While on the one hand, American bloodlust is running hotter than ever these days... On the other hand, around 95% of Americans believed the "Saddam has WMDs" claim in early 2003, and 80%+ continued to believe this into the summer of '03, when it should have been pretty clear that there were no WMDs... well after the infamous "mission accomplished" speech. We can't even get 95% of Americans to agree that the Earth is round these days.
Can't speak on Europe/"the west"... it seems that they would be reluctant to believe whatever shit the US is cooking up to push regime change though.
Can't speak on Europe/"the west"... it seems that they would be reluctant to believe whatever shit the US is cooking up to push regime change though.
I think the situation in the US would be more or less the same as today. The situation in Europe now is completely and terrifyingly different as in 2001-2003, though. Back in the day, nobody here believed in Iraqi WMDs, everybody called BS on that, even continental European MSM was critical of the US narrative. There were state department shills on German tv discussion panels going "if you don't want to fight Saddam you're supporting the new Hitler" and they were completely bodied for that. I don't think Amerikans are aware how much things have worsened here, and i wasn't aware how completely propagandized the US already was 20 years ago. I was like "well, Green Day and the Beastie Boys and Michael Moore are against this war, they're mainstream af, i guess there must be some sizeable opposition to this war in America" and boy, was i wrong about how the AmeriKKKan publiKKK reacted to these few critical voices.
I think the Bush admin severely overestimated how much goodwill they had left after 9/11. Europeans let Afghanistan slide because it was supposedly about getting Bin Laden, even if that was bullshit not least because the Taliban were willing to hand him over without a fight. Iraq though? That was a step too far outside of Bush's lackey Tony Blair. In retrospect, it was funny how France was 100% right about Iraq and Blair completely tanked his reputation. It was also a major blow for NATO's credibility to have major allies France and Germany not take part, plus Finland could've joined at the same time as the Baltics did, but turned down the offer because the population was so against joining.
It was quite a time to interact with Americans online, since so many of them supported the wars and thought Europe was a bunch of limp-wristed wimps (almost verbatim comment) for not being entirely on board.
yeah I'm torn between "the internet makes people feel as though they are personally witnessing things/a part of the action because they saw it on social media/telegram, so it'd be even more" and "it'd be less because dems and republicans literally cannot bring themselves to agree on anything."
While on the one hand, American bloodlust is running hotter than ever these days... On the other hand, around 95% of Americans believed the "Saddam has WMDs" claim in early 2003, and 80%+ continued to believe this into the summer of '03, when it should have been pretty clear that there were no WMDs... well after the infamous "mission accomplished" speech. We can't even get 95% of Americans to agree that the Earth is round these days.
Can't speak on Europe/"the west"... it seems that they would be reluctant to believe whatever shit the US is cooking up to push regime change though.
I think the situation in the US would be more or less the same as today. The situation in Europe now is completely and terrifyingly different as in 2001-2003, though. Back in the day, nobody here believed in Iraqi WMDs, everybody called BS on that, even continental European MSM was critical of the US narrative. There were state department shills on German tv discussion panels going "if you don't want to fight Saddam you're supporting the new Hitler" and they were completely bodied for that. I don't think Amerikans are aware how much things have worsened here, and i wasn't aware how completely propagandized the US already was 20 years ago. I was like "well, Green Day and the Beastie Boys and Michael Moore are against this war, they're mainstream af, i guess there must be some sizeable opposition to this war in America" and boy, was i wrong about how the AmeriKKKan publiKKK reacted to these few critical voices.
I think the Bush admin severely overestimated how much goodwill they had left after 9/11. Europeans let Afghanistan slide because it was supposedly about getting Bin Laden, even if that was bullshit not least because the Taliban were willing to hand him over without a fight. Iraq though? That was a step too far outside of Bush's lackey Tony Blair. In retrospect, it was funny how France was 100% right about Iraq and Blair completely tanked his reputation. It was also a major blow for NATO's credibility to have major allies France and Germany not take part, plus Finland could've joined at the same time as the Baltics did, but turned down the offer because the population was so against joining.
It was quite a time to interact with Americans online, since so many of them supported the wars and thought Europe was a bunch of limp-wristed wimps (almost verbatim comment) for not being entirely on board.
yeah I'm torn between "the internet makes people feel as though they are personally witnessing things/a part of the action because they saw it on social media/telegram, so it'd be even more" and "it'd be less because dems and republicans literally cannot bring themselves to agree on anything."