The world supported the US and was 110% with the US after the attack on 9-11, what changed and why?

Question

Dude (below) - "We asserted our right to defend ourselves" -

Didn't the US do this in Afghanistan and the world was 110% behind that?

open4one (below) Other countries have their own media. How can US media have an affect on them?

Answer 1

It's the same reason why Americans don't trust Bush anymore.He has proven not to be trustworthy.Like he and his administration lied to America,they lied to the world.They lied to enemies and allies alike.Like they tried to bully American oposition by calling them unpatriotic they tried to bully any International oposition by questioning their loyalty.WMD,secret prisons,torture.Most people around the world don't want anything to do with that.I don't want to have anything to do with that.Not in my name!

With Americans feeling more vulnerable after the September 11 terrorist attacks and Europe willing to help, the Bush administration started to ramp up efforts within the United Nations to give Iraq an ultimatum on weapons inspections. In November 2002, all 15 members of the UN Security Council agreed on Resolution 1441. The resolution stated that unless Iraq allowed the free movement of weapons inspectors and gave up any weapons of mass destruction (WMD) it would face “serious consequences.” NATO formally announced its support for the resolution that same month at the Prague Summit.

To the Bush administration, “serious consequences” meant military action. However, some European countries, including the diplomatic powerhouses of France and Germany, had a different interpretation of “serious consequences” and wanted to allow more time for inspections. As it became clear that President Bush would invade Iraq, the alliance suffered what then-U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns described as a “near-death experience.”

Not only France and Germany opposed the Iraq War. Even in countries where leaders supported the U.S. policy, a majority of Europeans opposed an invasion absent the backing of allies and the UN. Certainly, Europeans had an aversion to war because they experienced violent conflicts on their own soil within recent memory. Moreover, European countries were already trying to assist the United States in Afghanistan, where there was at least a connection between the attacks on the United States in 2001 and the subsequent military operation.

Loss of Trust
In the months leading up to the war and in the years since, the Bush administration has shown occasional callousness toward long-time European allies. The failure of intelligence and the troubled occupation of Iraq have only made these diplomatic problems worse.

Before the invasion, then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed off the anti-war leaders in Europe by saying that Germany and France were part of “Old Europe.” This division oversimplified pro-and anti-war camps. Countries that supposedly fell into the category of “New” Europe, such as Bulgaria and Poland, contributed troops to the U.S.-led effort, but public opinion in those countries did not support sending troops to Iraq. Eastern European leaders may have felt obligated to contribute militarily to the Iraq War because the United States had supported their campaigns to join NATO. However, where the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain fell was not clear. Prime Minister Blair brought the United Kingdom into the war, despite opposition within his own Labour government. Italy and Spain also made sizeable troop contributions -- even though public opinion in those countries went against the war and troop contributions were later drawn down as political leadership changed hands.

To be sure, European leaders used opposition to the Iraq War for their own political advantage. Then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s party might have lost if it hadn’t ridden the wave of anti-war sentiment in the fall of 2002. When on the eve of the invasion some Eastern European countries signed a statement of support for holding the Iraqi government accountable under Resolution 1441, French President Jacques Chirac threatened to block their membership in the EU. “Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible,” Chirac said. “If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining the EU, they could not have found a better way." Such rhetoric only reinforced previous U.S. fears that the EU was positioning itself as a competitor to the United States and NATO.

But leaders also had their moral arguments for not supporting the war. Spanish Prime Minister José Zapatero, who moved to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq, said not long before taking his post in the spring of 2004, "You can't organize a war on the basis of lies." Criticizing the Bush policy of preventive war, Zapatero added, "You can't bomb a people just in case.”

Anti-war sentiment in Europe only grew when troops failed to find evidence of the Iraqi WMD programs that President Bush said were threatening the world. Before the war, a British foreign policy aide sent a secret memo to the British ambassador to the United States that was revealed to the press in 2005. The memo said that facts were “being fixed around the policy” and that there had not been substantial consideration for the aftermath of an invasion.
In addition to the abuse dished out against European countries and leaders, the Bush administration pursued other policies that seemed at least partially intended to move NATO away from its Western European core. Washington announced in 2004 a plan to close about half the U.S. military bases in Europe within ten years. The Pentagon argued that certain large bases were no longer needed and that the United States needed smaller and more flexible ones to meet the post-Cold War threat environment. But the administration also seemed to be punishing “Old Europe” for not cooperating in the Iraq War.

A long-time member of NATO, Turkey has been put in a particularly precarious situation because of the Iraq War. Turkey’s strategic position between Europe and the Middle East makes it a valuable U.S. ally. Yet Turks strongly opposed the war and felt that the United States had not consulted sufficiently with Turkish leaders. Turks have also feared the impact that the war might have on Kurds who live in Iraq and Turkey. While over half of Turks polled support the bid to join the EU, Turkey’s road to membership may be long and difficult. Ankara’s foreign policy perceptions and interests are shifting eastward, and the Iraq War has clearly hastened this movement. The United States will no longer be able to take this strategic ally for granted.

Answer 2

In a word, what happened was Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan was seen as necessary for the US to capture those responsible for the 9/11 attack. (I needn't mention that those responsible e.g. Bin Laden are still at large.) But there was never any justifiable reason to invade Iraq. Moreover, the reasons that were given by the Bush administration were hokey. There were no WMDs. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. But mainly, after Bush pleaded with the UN for permission to attack Iraq and was repeatedly denied, he did it anyway. To other nations, Bush has made the US look like a bully, a liar, and a punk, all in one nice package.

Answer 3

For about 2 years the nation did something it hadn't done since Pearl Harbor. Unite! That unity could not last since we are a country of opinions and without strife politicians would have difficulty getting their constituents attention.

Leaders of the Counter culture movement from the 60's saw a chance to lobby for changes by exerting the same pressures they used during the turbulent times during and following the Vietnam war. This re-ignited the old rivalry's between the two prominent factions.

Eventually, this lead to a opening that the conspiracy theorists were waiting on and of course celebrity's saw a chance to achieve the same fame that came from the 60's and 70's by being political. These groups began working towards the same goal.

During the 03 election hollywood came out in force seeking the dollars that the masses will pitch at activists. As things have become more and more polarized the former rivals have become bitter enemies and we are in the situation we find ourselves in now.

Answer 4

For those who say "Bush" happened, what kind of answer is that, he was President when this happened, so don't make it sound like he came into the scenario later.

I feel that people were proud to be Americans when we went through this tragedy, they had flags everywhere, their cars, homes, workplace. Then when the tragedy was over, then it was time to place blame, who should of, could of but didn't, who didn't but should have, etc.

Instead of remaining a complete United Country, people, those who sit in their easy chairs saying that they could have done better, and many others, tend to become critical instead of trying to see it from the Country's point of view.

I wouldn't have been in Bush's shoes for any amount of money or time - never in a million years. The stress, anxiety, and the constant meetings of this person, that person, these groups, that group all telling him their points of views.

Instead it was easier for America to blame it all on Bush, and say he was behind everything. Those are the people who should not be allowed to vote, if you can't live as a true American then move out of the country, or give up your right to vote.

I am a Proud American and I may not agree with all Bush has said or done, but he is the President, and I judge him on his actions.

Answer 5

very in all probability. Sept. 11, 2001, 5 Israeli adult men intentionally wearing Arabic clothing have been caught celebrating the assaults. After being caught via the police, the Israelis claimed it replaced into their activity to be there (beforehand from Israel) to cite "record the form" unquote. They even went directly to assert the comparable situation that Benjamin Netanyahu might repeat 4 years later on 07/07/05 after the London bombings-- that the assaults on u . s . and London, have been "stable" because of the fact "It generates sympathy for Israel"

Answer 6

First of all, people from 80 countries were killed in the WTC. They weren't only Americans. We had been receiving warnings from many of these countries for several years and many just before the actual attacks.

Bush's response to the attacks was arrogant and he came up with the axis of evil and the war on terror which has had the effect of militarization in several countries globally. If he would have just stuck to the effort in Afghanistan he would have retained the support of these countries. He would have been much better off to unite with these countries in their efforts to weed out terrorists using intelligence rather than declaring war on them which has resulted in their expansion since we attacked Iraq. Now other countries feel threatened and he actually may have started WW III. He blew it.

Answer 7

The only people that supported us were the ones in the coalition of 40 some countries. The rest were all but glad it happened. People were cheering in the west bank and lebanon when the news hit the middle east!

Parts of the world felt sorry for us for a moment, but then they went back to being jealous and hateful. Socialists look down on us, and communists hate us.

Answer 8

We decided to use 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, that pretty much destroyed any support we had from countries less than fully loyal to our cause.

Answer 9

Hi

A lot of people are going to dislike this but here goes...

09/11/01 should have never happened. America boasts having the strongest and most advanced military system - yet it was infiltrated and thousands of people died. Why? Has anyone wondered how this could have happened with such a technologically advanced military/ defense system such as ours?

When 09/11 happened everyone in the USA was compelled to send our troops over seas to fight for our losses and reform another country - pretty tall order! We couldn't even protect our own inhabitants in our own territory!

If you look at this in one perspective, not only is our government attempting to "reform " another country - but we are killing our own people to do it!

American people are going over there in the belief that they are helping when in fact they are killing themselves along with the people who live in Iraq - so we lose even more lives!

We lost sight of the objective and have been lead around like puppets. We can thank the media for all of this. We have no other source but the media to inform us and our willingness to follow..

Mainly we can thank ourselves for losing the support of other nations.

Has anyone ever watched the military channel or the science channels featuring our military weapons? Giving details,history and locations of these weapons? Again - we are exposed.

Has anyone thought that maybe the people in Iraq do not want to conform to our beliefs?
If they want to go to Mc Donald's and break bread on Sundays - they will move here and do it. Just as many women and children are abused in this great land!

They have been around a lot longer than our country and maybe this is their choice, their beliefs - Maybe they don't want to change their culture. Why can't we simply accept it, bring our families home and get on with our lives?

Terrorists are everywhere - there is no absolute way to stop them.They are not exclusively in Iraq -they are everywhere even in our country. It's the terrorists who need to be punished - not the country and its inhabitants.

If the government wants our military to serve protect, defend and honor its country - they need to start right here....

We have plenty of crime,suffering, and needy people who really do want our help right under our noses, yet we are compelled to go somewhere else to " Defend,protect and serve our country" -

To answer your question....

Democrat, Republican,Independent - doesn't matter....

We have allowed ourselves to follow a poor leader and his father before him. We have made ourselves look weak and we have attempted to impose ourselves on other nations -

Remember we are suppose to be the land of the free - culturally diverse and all the wonderful things we claim to be!
How is that true when we go over and try to take over another country?

There is no honor in what we are doing and we are not really any better people for doing it.

No country is going to support us when we let one little man lead us around by the nose to meet his agenda!

We have shown poor judgment and weakness within ourselves and nobody is going to be an ally to a bunch of hipocrits.

"An eye for an eye and we all die."

Answer 10

I don't think the whole world supported the US 110% at any time in their history.

There was widespread support for our initial "war on terror" but that soon wained when we started invading other countries like Afganastan and Iraq.

A lot of people didn't think we had the right to do that to other nations. Can't say as I blame them either.

We sit here with open borders and millions of people illegally entering and residing in our country and we say we are invading another country in the name of homeland security. It's a farce.




g-day!

Answer 11

The media's incessant reporting of body counts, while ignoring any suggestion that the soldiers might be there to actually accomplish something, coupled with telling the public how tired the country was of war on a daily basis.

Even your question is revealing. The world still supports us. Look at France, their president talks as seriously about it as our own. Britain. Australia. Even Germany is still searching for terrorists, judging by the fact that it recently found some.

You're not being told the truth.