i am not an american

[kobayashi]

but i am curious to ask americans the following...why is it that the president must be supported at all costs? from where does that rationale come from? why, when the war began, did all questioning of the war need to cease?

to me this would appear to clash with much of what is fundamental to america.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I wish I knew. I was under the impression that the whole point of fighting a war to free ourselves from a single-ruler monarchy and choosing a democracy meant that no man could ever again be king. It would seem that some would rather abdicate the responsibility to educate themselves and to hold public officials accountable.

 

[ouizy]

Did you ever think that the majority of the population here was in favor of the war?

I do in fact remember many people voicing opinions against the war, and protests etc...

I really do not understand your post, who says we support the President at all costs?

I am not a supporter of this President, however, I am a supporter of this war.





I am not a Canadian.

 

[kobayashi]

i guess its a bit of a dated post since the war has officially ended. but when the conflict first began, and id argue since the events of september 11 really, a culture has been created where questioning of the president and his administration is somewhat taboo.

the only explanation i can think is september 11 is such a tragic day for america that it muted the democratic opposition to a large extent.

id say that day was a signal not to relax criticism, whether that criticism comes from other officials, the media or the public, but to enhance it. to ask more constructive questions. the term 'underlying issues' has become oft-used but im not certain to what extent it is understood.

news of almost decade long highs in unemployment has met very little criticism or questioning for the government that i have witnessed. accusations of previous knowledge regarding the incorrectness of documents which lent credence to the decision to send troops to war, when you look at them in context, havent really given rise to that much criticism.

 

[a-mole]

well.. we from countries that are not america only know what is going on by the filtered info our media presents (the same as you only have a very narrow view of foreign affairs, since your media selcts too) and it generally seems that the overall majority of USA citicen tends to overly support the American President
As I said I at least guess have not the whole scoop on what is going on at your place but it appears that G.W. Bush also cuts money for education, supports oil drilling in the (ant?-)arctis and such (generally seems to give a shit about ecology), that is something I do not understand and I wonder how he is still in power and seemingly strong seated in his position.. especially since it is said that the majority was NOT for the war. Wouldn't there naturally be one hell of an outcry one some serious trouble for the people in charge?

I kinda like the irony that the whole Iraque thingy obviously becomes too expensive now (*dogh* who would have guessed that) and now we (e.g. Germany... my country) and others (incl. France who were angainst it in the 1st place) should pour out resources/ money and time to take care of it... it's not like we don't haev our own problems with serious economical recesson and high unemployment

btw.. that was no bashing whatsoever! and no for everyone to tell me they do/ don't do this and that
was just a statement from a "foreigners" point of view (my very personal though)
Maybe a bit too agressive or so ? If so, sorry... I love the USA (with many of its possibilities, ideas and way of life.. yet I allow myself to b critical) I experienced the best year of my life there and many of my very dear friends and their families live there (though they share my PoV)

 

[pub crawler]

but i am curious to ask americans the following...why is it that the president must be supported at all costs? from where does that rationale come from? why, when the war began, did all questioning of the war need to cease?

to me this would appear to clash with much of what is fundamental to america.

The U.S. is largely a conservative nation, so President Bush has that going for him. Much of the blind allegiance to Bush is and was driven by the campaign of fear executed by the president and his advisors prior to the invasion of Iraq. Many people believed the president's lies and apparently found and still find comfort in the notion that U.S. intelligence agencies know where and who the terrorists are and that we're going to get them.

So, in short, there is a sense of nationalism in America that is built largely on a foundation of fear created by our president. Nationalism is a powerful force and it begets blind, unquestioning allegiance. Dissenters are unwelcome and, to varying degrees, marginalized.

 

[ouizy]

Please also understand how weakl the Democratic party is right now.

I have not heard a peep out of them in what seems to be forever because it is a well known fact Bush will be President until '08 like it or not.

It is very scary, especially for those of us who deplore him, however, we have to simply hope the war on terror eases and he returns to domestic issues.

Remember also the President is not our government, that is made up of hundreds of representatives, we just see and hear what the President does and says, and military action is always more interesting, and politically benefical than anything domestic.

It all sucks, but that is the way it is.

 

[verte76]

pub is right, the U.S. is conservative. Any conservative president has that going for him. That being said Americans do disagree with the president. I protested the war in Iraq. There is alot of fear in the U.S. because of 9/11. There were two attacks during the '90's, including a 1993 bombing of the WTC. Aside from these attacks 9/11 was the first military attack on U.S. soil since the Civil War. We used to think that the ocean could protect us from attacks, but clearly that's no longer true. So we're more likely to "get behind the president" when there's some sort of crisis, alot of fear and anxiety going on. Of course the whole idea of terrorism is to scare the hell out of someone. So when we're anxious about more attacks and such we're more likely to want to follow the president. I can't really do this because I'm a liberal and disagree with this president's agenda. The conservatives really want to follow him, as a whole.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Kobe, thanks for asking that, it's a question I had been wondering about for ages. Ouizy, you wouldn't believe the number of Americans who have said to me in discussions "GW is a jerk I hate him but I stand behind the President 100%"

and "we support our troops" (as if disagreeing with the President's decison = condemning the troops) "united we stand divided we fall" and even "How would you like it if a bomb fell on YOU in Canada!"



I will never get these rationales at all. I have always said that if our PM did something assenine I wouldn't stand behind him because that's the whole point of living in a free country. If he went to war with some country, I wouldn't put all my ideals on hold and stand behind something I didn't believe in for fear of being labeled "unpatriotic". And the whole idea of boycotting people/celebrities "hit 'em where it hurts" who don't agree with you seems to be all about forcing people to conform to one ideal...supposedly the opposite of what America is about.

Anyway, that was a good discussion topic!

 

[najeena]

There are plenty of us who don't support Bush and what he's done. Alas, the minority's voice is usually drowned out by the crowd.

 

[Lilly]

st. paul - the more literate twin.

there's a lot of things i want to say in this thread.

1. sula, kobe, mrs. edge: respectfully, it was a different climate here in the states relative to whatever it was in different borders. the second we declared war, the united states was isolated from its friends and neighbors (rightfully so - we really were alone). so while i respect your speculations on what americans may or may not have been feeling or not feeling at that time, and it's nice to see your viewpoints, but just remember it was a lot different here than anywhere else.

and "we support our troops" (as if disagreeing with the President's decison = condemning the troops) "united we stand divided we fall" and even "How would you like it if a bomb fell on YOU in Canada!"

2. the quote above. that's a half incorrect conclusion. supporting the troops is something that both a hawk and a dove do. it's done out of respect for the men and women who serve and protect our country so selflessly. while there is a sentiment that disagreeing with the president is smashing all over the troops, most people support troops simply because of the aforementioned points. support of the troops doesn't mean you're pro-war. disagreement with the president doesn't mean youre anti-troops.


3.

why is it that the president must be supported at all costs? from where does that rationale come from? why, when the war began, did all questioning of the war need to cease?

i don't know where you get the first question. i think it's pretty obvious that many of us here at interland don't like bush. maybe you can tell me where you're seeing it? as ouizy said, there was a lot of dissent when the war broke out but at the beginning it was so big it almost so big that people who were anti-war were drowning in the vastness of the problem.

i feel like we did still question the war, but it may be back to my 1st point in that your perspective is different on this than my own because we saw different sides of the conflict.

but kobe dear if you could explain where you got the conclusion that we think that the president must be supported by all costs, i'd really be interested to hear it.

__________________

historical note: up until eisenhower, the president was never to be openly question. it was he who was the first to get caught in CIA covert ops in south america and had to explain it to americans (like they cared). but it did begin a general questioning of presidents. it wasn't really until that point that americans even THOUGHT of questioning what the president was doing. they TRUSTED the candidate and felt that the country would go in the right direction in his hands. when the bay of pigs invasion failed so greatly, more stories came out about how americans ought to be watching their president more closely, but after kennedy's death, the bay of pigs disaster was buried with him until pretty much now. the straw that broke the camels back was obviously watergate. such mass deception of the public by *collective gasp* the president (and his cabinet) opened the floodgate of being virtual gadflies on the president and his administration.

it was compounded by the introduction of the information age and has since compounded into two vast opposites of severe paranoia and allegiance to the president no matter what. but just as with any extremes, most people are in the center of it. while many americans do try to keep up with what's happening, one gets to the "shit, can they lie to me a LITTLE MORE please?" point and goes toward severe paranoia, then swings to just trusting the administration (which is pretty much apathy). now that we have so much information being flown at us in so many directions there are bigger lies with stronger consequences taking place. but with these bigger lies people start to push more over to apathy because it's so shocking once one sees the lies being told daily to us (coming out of the cave and going blind).

/history


i hope some of that is what you're looking for.

 

[STING2]

I tell you what is BS in this thread is the assertion that people who support the President are "blind" or "uneducated". I know people on the left are upset that the majority of Americans supported the war and support George Bush, but that does not mean that should be making claims like that. A Bush supporter could make the same absurd charge about someone who is against Bush.

 

[Lilly]

I tell you what is BS in this thread is the assertion that people who support the President are "blind" or "uneducated". I know people on the left are upset that the majority of Americans supported the war and support George Bush, but that does not mean that should be making claims like that. A Bush supporter could make the same absurd charge about someone who is against Bush.

point taken sting. while i can see that i didn't clarify the extremes scale that well, i want you to know it wasn't purposeful.


i think that complete complaceny IS apathy, just going along with what the president says solely because he is the president is apathetic and stupid, you can't deny that.


going along with the president because you have reviewed his policies and agree with his platform is different from the above case. it clearly isn't complacency and isn't agreement with the president solely because he is the president, it's an active afiliation with the president/administration.


hope that clears it up.

 

[Scarletwine]

There are plenty of us who don't support Bush and what he's done. Alas, the minority's voice is usually drowned out by the crowd.

I disagree, the complacent majority are usually drowned out by a strident minority.

 

[anitram]

Re: st. paul - the more literate twin.

but kobe dear if you could explain where you got the conclusion that we think that the president must be supported by all costs, i'd really be interested to hear it.

I'm not kobe, but I'd like to comment on this.

I cannot express to you the number of times I'd turn on CNN to a show like Talkback Live or Crossfire or something of the sort and have a guy in the audience or a political pundit say something to the tune of "We have to stand behind our president (in a time of war)." Last part may or may not be explicitly stated.

On the other hand, I have NEVER seen anybody on a Canadian news channel like the CBC say the same about our Prime Minister, nor have I read this in Canadian media. It simply isn't there. He's just a guy with a job who sometimes makes good decisions, sometimes bad, we criticize him and we praise him but there is none of that underlying idea that we have to support him at all costs.

I don't think all or even most Americans feel that they have to stand behind their leader, but there are enough of them who have vocally expressed this that the rest of us take a step back, look at it and wonder what it's all about.

I hope I sounded coherent.

 

[Scarletwine]

Re: Re: i am not an american

The U.S. is largely a conservative nation,

That is untrue. The majority of US citizens are moderates. That is a myth the neocons would like people to believe.

Gore did win the popular vote and the Rep. seats gained in 2002 was in response to 9/11.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Re: st. paul - the more literate twin.

Anitram summed up what I was thinking much more eloquently.

there's a lot of things i want to say in this thread.

1. sula, kobe, mrs. edge: respectfully, it was a different climate here in the states relative to whatever it was in different borders. the second we declared war, the united states was isolated from its friends and neighbors (rightfully so - we really were alone). so while i respect your speculations on what americans may or may not have been feeling or not feeling at that time, and it's nice to see your viewpoints, but just remember it was a lot different here than anywhere else.

And that's exactly why we want you to explain this American psyche to us. I don't know Lilly...maybe I am just collosally stupid, but I still don't quite get what climate and "being alone" have to do with whether you stand behind someone/something you don't agree with (not you personally, but "a person")? I am not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly don't get it.

I just think that if my President were doing something (regardless of whether it is war or whatever) that neither I, nor the majority of the world agreed with, I would want to disassociate myself from it that much more. I would not go through the motions of standing behind something that is the opposite of what I believe.

This "stand behind the Prez" thing has shown itself in other areas with nothing to do with war. In another forum just a few weeks ago I was having a conversation with U2Fan101 about arts funding. He said "Don't get me wrong, as an American I stand behind whoever is the president 100 percent, but that stupid idiot cut back something that is important to me and millions of other Americans."

There it is AGAIN! I don't understand this mentality!!!

 

[Lilly]

Anitram summed up what I was thinking much more eloquently.



And that's exactly why we want you to explain this American psyche to us. I don't know Lilly...maybe I am just collosally stupid, but I still don't quite get what climate and "being alone" have to do with whether you stand behind someone/something you don't agree with (not you personally, but "a person")? I am not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly don't get it.

I just think that if my President were doing something (regardless of whether it is war or whatever) that neither I, nor the majority of the world agreed with, I would want to disassociate myself from it that much more. I would not go through the motions of standing behind something that is the opposite of what I believe.

This "stand behind the Prez" thing has shown itself in other areas with nothing to do with war. In another forum just a few weeks ago I was having a conversation with U2Fan101 about arts funding. He said "Don't get me wrong, as an American I stand behind whoever is the president 100 percent, but that stupid idiot cut back something that is important to me and millions of other Americans."

There it is AGAIN! I don't understand this mentality!!!

mrs. edge - i hope you're not upset with me. but let me explain the whole "being alone" thing. i'm saying that that's probably why you (you being those who aren't americans) don't understand our psyche. like i don't understand british psyche cos i'm not in britain. there are a lot of nuances that come along with being immersed in a culture that someone even as close as being in toronto wouldn't understand. even if you're watching our news it may still be foreign, ya know? it's like if you came down to the twin cities and i said "hey, yah, i'll meet you up in highland for dinner." you don't know where highland is, and it isn't on a map, and dinner here can also mean lunch. so if i'm in highland at noon and you call me at 6 to say "lilian!!! where the hell is highland???" then we clearly have misunderstandings due to culture differences.

it's a tear - does one support the country during wartime? or does one stick to its beliefs? or does one support the country but still stick to believing the war is wrong?

that's kinda also where "support our troops" comes in. becuase it's a way to "support" the country without supporting the war. i think a lot of americans had the rug pulled from underneath them when the war was declared. like...what do you do to protest something that is already irrecovable? which may be where other countries saw that we just gave up questioning the war.


but just to let you know, we didn't stop questioning. the voices were few and quiet, but the questions were still being asked.


i still don't understand what kobe is getting at (damn cultural differences ), but i hope i'm kinda answering it

did i get at what you were asking about mrs. edge?


and anitram - in the history section of my first post is kind of an explanation to why people (usually old men) say that one has to support their president no matter what. it's an old belief and really baby boomers are changing that imprint. i would suggest that with shows like crossfire it is opinion based, and even though it may be aired, it's not necessarily how the majority of americans feel (of course i'm just one american in one section of the country, it may be different down south or out east).

again - if that wasn't answering your question let me know, cos i'm interested in this.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

i never support Pres Bush on anything and i am american.

 

[Lilly]

i'm not the biggest fan of bush ever, but i wouldn't say i NEVER support bush on anything.


i think that in these political days you're bound to agree with one part of the presidential platform, whether it be the war or his policy for aid in africa (some is better than none).

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

but i am curious to ask americans the following...why is it that the president must be supported at all costs? from where does that rationale come from? why, when the war began, did all questioning of the war need to cease?

to me this would appear to clash with much of what is fundamental to america.

That is a good question. I'm really curious about it, too.

Our First Amendment is there for a reason. It allows us to be able to express our opinions on various issues. Our founding fathers were probably rolling in their graves at times during the whole thing of whether or not we should be allowed to criticize our president.

I protested the war, but I definitely got some comments about how I should "leave" if I don't like what our government's doing or, my favorite, "These soldiers fought for your right to say what you're saying, so quit complaining and support our country!" (can we say "contradiction"?).

I think what some people in the country need to understand is this: I do love this country. Very much.

Therefore, if I feel our president is doing something that, in my eyes, brings down our country, allows other countries to hate us, etc., you'd better believe I will speak up and be against what our president is doing. I love our country so much that I refuse to allow it to be looked at as a horrible country that does nothing more than bully others around, and if our government in some way, shape, or form, is allowing that image to be put out, then I'm gonna protest the government's actions.

And I think that's the case with a lot of dissenters in this country.

Not to mention, if we blindly supported our government in everything they said and did, simply because he was the president and we absolutely must support him and not dare question him, we'd be living in a dictatorship. Not a democracy.

Originally posted by Lilly
i think that complete complaceny IS apathy, just going along with what the president says solely because he is the president is apathetic and stupid, you can't deny that.

going along with the president because you have reviewed his policies and agree with his platform is different from the above case. it clearly isn't complacency and isn't agreement with the president solely because he is the president, it's an active afiliation with the president/administration.

Exactly.

Besides, I have respect for the position of president. I just don't always like who holds that position. Bush has done very little in my eyes to make me hold much respect for him.

That's my opinion, though. Some people would disagree, and that's fine.

Not to mention, some of the same people in this country that were upset with those of us who criticized Bush were critcizing Clinton mercilessly when he was president, so that's another thing that bugs me-the sheer hypocrisy of some people.

Angela

 

[kobayashi]

i was absolutely hammered when i wrote this.

why is it that the president must be supported at all costs? from where does that rationale come from? why, when the war began, did all questioning of the war need to cease?

no i wasnt. but i did make a generalization that i shouldnt have. a more accurate query, and more akin to what i was actually wondering, is whether or not you agree there is a cultural climate within the U.S. of backing the President through thick and thin? and if so, why? by that i dont mean all americans (thus eliciting an 'im american and i dont' response) i just mean...a trend of sorts.

this does not stem from any specific incident or quote from any one person. it is, as i said, something i feel is present in the ideological climate (now we are getting heady) of the U.S. at present and i would think to an american, it is a troubling development.

it seems he is given a pass of sorts on his misgivings because he has been charged with leading the war on terrorism. im not much for history but did cold war era presidents recieve the same...benefit? (i dont want to use that word but cant think of another)

you are right lilly. the thoughts of myself, anitram and mrs. edge certainly point toward a candian/american divide on this and perhaps it is only our perception. it is the response of other americans which really intrigues me here.

 

[pub crawler]

Sting, education has nothing to do with it.

 

[verte76]

I agree with you Moonlit_Angel. If the president is doing something that's not good for the country I love, then I'm going to be mad. I'm going to protest. This stuff about anti-war protesters being "against the troops" or whatever is nonsense. We weren't criticizing the troops. We were criticizing the big shots in Washington. And if we can't criticize them then we do live in a dictatorship and not a democracy. As far as I'm concerned my government is a democracy, dammmit.

 

[verte76]

Sting, I understand that people who support Bush are not "blind supporters". Some people have analyzed everything, and thought really hard, and have decided that he's doing the right thing. The thing is not everyone feels this way. I've read stuff and tried to keep an open mind about Bush, the war, etc, etc. I don't *hate* Bush. I simply don't agree with his agenda. That's not the same thing. I don't think he's a or whatever.

 

[80sU2isBest]

verte76, I consider you to be one of the most open people on the forum.

 

[Lilly]

i never drink, i'm underage

it seems he is given a pass of sorts on his misgivings because he has been charged with leading the war on terrorism. im not much for history but did cold war era presidents recieve the same...benefit? (i dont want to use that word but cant think of another)

kobe - i love that your posts in here always give me an excuse to talk history


the climate during the cold war was a lot different than it is now. first off there was a lot more blind support for the president. secondly, and more importantly, during the cold war, the majority of americans hated the "enemy" (in quotes because communists were just continually misrepresented in order to create a hate to manipulate it so the president had more leway when he made horriffic decisions).

in the more heated years of the cold war (mid50s to early 60s) it wasn't "proper" to question the president. while there are articles and essays posing questions, they were poorly circulated and the writer was usually branded a communist. later the cold war was shoved out of the way because the vietnam war was the center of attention.


by the time it was resurfacing as a concern (reagan era) the ussr was crumbling on its own. aaaaand in the "me me me" climate of the 80s people really didn't care about the cold war (see incorporation of "star wars").

these years also marked a general lack of information. unlike now, people in the world didn't have instant access to others (americans wouldn't be talking to people from austria regularly) to get that other point of view.

i think i rambled into different directions sorry...i'm a history loser

 

[STING2]

Lilly,

The Vietnam War was apart of the Cold War. There is this belief that there was somehow a thaw in the Cold War in the late 70s which is totally false. Some of the Soviets highest defense spending was during the late 1970s. The media may not of noticed, but any one in the military or intelligence services new it all to well. The nightmare many planners had then was how to defend Western Europe from Warsaw Pact without having to resort to the use of Nuclear Weapons. The Reagan administration strengthened the US military and gave NATO the ability to defend itself from a Warsaw Pact conventional invasion without having to need to resort to the use of Nuclear Weapons. It also provided the US military with a large number of new high tech weapons, most of which are still being used in service today.

In the Soviet Union itself, massive defense spending without any let up was ruining the Soviet economy. The Soviets had planned to stabilize or cut back spending in the 1980s, but the Reagan defense build up, greatly accelerated Soviet Defense spending which continued to increase every year until the end of 1988. 1989 was actually the first year in decades that Soviet Defense spending was less than the prior year. But it was to little to late to save the Soviet Union, which disolved on Christmas Day, 1991. The Truman Administrations policy of containment, followed by all future US presidents, had worked, although there were many difficult times, concerns and worry's along the way.

As for the general population in the USA, I remember growing up with every movie incorperating some time of Nuclear War theme in the early 1980s. The Martian Chronicles, The Day After, Red Dawn, 2010, even the Terminator just to name a few. Movies into the early 1990s continued to play off of the Cold War. So I'd say it was still very much a part of culture in the 1980s, and it was a big shock when the Berlin Wall came down and the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union all of sudden came apart in the space of 2 years. I remember my highschool dean saying more had happened in those 2 years than in the 20 years prior.

 

[najeena]

I'm reminded of 'Gone With the Wind', the chapter where Mrs. Meade (remember the auction at the dance?) is put in the position of wanting to support her husband in an action of which she heartily disapproves. I think there are many Americans who feel the same way about our country right now.

 

[sharky]

Good debate on this one.

The main thing I think you are referring to kobe is this attack on dissenters i.e. the Dixie Chicks blowup for saying they disapproved of the president.

If you lived in Europe during WWII, would you support Churchill or deGaulle? most likely, yes. You rally around the leader of your country in a time of war. Americans did the same thing when we were attacked on 9/11. However, the administration has done an amazing spin job on making americans believe Iraq influenced 9/11 [in one poll, 46% of Americans said most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, none were]. Essentially, most [not ALL] Americans support Bush because they see the war in Iraq as an extension to the war on terrorism [I don't believe it is].

Anyways, imagine if your country was attacked and one day 3000 people died. You're going to support the president because you're going to believe that he knows what he is doing and he is your leader. That's what happened here and I believe that is what you are referring to.

With recent information, its becoming more and more obvious that Bush lied to us about Iraq, so you may see the tide changing.

In the end though, people here see supporting the president as the same thing as being a patriotic American. I get as misty eyed as the next person when I hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" but that's different than supporting Bush.