It's interesting. So in your opinion, the people of Spain should not think for themselves any more, they are only allowed to react to what terrorists do/say. If terrorists "want" them to go east, they simply go west without any question asked. Otherwise, someone like you would call them "cave in". Wouldn't that be too easy for terrorists? If they want you to go east, they only need to say west, so you will automatically go east, just in order to pose as NOT "cave in"? Besides, who's going to tell them what terrorists think? You or GWB?
I would say that the goodwill didn't run too deep to begin with. The Goodwill generated by 9/11 was enough to go after the people directly involved in the attack and nothing more. If there had really been a tremendous outpouring of goodwill, would we not have been able to get more countries behind us for the Iraq war? It doesn't take much to lend support (that in most cases is miniscule in comparison to what America is bringing to the table) for a direct response to an action (like the US supporting Kuwait when Iraq invaded. That isn't tremendous goodwill, that is looking out for global stability by going after agressors. What would show goodwill is to get behind us when we say, here is another action we feel should be taken. It is not a direct response to 9/11, but we feel it is a looming threat. If 90% of countries in the world had committed troops to Iraq, that would have shown that there was a tremendous outpouring of goodwill for the US. It probably would have dramatically changed the outcome of the first 3 years of the war in Iraq. Had that happened, the goodwill that was generated may or may not have been squandered. As it is, polls are nice, but it takes no real effort for someone to say they stand by America after it is attacked.
Good will doesn't mean people will follow you into starting a war before exhausting all peaceful opportunities first, especially when the war you starting isn't really related to the event that generated the good will. A great amount of good will wouldn't have to be generated for the initial action after the attack. It would be required and need to be maintained to garner a long-term committment. For other countries to continue to pour in manpower, and resources over a prolonged period would require a large reserve of goodwill and strong diplomacy. I think only stupidity, greed, fear/wimpiness allowed for support for the Iraq war.
SM, other countries actually look at the reasons behind going to war. In Iraq, the reasons given, and the urgency given by the US Administration, just happened to be unconvincing. Events proved that being unconvinced was an intelligent thought on the part of those governments that didn't join the Bush Iraq adventure. I strongly hold the belief, as has been said before here, that invading Iraq squandered that international goodwill generated by the tragedy of 9/11. We still have several allies with troops fighting in Afghanistan that wouldn't get involved with Iraq. Why is that? Because they feel going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. They don't feel the same way about Iraq. Keep D&D Civil.
what? other countries did not go behind us for the iraq war the goodwill generated by 911 has disappeared? howbout because its not right, smart, and legal to be involved in an act of aggression against a country who had nothing to do with 911?
Why would you need a reservoir of good will to get people to do what they feel is the right thing? If there was goodwill that could be squandered, shouldn't we be able to use it for something? If not, what good is it? Would we be forvever safe from terrorism if only we hadn't squandered the goodwill by invading Iraq? Obviously the people that hated us before 9/11 were not going to stop hating us because of 9/11, there was video of what they thought about it, and it was dancing in teh streets. The people that liked us before 9/11 didn't require 9/11 to get on our side. I guess some countries that had no opinion/a balanced or neutral view of America before 9/11 could have been pushed into our camp by the attacks, but so what? Why do we need the goodwill of those who didn't like us before, only like us because we were a victim in the spotlight, but even then don't like us enough to support an action they don't already agree with? I understand what you guys are saying, I just think if what you are saying is true, then this "goodwill" was incredibly overrated, and I couldn't care less that it was squandered.
Just the opposite. I'm saying that you should do the opposite of what you think the terrorists would want you to do. In other words, stay the course. Was a part of the motivation for the Madrid train bombings to get Spain out of Iraq? Probably. I don't really think that the terrorists were counting on the ruling government getting caught in a lie about who was responsible, but that is what some here want to cite as the primary reason for Spain's withdrawal. It is far more likely that part of the motivation was to get Spain out of Iraq than it was to keep them there. That makes no sense. Do you think that with another successful terrorist attack on US soil that the US will leave Iraq-- even with Clinton/Kerry/Edwards/Blank in the WH? If you cave to the terrorists intentions for you, you just get more terrorism.
Your premise is completely false. You're presuming (as you often do, it's not the first nor likely to be the last time) that the Spanish 'caved in' to the terrorists' demands. You're confusing this fact, "The Spanish public was largely opposed to the Iraq war to begin with -- even prior to the terrorist attacks," with this one, "the Spanish public caved in to the terrorists because they voted for the anti-Iraq war party, regardless of their pre-terrorist attack opposition to the war." Furthermore, I don't think it's logical to favor 'reactionary politics' in response to any issue or any threat; that's what got us into the mess we're in now. Simple-minded reactionary politics is a perfect recipe for disaster. It's silly to make an argument along these lines: "If the terrorists support something, we must oppose it; if they promote Burger King, we should only eat McDonald's; and if they want us to drink Pepsi, we must only buy Coke." It's a dumb argument, it reflects on the person making it more so than anything else. We should base our policies on what we think/believe/have established is in our interests or what we believe is right, not what the terrorists want us to do. You lower yourself to their level and provide them with the sort of legitimacy they crave when you promote such a simplistic approach ...
SM, do you mean that if a country has goodwill with another country they should follow them even if they do not support them? That doesn't sound like goodwill to me that sounds like one country telling the other country what to do, annd dominating that country. Do you mean that if Elgland would say lets attack Germany without any couse that the americans should just help them? I do not think that you would support such an action. I think a lot of European countries did have some goodwill with the USA, even before 9-11, and defenitly after. However when Bush started mentioning attacking iraq a lot of countries didn't like such an action. And felt no need to join, because at the time everybody was trying to resolve the issue without War. However Bush made it very clear that he didn't care what the rest of the world thought, and that he would invade iraq.(and now it has become clear that every reason he gave for the war in Iraq are either lied or just not true), and that didn't do well with the rest of the world. Also i do not think people are anti-american. But i think most people in europe are Anti-Bush. If there is a new president in the US. i think most countries in Europe would be more positive about US.
Sure but simplistic phrases like "stay the course" don't help much either. I'm not opposed to an extended stay providing we actually manage this thing better. We're doing a horrendous to non-existant job in terms of actually rebuilding the country. Chaos has ensued in several parts of Iraq and it's getting worse. The Inspector General who is in charge of looking at American spending (took them a while to actually get an auditor there) has uncovered massive amounts of corruption to outright theft by major corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel as well as smaller makeshift operations like Custer Battles that were given contracts in areas that they had no business dealing with. If you want to "defeat the terrorists" then you need to actually build a damn infrastructure for the country or else it will continue to be a haven for terrorists and they'll continue to get plenty of willing recruits. That's why the Taliban are re-building in Afghanistan. Our reconstruction there has been a joke and people are starting to get fed up and want stability. The way to stop terror is to promote a stable government and a stable society with a real infrastructure. We're doing a horrible job at all of those and if we continue to do this then "staying the course" becomes code for needlessly sacrificing American soldiers in an occupation that isn't doing a damn thing. We need to reform our spending and contract policy and start spending our money wisely and giving it to contracters that will do the job. We need to start spending in the right areas as well. Iraq still doesn't have a 911 type system where people can call in and report insurgents nor do the police stations have any method of communicating each other and coordinating law enforcement. Our government has repeatedly stated that its goal is to build up police forces and we're doing an awful job there too. Point is, if you're going to defend any move to "stay the course" then do so by typing more than just those 3 words. There are lots of issues to deal with and the administration has paid lip service to those questions by simply saying "freedom is hard" or "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet" or some other stupid cliche phrases rather than real substantive answers. I realize they've been utterly incompetent in their responses, but I hope you can be a little more clear than they are.
There is no way not to react. We either react the way they want us to or we react in a way they do not want us to. That is inevitable. You can demean and slight it all you wish if that makes you feel superior in some way, but it boils down to just that. I said that too. The train bombings just expedited the response that AQ wanted to see in the election. The Spanish caved in response to an act of terrorism. Rather than rise up and stand against, they faltered-- whether or not they were already inclined. The right thing to do is to stand up against acts of terror.
Did any of these services and advantages exist before the Taliban was ousted? Are some of these things getting done... and then un-done by the rogue forces in Afghanistan who would kill 100 Afghans just to kill a few in the Coalition? Oh, and they would also destroy any progress made. Let's not forget who the bad guys are here...
Nobody is saying that Spain withdrew from Iraq because their govt. lied to them. Though that would make sense for a nation to undo what liars got them into. The ruling party was ousted because they lied. Spain didn't believe in the war in Iraq. Their moved their troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Is that what the terrorists wanted? Did they want more troops in AFghanistan? No! Then the SPanish did not cave into terrorists. Your whole premise is silly. Do terrorists want a cure for cancer? I bet they do. Does that mean we should stand up against a cure for cancer?
It's funny that politicians have such a hard time to make people believe what they say or what they want, even including their own supporters. Now, they are trying to tell you what terrorists want. I guess they felt they have less credibility than those terrorists do. Instead of having the confidence and courage to tell you what they want, they try to spin and claim that enemy do NOT want you to do that, so you HAVE TO do that. Supporters of such nonsense would make themselves very powerful memebers in any totalitarian system. That was a playbook used by every single dictator in the past, and those dictators only.
Okay, you tell me: why did they bomb the trains in Madrid? Get real. This is not some adolescent reaction where you do the opposite just to be doing the opposite. You don't cooperate with terrorists because that gives them the power they crave but do not have but hope to grab through acts of terror-- if you cave into theme.
