Remember when the whole world loved us?

[Rokenn]

Only two short years ago the whole world was behind us. It's amazing what you can accomplish in two years

[Djinn Raffo]

I know, it really amazes me how virtually the entire world stood behind America on Sept. 12, 2001. And just two short years later that support has been turned to a general feeling of disdain and anti-Americanism. A diplomatic failure of immense proportions by the Bush administration imo.

[Ronn_Bman]

Nope.

I think if you'll look back to posts made in the GD forum here starting just minutes after the attacks on September 11th, 2001, you will realize you're looking back through rose colored glasses.

Of course I do remember kindness from that time, but there is still kindness for those who were lost. There were dissenters regarding action from the very beginning. There is a difference between being sympathetic to our loss, and agreeing with our reaction.

I get really sick of "the world was eating out of our hands" 2 years ago, because it's complete bull.

[ 09-12-2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Timber Loftis]

Everyone was behind the US 100% for doing something about 9/11. They backed the notion of taking action against state sponsors of terrorism, and generally backed Afghanistan. But, they see Iraq as a non-sequiter in the crusade, a puppet project based almost completely on non-terrorist concerns for which the tragedy is being used as an EXCUSE. And, this may very well be justifiable.

Until we knew that Saddam had even lied about lying, the Iraq WoMD threat was real. Otherwise, UN inspectors wouldn't have been such an issue. We forget this often. And, it makes the Iraq situation look like it's not very connected to 9/11.

However, the asserted Iraq-Al Queda link as a justification brings shame on 9/11. Because it is so attenuated, this assertion insults those victims, their families, and our intelligence. If the tragedy of "9/11" is shouted everytime the US wants to assert its manliness with a war, it becomes trivial. It's like the boy who cried "wolf."

If you are going to go remove a dictator because he's tyrannical and abusive of his people, say so. If you think he might have WMD, well then that's fine too. But if you assert he's on the hook for flying planes into the WTC, you better damn well back up the connection with a-b-c details an idiot can follow or risk trivializing 9/11 altogether.

As for who loves us, the US current stance seems to be that of a Lannister:
It is better to have the people love you than fear you.
But, if they will not love you, it is better to have them fear you than laugh at you.

[Faceman]

Well according to Machiavelli it's "best to be loved and feared at the same time. As this cannot be achieved it's better to be feared."
(the quote is fuzzy, it's something along this line but I can't remember the correct wording. but it's not as if Niccholo always quoted correctly )

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Nope. I think if you'll look back to posts made in the GD forum here starting just minutes after the attacks on September 11th, 2001, you will realize you're looking back through rose colored glasses. Of course I do remember kindness from that time, but there is still kindness for those who were lost. There were dissenters regarding action from the very beginning. There is a difference between being sympathetic to our loss, and agreeing with our reaction. I get really sick of "the world was eating out of our hands" 2 years ago, because it's complete bull.

It is not.

Speaking as a Canadian we were pro-action in Afghanistan and against terrorism. We agreed with your reaction there and have the largest troop contingent in Kabul and continue to work to rebuild that country. So were the Germans i recall.

We were also for action in Iraq ONLY under UN mandate. Canada also had a proposal that allowed for further inspections backed by force. It was championed by Mexico because they were a member of the security council at the time and Canada was not. Both the French/German sides and the US sides disregarded it (edit>yeah yeah old argument don't want to go there but).

We were with you after Sept. 11th. Ronn. Unilateralism - go it alone turned that support off.

[ 09-12-2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[john]

We can thank George Bush for setting us back years in in international relations,environmental causes,the U.S.economy,and the trust of Americans towards their government.Great job George,now take your retirement money and go home!!

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by john: We can thank George Bush for setting us back years in in international relations,environmental causes,the U.S.economy,and the trust of Americans towards their government.Great job George,now take your retirement money and go home!!

I can agree somewhat with what you have said, but not toally. The "Old European" powers were also looking for some reason to buck the US, because we are now seen as the only legitimite Super Power. It's only natural that some one rise to challenge us. If the European Union is to ever have any real power it must challenge the US and try to also become a Super Power. I think that is what is behind alot of the "offically" (read France, Germany and Beligium) led challenges from that quarter. BTW I don't mean anything negative by the term "Old European". It just descibes the older member states in the EU as opposed to say Poland or some of the other Eastern Block Countries that just joined.

It's my opinion that the Old NATO alliance will cease to exist, except maybe on paper in the next 25 years. I don't ever again see us being as close as we were prior to last summer.

Personally, I'd be quite happy to see the EU become a Super Power, especially if it off-sets China.

The economy was going down the tubes when Dubya took over. The Tech Stock Bubble had burst already and the whole market was on the way down. CEOs and COOs across the board were looking for ways to show a profit for their existing stockholders. So jobs got cut and companies got conservative and quit spending lots of money trying to grow their companies, which caused the economy to spirial on down even more.

As far as trust in the Government going down, you can go blame Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan (Can you say Iran/Contra? I thought ya could.)for that. I don't think anyone really trusted the Government much after those four got done with it. Clinton didn't help much either with "I didn't inhale" (yeah right!!!) and "I never had sex with that woman" (Blew there Big Boy and got caught didn't ya). Bush just didn't help it along very much.

Anyway just my little ole pennies.

[Animal]

The majority of the world was behind the US during their campaign against terrorism to bring the guilty party responsible for 9/11 to justice. The majority of the world is still behind that campaign.

Unfortunately you just can't decide to run roughshod throughout the world attacking people who MAY be a terrorist threat, or MAY have had connections with terrorist cells, and the consequences have shown themselves.

The damage to the US from 9/11 still continues. The economic impact from Iraq is staggering, with Bush asking for another $75 billion from congress, soldiers being killed almost daily and the general turmoil within the US over Iraq. In some ways it seems that Al Queda has already beaten the US, turning them into a paranoid giant, attacking anything that moves.

9/11 was a tragedy of epic proportion, and my heart goes out to each and every person affected by those days events. You cannot however let those events cloud your judgement and lead you into a blind rage

[Mouse]

Nobody could fail to join with the US in an expression of sympathy and solidarity over the events of 9/11.

Unfortunately we quickly diverged over how to best ensure that we minimise the chances of such an outrage taking place in future....