly the same thing, it means two things: 1. The intel all came from the same source, and 2. Being from a single source it is not reliable.
Bush invading Iraq as a result of 9-11 is like Roosevelt invading Mexico after Pearl harbor.
Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place, and is a mess.
posted on October 16, 2004 12:11:58 PM newBush's supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US--truths now firmly established by the Bush administration's own reports--as treasonous America-bashing.
a recent CNN/Gallup poll found that 42% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 terrorist attack on the US and 32% believe that Saddam Hussein personally planned the attack.
A country in which 42% of the population is totally misinformed is not a country where democracy is safe.
posted on October 16, 2004 12:36:49 PM new
Lets take a look at what my father and his generation did for the fine up standing people of these great Nations of the world.
There is not one nation that has not benefited from them including Canada. The forgiving of billions of dollars of debt for all Nations. For this alone these governments should support the monetary part of the War in Iraq. There is not one Nation in the world that does not owe this generation its existence.
As a youth in Southeastern Kentucky Mountains, I would watch the sky filled for hours with Aircraft that would block out the Sun. It looked as if the light from the Sun rays were spot lights shinning, through the night with a twinkle as each Aircraft moved under it.
Railroads with Trains filled with Flat-cars with Tanks,Artillery,Trucks and Jeeps that would extend for hours back to back.
All going East & west to supply the Military of those that had not been conquered by Germany and Japan.
All made by women and old men. All the cost and rebuilding of Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, Japan and the rest of the world forgiven.. On the backs the labor of old men, women & those who fought in this great war started Germany & Japan.
A movie made after the War. The Best Years Of Our Lives. Won many awards, today considered a politically incorrect movie by the Hollywood left and its truth a lie.
True Heroes reduced to a rewriting history of political correctness, by those that live in a world blinders for the truth.
From World War I to Vietnam the enemy torture of it prisoners is a forgotten as a by line in history of normal relations.
So what does this have to do with Iraq?. Not a Damn thing. But, it has everything to do with the mine set of rewriting history and those that could not care less..
posted on October 16, 2004 12:37:25 PM new
The point is WE DON'T know....but the liberals take saddam's side...since he was such a 'swell guy' and all...against their own country. And it appears the Canadians here do too. I choose to take my OWN countries side when there is a doubt. Because I believe we run a better program here than saddam...and I believe in what our country stands for. And part of that is PRIDE....not cowardism.
It appears some liberal kerry supporters don't have a clue as to what others think or feel.
For me personally....being for President Bush's re-election is because I believe he is the best man for defending this Nation....NOT because he's a Republican. I would feel this way if it were a Democratic too....dems like Lieberman who don't have their heads stuck in the sand and are aware there is a REAL threat out there that HAS to be dealt with - not ignored, not passified until they strike again. kerry has his head in the sand....and like the above article said....he doesn't think ANYTHING has changed for him since 9-11. Well he needs a reality check and I hope he gets it on 11-2 when he loses this race.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And they, the interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. He starts pounding on the table. 'See here, this naval officer, he admits that you are a criminal.'" Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
- James H. Warner Former Vietnam POW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The President's job is not to take an international poll -- the President's job is to defend America." --President George W. Bush
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Re-elect President Bush
posted on October 16, 2004 12:54:28 PM new
No one was "taking Saddam's side" when they opposed going to war with Iraq.
Was/is Saddam a Bad Man? Yes, of course he is. Did he do Bad Things to his people? Yes, of course he did.
However, that did not/does not justify our attacking Iraq. There are other leaders around the world who are just as bad or worse as Saddam Hussein that we turn a blind eye to--and even support in some cases.
He had nothing to do with 9/11. And no WMDs, which was Bush & Co.'s original premise for war. And it is simply un-American to attack other countries for something they might do in the future.
Bush started out right by going after bin Laden, and I supported him fully in that. But I do not and can not support his actions regarding Iraq. Unfortunately, he has made such a mess, that even if Kerry is elected we'll have to remain in that country to clean up the mess. There are more terrorists now due to Bush's actions than there were before we invaded, as well.
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on October 16, 2004 01:05:35 PM new
Cowardism isn't a a word, cowardice is a word and applies to george bush who showed much of it when he aided and abetted the enemy by refusing to fight for his country in the Vietnam war.....the ultimate war protester and traitor.
too bad.
Excerpt from "Stolen Honor"
But the point is all four countries were acting in THEIR best interests, which was against our best interest. China, Russia, France, Syria all benefitted from their deals with saddam. Illegal deals. And Germany, France and Russia also had oil contracts they were going to put in place if they could get UN agreement to remove the sanctions. That was a HOT topic during that time. Of course, they wanted the sanctions removed....we didn't for obvious reasons.