Their Perspective

[tw]

from NY Times of 11 Sept 2003
In the two years since Sept. 11, 2001, the view of the United States as a victim of terrorism that deserved the world's sympathy and support has given way to a widespread vision of America as an imperial power that has defied world opinion through unjustified and unilateral use of military force.

"A lot of people had sympathy for Americans around the time of 9/11, but that's changed," said Cathy Hearn, 31, a flight attendant from South Africa, expressing a view commonly heard in many countries. "They act like the big guy riding roughshod over everyone else."

In interviews by Times correspondents from Africa to Europe to Southeast Asia, one point emerged clearly: The war in Iraq has had a major impact on public opinion, which has moved generally from post-9/11 sympathy to post-Iraq antipathy, or at least to disappointment over what is seen as the sole superpower's inclination to act pre-emptively, without either persuasive reasons or United Nations approval.

To some degree, the resentment is centered on the person of President Bush, who is seen by many of those interviewed, at best, as an ineffective spokesman for American interests and, at worst, as a gunslinging cowboy knocking over international treaties and bent on controlling the world's oil, if not the entire world.

Oslo Accords, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, all environmental initiatives domestic and foreign, SALT, protection of anti-American steel companies at the expense of world trade and American steel reprocessors (productive industries), nuclear test ban treaty ... How many more treaties will he destroy in the name of right wing rhetoric? And which country will be invaded next without any good reasons - Syria, N Korea, Iran?

Five years ago, China really had no reason to fear a US attack. In but the past three years, China has every good reason to fear a US attack. The dark side has overrun the country - an MBA named George.

[Whit]

And which country will be invaded next without any good reasons -

"I will give a propagandist reason for starting the war, no matter whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory."

      I think the only reason Bush is taking this much flack is because we're losing more than we're gaining now . Our troops are getting hurt and there's no 'Saddam' to threaten the Iraqi people. Plus we can't get out cleanly. If Bush makes a good enough excuse to invade someone else, his numbers will go back up. That's politics.
      By the by, two points for anyone that can name the author of the quote. I thought it applied and wanted the thought behind it to be processed before who the author was.

[Chewbaccus]

Originally posted by Whit
"I will give a propagandist reason for starting the war, no matter whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterwards whether he told the truth or not. When starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory."

I thought that was Hitler. The initial tone I got was that this was something spoken in a loud voice, and "propagandist" is one of those words that just plays really well surrounded by German.

Teh Baccus is right. It is a Hitler quote. I read it a few years ago.

[Beestie]

I disagree with the New York Times assertion that we have used up all the good will the world extended to us. They just made that up. Remember, at the New York Times, hypothesese are considered conclusions. And since we're bringing up Hitler quotes, I'll give you another one that the New York Times seems to have adopted as a mantra: "The people will believe a big lie before they will believe a small one."

The world staunchly supports the United States and George W. Bush. I suppose we could appease a lot of stateside liberals by bending over, pointing to our behind and begging terrorists across the globe "thank you sir, may I have another" or we could go kick the living $hit out of anyone and everyone remotely connected to 9/11 or the threat of another 9/11.

Let me ask the liberal pussys at the New York Times which price they would rather pay: the cost associated with the alleged loss of support from soccer moms across the planet or the cost associated with not taking the war on terror to our enemies' back yard?

Do you think (rhetorical question) that our enemies fear us more now, or before 9/11 when they were calling us "paper tigers?"

No one who ever ran away from a war ever won a war. Anyone here not think that we are at war with Al Queda?

[Undertoad]

Ann Coulter's stopped clock was right about this when she said, last night, "It's more important to be right than popular." For me, that statement ends the discussion.

This isn't a popularity contest. You just have to try to do the right thing and bring along the ones who agree.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Undertoad
This isn't a popularity contest. You just have to try to do the right thing and bring along the ones who agree.

The trouble with that reasoning is that it's basically the same justification that al-Qaida uses. In their own view, they are doing what is right, and it doesn't trouble them that few agree. And the nazis found nothing wrong with their unpopular actions.

In the grand world-view of right-and-wrong, there is a tiny little shred of white and a miniscule little scrap of black bookending a huge gray expanse. Almost nothing cleanly fits into "right" or "wrong" as far as the world in whole is concerned. So obviously it is next to impossible that everybody, or even a majority, will condone any particular action. But when we find the majority of the world, including some long-time allies, condemning our actions as wrong, we might want to step back a minute and make sure our country's moral compass is calibrated.

Is the world a safer place without Saddam's regime in Iraq? Yes. But many could argue that the world would be a safer place if the US were slapped down, ending what many view a largely unjustified, heavy-handed crusade. No WMDs were found, nor any truly convincing evidence of them. Sure, Saddam was evil, but using that justification is a bit like a cop beating a suspect with a nightstick because he thinks the guy might have a gun tucked in his pants, and upon discovring the suspect was unarmed, justifies the action by saying the suspect was a bad person. Justifiable? Sort of. But what happened to "innocent until proven guilty" or even "probable cause?"

I'm not necessarily arguing that the US has done wrong, only that it is dangerous to disregard the world's opinion and act solely on one's own definition of right and wrong, consequences be damned. Yes, it is possible to be the only one who is right amongst resistance, but it is more likely to be the only one who is wrong. And when one acts in the belief that they are right, agaist great opposition, one had best be ready to accept the consequences should they prove to be mistaken.

For the record, I love the United States... I think it is the greatest country this world has ever known. But I have mixed feelings about our recent actions, and I have very real concerns about what is on the horizon.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Beestie
Anyone here not think that we are at war with Al Queda?

Sure, we are. As to why we're in IRAQ, that's a completely different matter...

[Griff]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
Is the world a safer place without Saddam's regime in Iraq? Yes.

I have to disagree, I think the world is a lot more dangerous now that Iraq is up for grabs. Saddam was NO THREAT to the United States. Back when we were at war with the terrorists, we were concentrating on Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region. Pouring our present mid-East manpower committment into that region, with Iraq buttoned down by the nut case, might have lead to bin Ladens capture and Quedas destruction. As it is now, we are wasting American lives on the neo-cons unrealistic Mid-East fantasy. Somebody mentioned a chess analogy. Unfortunately chess is not nearly complicated enough to be a valid comparison, in chess you have two distinct opponents its not that clear on the world stage.

[Torrere]

Anybody remember the 2002 elections for Congress? Who wanted to be portrayed as being "soft on terror"? It was considered to be political suicide to vote against the war in Iraq.

Maybe it's more important to be popular than it is to be right.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't want their sympathy.
I want them to get out of my face or I'll blow their fucking heads off.
Is that perfectly clear?

[Whit]

      Yeah, it was a Hitler quote. Two for Chewbaccus.
      Politics is, by nature, a popularity contest. Which means what is popular, is right. At least from the perspective of the people that want those positions. If they work hard then they can convince people what they think is right should be the popular thing instead of just playing to the people aleady thinking that way.
      If you dislike Bush then there's not much to do other than share the reasons for your opinion with others and vote next election. Here's hoping we'll have somebody we'd want to vote for when we're voting against.
      Oh and as far as the mid-east goes, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't have all the info the goverment does. We also don't know exactly what our goverment intends to do. The way I see it the shit's already hit the fan, we're just waiting to see what get's splattered.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But what happened to "innocent until proven guilty" or even "probable cause?"

Just what the hell does that have to do with Iraq? Since when do Islamic terrorists come under the Constitution they're trying so hard to destroy?
Nothing good comes from trying to fight a war without being as mean and nasty as your opponent. Noble and honorable gets you dead. Avoid it if possible but if you do it, do it right.

[elSicomoro]

In the end, the question "Was it right to invade Iraq?" will be answered by history.

I think the world supports the US in the War on Terror. However, I don't think many in the world community consider Saddam Hussein and Iraq part of that war. I agree.

[Arctic Wind]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I don't want their sympathy.

You're right Bruce, nobody, including United States needs others sympathy.
But America isn't alone in this world. Even CIA recognizes in its reports that in around 20 years the economy of China will equate the USA's. Furthermore I can bet that China will develop (and it already does so) its military capabilities closely following its economic growth. Rusia, although today is weaken, has still military technology and will allways have nuclear weapons and huge quantities of raw materials, including oil. Europe itself will be pushed toward renouncing or undermining (to) NATO and to build its own military structure if USA will continue to take such unilateral decisions like in the Irak file. And here I mentioned only three other big players of the world.
In other words, United States are dealing now with an increasingly multipolar world, regardless if they like it or not. Being a superpower for a short period of time (historically speaking), USA will have to choose between "transforming" its world competitors (like China and Europe) into partners or into hostile (even enemy) rivals. The difference between these two options is enormous and it would be possible to clearly see it in the coming future (after 2-3 decades I would say). My warning is that, if America will continue to ignore the others and even its European Allies in taking major decisions, first it will remain alone on the international stage and second, when, in some decades, it will no longer be the only superpower but an equal or even worse of the others (of China for example) it will definitely have to pay for its past arrogance. It will be the price for creating enemies and not partners.
I have to mention I'm an European who considers himself as a Friend and Ally of USA and it's people, Europe and United States being Brothers through powerful ties as Blood, Culture and History. Meanwhile, I can't agree the way United States treated its ally and friend, Europe, in problems like the Irak file, through unilateral decisions and not through common agreement as whithin an alliance everyone should act. Further more, I appreciate that the contemporary international American policy will hurt USA as much as Europe. I thank you for your attention and I wait for your reactions.