wrong with saying what you think.

Quote Originally Posted by JJackson View Post
Firstly an apology, I had just waded through the BBC international site and was seething from the unnecessary loss of life and general hatred in the days news. I then made two hasty and provocative posts which, on reflection, should have been toned down.
Sorry Steve and everyone else.

That said I would still disagree with Ken on 9/11 being a watershed in US policy. The birth of the GWOT was not the start of those with power throwing their weight around but it was a major change in policy focus and I would argue counter-productively...
I think that you're partly correct, it was a 'policy change' of sorts -- but only in that it became a stated policy rather than an unstated but actual policy we have pursued for over 200 years. Both Britain and France were horrified in 1801 that we elected to attack the Barbary Corsairs rather than pay tribute and tolerate their enslavement of westerners. As has been said, there is little new under the sun.

What Bush did was flout the rules of international diplomacy; he rejected Kyoto -- but so had the US Senate some years before, it was never going to be ratified. Same thing applies to the International Criminal court; the Senate will never agree to that (correctly in my opinion). Bush didn't change reality, he merely talked about it. Look at pre-emptive strikes for example; we've done literally hundreds over the years; just never announced it as a policy. Bush did that -- that just got a lot of people's knickers in a twist when all he really did was give voice to something we -- and most nations in the world -- have always practiced but wouldn't talk about.

I've been traveling internationally since 1947. Anti-Americanism was present then and it has broadly stayed at the same level since. Viet Nam was a high point; more approbation appeared then than does today.
As to the Brits in days of empire I would not even consider trying defend some of their actions, opium, East India company etc. etc. I don’t know the origin of the term ‘Gunboat diplomacy’ but I have a nasty feeling we might have spawned it.
Why would you not defend it? You had nothing to do with it. Britain reacted in tune with the times to events. Did they make mistakes? Sure. However, you did more good than harm. You have every right to be proud of the accomplishments of the empire and no need to be apologetic. I cannot understand this new trait of self-flagellation in the European hearth; I see it as self righteous but self defeating foolishness.
...So much misery for so little gain, this pattern of actions keeps being repeated and keeps swelling the ranks and coffers of the real enemy. Don’t back the despots, when civilians need help, help them and make a few friends. So much damage has been done to America’s reputation in the Muslim world it may be a very long time before they start saluting the Stars and Stripes but lets try and at least get a few less burnt.
If everyone was as nice as you undoubtedly are and shared your views, that would be a good wish. regrettably, I fear a good many in this world are not that nice.

I'd also submit that had the US not 'turned the other cheek' so very many times in bowing to international good will pressures in the past and had instead responded fairly and forcefully to provocations we would not have many of the problems that today exist in the world. the meek may inherit the Earth -- but there are a lot of un-meek folks out there who work mightily to preclude that...