Why is America so hated for Iraq, yet Britain gets little or no blame?

Question

Dont take me wrong. I understand why America is hated for Iraq, i dont like the war either but there is nothing i can do about it. My question is why does the world hate the average American citizen so much over Iraq yet the world doesnt hold Britain to the same standards? Its as if they ignore the fact that Britain is in a sense as much to blame for this as well. They sent their military into Iraq alongside of Americas
Why is Bush so hated yet Blair is not as hated? They both are just as guilty for this war. I have read posts from people in England on these boards and other places on the internet where they call it "Americas War" and "American war mongers". Isnt that kinda being hypocritical? Why do they ignore the fact that their government and military didnt hesitate for one minute in charging into Iraq with America?

America started the war? As i recall Britain was there at the start as well. They were all for it.

One last detail-and one last time. I am NOT a republican. I am against the war. I just find it odd that most of the world looks at it as Americas mistake and America is bad for it yet the other countries directly involved get little or no criticism for their involvement in the war. I find it odd that these people are willing to attack Americas government and in some cases blamed the American people for the war while their own government and military has taken part in it as well.

Answer 1

Because thats just how they are. Hypocrites. Funny thing is the first reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners and Iraqi citizens were at the hands of British soldiers, not Americans. Happened well before the famous pictures at the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In fact Brits started torturing them just about as soon as the war started.

Answer 2

Hi

Firstly I have to question your assumptions - I don't think the "average american citizen" is hated everywhere - Americans are certainly unpopular in arab countries and only slightly more so thatn Brits.

The fact of the matter, though, is that George Bush's government instigated this action and Blair supported him, possibly because he believed it was right, and possibly because he believed that he could mitigate some of the worst excesses by being close to the president. It is certainly true that Blair's current term in office will end earlier than it otherwise would as a direct result of the war in Iraq - the same isn't true of Mr Bush.

The UK is simply not capable of prosecuting a war on this scale alone and lacks the international backing to persuade other people to do it - while the UK *did* join in quickly and, from a military perspective, wholeheartedly, from a practical perspective this is unequivocally "America's war" - if only because a) America would have carried it out with or without Britain's help b) if Britain had wanted it and the US hadn't the brits wouldn't have been able to.

Frankly I think there are more important things to worry about in this world than a few seeming anti-american comments on Yahoo answers, and I would humbly suggest that you question your assumption that "the world hate[s] the average American citizen". The world seems to give the average American citizen more wealth, more freedom and a longer life than pretty much anyone else.

Answer 3

As a Brit someone who has lost friends in recent conflicts i will attempt to answer this question as impartially as possible.

You make many assumptions, "there is nothing i can do about it", it is this attitude that is alive and widespread throughout not only the US but also the UK. When the citizens of a democratic nation feel as if they are powerless the entire democratic system has been undermined and devalued. I am not suggesting that you are to blame for this attitude; however it is an easy attitude to take when to take action is seen as a chore rather than a right.

To get to the question, Blair has already resigned and will hand over number 10 early next year, it may be argued that his is at the natural end of his term but i am of the opinion that recent conflicts have contributed to his decision.

"Isn't that kinda being hypocritical?" I am hoping that this conflict will not be victim of the type of factual misreporting that has plagued conflict throughout history, the UK did not advocate the use of military intervention and pushed for UN resolutions until the last safe moment on behalf of the US; who at the time had resided to enter into conflict on quasi-legal status. It was only when it was certain that there was going to be intervention that the UK entered into the conflict; it is my belief that the UK have acted as mediators and ensure that the great US Rottweiler is kept on a leash.

And lastly a pedantic point, the military do not have any part to play in the UK's political system. The military is simply a tool of political action and not a part of the decision making process. Oliver Cromwell taught us this important lesson, one that we will observe for a long time to come.

Answer 4

Lets look at it from my view, an Australians point of view (a country that supported the war). We don't hate the americans or the british. Everyone i talked to agreed with the war. The only people who voiced the war was wrong were the iraqi's who supported suddam's regime, the general peace lovers who say all war is wrong, and the AWB who lost alot of contracts and face. (i.e. a few business men and a couple more nobodies)

But these "peace lovers" never got more angry at america than they did at britain (at least that is what our media has portrayed).

don't forget, unlike america where there is little social support from the government, their is huge social support in britain, and their are alot of "peace lovers/muslims" taking advantage of this. They are not going to criticise en masse against the government which provides for them, not when muslims are so close to being kicked out/mass murdered.

Answer 5

Neat question with a simple answer - if the US did not pursue the war, Britain would not have started it; the main culprit here is the US! And that is why Britain is not blamed.

Without Bush, Blair would have been just air.
Good for Britain, good for Blair.
The hate rightfully went to the (US)warmonger
And not to Balir
Because he has been pulled into this by his collar!

Answer 6

I could give you a long drawn out answer but it is quite simple:
Bush made the decision to invade Iraq unilaterally... that means after the UN refused to back him.

Once that decision was made without UN approval, it became a USA war. At that pt, Bush went to allies individually asking for support... Britain said 'yes' and sent in some troops.

Now to explain what that means. I recall reading some of the national rejections or approvals to help Bush. IE, Bush actually rejected France's offer to help (this is not widely known) because France wanted UN helmets... you know, those blue/green ones.

So you see, Bush wanted control of it all from day one. He said 'no US troop will have a UN helmet on". I do believe that is verbatim.

Answer 7

i think of there could be a shrink of 15 or sixteen. it may be unfair to the a number of different contestants even nonetheless it may help stay away from events like that one. The presenters saved occurring approximately the way it wasn't basically Britain that became watching however the entire international and development further and extra tension onto those teenagers. i'm shocked it would not take place greater often. a minimum of they finally confirmed her the decency of letting her carry out returned. MA: Aaron Turner is 31

Answer 8

It's because blair is seen as bushs lapdog. Also the british were kept on a very tight leash during the invasion, and since, however the american military have just acted like barbarian nazis.

Answer 9

Did Blair approach Bush or was it the other way around? Why are you trying to deflect the responsibility of what we did to other countries and leaders? Take responsibility, isn't that what the republicans preach?

Answer 10

Because AMERICA started the war, not Britain.