Actually we did have some credibility going into Afghanistan. That is simply true. Also the way to restore credibility is to behave in a credible manner. If there was deterioration of our credibility, misleading, submitting forged documents, and insulting those that don't agree with you about the war, followed by torturing, not securing, and creating more chaos in the nation invaded isn't a good start at repairing it.
[Andy snaps his fingers] Dude, over here, it's reality. I haven't seen you for a while. You are seriously delusional if you think that we did not have unprecedented worldwide support in the year after 9/11. If you will deny that, then you have willfully put the blinders on.
Not within the Muslim community. That is simply false. Correct. But if its low its low. Going from 1% to 0% is statistically insignificant.
Ok, so be an ass about it, I'll respond in kind: does a candlelight vigil on the streets of Tehran count as popular support? I would guess it does. http://www.bestirantravel.com/culture/wtc-vigil.html Looks like......you're wrong. You sure about that one boss? Many surveys on Iraq did reach as high as 95% opposed in many arab countries. Credit where its due, however, it has now slipped back into the mid 80's. That's what you had in mind, right? http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796 Who said anything about a barometer? I claim we squandered it. You claim otherwise and said I was wrong. The evidence seems to indicate the contrary You are simply wrong. Or how else do you explain the dearth of global criticism over Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq? "Nous sommes tous des Americains"...etc. Do you honestly think that the US did not lose any credibility in the rest of the world, Islamic and non- over Iraq, or are you you saying it doesn't matter? They're both stupid arguments, mind you, but you might as well pick a ship to go down with..and maybe you can come up with some evidence too. I'm sure you can pick some numbers out of that Pew center report and construct soemthing out of it. Thus far you haven't done jack other than a few unsupported assertions. I can't wait to see it.
OK, slick. Let's see what you've got to back up your assertion. Here's a sample of what I've got. "These demonstrations indicate that in most countries the anti-war sentiment is probably greater now than at an equivalent stage during the Gulf and Kosova wars. There was outrage at the terrorist attacks in New York and on the Pentagon. But there is, nevertheless, opposition to the brutal and indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan by the mightiest military power that the world has ever seen. As Robert Fisk remarked in the London Independent newspaper: "There are no Saudi Arabian or Kuwaiti pilots in the night skies over Afghanistan. This is not a Western-Muslim coalition. This is the West on its own, bombing a Muslim country that has a standard of living close to the Middle Ages." (8 October)" "The bombings by the US and Britain of Afghanistan, on the evening of 7 October, has met with protests in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, the USA and indeed throughout the world." (October 9) "Muslim outrage over attacks increases: The Muslim world today showed growing signs of outrage at the bombardment of Afghanistan. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, radical Muslim groups said they would track down Americans and Britons and drive them out of the country. About a thousand militants took to the streets of the capital, Jakarta, in an echo of protests that have erupted in Pakistan and the West Bank since the air raids began on Sunday. A westerner was murdered in Kuwait, raising fears of violence and revenge attacks by Muslim radicals inspired by Bin Laden."(October 11) "Al Jazeera, which claims a global audience of 35 million Arabic-speaking viewers, may not officially be the Osama bin Laden Channel - but he is clearly its star, as I learned during an extended viewing of the station's programming in October. ... Compared with other Arab media outlets, Al Jazeera may be more independent - but it is also more inflammatory. For the dark side of the pan-Arab worldview is an aggressive mix of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, and these hostilities drive the station's coverage, whether it is reporting on the upheaval in the West Bank or on the American raids on Kandahar. ... Day in and day out, Al Jazeera deliberately fans the flames of Muslim outrage." (November 11) Now there is so much more, before I 'go Mango' on you, you post some proof or at least something published that would lead us to believe we had a huge credibility surplus within the Muslim community. You must have been smoking crack in 2001.
I guessed A Flock of Seagulls knew what they were singing about: A cloud appears above your head; A beam of light comes shining down on you, Shining down on you. The cloud is moving nearer still. Aurora borealis comes in view; Aurora comes in view. And Iran, Iran so far away. I just ran, Iran all night and day. I couldn't get away.
Hah! Strange how those who came out in support of the US are also getting crushed by the clerics leading Iran, lol. It would seem they are not in the majority or they'd be in charge, genius. We're talking about worldwide opinion. No, my argument is that there was no real dividend to 'spend.' You've shown NOTHING that proves otherwise. As in my last post to Andy, I can cut and paste global criticism of our intervention in Afghanistan ALL NIGHT LONG. That just doesn't fit the definition of 'dearth.' Well, read 'em and weep, Sam. If you honestly think the US had a lot of credibility within the muslim community before Iraq you are delusional (as Andy would say). If you want to post something that supports your claim, instead of saying I'm stupid, please go for it.
Are you drunk? Didn't you just pitch a fit about how governments don't matter and that it's the people that matter? Are you 180'iing on that too? Do you need for me to explain how godawfully stupid and juvenile this argument is or not? Nous sommes tous des americains... Except for the numbers that show a marked decline. Hayes, you do that. Cut and paste away. Then do the same for Iraq. Which one do you think would take longer? Are you being willfully blind just to be a pest or are you this uninformed? Actually, no I didn't say "a lot", I said "some" Read the Pew survey for more info chief. Other than that, I simply can't help you.
Yes within the Muslim community we did have good will. The first speaker at the memorial for the victims of 9/11 the speaker was a Muslim. Turkey was willing to go to bat in AFghanistan, and work on operation in helping police the situation after it was over. Going back even further to the first Gulf War we had Syrian troops going in to help fight against Iraq. These are countries that have largely muslim populations and were willing to help us. There always has been a certain distrust because of our support of Israel despite their oppressive regime against Muslims. So that's why there is some distrust. Even with that we managed to still garner support from within the Muslim community. Certainly after brokering the Egyptian/Israeli peace back in Carter's adminstration there was at least a willingness to believe that the U.S. was an honest broker and the opportunity for support from the Muslim community was there. Part of the problem with support from the muslim community is the fact that we have done little to earn that support as far as predominantly Islamic nations are concerned. It may have been low, but it was nowhere near 1%. But there is a way to earn support, and Bush has done the exact opposite of it.
I'm not looking for help. In all of your ramblings there isn't a single coherent argument. You can't help me? It seems obvious you can't help anyone. And as Samuel Jackson once said, 'English mother ******, do...you...speak it?' edit* and yes I was drunk.
Right, like intervening to protect a Muslim state against a Christian one (bosnia)? We haven't done anything to earn support? We didn't intervene to prevent a secular state overrunning and annexing a Muslim state (Kuwait)? And to claim that there was overwhelming support for Afghanistan is at best a gross exaggeration and at worst a lie. No doubt. I'm not saying Bush has done a lot to increase our 'credibility,' for what that's worth. I'm saying there isn't some massive benefit we're missing out on. Muslim's were up in arms (as shown with the quotes I provided above) about Afghanistan before Iraq. Hence our credibility problem while possibly exaccerbated by Iraq is not a result of Iraq itself. Sympathy is not synonymous with credibility. 'Most' of the world expressed sympathy for the US after 9/11. In no way did that INCREASE our credibility. The two simply are not connected. There are plenty of actions that reduced our 'credibility' vis-a-vis the 'world community' like withdrawing from Kyoto, or withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, or imposing steel tariffs. You know, all the stuff liberals claimed would cause the sky to fall BEFORE Iraq.
Yes there are instances, but not a steady effort. I mentioned one of the biggest issues and that is Israel/Palestinian situation. I mentioned Kuwait as well, because we did have the support of the Muslim population for that action. As I mentioned Syrian troops were actually fighting for the coalition. So it's not as if the countries with a large population of Muslims are against us no matter what. They did support us then and I mentioned Turkey's support for Afghanistan, and Sam mentioned Iran's demonstrations of support for our nation. That doesn't mean that Muslims around the world would follow us in whatever we told them. But I do think with that kind of sentiment the potential to initiate dialogue, and build stronger alliances, and do some good deeds in order to demonstrate our willingness to work with Muslim populations is there. We could use that to begin a diplomatic push to help us win necessary and valuable allies in the war on terror. I agree that those moves and the nuclear test ban treaty withdrawl didn't help our credibility either. By showing that we are part of the world, and not above it, we can use our advantages to take a leadership role which would seem more beneficial than going it alone, or with fewer allies. The terrorists have operations in dozens of countries, we should have dozens of nations enthusiastically helping us combat the problem. It simply makes us safer, and it presents potential future democracies with a more positive view. It would make them more receptive to the idea.
Exactly. The Israeli/Palestinian situation only cuts against your own argument. It feeds my argument that there were/are other issues that show we don't/didn't have this mythical surplus of credibility as a result of 9/11. EVEN Clinton acknowledges this about world opinion in general: "The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror. Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty, and for the international court on war criminals, and for the anti-ballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty." The quotes I provided earlier show that there was indeed mass protest about Afghanistan, again proving there was not tangible loss in benefit from so-called credibility due to Iraq. Its the same as me saying '.org anti-war people are against Bush now because of Iraq. but they were against him because of Kyoto, and the ABM, and if they were muslim because of Israel and Afghanistan.' What is the impact of the last in the chronology, Iraq? My contention is that the impact is almost nothing. Its negligible. It hasn't resulted in any negative impacts that outweigh the positive impacts of removing Saddam. There is no proof that the rest of the world is NOT cooperating on terrorism as a result of Iraq. Please elaborate if you want to make that claim. As per the other, obviously if we had our choice we would like to take our leadership role with some common sense. I agree with your premise that we'd want to be a part of the world community as much as possible, unless as Clinton said, there was no alternative. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying this assertion that our credibility/9-11 dividend was wasted by Iraq is overblown at best and misleading at worst.
I disagree. I think if we had taken a harder line against Israeli oppression, and violation of the 4th Geneva convention would garner us more support, and credibility, but we failed to do that. Clinton is guilty of this as well. There were some protests about our action in Afghanistan, and there were Islamic countries in favor of it. Maybe it was split. That's still better than almost unanimous distrust, and anger. Also when there is a legitimate split the opportunity exists to try and build on that momentum to develop larger support. But you have to have the will and diplomatic ability to wark toward that. Some countries have helped us. There has been a level of cooperation. But we don't know to what level. I honestly don't know what level. But I do believe that alienating potential allies might make them willing to continue on with intel as they always had and share with us when something comes up. Where as working closely with them might enable the U.S. and its allies to come up with joint plans programs developed together utilizing the strengths of each nation. Getting nations with large Muslim populations would help put a different face on the war. It would help show that it's the world against the terrorists not the U.S. against Muslims etc.(I know that's a simplified and generalistic way of putting it.) or anything close to that. The Palestinian Hamas example will fit here. Palestinians are not able to prosper operate successful businesses etc under the current Israeli occupation. There are a lot of Palestinians who are impoverished, lost families in the conflict with ISrael, can't educate their young etc. Then along comes Hamas to fill that need. They educate the young, offer assistence to those in need, and take on the people who are oppressing them(though it is a criminal and horrible way). But if we back up and see the oppressed people and their needs, why not offer U.S. friendly agencies or programs to help them. Then rather than feeling loyalty and approval of Hamas' method of fighting ISrael, they would be more open minded to our own methods of getting change. Further more it would build good will. Enlarge that to not just Palestinians but others. There is a void with those groups of people, and either we can fill it, and build support for our ideas, or other groups like Hamas will and build support for their ideas. It takes a lot of work, diplomacy, funding, and cooperation, but it helps. It won't completely eliminate terrorist groups from getting a percentage from the down and out, but we could cut that, and gain new allies and possible intel sources on the ground where we need it most. If we build support with those groups we tap into the base that terrorist groups recruit from, and utilize. That is the kind of hard work and diplomacy we need to do in order to really be effective in the war on terror. If we had been doing these things all along, and we decide to go into Iraq, Muslims, and other middle easterners would far more willing to believe that we were doing so out of a genuine desire to rid the Iraqis of a cruel dictator, and not that the removal of that dicator was a by-product of some selfish scheme, by our govt.
They seem to have some kind of protection against direct linking in there...here's the link: http://www.funnypictures2.com/albums/misc/flinging_poo.jpg
