Nope. You got it right. I think one reason, among many, may be that Mr. Blair is #1- a gentleman, and #2 he has been and is being duped by Mr. Bush. I think the American people are more and more becoming aware of what a corrupt megalomaniac Mr. Bush really is. That can't be said of Mr. Blair.
2006-12-07 22:33:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both will be chairman at halibutrin and Private military contractors after there job is done. Still, Saddam was a thug a gangster. Now, where left people that will blow themselves up to get 72 virgins in heaven. We went into Iraq with poo understanding of the unliniing social, and structural problems of Iraq, and Blair and Bush will be lameduckers in the histroy books. Yet, there been Presidents and Prime Minsters in both countries that have did a lot more censorship of information that Bush and Blair everdid. Truman did excutive orders to censor the showing of causties, as did Chruchill, and suppressed opinions pasicm during that time, and did not give away the house of millitary postions. Blair and Bush, will replaced and the relationship contuines
2006-12-07 21:33:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by ram456456 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are responding to the chants of a vocal minority which is over reported based on the fact that bad news sells in America. The majority of people have a middle of the road attitude towards Mr. Bush. They like some things about the man, but dislike others. Even in their dislikes they do rise to the level of actual hate. The word hate is bandied around a lot in the United States, but few dislikes actual rise to this level. Much of the most vehement hate is expressed on the Internet behind a veil anonymity. You do not hear people walking down the streets talking this way about anyone, much less the president. In short, put this in it's proper perspective and do not believe everything you hear.
2006-12-07 21:28:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bryan 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is not uncommon for the people of any country to hate their Presidents / Prime ministers, as they remain long in their seats. So is the case with Bush and Blair. Both are ruling their respective countries for a long time. They both have made the mistake of attacking Iraq..
I think British have that gentleness that identifies with the British and so they are not on a killing mentality, like the one the Americans have. May be it is the hype created by the media. I think Gun culture is more prevalent in America than in Britain.
We should not also not forget that many assassinations have taken place in US, than in UK.
2006-12-07 22:34:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Electric 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Americans have sons and daughters that get killed and maimed in the wars moreso than the British. Americans have ideals of self righteousness from traditional fundamentalist religious organizations and are King of the Hill, without understanding how they got there. Americans feel that Big Business is the reason they are on any battlefield and Americans fight for freedom for people who don't want it bad enough or haven't the culture to stand up for the necessary changes to make that freedom. Americans want to decieve themselves into thinking that their "good life" is there because they worked hard and has nothing to do with the rich embedded people who really care about this nation and what they do with their riches. Americans have been deceived by ideology that because they are "free" that their ideas and wants are just as important as a "whole picture". Bush is predestined to appear to be hated because Americans are more free and unchecked and misunderstanding because they dont have a bigger picture and compare to utopianistic views from ideal stands. Most people are not awake to the problems of the world and how the rest of the world affects them. They are busy working, humping for a living or relaxing from the grind. Americans have fought many wars and have lost their sons and daughters to them. Americans get sick and tired. What is hate but extreme dislike, and oft times from misunderstanding. While we have freedom, we have so much misinformation and it is everywhere. Our media is big time! We enjoy media. We are entertained by information, even parts of it. And we are a feeling people. We love big and we dislike big. We are closest to a real democracy than anywhere in the world! And so with that candy, we have sour apples bigger than anybody else too. What would the rest of the world do without us?
2006-12-07 23:02:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think the partisan tv and radio stations, blogs and print media makes it seem like a war is going on within america. So on one hand it's quite shrill that bush is bad and on the other side it's equally shrill that people want him dead and are traitors/guilty of treason. This is all very entertaining and has the side effect of making people think america is ready to explode. I don't know that there's too many ppl who'd like to see harm befall anyone - especially the president because it's an office which deserves the utmost respect regardless of who holds it. The difference in Britain - maybe that there's not the die hard partisanship that seems to characterise america at the moment. Perhaps not as many people define themselves by saying I'm a tory/labor the way people say i'm a democrat/republican.
2006-12-07 21:23:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by wondering 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Blair is certainly a figure of hate in the uk. Mind you, the damage that his labour government have done, causing a funding crisis in the NHS, spiralling local and central government taxes due to gov overspends/waste, the destruction of private pensions (and the stock market they rely on and unfair tax changes that have destroyed most small business startups in the uk IT sector. Not to mention that no sooner they were in power they )like all previous labour govs) opened the immigration flood gates. His government, including blair's likely successor (Gordon Brown) are hated by a significant portion of the uk population. The big difference with blair over many leaders is that he is now almost universally hated (bar a small loyal clique) within his own party, mainly due to the iraq war.
2006-12-07 21:34:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by DonDilly 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you Bush and Blair are hate in there own countries. I feel that neither or them are able to do there jobs properly and should have gone years ago. Maybe we could get Mrs Pritchard to run the country as she seemed to do a better job that Blair has. Maybe we could even get her to run America and i could run England as i am able to find my backside with both hands and without a map. Maybe one day we will have a president and a prime minister that can do their jobs properly by doing what the voters what them to do.
2006-12-07 21:27:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mrs Bond 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think bliar got voted in cus he said do you really want that other man as your pm he is old i am young. then people just stuck with what they had or it was rigged like in tower hamlets. there is to much scandle with the labour govenment. plus he takes it from bush whenever bush is alone. i think with should linch both of them. but as we cant do that by law then we should just vote out the labour gov next time even if bliar goes they messed this country up in the 70s it took the conservertives 30 years to restore this country back to itsself after there mess up and its going to take them another 30 years to restore the mess the labour gov has done. so of course people want to kill him.
i think most amercan love bush he loves war so do they even if there not good at it. they seem to kill more of there men than the iraqs do. they kill more brits than the iraqs do then blair gets mad bush takes out his dick and blair is good again he likes lapping up what bush has done good little doggie.
2006-12-07 21:30:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you got it wrong..Bush is not my cup of tea and I would
like an investigation into his doings but I don't think or do I know any Americans who wish him harm, other than justice,if an investigate proves anything.. It is said About the Americans and British they have a lot in common except their language..this may be so in your interpretation.
2006-12-07 21:35:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by dadacoolone 5
·
0⤊
0⤋