|
World Opinion
|
|
|
siber
Member
|
13. July 2004 @ 13:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
The question really is: which GOVERNMENT of which country has been the US's staunchest ally? There really isn't one single country out there where public opinion sides with the US on Iraq.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
13. July 2004 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Siber,
Avoiding semantics, I believe you know the historical validity. Political factions are in a constant state of flux. I was asking the nation the US shared the closest allegiance with.
When a lot of countries aren't threatened at home, the citizens are going to be against war. Others foolishly try to appease their attackers. It's easy to be a liberal when there isn't a personal threat. Constantly, in the hour of need, these two countries have been allied, irregardless of who was in political control at the time.
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
13. July 2004 @ 19:36 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Only know of Islam what I picked up in college studies and some reading. One can't really understand a religion unless they live it. That's why I don't condemn people according to religion
Perfectly sound line of reasoning ... people often forget this. That the problem when people let religion and emotion get in the way of sound thinking and rationale
Quote:
no one seems to learn from history
No no humans dont
Quote:
Most seem to feel the allied forces will be present for years to come in Iraq. The transition of power has been gradually coming on line.
Naturally.... that's a given ;-)
Quote:
And what good did the insult do, besides venting some frustration about US/France relations?
It brings light to one of the key cuases of political/ideological conflict: people from foreign countries get "their" news and form "their" opinions based on it. While "our" country gets "our" news from "our" people -- regardless of what you think of the press and its bias or lack thereof, the stories each "side" get is different and neither side, as a majority, is open-minded enough to accept the possibility of the "other" side's news being more accurate... leading to disbelieve, malcontent and grudges.
Quote:
I was asking the nation the US shared the closest allegiance with.
Israel :P
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 01:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I was thinking the UK. Except for the colonial era, the colonies have been reasonably close to their Mother country. Bickering aside, the UK provided a lot of support while others wouldn't help at all. The UK and Australia are probably the closest allies.
Canada and Mexico showed where they stood and it didn't put them in a good light. Strangely enough the Japanese stood stronger than most in Iraq, though theirs was a humanitarian force. The Spanish did help, but with the new political group in power they quickly went home. They were bombed for their kind hearted retreat. Seems the terrorists didn't pay attention to appeasement.
The US does have an alliance with Israel, but it is more one sided. If Israel tried to help the US openly in the Middle East, there would be hell to pay.
|
|
Deeman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2004 @ 04:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's the point, I'm not going to bend over backwards and explain my every move because I'm worried about hurting someones feelings! How has what we have done really hurt the people of western Europe? It hasn't. Like I said before it's just a way to vent frustration without looking internaly. We have good trade with every country on the continent and have for centuries. In turn it creates jobs for both peoples focusing on what really matters, our families! I only saw bombs falling on france to liberate them.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 06:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
As a country the US is only a little over 2 centuries old and I doubt the extent of the trade in the earlier part of that time frame. However, I get your drift. In closing, I'll just say that more people and more governments should be accountable for their words and deeds.
|
|
Deeman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2004 @ 07:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
The U.S. is over 225 years old and yes there was trade with France following the revolution being that we no longer shipped goods to england. That is why the colonies were originally founded! Yes, I do agree with you that govs should be held responsible but who is right? Just because a person or gov says one thing there will always be a rebuttle from someone else.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. July 2004 @ 07:45
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 08:15 |
Link to this message
|
Deeman
Quote:
We have good trade with every country on the continent and have for centuries.
Every? Centuries? Centuries become 225 years. Your words Deeman. You're batting a 1,000. The constitution was adopted on March 4, 1789. Do the math, just over 215 years if you want to be picky. And trade from the colonies, to amount to anything didn't occurr until the 1800s. And then we weren't trading with every country on the European continent. Sounded good, but it wasn't true. Check the history books if you don't believe me. Better read up on the causes of the American Revolution as well. Something in there about oppression, tyranny, and taxation. Some minor trade with France doesn't make a continental trade alliance.
And Praetor already proposed the differences of people and nations.
I understand what you're trying to say, you don't need to invent facts to support your own philosophical beliefs.
|
|
Deeman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2004 @ 08:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Didn't say every country, I said france. Last time I checked even 215 years is more than one century, hence I said centuries. Who said anything about a continental trade alliance or the cause of the revolution? You lost me now. I was referring to the reason of the colonies exsistance was for shipping goods to england such as timber, gold, etc. What is the original title of this thread? I don't know any more. I need a sandwich.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 09:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good idea, I was reading what you wrote. Now I'm lost. Have a good sandwich. What do they call it, constructive history? BTW, gold wasn't found in any quantity until later as well. That came with the western movement.
Hmmm, revisionist history?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. July 2004 @ 09:52
|
|
Deeman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2004 @ 10:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Are you talking about gold in the northeast or gold in what we now know as the continental U.S.? OH..Nevermind! It was a good sandwich.
|
|
Deeman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2004 @ 10:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey Brobear, you do know why the native americans were here before the europeans dont you?
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 11:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
They walked.
|
|
Deeman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2004 @ 11:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
They had a reservation.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 11:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
They had to walk to make it though.
|
|
Deeman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. July 2004 @ 12:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's one way to look at it. I need another sandwich.
|
|
siber
Member
|
14. July 2004 @ 13:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear, the terrorist bombing in Madrid occurred before the change in government. Their retreat from Iraq occurred because 90% of the Spanish were opposed to the war. The election, within one or two days AFTER the bombing, and the resulting change in prime ministers led to the withdrawal of the Spanish troops.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 19:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for the info Siber. I just remembered that it was right at the time when Spain was saying they would withdraw. Which still makes it appeasement. I remember it was all over the international news about the bombing and Spains change of regime due to the people's distaste for the Iraq war. Word was already out, well in advance, that Spain was withdrawing.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. July 2004 @ 19:11
|
|
siber
Member
|
14. July 2004 @ 19:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear, On the eve of the election, it was clear in the opinion polls that the government WAS going to get reelected.
The prime minister had stated that the Spanish troops would REMAIN in Iraq. Even though the majority of the Spanish were against the Spanish deployment in Iraq, they were very happy with the government's overall job in managing the economy and reelection seemed a certainty. The opposition had announced that they would withdraw the troops if they were elected but it didn't look good for them.
Then came the bombings in Madrid. The public opinion changed almost overnight. The opposition won and decided to withdraw the troops.
Al Qaida had actually succeeded in deciding the Spanish elections. That is why there is presently quite a bit of anxiety in the US (and elsewhere) about a timed terror act just before the Presidential elections. Could they do it again?
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 19:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Don't know whose polls you were reading. Everyone reading the political climate could see the current government,at the time, was going to get ousted. Much like LBJ during the Vietnamese conflict/war. You don't have those percentages of the population against a faction and it remain in power. The polls were obviously wishful thinking on someone's part. I concede that the bombings would have some influence, but the sentiment was there already. The point I was trying to make was that one can't turn and run in the face of terrorism. They'll just attack to make you run faster.
Many governments are starting to abandon associations with the US to appease their citizens, the Philipenes being the most notable of late. Do you think the terrorists there are going to give up operations. Seems someone wants to appease the citizenry and that bunch of citizens are living in a dream world. They need to wake up.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. July 2004 @ 20:13
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 20:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
All political theory aside and all the philosophical opinions; I am saying simply that the policy of appeasing terrorists is wrong. If they get the impression they can influence others by their acts of terror, they will do so. The best way to invite attack is by showing weak resolve in the face of attack. You are right, the attack in Spain was probably calculated for the effect and sadly the people of Spain fell right into line. As I said, the election was no shoe in and the bombing was a clincher.
|
|
siber
Member
|
14. July 2004 @ 20:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 20:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
The article is from April 2004 and one can tell the political leaning of this paper. They presented the sentiments of John Kerry as the closing words. Not exactly an impartial piece. I do agree with the part about not giving in to terrorists though (which were not the words of John Kerry). Seems Mr. Kerry is more interested in being loved than in fighting a war on terrorism, which President Bush is doing. Make love, not war... Hmmm, heard that somewhere before.
Good night siber and have a pleasant evening. The best to you and yours.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. July 2004 @ 21:13
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
14. July 2004 @ 20:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
An interesting thing: Since 9/11 we have been threatened by imminent attack. Various times we have been told by the media an attack will likely happen. The truth is an attack could happen at any time and if possible the attackers will time it to have the maximum political effect. That means all big events, including political ones are under threat. Look at the security for the Olympics. Did I hear an attack was imminent during the Reagan funeral. What happened when the transponder on the Governor of KY's plane went out?
The media has pretty much become the 'boy who cried wolf'. I'm sorry to say, eventually, they will probably be right. Then we'll hear 'we told you so', neglecting to mention all the times they were wrong.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. July 2004 @ 21:19
|
