Something strikes me as I think about America and its public perception in Oxford. On several occasions since our arrival here, we have been asked by people from other countries (the UK, Australia, etc.) what we think of our president. It's not the question that prompts me to write this entry, it's the WAY it was asked. Every time somebody has cared to know whether Andrew and I like George W. Bush or whether we support war in Iraq, the question has been delicately asked. "So . . . how do you . . . feel about your government right now?" they ask, trying to sound harmless and friendly, as if asking in the wrong way might cause us to begin sobbing and singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic.
I'm not sure what the public perception of the war and the Prez are like in the United States any more, but I'd wager they're quite a bit different from the public perception here. From what I hear from the USA, Americans either mostly like W or they're afraid to say otherwise. And while an awful lot don't support the war, that opposition doesn't get a lot of press there. And, in order to keep the peace protesters in check, it seems that plenty of "terror warnings" are put on the news alongside the peace protests.
That's just the impression I get from where I am and what I read. I readily admit my vision may be clouded.
Granted, Oxford is a pretty left-minded city, but I have been amazed at the almost universal dislike for "W" here. I am not a fan of the guy myself, so I understand where they are coming from, but it's really amazing to hear the impressions of Oxford students (English and otherwise).
I think the general perceptions here are: (1) George W Bush is an idiot; (2) he bought the election (or, alternatively, inherited it unearned); (3) he is so dumb or so evil or so power-hungry or so needy for his father's approval that he's willing to start an unncessary war; (4) his "Texan" image is ridiculously weak, so he's trying to prove he's a "man" by killing people through his army. I can't honestly say I agree with all of those, but they seem to be pretty popular feelings here.
Basically, I know almost nobody who likes him or approves of military action in Iraq. These may be left-thinkers, but they aren't idiots. Most of the people whose opinions I know are Oxford students and scholars. Probably half of those are studying politics or international affairs. Maybe that makes them more vehement against the president's policies. I don't know.
It seems, from a distance, that the US government may be using "terror warnings" to scare its people into supporting the government initiatives. The focus on terror makes the citizens think they need to stand behind the government; to show solidarity. It makes them less likely to go out on peace protests for fear of public gatherings being a target for terrorists. It gives the people something else to worry about besides bombing Iraq (I can't make signs - I have to go buy duct tape!). It scares them into being dependent upon and trusting toward their leaders. It distracts public and media attention away from the ethical issues of war in Iraq and toward a more personal percieved threat: I could be attacked in my home. I need to prepare (again with the tape). Additionally, it connects fears of terrorism with Iraq, which may cause some citizens to be in favor of war in Iraq as a way of opposing terrorism.
I am opposed to war. I have been praying for peace every day for months. I would like to say that I went to the protest on Saturday. In fact, Andrew and I had planned to go, but at the last minute we couldn't make it. Nonetheless, a bold statement was made when millions around the world gathered in cities to speak out against needless deaths in Iraq.
I can't say that I'm well-versed in international affairs, politics, or even current events, but what I know about the campaign for war in Iraq makes me uncomfortable enough to say this: I don't think Saddam is a good leader. I think he's probably a really bad guy. But I don't think the American government's motives are clear for war and I don't think innocent Iraqis and Americans should be killed if there are peaceful means available to resolve the conflicts. Americans killing Iraqis isn't any more "moral" than Iraqis killing Americans.
Over the last weeks, newspapers here have been urging citizens to attend marches against war. They're featuring stories on what the LAST Gulf War is still doing to the Iraqi people. On how much damage the US, NOT Saddam, has done to Iraq and its citizens. There is a campaign to send bags of rice to Tony Blair and ask that he send food, not soldiers, to Iraq. The front page art on the G2 (a regular tabloid in the Guardian newspaper here) last week featured a US highway with a big road sign that read "Welcome to America. Please remember to think on the right." That is very much the way America is seen from here these days: repressed.
The general impression is that Americans must either think conservatively or pretend to think conservatively. If they do think on the left, Americans are likely to either be ignored or seen as dangerous or anti-America. From afar, it's pretty scary to think that a great country like America is discouraging free thinking and free speech.
Posted by Erin at February 17, 2003 04:35 PMJust to give you some perspective from this side of the pond... The peace protests are getting HUGE press here, even when turnout is dismal. They staged one at Sundance - big film fest FULL o' liberal folk - and got 12 people. TWELVE! Not saying that others haven't drawn more, but the press has been disproportionate to the number of people attending thus far.
Also, I have barely heard anything about these "terror alerts" and have yet to hear anyone on the news, in the legitimate news magazines (Time, Newsweek) or mainstream press advise anyone to stock up on duct tape. They did lead most news outlets when the alert was upgraded to orange a few weeks ago, and there have been some feature stories on possible targets, but that's it. Mostly they're telling folks to do what they'd normally do but be careful if they are going to visit overseas. Nobody has even suggested the peace protests are a target, simply because it's illogical. The targets are well established places that hold symbolic significance, like the Mall in D.C. or Disney World in Orlando, not a dozen people on the corner of State Street at 100 South in Salt Lake City.
I know we've long agreed to disagree on politics and left it at that, and I also know you're getting news from here that's a bit filtered. Not wrong exactly, just filtered. Truth is, W's ratings are the highest they've been since his election. Yes, there are vocal protestors to his policies and the war effort on BOTH sides of the fence, but in general he's being supported cautiously.
There's a big "wait and see" attitude right now and a LOT of attention on the UN inspections and Colin Powell's presentation there. Everyone is basically holding their breath to see what happens. And everyone pretty much agrees Saddam is a bad guy, but nobody is sure what should be done about him. It's pretty clear from the latest info that Iraq IS tied to Al Quaida and has probably backed them for years.
That tie is not just something the administration is trying to invent. When audio tapes of Osama are presented through Iraqi news agencies, which are run by the Iraqi government (aka Saddam), not a lot of convincing is left to be done.
Okay, I'm shutting up now before you hate me forever.
Posted by: Kim (the Libertarian-leaning sister) at February 17, 2003 07:53 PMNow girls---- its like the old dinner table at home on politics again !!!!
My take--- W's ratings on foreign policy are the highest of nearly any president ever and despite the continued delays and lack of support by the UN security council it hasn't slipped one bit.
Old Saddam is a butcher of his own people by using chemical weapons on his political enemies (including there children and wifes as well). He has lied to the UN for 12 years and thumbs his nose at the resolutions passed because he knows that when it comes down to it, the UN will engage in continuing debate over "peacefull means of settlement" while he continues to hide his weapons to be used when he thinks the heat is off or supplies them to other terrorist organizations for there use.
It is fortunate that the peace protesters for the large part have nations where such freedom is tolerated. Do you suppose that such would be permitted to protest the killing of the innocents in Iraq by Saddam? Certainly no one needs rush in to begin a war but then isn't it Saddam who is actually in charge or that determination? The UN told him months ago very specifically what he should be doing and he took no action to recognise the resolution whatsoever except to start hidding stuff.
Yes--by all means continue to let him get by with his lying and killing and obstructionist attitude toward the world and give him all the time it takes to make sure whatever he never destroyed is better hidden so that when this all blows over he can kill more people--- and we can pray that the people he does kill are all his own citizens and not your friends, neighbors and relatives. I am sure he will be sure to sort out the peace protesters to be sure that they are not in any way harmed !!!
Bottom line--- this guy does not play by any civilized rules that any one but Adolf Hitler would ever recognise. He understands only one thing and that is direct physical confrontation by immenent threat of him PERSONALLY dying. Nothing else counts. He is without any values recognised by free society. If we can get him to cooperate without invading fine but quit beating around the bush (pun intented).
DAD
love you anyway !!!!
Hey. I'm not the sort to ram my viewpoint down someone's throat, but then again... I don't see what possible good a war could do. The situation in Iraq is bad, nobody could deny that, but the alternative could be a lot worse.
Presumably, Iraq has had chemical weapons for years. (We should know - we sold them to them in the first place. Have you seen that photo of Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein in the early 80s? Look here.) None of them have found their way into the New York subway or the London Underground, and the 'evidence' so far presented as to any supposed terrorist links is so sketchy it would never be admissible in a court of law. There are rather too many lives riding on what looks like a flimsy excuse, for my book.
And anyway, given the events of the past few years, would it not be incredibly counter-productive to attack an Arab country? Why would anybody possibly want to fan the flames of fundamentalism any further when it's pretty clear we haven't sorted out the unholy mess that exists in the Middle East already?
I see nobody attempting to break the cycle of violence in Israel/Palestine, where every suicide bomb that goes off in Israel seems to give Ariel Sharon the opportunity to demolish another refugee camp with his tanks, thus recruiting the next generation of bombers for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah and co... Wouldn't that be a better place to try and intervene? The West are already seen as complicit in that situation, and the really scary militants (i.e. Al-Quaida, the people we should be going after) use it as a rallying cry. And if you think a war wouldn't make those cries louder...
And I could go on about all the double standards there seem to be, concerning nuclear weapons and the like. (There is currently only one unelected despot from a Muslim country with access to nuclear weapons. He's in Pakistan. And America gives him aid.) Not that I think it'll make any difference. Bush will do what he wants to do, and the rest of us be damned.
Posted by: worried and a bit angry at February 18, 2003 12:04 AMI must admit I was hugely curious about your attitude to the current situation Mrs H, and now I've heard it I'm very proud of you. It is always difficult to make an intelligent assessment of such things when both sides are determined to spread as much propaganda as possible. The first casualty being truth and all that.
Being someone who marched on Saturday, I have rarely felt so proud of being British. I now know that the difference between how the press and government portrays us, and how we actually are, is pretty big.
One thing I would say, because it doesn't get mentioned often in the press, is to remind all of this blog's readers that even if a second resolution gets through the UN, this would not make the war legal. The UN must act within international law, which states it is illegal to attack a country that is not actively a threat to your own, or others. Second resolution or not, this (potential) war will be illegal, and is more of a threat to international stability that anything the French or Germans do.
Now, let's get back to meaningful stuff, like Buffy.
Posted by: Dave Loveblanket at February 18, 2003 09:23 AM