Poll Shows disturbing world view of U.S.

[3rdpath]

from the l.a. times

**By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A year after the start of the Iraq war, mistrust of the United States abroad has intensified, and the ill will toward America has begun to erode support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism, according to a global attitude survey released Tuesday.

The ongoing study of public opinion in nine countries was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in February and March — before last week's bombings in Madrid and the subsequent electoral defeat of the Spanish government, which had contributed troops to the Iraq war. Spain was not included in the survey.

The study illuminates the widening gulf between the American public's beliefs and those of key U.S. allies — a divide thrust into the public eye Sunday with the surprise defeat of one of the Bush administration's staunchest allies on Iraq and the war on terrorism, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

Although most Americans believe that the war to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein helped in the global fight against terrorism, majorities in Germany, France and Turkey, and half of those surveyed in Britain and Russia, think the U.S.-led invasion undermined the struggle against terrorism.

Large majorities in Russia, France, Germany, Morocco, Turkey, Pakistan — and 58% in Britain and 50% in Jordan — said that the war had diminished their trust in the United States. But 58% of Americans thought the opposite.

Most of those polled in Germany, France, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan — and 48% of Moroccans — said they believed that American and British leaders lied when they claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Majorities in six countries and 48% in Russia said that the United States is not sincere in its motives for the war on terrorism. Only Americans say that they have more confidence than before the war that the United States wants to promote democracy around the world.

"It is disturbing that Americans are the only ones surveyed who believe the war in Iraq helped, rather than hurt, in fighting Al Qaeda," said Madeleine Albright, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton. "It is also troubling that the Iraqi conflict has caused each of the other countries polled to lose confidence in America's honesty and commitment to democracy."

The Pew poll has been carefully studied in the past by the Bush administration and various government and private commissions grappling with America's declining standing abroad and growing anti-American sentiment in much of the Islamic world.

An alarmed State Department also has commissioned its own polls, which have found similar trends to those cited by Pew, according to officials who have seen the data.

U.S. officials had argued that although the plummeting popularity of the United States caused deep concern, it had probably reached its low point during the last Pew survey last May, shortly after the end of major combat in Iraq, and they expected that it would rebound.

The new poll did show some bright spots for the Bush administration, such as less apparent hostility in some nations with Islamic majorities. For example, the percentage expressing a very unfavorable view of the United States dropped in Turkey from 68% in May to 45% in this survey; in Pakistan from 71% to 50%; in Jordan from 83% to 67%; and in Morocco from 53% to 46%.

But large majorities still view the U.S. unfavorably. And although America and Europe share an archenemy in Osama bin Laden, President Bush was rated even less favorably than Bin Laden in Jordan, Morocco and Pakistan — a key ally in the U.S. war on terrorism and the hunt for the Al Qaeda leader.

Moreover, nearly half of Pakistanis, as well as 70% of Jordanians and 66% of Moroccans, said suicide attacks against Americans in Iraq were justified. Even 31% of Turks surveyed agreed.

The survey found a significant erosion of U.S. standing in Britain, a development that, together with the Spanish election results, could prove threatening to Bush's most important ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Only 43% of Britons surveyed in the latest poll believe that Blair made the right decision in using force against Iraq, down from 61% in May.

Support for the war among Americans fell from 74% to 60% in the same period.

Although European leaders have stressed their desire to improve ties with the United States — and argued that success in rebuilding and democratizing Iraq is in every nation's interest — transatlantic tensions in public opinion are unabated. Growing majorities in Britain, France and Germany want the European Union to be as powerful as the United States and want their foreign policy and security arrangements to be independent from Washington, the survey found.

"It's a fact, whether we like it or not, that there's a huge problem with the credibility of America in Europe and beyond," a senior European diplomat said.

The problem is due not simply to the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the diplomat said, but also to what he called the "Guantanamo element" — the view, especially among European youth, that the United States is not the defender of freedom, civil liberties and other ideals that it purports to be. The U.S. has been holding hundreds of terrorism suspects, including European citizens, at its base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without formal charges or access to lawyers. — some for more than two years.

[Mark James]

Disturbing, but hardly surprising.

[IJ Reilly]

Disturbing, but hardly surprising.

But to whom? In another thread, a claim was being made that this set of circumstances was essentially inevitable. I suspect at this point the Bush administration is convinced (and would like to persuade us) that we can't make an omelet without breaking every egg in the henhouse. As nearly as I can tell, this is the only line of reasoning that can excuse the administration's gross mishandling of US political capital.

[Taft]

But to whom? In another thread, a claim was being made that this set of circumstances was essentially inevitable. I suspect at this point the Bush administration is convinced (and would like to persuade us) that we can't make an omelet without breaking every egg in the henhouse. As nearly as I can tell, this is the only line of reasoning that can excuse the administration's gross mishandling of US political capital.


Thats exactly the problem. How many people in the US, when they view this data, say to themselves, "What the heck do I care what the rest of the world thinks?" Bush has sold an alarming number of Americans the story that the world and America are safer due to the war in Iraq. As a result, people think we are safer and can easily ignore the fact that the world hates us. If we are making ourselves and the world safer, who care what everyone else thinks, right?

But what if all this anti-American sentiment breeds more terrorists and violence? What if we lose key allies? In losing allies, is our ability to fight terrorism also diminished? Is our ability to gain support and aid for future, and more necessary, military endeavors damaged?

The problem is that Americans don't see that the loss of the world's support is probably connected to our security and future prosperity. We can't always go along with everyone else in the pack, but squandering good relationships to fight a war sold on non-existant WMDs is probably not the best idea either.

Taft

[jefhatfield]

america is a great country but without the support of its many allies, america is nothing

in today's economy, we cannot succeed and stay on top if we are out of step with the rest of the world...if bush continues to go against the world's public opinion, he will help in tearning down what so many americans have built for over two centuries

it's a good thing that all bush can do is win just one more term in office

i just hope the rest of the gop is not as arrogant as our president who seems to act outside of the opinion and interests of the rest of this world...we are less the 300 million in a world of well over 6 billion people and there is no way we can exist as a great country as an island

bush was right in going after bin laden, but this iraq war business was his biggest mistake

[Sparky's]

I think America is becoming the commodity that the rest of the world loves to hate. Who else outsources their jobs as much as we do, or depends on foreign goods as much as we do. I love the article saying that Spain was not included in the survey, and also wonder just who is surveyed? has anyone out there ever answered a survey? where do these numbers come from? I guess I have more questions than the original thread. I am not surprised at the polls but I think that there are many more countries out there that could sway the outcome of some polls if ALL were included. Spain deciding to pull it's troops out of Iraq has only strengthened the beliefs of the terrorists in that now they can threaten and bully around other countries into submission and get them out of wherever they want. So where does it stop?

[takao]

after 9/11nearly everybody was on the side of america here hope that those terrorist get caught

after afghanistan there came up the first with "this will create perhaps more terrorist but it is good for afghanistan and thsoe terror groups and drug fileds need to be destroyed"

after iraq :"what does america think who they are ? the rulers of the world ?"

america screwed up completly in the last 1,5 years anti-americanism never was as big as now
there are people out there who _hate_ america because of their "19th century imperialistic behavior" and i'm living in the center of europe..
guess how much support there will be in a middle east country...

the sentences which considered european ant war countries as "the old europe" _alone_ killed lots of support

[frankzeg]

This administration's mishandling of what someone called "political capital" will have echoes for decades to come. I only hope that within that window that a REAL threat does not materialize. The ability of nations to assemble into effective coalitions to defeat real and tangible threats has been severely compromised. It takes decades to establish the trust required for distant nations to commit their resources and citizens' lives to something that might be critically important to global peace but is physically distant from THEM. The US has made the fatal error of any leader by lying ( in effect- and being found out) or appearing to be incompetent to their followers.

We may also ask what the world's response would be to a serious natural disaster in the US (say an earthquake as intense as the New Madrid event of the mid-1800's) or, God forbid, another perhaps more damaging attack on a US city. We are making a bed that others may well suggest we sleep in.

It is also obvious that this administration has deluded themselves into not perceiving the full scope of these secondary impacts. Hence they seem to put on a happy face that they are still in the right when world opinion has shifted substantially against them. I have to remark on the plight of Colin Powell- imagine being in his shoes having to fight the fires set by his blundering comrades. Seeing your own personal capital evaporating and being trapped into toeing the party line. Observing first hand the damaging re-alignments of political alliances that before were foundations to your whole thought process regarding global strategies. I cannot imagine a worse fate for a thinking individual. Of course I am assuming he is the intelligent man he appeared to be.

The Republican party had better pray that Bush is defeated this November otherwise they will share in the bitter fallout of this clearly toxic policy concoction (especially with a continued dose for a subsequent four years). Sometimes it is BEST if someone ELSE puts an end to a bad policy rather than the initiator having to continually justify and support it - even if they internally come to recognize the futility of continuing. This is the classic " save me from myself" situation that we have seen time and time again.

I also find it amusing when people say "we can't leave the Iraqis ALONE why it would be a disaster". This laughable posture reveals the hubris that is perhaps most despised by so many people both in Iraq and the world in general. Those people are just as SMART as we are and are fully capable working out their own problems. We need to get their focus off of killing Westerners and get it back on addressing internal political issues. Immediate reality has a way of focusing the mind- and indigeous leaders will arise ( of course WE may not LIKE them). Could there be a civil war- certainly. I would suggest that it is nearly inevitable. Will many people die? Yes. That is the unfortunate reality of the remainder of the game given the position of the pieces at present. It is not entirely inevitable though. However at the end ( thirty years hence) I would bet that there is a more prosperous, healthier Iraq- with home-grown solutions that THEY believe in. Given the material and political limitations of the US there is very little we can do to make things a LOT better - but our history shows that we can make it a lot WORSE (somehow whenever we intervene corrupt, vicious regimes seem to sprout like mushrooms).

What is actually pretty amazing is the low level of REAL threats as compared to what was tolerated for decades. We perceive the terrorist threat as huge but in reality it is nearly trivial as compared to the threat of nuclear destruction that was perilously close for over a generation. Within our grasp is the ability to essentially eliminate that threat by removing its motivations- the desire for self governance. After all the only reason we are the targets is that we support the regimes that they HATE. And we support them for the most short-sighted reasons. Given the history of the US it is inexplicable how we end up with these "deal made with the Devil" engagements that have no long term stability yet are apparently counted upon to be there into perpetuity. I understand realpolitik but you don't create a state in which the status cannot change without enomous damage to yourself. Everyone assumes that we cannot live without all that oil- hence our hand is forced. As an engineer it is clear that we could replace the bulk of our need for oil, not wreck the environment and act as the world leaders that we should be if we just had a little DESIRE and WILL to ACT. Unfortunately we will likely wait until an inevitable oil-supply disaster and then have to solve the problem in a clumsy, inefficient way that costs us ten times what it might have had we acted with foresight something above that of a seven-year-old.

[Desertrat]

First question: Should everything be judged solely in the context of our efforts at the war against terrorism and Al Qaeda?

Next: Before the bombings, Spain was set to re-elect the more conservative group; they changed overnight to electing the more liberal group. Is this not a win for Al Qaeda? Terrorism succeeds?

I've no idea of what will happen next in France, but various Islamic hate-groups have threatened actions in France as a result of the "no headwear" rule for students. If bombings occur, would the French then get into a strong retaliatory effort? What would their public mood become toward terrorists, then, and would that put them into any similar behavior pattern as ours?

It seems to me that the notion that terrorism occurs only against the U.S. and that we're bringing it on ourselves is just a wee bit off the mark. The views expressed in the poll may be the case, now, about our behavior. But if the terrorists keep making demands of other countries and then bombing if these demands aren't met, what then? If the future polls show a notable shift in attitude, does that then mean that Bush was correct?

Obviously, I have a lot more questions than answers...

'Rat

[takao]

Next: Before the bombings, Spain was set to re-elect the more conservative group; they changed overnight to electing the more liberal group. Is this not a win for Al Qaeda? Terrorism succeeds?

who told you that ? more then 80% were against the war ... a year ago ...do you think that helped the conservatives ?
if the conservatives would have won _then_ i would have been surprised

[numediaman]

who told you that ? more then 80% were against the war ... a year ago ...do you think that helped the conservatives ?
if the conservatives would have won _then_ i would have been surprised

To be fair to 'Rat, the U.S. press has been hard at work giving American's the impression that the conservatives would have won. The fact is that the race was very close, and Spain shuts down opinion polls a week before the election.

Another thing seems clear, Americans assume their government lies to them. The Spaniards were very upset that the Aznar government lied about ETA's role in the bombing, and were mad that the government did not want to reveal what they knew until the very end.

Here, Bush supporters do not seem in the least bit upset that Bush has lied repeatedly about Iraq, the budget, or anything else. For supporters of the administration, it is all "us against them". "Them" is not only Democrats and independents, but also everyone else outside the U.S. That is why it was so easy for them to go from saying "Spain is a great ally" to "Spain surrendered to Al Qaeda". It didn't even take a second to think about.

[pseudobrit]

First question: Should everything be judged solely in the context of our efforts at the war against terrorism and Al Qaeda?

Next: Before the bombings, Spain was set to re-elect the more conservative group; they changed overnight to electing the more liberal group. Is this not a win for Al Qaeda? Terrorism succeeds?

If al Qaeda nukes NYC and Washington, DC would you continue to support the current direction of the war on terror? Or would you vote to change things to a way that makes us less of a target and less hated?

[billyboy]

The Spanish premier elect made it clear that Spain would continue to fight against terrorism, so it isnt as if they are going to step out the ongoing battle that every country in the world is faced with today. But what he is saying is Spain does not support the US and UK and Aznar way of battling terrorism in the case of Iraq, because as far as terrorism affecting the West goes, Iraq seems not to have been a threat and has just added to a problem not solved it.

I think the most shocking aspect of the coalition governments' standpoint is they just do not acknowledge their role in the causes of terrorism. Bush said 9-11 was a declaration of war on the US. I am sorry for what happened, but the reality is the US and most of Europe's governments have been waging various degrees of war on the other sides of the world for decades in a quest to secure their business interests and maintain a flow of natural resources. If only people could think laterally and imagine how they would react if roles were reversed. We need a lot more humility, and have the nerve to step back instead of barging on as though that is the only way.

[skunk]

I think the most shocking aspect of the coalition governments' standpoint is they just do not acknowledge their role in the causes of terrorism. Bush said 9-11 was a declaration of war on the US. I am sorry for what happened, but the reality is the US and most of Europe's governments have been waging various degrees of war on the other sides of the world for decades in a quest to secure their business interests and maintain a flow of natural resources. If only people could think laterally and imagine how they would react if roles were reversed. We need a lot more humility, and have the nerve to step back instead of barging on as though that is the only way.

I couldn't agree more.

[Thanatoast]

If only people could think laterally and imagine how they would react if roles were reversed.IMO, this is the number one problem with people. They seem unable to accomplish this apparently mind-boggling feat.

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, Al Qaeda success in setting off a couple of nukes would mean that our present efforts at interdicting their import had failed. I have no clue what change in direction would be more effective against such import than what we're now doing.

OBL and Al Qaeda seem to me to have credibility as to their desires. They say they hate us, and the hatred appears implacable. They have no interest in anything less than our complete retreat from any form of interaction with any middle-eastern government, SFAIK. I don't think any partial retreat would reduce their efforts to harm us.

For instance: Sure, the House of Saud appears to be a corrupt bunch of SOBs. OBL wants them out of power and in the cemetery. He wants us out of Saudi Arabia, since our presence is profaning holy soil. So: Do we let OBL determine our foreign policy on Saudi Arabia? That's what we'd be doing if we were to yield to his wishes.

I said in October of 2001 that we were looking at a five- to ten-year deal, if not more. I've seen nothing to change my mind. And given what's going on in Mindanao, Indonesia and now Kosovo, it could be that we're back to another long-term holy war between Islam and Christianity.

If what you want, overall, is that those who hate us would quit hating, I don't think you'll get that by some as yet unknown "change in direction". You might get a cessation of killing by totally giving in to OBL's wishes--maybe. But trying to pick and choose among his demands strikes me as a waste of time; I think he's all or nothing.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Excuse me, did I miss something? Did somebody actually suggest "totally giving in to Osama bin Ladin's wishes?"

[Thanatoast]

For instance: Sure, the House of Saud appears to be a corrupt bunch of SOBs. OBL wants them out of power and in the cemetery. He wants us out of Saudi Arabia, since our presence is profaning holy soil. So: Do we let OBL determine our foreign policy on Saudi Arabia? That's what we'd be doing if we were to yield to his wishes.The problem is, our foreign policy has been to support a repressive regime simply because it's "on our side", which is at best a debatable proposition to begin with. And what in the world are we maintaining a military base in Saudi Arabia for anyway? I guess what I'm asking is, if the policy he wants changed is one that needs to be changed anyway, why not? It's like, "Don't drive off that cliff!" "Oh yeah? You're not the boss of me! I'll drive off that cliff if I want to. And I do want to. So there."

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, Al Qaeda success in setting off a couple of nukes would mean that our present efforts at interdicting their import had failed. I have no clue what change in direction would be more effective against such import than what we're now doing.

And perhaps that the sources of those nukes, the funding and expertise to obtain and detonate them would be more inclined to aid al Qaeda. Think Pakistani fundamentalists in their nuclear programme. Think North Korea and Iran, who've been put on the same list as Iraq.

OBL and Al Qaeda seem to me to have credibility as to their desires. They say they hate us, and the hatred appears implacable. They have no interest in anything less than our complete retreat from any form of interaction with any middle-eastern government, SFAIK. I don't think any partial retreat would reduce their efforts to harm us.

For instance: Sure, the House of Saud appears to be a corrupt bunch of SOBs. OBL wants them out of power and in the cemetery. He wants us out of Saudi Arabia, since our presence is profaning holy soil. So: Do we let OBL determine our foreign policy on Saudi Arabia? That's what we'd be doing if we were to yield to his wishes.

We should put the safety of the American people above diplomatic posturing? I say yes. I say if we get out of Saudi Arabia and stop affording military protection to the Kingdom he'd have a much harder time convincing people to blow themselves up.

And what would it cost us?

Put an end to this grandstanding cockfight diplomacy.

If what you want, overall, is that those who hate us would quit hating, I don't think you'll get that by some as yet unknown "change in direction". You might get a cessation of killing by totally giving in to OBL's wishes--maybe. But trying to pick and choose among his demands strikes me as a waste of time; I think he's all or nothing.

A change in direction? We're only going faster in the direction that has caused so many to hate us. Our invasion of Iraq has proved what many Muslim fundamentalists have been screaming to the moderates all along.

It's like if I cried "wolf!" every day for a month and no wolf came, then for the next month I cried "wolf, bear, fire-breathing dragon!" but nothing happened, the townsfolk would generally dismiss me as nuts.

When a wolf finally shows up next month, though, my newfound credibility has convinced too many of them that a flame-spewing dragon is sure to follow.

[IJ Reilly]

From the Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview:

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda. So what did we do after 9/11? ... We stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda," adds Clarke. "And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."

[zimv20]

From the Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview:

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda. So what did we do after 9/11? ... We stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda," adds Clarke. "And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."
iow, "bring it on"

[IJ Reilly]

iow, "bring it on"

I don't know... I find this situation to be so discouraging. A while back I concluded that the Bush administration was grossly mishandling the war on terrorism, but I did not want to believe they could be so myopic when it came to comprehending the larger picture. If even part of what Clarke says is true, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush people just don't get it. Then when I see the White House operatives attempting to sully Clarke's character as a response, I have to wonder how anyone can be lower than dirt.

[Desertrat]

No, IJ, nobody has suggested in totally giving in to OBL's notions. I'm just guessing that he's not a compromising sort of guy; seems to be all or nothing.

pseudobrit, no government anywhere, SFAIK, would ever consider it "diplomatic posturing" to continue policies against the wishes of an Al Qaeda. IMO, all governments try mightily to save face so long as is possible. Any sort of compromise with an Al Qaeda would be anathema to any government, as long as there is any other option.

If we bailed out of Saudi Arabia--an action I would support, depending on circumstance--one message to other countries is that once again it is proven unwise to enter into any alliance with the U.S.

And if you guys think Dubya and his folks are wrong-headed and stubborn, just thank the Lord that that Mr. Macho of Presidents, LBJ, isn't in the White House...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

No, IJ, nobody has suggested in totally giving in to OBL's notions. I'm just guessing that he's not a compromising sort of guy; seems to be all or nothing.

If nobody's suggesting this, I'm still kind of mystified about why you mentioned it.

[Desertrat]

IJ, people have suggested changing the way our government does things in its foreign policy. Part of the reasoning is to improve the security of our people by reducing the hatred of terrorists.

How can that be done without considering the wishes of such as OBL? (Or Hamas, et al.) To reduce his motivation is to accommodate some of his wishes, seems to me. I don't see how you could do otherwise. To end his motivations? How far do you recommend we go?

OBL wants us out of Iraq. Out of Saudi Arabia. Out of the Persian Gulf area. I believe he is in accord with Hamas et al insofar as our support of Israel. Should we end that support?

Do you believe he will interfere with the teachings in the Madrassahs, where the sole educational effort is memorizing the Koran? Where preaching Jihad against the Infidel is part of the daily lessons? If that continues, will the hatred of western culture ever end? In order to have increased security from such hatred, should we stop "allowing" production of our movies, our TV programs? Veil our women?

When you start giving in to the demands of killers, where is the incentive for them to stop making demands?

I dunno. Seems to me there's a whole bunch of "It can't happen, here." going on. Or, "Oh, they wouldn't do that."

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I still see you trying to distract. No matter how you phrase it, nobody is proposing "giving in" to Osama. There's more than one way to skin this particular cat.

Al Qaeda isn't a fixed quantity. This and its affiliate terrorists organizations grow and shrink based on their ability to enlist new jihaddists. Our invasion of Iraq pasted recruiting posters on every wall in the Islamic world. Even the CIA warned of this outcome. As nearly as I can tell, at this point we're playing the dupes to Osama's game plan. He wanted to draw the United States into a protracted military confrontation with Islam, and that's exactly what we've done. To ice his cake, we've managed to alienate our allies, splitting the Western opposition in a way Osama could only have dreamed. We also opened up a brand-new arena for Islamic terrorism; a perfect place for the radicals to show how they can kill Americans and other westerners.

From the very start, I've been critical of the Bush administration for its ham-handed approach to this issue. They've approached it with all the subtlety of Freddie Kruger on a bender. Why? Because this administration is stocked with certified ideologues who thus far have shouted down the few pragmatists. We are reaping the consequences of a government run by ideologists and political gamers.

[mactastic]

How can that be done without considering the wishes of such as OBL? (Or Hamas, et al.) To reduce his motivation is to accommodate some of his wishes, seems to me. I don't see how you could do otherwise. To end his motivations? How far do you recommend we go?


Should Israel even be negotiating with the Palestinian Authority? Should any compromise take place there, or should one side or the other exterminate the opposition?

Did the British government broadcast weakness by securing a compromise in Northern Ireland?

Should we have left Vietnam?

[Frohickey]

If Al Qaeda nukes NYC, or SF, I would mourn for 20 minutes for the 20 conservatives that live there. ;)

Just kidding.

If terrorists commit atrocities, the worse thing you can do is acquiese to their demands, because that emboldens them, gives them power, and makes their next attack even more horrific.

[Frohickey]

Should Israel even be negotiating with the Palestinian Authority? Should any compromise take place there, or should one side or the other exterminate the opposition?

Did the British government broadcast weakness by securing a compromise in Northern Ireland?

Should we have left Vietnam?

No. One side should exterminate the opposition.

Dunno, I haven't given the Brits/Irish situation much thought.

No. But if I was around that time, I would have supported Vietnamese independence from France when Ho Chi Minh first approached the United States. I would have said, yes, I support a Free Vietnam, even if the French were our allies. Besides, what was France going to do? Suppress an insurrection when they couldn't even hold back the Germans in WW2?

[mactastic]

If Al Qaeda nukes NYC, or SF, I would mourn for 20 minutes for the 20 conservatives that live there. ;)

Just kidding.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... Dang you're funny! :D

If terrorists commit atrocities, the worse thing you can do is acquiese to their demands, because that emboldens them, gives them power, and makes their next attack even more horrific.

I guarantee you that exact same logic is being used against us as well. Only substitute "Zionists" or "Imperialists" for "terrorists".

Are you also one who thinks we prolonged Communism by 'cutting and running' from Vietnam?

[skunk]

In reply to 'Rat (sorry, a lot of posts snuck in between):
Well, for instance - if I could butt in here for a minute - if half as much was spent in useful aid to refugees in these places as is spent on military muscle, you could win enough hearts and minds to take much of the sting out of the terrorists' arsenal (the willing recruits and suicides). It's utter desperation that makes people do that: nobody wants to die if there's a better option.

[skunk]

No. One side should exterminate the opposition.

Dunno, I haven't given the Brits/Irish situation much thought.

No. But if I was around that time, I would have supported Vietnamese independence from France when Ho Chi Minh first approached the United States. I would have said, yes, I support a Free Vietnam, even if the French were our allies. Besides, what was France going to do? Suppress an insurrection when they couldn't even hold back the Germans in WW2?

1. Are you serious? What opposition? Tell me you're kidding, please.
2. Well, perhaps you should: it's a 300-year old problem that is well on it's way to resolution.
3. If I recall, the US didn't do too well there either, so lay off the Frogs, willya?

[Desertrat]

IJ, I was in no way trying to distract. My questions come from reading what's purportedly the desires of OBL and his motivations; and--obviously--from his actions.

skunk: Which refugees in which places/countries? For all that folks don't like the way our foreign policy has been tied to oil in the middle east since the WW II era, I note we've spent a good bit of money on various forms of foreign aid there. While a lot of the money has gone to physical infrastructure (Egypt is a good example.), much has been put into programs for food and medicine.

I don't know if you remember the refugee camps around Israel that were built in the late 1940s. While the UN had people in place to allocate/dispense food and medicines, most of the materiel and money came from the U.S.

Philosophic question: When the government and the socioeconomic structure of any country combine to do extremely poorly at developing a healthy economy, why should any other country offer aid without requiring structural changes that could lead to that country's economic independence?

'Rat

[Thanatoast]

IJ, I was in no way trying to distract. My questions come from reading what's purportedly the desires of OBL and his motivations; and--obviously--from his actions.

skunk: Which refugees in which places/countries? For all that folks don't like the way our foreign policy has been tied to oil in the middle east since the WW II era, I note we've spent a good bit of money on various forms of foreign aid there. While a lot of the money has gone to physical infrastructure (Egypt is a good example.), much has been put into programs for food and medicine.

I don't know if you remember the refugee camps around Israel that were built in the late 1940s. While the UN had people in place to allocate/dispense food and medicines, most of the materiel and money came from the U.S.

Philosophic question: When the government and the socioeconomic structure of any country combine to do extremely poorly at developing a healthy economy, why should any other country offer aid without requiring structural changes that could lead to that country's economic independence?

'Rat
I know I've posted it in other threads, but here it is again: Osama's Letter to America (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html) Some of the divide is cultural, and some of the divide is political. Osama calls on the US first to turn to Islam. Which I'd say is no more ridiculous than Bush calling on a "crusade" to reform the middle east. Second, to drop our support for Israel, who we let launch missles into residential neighborhoods. American missles that are paid for with American aid. And third, to end our hypocrisy in foreign affairs.

His first demand I think is more general plattitude than actual demand. After the withdrawl of Soviet troops from Afghanistan he didn't want to attack the US. He was satisfied he had done his job. It was his number two man, Zahawari (not sure of name), who urged him to take on the US.

His second demand seems to tie into his third, in that we hold Israel to a different standard. We allow them to get away with tactics that from other countries we would excoriate.

And our hypocrisy in foreign affairs has become more obvious in the way we have waged the "war on terror".

As for foreign aid, the country we send the most to is Israel. And it all comes back to us in the form of payments for weapons systems. As a percentage of national income, we spend less than all first world nations.

The problem with our policy on reforming countries that fail in developing their economies is that the regimes imposed by the IMF and World Bank are often harsh, and don't take into account reality on the ground in those nations. Many nations have ended up in the same position they were before intervention, but with even more loans and less able to pay them back because their resources have been sold off to foreign investors in the name of "reform". That topic is a whole other thread actually. One involving lots of research and time. Suffice it to say, the job we've been doing so far has been to our own benefit, no to the benefit of the nations we've been trying to rebuild.

[skunk]

As for foreign aid, the country we send the most to is Israel. And it all comes back to us in the form of payments for weapons systems. As a percentage of national income, we spend less than all first world nations.

The problem with our policy on reforming countries that fail in developing their economies is that the regimes imposed by the IMF and World Bank are often harsh, and don't take into account reality on the ground in those nations. Many nations have ended up in the same position they were before intervention, but with even more loans and less able to pay them back because their resources have been sold off to foreign investors in the name of "reform". That topic is a whole other thread actually. One involving lots of research and time. Suffice it to say, the job we've been doing so far has been to our own benefit, no to the benefit of the nations we've been trying to rebuild.
Couldn't have put it better myself. :)

[Desertrat]

Whee! Two other threads, actually.

One is, "Who started what, and when?" for the Israel bit. (This one, I've watched since 1948.) Next, "What thugocracy had a change of regime due to the IMF/World Bank"; and, "Does the U.S. bear full responsibility for IMF/World Bank policies and decisions?" (I'm not particularly conversant about any specifics.)

:D, 'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, I was in no way trying to distract. My questions come from reading what's purportedly the desires of OBL and his motivations; and--obviously--from his actions.

As are mine. I am reacting to your (apparent) characterization of anyone who doesn't buy this administration's approach to fighting terrorism as an Osama appeaser. I believe nothing could be further from the truth.

[Frohickey]

1. Are you serious? What opposition? Tell me you're kidding, please.
2. Well, perhaps you should: it's a 300-year old problem that is well on it's way to resolution.
3. If I recall, the US didn't do too well there either, so lay off the Frogs, willya?

Opposition... Jews vs the Arabs. The Arabs bragged that they were going to push the Jews into the sea. Go ahead and do it already. They have a 100 to 1 manpower advantage. How many Jews are there in Israel? How many Arabs are there in the Middle East? Battle it out already, this way, we'd be done sending foreign aid to that part of the world.

Last I read, the Irish Provisional Government was being forced by the UK to disarm the IRA.

US won every major military engagement in Vietnam. We lost the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese when we kept supporting the corrupt South Vietnam government. We also didn't have the guts to keep it going, thanks to the anti-war movement. Should have supported Ho Chi Minh, snubbed the French, and asked for Vietnamese independence. Would have curb the Cambodia mass killings, and Vietnam could be another Taiwan/Singapore/ asian economic powerhouse.

[skunk]

Opposition... Jews vs the Arabs. The Arabs bragged that they were going to push the Jews into the sea. Go ahead and do it already. They have a 100 to 1 manpower advantage. How many Jews are there in Israel? How many Arabs are there in the Middle East? Battle it out already, this way, we'd be done sending foreign aid to that part of the world.
If the US didn't keep supporting Israel so generously, they might HAVE to come to terms with those whose land they are stealing and whose children they are killing.

Last I read, the Irish Provisional Government was being forced by the UK to disarm the IRA.
You need to go back to basics on this one. There is no Irish Provisional Government. Nobody is FORCING anybody; perhaps a revolutionary concept for you here.

US won every major military engagement in Vietnam. We lost the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese when we kept supporting the corrupt South Vietnam government. We also didn't have the guts to keep it going, thanks to the anti-war movement.
Yes, and killed 2 or 3 million Vietnamese in the process. Well done!

[Frohickey]

If the US didn't keep supporting Israel so generously, they might HAVE to come to terms with those whose land they are stealing and whose children they are killing.

You need to go back to basics on this one. There is no Irish Provisional Government. Nobody is FORCING anybody; perhaps a revolutionary concept for you here.

Yes, and killed 2 or 3 million Vietnamese in the process. Well done!

Lets see. How many Vietnamese were killed after the war, after the US pulled out?

Lets see... there was the Balfour Declaration between British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour and Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community. I wonder where this piece of paper was signed. I doubt it was within the continental United States.
Lets see... there was the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/sykespicot.htm) between British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey (http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/grey.htm) and French Ambassador Paul Cambon (http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/cambon.htm). The agreement took its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France.

Looks like the British started this out by uniting the Arabs to fight against the Ottoman Turks. Hmm... lets see... who was it that did that work? Oh yeah...British archaeological scholar,adventurer, military strategist, Colonel T.E. Lawrence (http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/lawrencete.htm).

[Desertrat]

I don't really care for "the blame game". It's easy to look back and think of options not taken which might have had outcomes with less bloodshed, but at the time there was really no way to tell.

So it has been with the political boundaries of Africa and the MidEast. Lines were drawn without regard for tribal or ethnic or religious differences among the people within these new boundaries. These artificial borders, then, contributed greatly to the strife and bloodshed. It never occurred to any of those drawing those lines that the lines, themselves, would create problems.

I note that the U.S. was not involved in the drawing of any of these lines.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

I note that the U.S. was not involved in the drawing of any of these lines.

And there were two times when the US redrew its own lines, and that was done using money. Louisiana purchase and Alaska purchase.

Now, if we could only do a Middle East purchase... lets see, buy the southern piece of Syria, western piece of Jordan, northern piece of Egypt... viola... peace in the Middle East. We can call the new territory, New Israel. At least this way, we get something for the money we are spending.

[zimv20]

if we could only do a Middle East purchase... lets see, buy the southern piece of Syria, western piece of Jordan, northern piece of Egypt... viola... peace in the Middle East. We can call the new territory, New Israel. At least this way, we get something for the money we are spending.
c.f. my previous remarks about not understanding the root causes of terrorism

[IJ Reilly]

And there were two times when the US redrew its own lines, and that was done using money.

And war. Look up the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

[Frohickey]

And war. Look up the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Yep. War too. Lets see... War against the English... Money to the French... War against the English... War against Spain... War against Mexico... War against each other...War against Germany...War against Germany/Italy/Japan...Police action in Korea...War against John Kerry ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Yep. War too. Lets see... War against the English... Money to the French... War against the English... War against Spain... War against Mexico... War against each other...War against Germany...War against Germany/Italy/Japan...Police action in Korea...War against John Kerry ;)

Now, what was your point again? Assuming you had one of course.

[mactastic]

Now, what was your point again? Assuming you had one of course.

I think his point is 'I hate liberals and I'll insult them every chance I get'.

[Thanatoast]

I don't really care for "the blame game". It's easy to look back and think of options not taken which might have had outcomes with less bloodshed, but at the time there was really no way to tell.

So it has been with the political boundaries of Africa and the MidEast. Lines were drawn without regard for tribal or ethnic or religious differences among the people within these new boundaries. These artificial borders, then, contributed greatly to the strife and bloodshed. It never occurred to any of those drawing those lines that the lines, themselves, would create problems.

I note that the U.S. was not involved in the drawing of any of these lines.

'RatIn this case though, people have been giving perfectly reasonable alternative solutions that have been passed over in favor of more bombing.

And I thought the artificial borders were drawn specifically to split up tribes and peoples, in order to keep them split up and fighting eachother? The colonial rulers couldn't have been so clueless as to not know who didn't like who. Well, maybe... but still.

[Desertrat]

whoa up, Thanatoast. With respect to "In this case though, people have been giving perfectly reasonable alternative solutions that have been passed over in favor of more bombing." are you talking about Afghanistan and Iraq? The latter is the issue that has caused the negative worldview of the U.S., so it seems to me you could offer some specifics there...

"And I thought the artificial borders were drawn specifically to split up tribes and peoples, in order to keep them split up and fighting eachother? The colonial rulers couldn't have been so clueless as to not know who didn't like who. Well, maybe... but still."

The way I learned it, the various European bosses agreed upon various boundaries as a function of rivers and landmarks or lines of latitude and longitude. The desire for control varied with the types of trade, with harbors and a wish to have "breathing room" around them, or the minerals of an area...

I'm a bit dubious about deliberate splitting of tribes, given the low cost in those days of projecting power via the superior technology of the European countries. Repeating rifles and then machine guns meant a very few Europeans could control a large number of indigenes. I'm guessing that some of the European powers may have indeed known "who didn't like who", but saw no need to care.

'Rat

[Thanatoast]

Specifically, I'm referring to the case of Iraq, where not only a large portion of the populace was against the war, but also an overwhelming number of our allies as well. The alternative to invasion was not to invade. I was responding to your comment about "at the time there was really no way to tell." In this case, I believe there was.

[zimv20]

I'm a bit dubious about [...]
omg this made me laugh. have you used dubious that way before, or was that a special treat for me after i posted my thoughts on the skeptical*/dubious relationship?

* or "sceptical"

[Desertrat]

:) Naw, zim, I just used "dubious" as in "I'm somewhat doubtful..." and I nattered on with my reasons for doubt. I'm rarely an absolutist about people's motivations; too many variables.

'Rat