We had condolences and a global show of support from many countries after 9/11. In the case of another terrorist attack on US soil, would we get the world's sympathy again?
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
Would we have the world's sympathy in case of another terrorist attack?
- Thread starter calbear2000
- Start date
Probably not from the Muslim world.
And half and half from the rest of the world. I remember when Israel was suffering daily suicide bombings there wasn't that much sympathy from around the world for them because of the Palestinian thing.
And half and half from the rest of the world. I remember when Israel was suffering daily suicide bombings there wasn't that much sympathy from around the world for them because of the Palestinian thing.
I'd expect to see a mix of world opinion.
My guess is there'd be a good % of people who'd blame the attacks on Bush and his imperialistic policies.
My guess is there'd be a good % of people who'd blame the attacks on Bush and his imperialistic policies.
Yes you would.
Also from 95% of the people in the muslim world (at least if it was a civilian target, meybe it would be 90% if the target was was a military installation).
Killing innocent civilians is always wrong, the fact that many people dislike the US foreign policy does not change that.
Also from 95% of the people in the muslim world (at least if it was a civilian target, meybe it would be 90% if the target was was a military installation).
Killing innocent civilians is always wrong, the fact that many people dislike the US foreign policy does not change that.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Immediately, yes. We would have tons of support from the majority of the world. As the emotions die down, however, we would start to see some "I told you this would happen" and "The US deserved it" sentiments from many, including some of our own citizens. Happens everytime.
Any act of terroism or what-have-you that intentially harms or kills civilians, instead of military targets, in a non-war theatre is typically nothing more than pure cowardice. Most of the civilized world knows and recognizes this.
Any act of terroism or what-have-you that intentially harms or kills civilians, instead of military targets, in a non-war theatre is typically nothing more than pure cowardice. Most of the civilized world knows and recognizes this.
Depends, let's say that the terrorists were Saudis, trained by the US and support from Afghanistan, if you would attack Haiti because of it, then no, you wouldn't have support.
You HAVE had support for going after those who did what happened at 9/11, it never died down and i do not for a second believe your whining about how the world told you it would happen.
Next time, well, you pissed off the muslim world and told the rest of the world to go fvck themselves, guess what, if it happens again, we will be sympathetic and we will help.
And most likely you will screw it up then too if you have the same leadership.
That is what most people don't get, YOU screwed it up, not the UN, not EU, YOU did.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 29,979
- 43,618
- 136
Nope. The world at large, most certainly the Middle East (ok, except Israel) would no doubt point to the past few years under King George as cause. It's hard to feel sorry for a guy who pushes people around a lot and eventually gets punched in the face. Bush has doen a great job of pissing away our support; getting it back will be a long, hard endeavor (prolly impossible if the chimp gets re-elected).
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
kage60: You can't be serious?
Do you really think that just because someone don't like Bush they are OK with civilians being killed?
AFAIK less than 30% of the american public (not counting children) voted for Bush, so even if someone would think like that (highly unlikely) they would still need to feel sorry for 70% of the victims according to that line of reasoning. Thats absurd,
And what about the children (unfortunately likely victims in a terrorist attack), do you really think that any sane person would say "They had it coming"?
Do you really think that just because someone don't like Bush they are OK with civilians being killed?
AFAIK less than 30% of the american public (not counting children) voted for Bush, so even if someone would think like that (highly unlikely) they would still need to feel sorry for 70% of the victims according to that line of reasoning. Thats absurd,
And what about the children (unfortunately likely victims in a terrorist attack), do you really think that any sane person would say "They had it coming"?
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Well, I apologize for all my misdoings.
Not you people, the leadership screwed it up and you have done nothing wrong towards us, if something should happen we would still be on your side, you wouldn't even have to ask, but you DO need to get a president that is closer to reality than this one, this yeeeehaw moron has cost you a lot of support from most of the world.
IMO I do not give a FVCK what the rest of the world thinks. It will never matter what we do, how much money we send, how much aid we send, or who we have leading, America will always be looked at in a negative light. I say we pull out all our troops from around the world, lock down the borders, kick out all the diplomats, stop sending money, and let the whole world crumble around us. Let the world know that we are now OUT OF EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS, now stay out of ours. If they attack, we nuke them!
You are wrong, i have fought in one war and i would fight in the next, you have mine and every europeans support, we support you as a nation, even though your leadership will dismiss us i am sure.
They told us we are irrelevant, so i see no need, unless there is a need, then we WILL offer our help.
If we are needed, we WILL be there. (not in Iraq though, handle your own wars)
Now that I am thinking about it, all I hear the libs talk about is world support, and we lost world support. WHO THE HELL IS NOT SUPPORTING US? Look at how many countries are in Iraq with us. Oh wait, I forgot, FRANCE, RUSSIA and GERMANY. Now we are talking about pulling troops out of Germany and they are all in a tissy.
tissy? whats that mean? I know German business owners are sad at the eventual loss of business.
As for world support, you should look at the people in the countries around the world, a lot of the governments in the coalition are struggling against popular opinion against keeping troops in Iraq. S. Korea, Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, UK they all have lots of people opposed.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
HAHA, only if it were so simple...
You see the US has a lot of interest in the rest of the world. Considering a 500Billion dollar trade deficit, huge dependance on oil, you need to do your part in the rest of the world to maintain stability.
All other first world nations put effort in around the world. Of course due to smaller economies it seems like a lot less, but relatively speaking, we all do our part.
If you want Oil imports here to be safe and allowed, you need the stability created by your aid and military. A lot of these countries are in war torn regions. You stop the money, the US economy will slow very quickly. We are talking 10 million barrels a day. You can't do that in house!...lock up your borders and watch yourself go poor.
Also, if you look at GNP vs. GDP, national product includes productivity of americans outside the US. This accounts for $317billion. So by pulling out of the world you would instantly lose that money giving you a deficit of $1 trillion a year. Then take into account the probability of oil prices skyrocketing...not a pretty picture. Also, you'd have to take all 250,000 troops back home. What they end up doing is anybody's guess...unemployment?...
anyways, im sure you werent serious with you post, but hopefully you know the other side of the equation...
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
It is very sad. Here it shows the forces in iraq currently.
Most countries in there are doing the supply routes and intel...not in combat.
about 10,000 troops from the coalition if you take out UK's 8,000 and US's 110,000.
yay world support...
most countries have like 30 ppl there...i think they are just sucking up, shows how much you value the cause when you donate less than a bus worth...
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
The US would take years of solid foreign policy to return to a state where an attack would lead to the same instant, genuine, unconditional support they had in the days after september 11th.
But no matter what the world thinks of your leaders, the sympathy and support for the American people would still be there.
We're your friends and allies; disagreements and mistakes on both sides haven't changed that.
But no matter what the world thinks of your leaders, the sympathy and support for the American people would still be there.
We're your friends and allies; disagreements and mistakes on both sides haven't changed that.
So you sent a clown to present the evidence for the Iraq war and were laughed out of the room.
You went to war on false evidence and you were WRONG, i would say that my country and France were RIGHT, there was no hurry, no stockpiles, no immediate threat.
Of course, if you try real hard i am sure you can come up with a reason.
We don't go to war based on false evidence, period.
I forgot something "how many countries are in Iraq with ut" well, from 20 or so it has become 2 or so and the world is 180 or so countries so i would say get your head out of the dark place and take a look at reality, you are basically alone now, the people of the countries supporting the invasion are more likely to vote their leader out because of it, sure, the promise of dollars meant a lot for the support, if not for that, it would have been the US and the UK alone and the UK has a large majority against the actions taken.
This war was for NOTHING!
YADA YADA YADA FRIGGIN YADA! I really should not come in here today being in the mood I am in.
False evidence BLAH BLAH BLAH, Germany and France arent the target (YET....Iran) also considering France is being slowly taken over by muslims, why would they?
Bush lied, WHATEVER!
Wassup then?
Yeah, the evidence has been proven to be what Germany and France said they were, false, so?
France is being taken over by muslims? ehrm, no, they are letting in refugees, i am sure you don't understand that concept being american, but there are people fleeing from other parts of the world, many of them being muslims, now, some are labeling the French racists because of it so i guess it all evens out in the end when you all have said your part.
Christ, i have no idea what this has to do with anything.
Would i fight to defend the US after another attack, I HAVE BEFORE AND I WILL AGAIN.
That is my point, we will do it, but considering the present climate i doubt we will be asked.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter