[q=DocFrance]Your analogy makes it seem like US forces went on a rampage, shooting everything that moves and carpet-bombing cities into dust. Quite the opposite happened, really. That's certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.[/q][q=Garland]The US is busy clearing away boulders (a good and necessary task), whilst the rest of the world refuses to help, yet eagerly criticizes. The rest of the world wants dictators deposed (in Lybia for example), yet does nothing. The US deposes dictators as it sees fit (as the two heroes removed the boulders as they deemed fit), and recieves only criticism.[/q]I disagree with both of these statements. The recent US-led war in Iraq had a typically appalling number of blunders which killed many thousands of innocent Iraqis. Faulty intelligence which led to civilian buildings being bombed, or trigger-happy forces attacking 'suspected terrorists' at whim. If Hussein had been deposed by a truly international co-operation, there'd be less outcry from all but ardent pacifists. As it was, though, Bush demanded that the UN bow down and obey its will to wage war, then criticised the UN fro refusing to violate its own rules. Now that the war is over and Iraq needs rebuilding, Bush is demanding that the rest of the world aid in the reconstruction efforts, yet his government is also dictating who may or may not lend support to the humanitarian effort. Really, it's not so much what Bush does that upsets people, but rather how he does it. The approach that "you must do everything I say, you must obey my rules even though I don't" is one that's kind of offensive to independent countries and their citizens.