Why is there such skepticim from Americans about America's motives in Iraq?

[inmate running the asylum]

I think its because everyone is always innocent and no one ever does anything wrong, and lawyers are always trying to get them off. Relax Redman. Just kidding. :laugh:

[inmate running the asylum]

Seriously though Redman.... I think some people touched on the reasons earlier, such as the Gulf of Tonkin lie, Iran-Contra, Clinton lying in office, etc. Events and situations also change with time. Germany and Japan were our enemies in 1945 but today are our allies. China was our friend in 1945 but many would say is a potential enemy today. I have been to China and the Middle East a number of times --always traveling alone and not with tour groups -- and I have always found the people friendly. Although it is true they don't always like or understand our American government's foreign policy.

So far I have personally supported all presidents in time of war, such as in Kosovo and the Gulf War, regardless of whether the presidents were Democrat or Republican. Its a tough job and I think we should be supportive of each other in time of crises. And now I support the administration in removing that SOB dictator in Iraq. In the short run it may or may not create more terror attacks -- but I feel the terrorists are going to attack us anyway --however, in the long run I think we will be better off.

But here is a very recent and good example of why so many people distrust their governments. I doubt that many Americans are aware of this recent expose.

The dossier that shamed Britain

Deception can only corrode public trust

Leader

Sunday February 9, 2003

The Observer

Persuasion has been the theme of the week. General Colin Powell took centre-stage at the United Nations, to demonstrate convincingly that Iraq is hardly co-operating fulsomely with Hans Blix's UN weapons inspectors. Tony Blair's televised encounter with Grand Inquisitor Paxman - and some even more terrifying members of the public - was both compelling television and a testament to the value of a robust democratic culture in holding those in power to account.

However, if that encounter showed the Prime Minister at his best, we have also seen his Government at its worst in the highly damaging fiasco over Downing Street's dodgy dossier of 'intelligence' about Iraq. Blair told the House of Commons that the document demonstrated 'a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment' in Iraq. Powell even cited it at the UN. Yet a dossier presented as containing prime-cuts of fresh intelligence material turns out to be nothing of the sort - but rather an internet cut-and-paste exercise largely lifted from a Californian post-graduate thesis focused on evidence from the invasion of Kuwait 13 years ago. Even worse, while typographical errors were maintained, a sprinkling of unfounded exaggerations were inserted to strengthen the claims made in the thesis.

The Government has grudgingly admitted a failure to acknowledge sources - while insisting that the information remains valid. This misses the point. Plagiarism is not the main issue. The central issue is that of public trust. At best, this episode demonstrates incompetence and the failure to oversee the most important claims which the Government puts into the public domain. At worst, a deliberate attempt to hoodwink and mislead the public will undermine trust in anything the Government says about the Iraqi threat at this vital time.

'We all have lessons to learn,' says Downing Street. But have they now realised that the sort of propaganda tricks which may have served governments well in the past are much more likely to be rumbled today? It is not only the Government which has access to the internet. Every claim made will be scrutinised more closely, and by more people, than ever before. Nothing will corrode trust more than to be caught out trying to insult the intelligence of the British public.

Tony Blair needs to take urgent steps to ensure his Government shares information in a more professional, open way. If he wants to persuade Britain of the just case for military action as a last resort, and there is a just case, his Government can hardly afford to shoot itself in the foot again.

[Jagsbch]

I think the biggest beef other countries have with the US is how we are distributing our resources to other countries. The Palestinians hate the fact that we offer more aid and support to the Jews. Living in the phat of the land basking in the spoils of luxury while the rest of the majority of the world eats cake contributes highly not only to the skeptecism. I think envy stirr's the skeptecism more than anything else. Sure past corruptions and other surfaced scandels have a lot to do with the skeptesism but every government has their share; honestly I think envy is more at the root of the problem than anything else.

[Glenn X]

The short answer(s)?

Domestically speaking, the dubious spectres of Vietnam and Watergate continue to cast long shadows on American public life, especially as it relates to the political sphere. Simply put, there are certain Americans who became dismayed and disillusioned over our government's role in these two significant historical missteps and have simply decided to never trust Washington again.

Internationally speaking, one could sum up the perception of the United States around the world by way of a sports analogy that many here will surely be able to appreciate: the United States is viewed by many around the globe as, if you will, the Republic of Dan Snyder -- too much money, too much power, and too much of a showoff with regard to that money and power.

[fansince62]

one theme that is also never touched upon: the gross ignorance that prevails about conditions over seas, what our military and diplomatic forces actually do, the people who are engaged in these processes, the policies that guide their actions.....it's natural to doubt rather than open endedly affirm. the demands of our daily lives are so great that is is increasingly difficult to keep pace with the dynamic and accelerating change occuriing elsewhere.