# What do the other Iraq invaders think of Spain's withdrawal?



## ampurdan

I was just wondering about what people of the USA, the UK, Poland, Italy, Japan think about the fact that the Spanish Government has decided to withdraw its troops from Iraq.


----------



## Cracker Jack

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I was just wondering about what people of the USA, the UK, Poland, Italy, Japan think about the fact that the Spanish Government has decided to withdraw its troops from Ira*q*.


 
Just a slight correction.  

Regards.


----------



## ampurdan

Ok, thank you CJ, I have already edited my post, but someone else will have to correct the thread's title.


----------



## blancalaw

What other Iraq invaders?  Like the USA? Sorry, I never thought of us as "invaders" but I guess that would be a good terminology.
This could be a very controversial issue; therefore I am only going to state my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.
First, I think it is great for Iraq to have democracy, but that could be because I am from a democratic state. Whether we had the right to invade? I'm not sure, I don't keep up with every event that happens in the world. I do support my friends and peers that are over there now and hope they come home true. But I do also hope soon that Iraq will soon be on it's feet so we wouldn't have to be there any longer.  
What do I think about Spain’s withdrawal? I think they may be thinking they have been over there too long and if what was meant to be accomplished hasn't happened yet, then it probably won't happen for quite some time. I don't blame them for pulling out. I wish we could withdrawal too but if we did we would look like quitters because we started this mess.  
Another opinion I have is I wish the government would be like Switzerland and stay neutral, that way we can use our "army" funds for better things like "education" or helping others. I guess we feel like we have a lot to protect.


----------



## lampiao

I didn't agree with the war against Iraq in the first place, because I didn't see enough evidence of what was claimed to be the grounds for invasion.

However, now that the war has been fought and Saddam deposed, I think that 'coalition forces' shouldn't leave the country until there is a stable government in Iraq, to avoid the possibility of a civil war in the country.


----------



## whatonearth

I think it was wrong of the Spanish forces to withdraw. I too disagreed with the war in Iraq, but it is done now and we ALL have a responsibility to ensure that foreign forces (be it NATO or various countries armies) do not start leaving the country until the mess that was made is cleared up, and the Iraqi people have a stable and safe country in which to live. 

I see people with petitions around the place in the UK demanding we "Pull out now" which really annoys me - it is morally reprehensible to just leave that country in the state its now - I mean, it is truly tragic that "our" men are being killed out there but, unfortunately, that is one of the hazzards of the job...


----------



## Outsider

The term "invaders" can be perceived as loaded. You might want to change it to a more neutral one, such as "occupiers", or "Coallition", *Ampurdan*. 
As for my opinion (my country was also a member of the Coallition, though it has withdrawn its few troops from Iraq, now), I'm glad that in at least one country the people got to punish the politicians who lied to take them to war. Well done, Spain.


----------



## ampurdan

Thank you for sharing your opinions. It's interesting for me to know them.

I just wanted to say that "coallition" does not convey what those countries are doing in Iraq, maybe "occupiers" is a good word (but to occupy with no appeal to do it from the country and with no international command to do so, it's normally called an invasion).


----------



## Outsider

But if you use the word "invaders", which tend to have a negative connotation, you may drive away from your thread those who support the war, and not get a representative set of opinions. 
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ampurdan

Ok, Outsider. You are right, though I hope nobody refrained from posting because of this word. Let's say: "Iraq occupant forces".


----------



## anything

Outsider said:
			
		

> The term "invaders" can be perceived as loaded. You might want to change it to a more neutral one, such as "occupiers", or "Coallition", *Ampurdan*.
> As for my opinion (my country was also a member of the Coallition, though it has withdrawn its few troops from Iraq, now), I'm glad that in at least one country the people got to punish the politicians who lied to take them to war. Well done, Spain.


But did they really "punish" them for that or rather because they were lied to about something else? (i.e. that the 11-M bombings had been perpetrated by ETA). It seems very unlikely that the Partido Popular would have lost the election if it hadn't been for those post-attack lies by Aznar.
(Sorry if this a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to add that point).


----------



## Fernando

Many of us could say there is an international command to stay in Iraq (UN statements), apart from the demand of the democratically elected government of Iraq, so "occupiers" is good to me. Furthermore, I am not in favour of the invasion (w or w/o international applause), but I am in favour of the "occupation", for the reasons stated before by whatonearth.

Anyway Ampurdan, the answer is simple:

- Those in favour of invasion and/or occupation, will think Spanish government is a coward, a rat and a dumb.

- Those against, will think Spanish government is an example to the world of gallantry.


----------



## Laia

I disagree with changing the name "invaders". They are invaders.


----------



## Fernando

Laia said:
			
		

> I disagree with changing the name "invaders". They are invaders.



At worst: US: Invader & Occuppier
Spain, Italy, Korea, Japan, Philippines, the Netherlands, Poland...: Occuppiers.

Logomaquia, Laia, logomaquia.


----------



## Laia

Fernando said:
			
		

> At worst: US: Invader & Occuppier
> Spain, Italy, Korea, Japan, Philippines, the Netherlands, Poland...: Occuppiers.
> 
> Logomaquia, Laia, logomaquia.


 
Thank you Fernando for all the words I've learnt from you 

WR dictionary: 
*invader* 
*A*_noun_*1 **invader*, encroacher _someone who enters by force in order to conquer _

*conquer* *A*_verb_*1 *suppress, stamp down, inhibit, subdue, *conquer*, curb
_to put down by force or authority; "suppress a nascent uprising"; "stamp down on littering"; "conquer one's desires" _
*2 **conquer*
_overcome by conquest; "conquer your fears"; "conquer a country" _
*3 *appropriate, capture, seize, *conquer*
_take possession of by force, as after an invasion; "the invaders seized the land and property of the inhabitants"; "The army seized the town"; "The militia captured the castle" _


_La invasión de Iraq _es una expresión que se ha utilizado durante toda esta historia. No digáis que no.
Bueno, también se nos ha dicho que los soldados españoles iban en _acción humanitaria_, una mentira más.


----------



## Outsider

anything said:
			
		

> But did they really "punish" them for that or rather because they were lied to about something else? (i.e. that the 11-M bombings had been perpetrated by ETA). It seems very unlikely that the Partido Popular would have lost the election if it hadn't been for those post-attack lies by Aznar.
> (Sorry if this a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to add that point).


That's a good question, to which I do not know the answer. It seems to me, though, that the two lies were somewhat related.


----------



## SpiceMan

blancalaw said:
			
		

> What other Iraq invators?   Like the USA?  Sorry, I never thought of us as "invators" but I guess that would be a good terminology.


 All media labeled used "war" and "invasion" interchangeably, except in USA, and maybe UK.


----------



## Fernando

Has Iraq been invaded by US? Yes. Is US an invader? Yes.
Has Germany been invaded by US/USSR? Yes. Were US/USSR invaders? Yes.

Has Italy invaded Iraq? I would say no. They arrived "a bit" later. Their only objective is restauration of order. I would say "occupier" answer better to what they are.
Were US/USSR/France/UK invaders of Germany in the 1945-85 period? No. They were "potencias ocupantes" (occupying powers). 

Were Spanish troops in Iraq in humanitarian mission? No. They were in a military task of restauration of order. For some reason, they were not authorized to use lethal force.

ARE Spanish troops in Haiti, Afganisthan, Iraq (a little frigate, you know), etc. in humanitarian mission? No. Possible exception: pakistan.


----------



## anything

Fernando said:
			
		

> At worst: US: Invader & Occuppier
> Spain, Italy, Korea, Japan, Philippines, the Netherlands, Poland...: Occuppiers.
> 
> Logomaquia, Laia, logomaquia.


At best: UK: blind lap dog of the US.

(I've just learnt a new word by the way - "logomaquia", thanks).



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> That's a good question, to which I do not know the answer. It seems to me, though, that the two lies were somewhat related .


 I agree with you on that.



			
				SpiceMan said:
			
		

> All media labeled used "war" and "invasion" interchangeably, except in USA, and maybe UK.


In the UK you usually hear "war".
Pedantic point: can you really say "all media...except in the USA" without having been exposed to media from every single place in the world?

As to the original question, my knowledge of the whole situation is not nearly thorough enough to be able to give a valid opinion about whether pulling out troops now is a good thing or not.


----------



## ampurdan

Fernando said:
			
		

> Anyway Ampurdan, the answer is simple:
> 
> - Those in favour of invasion and/or occupation, will think Spanish government is a coward, a rat and a dumb.
> 
> - Those against, will think Spanish government is an example to the world of gallantry.


 
Thank you, Fernando. Let me wait for their opinions, anyway. It seems that it is not as simple as that, since some people that have said they were against the war/invasion/occupation, also think now is not the time to withdraw the forces.


----------



## lampiao

Fernando said:
			
		

> - Those in favour of invasion and/or occupation, will think Spanish government is a coward, a rat and a dumb.


I disagree with you on this point. I, for one, was not in favour of the occupation/invasion/liberation (call it whatever), but don't think the spanish gov.ment is an example for that matter. 
As I stated before, either you do the job properly, or you don't do it at all. (When I say «you» I don't mean anyone in particular)


----------



## Laia

I just love this article written by two Americans who were in Barcelona while the time of the Non-War manifestations.

EDIT: Sorry, it has no relation with the withdrawal... but I love it anyway.


----------



## Fernando

Sorry if I implied other's answers, but I think it is logic the equation:

- In favour of occupation = Against Spain's withdrawal and viceversa.

Said that, my opinion was not requested (only the citizens of the countries which currently hold soldiers in Iraq).


----------



## SpiceMan

anything said:
			
		

> Pedantic point: can you really say "all media...except in the USA" without having been exposed to media from every single place in the world?


No, I _am _pedantic. So, it's ok. Suits me fine.

Strictly speaking, I can tell about: Argentina, Brazil and Japan media.


----------



## anything

I meant that my point was pedantic  but thanks for the reply anyway.


----------



## cuchuflete

Foreign policy decisions are driven by a combination of national self-interest, as perceived by governments, and domestic political pressures.

The withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq appears to reflect 
domestic political pressures in a democratic society--most people in Spain do not want to participate in the occupation, and because the ruling government sees no apparent national self-interest sufficient to keep troops there, regardless of public opinion.

So, if I were a Spaniard, I would be pleased.  I'm not a Spaniard.  I'm still pleased.  This withdrawal helps focus attention on the fact that this was and is primarily an act by two countries, whose governments lied to their citizens.

I do not advocate an instantaneous withdrawal by all countries...the result would be more horrendous than the current occupation. Yet, the continued disolution of the so-called alliance will help shorten the stay of the remaining occupiers.  

The Iraquis are going to have to manage their own affairs, however well or badly, and soon rather than later.  I wish them success and peace.


----------



## cirrus

I am really surprised. I thought that Spain had already withdrawn its troops.  I thought that happened ages ago as it was a key promise of ZP?

As for here the justification of the decision to invade Iraq has shown the prime minister here to be a charlatan of the first water.  He denies lying and seems to take no responsibility for the blindingly obvious fact that he was desperate to catch a train which the American political military complex had started several years before.  This is a real pity because we have waited years for a Labour government to really make a difference to the UK. 
Instead huge amounts of energy and resources have been squandered on a war which is of little relevance to the vast majority of the population.


----------



## Rich696

blancalaw said:
			
		

> What other Iraq invators?   Like the USA?  Sorry, I never thought of us as "invators" but I guess that would be a good terminology.



In case you didn't know, as many Americans obviously don't, there are many British troops over there dying as well.  Other countries have also given troops.
It annoys me when people (Michael Moore for one) think that America is standing alone in Iraq.  With the best will in the world, America couldn't stand alone if her very existence depended on it.  Despite her unmatched military and economic strength, she is constantly in need of reassurance and moral assistance.  With the best will in the world, you don't invade a country and say "don't worry, folks, we'll be gone soon".  All that this leads to is constant rebellion because the insurgents knows that the "invaders" will be gone soon enough.  It amazes me that we English managed to govern the largest Empire the world has ever known, facing every form of jihad imaginable, and we did so with less trouble than America has encountered in tiny Iraq.  Why?  Because we never said we were going to leave.  We were there to stay, for hundreds of years in need be.  It was only after the people saw the futility in resistance that they could start to benefit from Pax Britannica - peace, democracy, prosperity, civilisation.

There's a thread at the moment about whether Americans are considered "dumb".  The answer is probably not, but, generally speaking, they sure are insular, unwordly and very ignorant!


----------



## BasedowLives

> Anyway Ampurdan, the answer is simple:
> 
> - Those in favour of invasion and/or occupation, will think Spanish government is a coward, a rat and a dumb.
> 
> - Those against, will think Spanish government is an example to the world of gallantry.


wow, i disagree with you.  I'm against the invasion of Iraq, but generalizing everyone that's for it into that category is just ignorant.

Having said that I was against it, that doesn't really affect my attitude towards Spain's withdraw.  I say, good for them, if the majority of Spanish people didn't want a part in it, then they shouldn't.  The majority here, however, felt the opposite (at the time) and there's (realistically) nothing we can do.



> With the best will in the world, America couldn't stand alone if her very existence depended on it.


against Iraq?  "Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army  troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists."

using the numbers from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm  It appears to me, at least, that there are more than enough troops in the USA if the Bush administration was that brash as to go in unilaterally

from the bbc [quote]On 19 July 2004 there were about 133,000 foreign troops in Iraq, of whom about 112,000 were American.[/quote]


----------



## Papalote

Fernando said:
			
		

> *Has Iraq been invaded by US? Yes. Is US an invader? Yes.*
> _Has Germany been invaded by US/USSR? Yes. Were US/USSR invaders? Yes._
> ....
> 
> 
> .


*Were US/USSR/France/UK invaders of Germany in the 1945-85 period? No. They were "potencias ocupantes" (occupying powers).  *
*NO!* Please, Fernando, as much as I respect your opinion, do not compare WWII with the invasion of Iraq by American troops. Even Americans, those not brainwashed by Bush and his cohorts, agree that there has never been a war declaration. Bush just went ahead and did as he pleased. Germany declared war on all the countries you have mentioned here, and occupied them. I would`ve said invaded but then I would confuse the whole issue of ``invasion``. So let`s say that Germany occupied France and USSR (at least tried) after declaring war. How he got there if it is not by using an invading army


To say that Allied Forces invaded Germany, please....the war was still on and they had to fight back. How else would you push the enemy back. 

Has Italy invaded Iraq? I would say no. They arrived "a bit" later. Their only objective is restauration of order. I would say "occupier" answer better to what they are.  *Sorry,* but they`re just as guilty as all the other countries who were afraid of American retaliation and went ahead with Bush`s wishes to invade.

Were Spanish troops in Iraq in humanitarian mission? No. They were in a military task of restauration of order. For some reason, they were not authorized to use lethal force.ARE Spanish troops in Haiti, Afganisthan, Iraq (a little frigate, you know), etc. in humanitarian mission? No. Possible exception: pakistan

Also, I don`t understand why you are talking about humanitarian missions. The whole world knows the kind of pressure Bush put on those countries to do his bidding. Canada refused the shame of the invasion, and we are still paying for it. Just read up on Nafta and the USA non-compliance with treaties it is signing under Bush. I will not go on and on on this subject, off topic, so I'll just finish by saying that it takes more courage to say no from the start or to recognize that one has made a mistake. I think the Spanish government was right to leave, for whatever reason. 

Hasta la pròxima,

Papalote


----------



## ampurdan

cirrus said:
			
		

> I am really surprised. I thought that Spain had already withdrawn its troops. I thought that happened ages ago as it was a key promise of ZP?


 
Oh! Yes, he did it as soon as he was in charge (spring 2004). Another thread has made me think again about it... And about what people in other countries might think about it too, if they cared.


----------



## opsidol

Solo puedo decir esto: Buen trabajo España, te respeto!

Ojalá que España no tuviera ninguna parte de esta guerra ilegal para empezar!


----------



## Fernando

Papalote said:
			
		

> *NO!* Please, Fernando, as much as I respect your opinion, do not compare WWII with the invasion of Iraq by American troops.



Why not? We were talking about terminology. If we talk about terminology, let us do. If we talk about ethics, let me know then.
Both US 1944 and US 2002 invaded an independent country. Period.
Both US 1950 and US 2004 are occupying an indepent country. (In the second case with the approval of the government of the country).

SHOULD they invade these countries?. MY answer (maybe to your surprise) is YES 1944, NO 2002.




			
				Papalote said:
			
		

> Even Americans, those not brainwashed by Bush and his cohorts, agree that there has never been a war declaration.



I am against the war, but the declaration point is naive.



			
				Papalote said:
			
		

> *Sorry,* but they`re just as guilty as all the other countries who were afraid of American retaliation and went ahead with Bush`s wishes to invade.



And maybe they are in your system of values, but they are not invaders but occupiers.



			
				Papalote said:
			
		

> Also, I don`t understand why you are talking about humanitarian missions.



Because somebody raised the point.


----------



## Laia

Fernando said:
			
		

> Papalote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I don`t understand why you are talking about humanitarian missions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because somebody raised the point.
Click to expand...

 
Yo hablé de "misiones humanitarias".

En primer lugar, se discutió sobre si era apropiado o no hablar de "invasión" y algunos foreros sugirieron cambiar esta palabra por "ocupación" o una similar. Yo dije que estaba en desacuerdo, porque lo que se ha hecho en Irak ha sido una invasión: "ocupación de un país por fuerzas militares extranjeras".
Puse de ejemplo "misiones humanitarias" para emfatizar una de las mentiras de esta guerra, que los soldados españoles iban a hacer "misiones humanitarias". Iban a la guerra y punto. No soy tan inocente como para creerme eso de las acciones humanitarias. ¿Por qué cambiar la palabra? ¿Para hacerlo más bonito? Es una guerra. Se mata a gente por definición, en las guerras. Han muerto muchos civiles en Irak. No debido a misiones humanitarias.

Logomaquia, queridos forer@s


----------



## opsidol

Ninguna misión humanitaria puede compensar las vidas de los 17000 civiles  iraquíes inocentes y los 2000 soldados americanos (y los de otras nacionalidades) que ya han muerto. Aún "la democracia" que han establecido en Irak no puede compensar. La democracia no siempre es algo bueno, para afirmación de eso mira lo que está pasando en Palestina.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fernando said:
			
		

> I am against the war, but the declaration point is naive.


 It is of critical importance in the U.S. Our Constitution states that the congress shall have the power to declare war... A president may not declare war. Bush has effectively declared and conducted war. This violates the most basic law of the U.S.

This might be of interest: Declaration of war


----------



## Laia

opsidol said:
			
		

> Aún "la democracia" que han establecido en Irak no puede compensar. La democracia no siempre es algo bueno, para afirmación de eso mira lo que está pasando en Palestina.


 
Bueno opsidol, eso es otra historia, ¿eh?
No mezclemos... Estar en contra de la guerra *no* significaba para nada estar a favor de la dictadura!! Para nada.


----------



## Noel Acevedo

blancalaw said:
			
		

> What other Iraq invaders? Like the USA? Sorry, I never thought of us as "invaders" but I guess that would be a good terminology.
> This could be a very controversial issue; therefore I am only going to state my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.
> First, I think it is great for Iraq to have democracy, but that could be because I am from a democratic state. Whether we had the right to invade? I'm not sure, I don't keep up with every event that happens in the world. I do support my friends and peers that are over there now and hope they come home true. But I do also hope soon that Iraq will soon be on it's feet so we wouldn't have to be there any longer.
> What do I think about Spain’s withdrawal? I think they may be thinking they have been over there too long and if what was meant to be accomplished hasn't happened yet, then it probably won't happen for quite some time. I don't blame them for pulling out. I wish we could withdrawal too but if we did we would look like quitters because we started this mess.
> Another opinion I have is I wish the government would be like Switzerland and stay neutral, that way we can use our "army" funds for better things like "education" or helping others. I guess we feel like we have a lot to protect.


 
BlancaLaw,

Just a side comment.  I really think you'd better sit down and re-think your position.  Seems sort of contradictory.  "I never thought of us as "invaders"..." and on the flip side "I wish we could withdraw too, but if we did we would look like quitters becuase _we started this mess._

_Noel_


----------



## Edwin

We would look like quitters! That's school yard talk--exactly the kind of language our chicken hawk* president and vice president use. 

Sometimes quitting is a good thing.   What did we do but turn tail and run from Vietnam after about 15 years of fighting (with South Vietnamese dead: 1,250,000, US dead: 58,226, US wounded: 153,303). Yet,  I think it will be difficult to find someone today who thinks our involvement in Vietnam was a good thing.  

Yes, let's go ahead and leave Iraq now.   As Kenny Rogers sang:



> You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
> Know when to walk away and know when to run



And in case someone hasn't heard of the term "chicken hawk": 

* chicken hawk*  n. A person who now advocates war but who once took special measures to avoid military service.  [And surrounded by Secret Service Agents shouts things like, "Bring'em On!".]

PS. Of course, we invaded Iraq. Another definition:



> An *invasion* is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geo-political entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with intent to conquer territory and/or alter the established government. Source.


----------



## kevinleihuang

The War in Iraq has not been fully supported by almost the whole world, especially the developing countries. Though new democracy has been set up in Iraq through the efforts of both American Government and Iraqi people, we do understand the US initiated this war for the purpose of getting the control on oil. The Bush Administration might have promised the allied countries with certain benefits on oil, so the countries like Spain, Australia, UK would follow the US policy to send out their troops. 

I think the Spainish Government has realized that the Spanish people are not in support of this war. Moreover, this war has not successfully created job opportunities for those who want to be involved in military-related production. So the people in Spain perhaps have not found any benefit of sending troops to Iraq.


----------



## kevinleihuang

BTW, I do admire and respect the American soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq and served their country. But this does not mean I am in support of this war. 

Soldiers has no choice but obey the orders. It is the Pentagon rather than the soldiers themselves who can make the final decision on the invasion to Iraq. Most of American soldiers, especially those from National Guard, are brave. They are trying their best to maintain the safty.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Fernando said:
			
		

> Anyway Ampurdan, the answer is simple:
> 
> - Those in favour of invasion and/or occupation, will think Spanish government is a coward, a rat and a dumb.
> 
> - Those against, will think Spanish government is an example to the world of gallantry.


 
you are assuming so much, how do you know what others "will think"?

personally I was ashamed with the participation and happy with the withdrawal.


----------



## Fernando

Maybe I was assuming too much. In your case, I have assumed correctly.


----------



## WillyLandron

This is a complicated question for me. I certainly understand why Spain withdrew. I don't think most Spaniards were for the war and once the government who made that unpopular decision lost the election, it's no surprise that the other party made the move to get out.

Especially since the party now in power ran on the platform the the party in power then was basically misleading the country (albeit about a seperate event).

Many Americans, even those who were against the war, saw the move as evidence that some countries are sort of *fickle*. Part of the American culture rewards sticking with friends even when they are wrong. That's part of the whole "my country right or wrong" thing.

And to be perfectly honest, many Americans don't really care. Even if the British withdraw, they reckon, "we are doing most of the work, taking the casualties, and in charge anyway. Who needs them?" 

I would not be surprised if many Americans thought: "Spain withdrew!? Really!? I didn't even know they were there!? Oh well!"


----------



## cuchuflete

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> I would not be surprised if many Americans thought: "Spain withdrew!? Really!? I didn't even know they were there!? Oh well!" http://forum.wordreference.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=642215



That, sadly, is a contribution to the "Are Americans Dumb?" thread.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Fernando said:
			
		

> Maybe I was assuming too much. In your case, I have assumed correctly.


my words_ ashamed_ and _happy_, nothing to do with your _dumb, gallantry, coward, rat _words_. _

_Assume: presume, take for granted, take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof_ (wordreference)


Going back to the topic, 

_Quote:_
_Originally Posted by *WillyLandron*_
_I would not be surprised if many Americans thought: "Spain withdrew!? Really!? I didn't even know they were there!? Oh well!" 


Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
That, sadly, is a contribution to the "Are Americans Dumb?" thread.


Cuchuflete, the first thing Condolezza Rice said after knowing the withdrawal was "never mind, Spain participation was not important"_


----------



## WillyLandron

I totally apreciate how it sends shivers down the backs  of people outside the US when they hear that Americans are not really aware of what is going on outside of the US. Many are but many aren't.

The news, even CNN, hardly ever talk about something happening outside of three places : the US, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Once the US troops pull out, we will go back to talking about just one country.

I would hope that you would apreciate that the fact that we have loads of money and lots of guns doesn't make us any smarter.

I think it's also important to remember that a great deal of the people in this country are descendents of people who wanted nothing to do with what was going on outside of this country and that's precisely why they came here.

In countries like Spain, France, and even Britain, another country is not as abstract. There is alot of traffic back and forth between very different people. And because of WWII, the European Union and other factors what happens in other countries is relatively important to the average European.

That's one explanation. But I can tell you Mexican media dedicates *a lot* of time to foreign news, from *everywhere*,  and they are in a similar situarion as us which is :

We border one country to the south, Mexico. Our neighbors to the north, and I'm sorry if this comes off as offensive, are so similar to us that we can't tell a Canadian celebrity from an American one. How many people know Pamela Anderson, Jim Carey, and William Shatner are Canadian?

Anyway, back to the subject :

We are seperated from the rest of the world by two large oceans. We have Mexico to the south but we only care about the people crossing over. Most Americans have very little concern about what happens in _el país Azteca_ and could not tell you that Vicente Fox is its president.

We don't really care but there are a lot _reasons _why and perhaps, some argue, reasons why we *shouldn't *care. 

Condi Rice's statement was spin but alot of people bought into it because they agree with that assesment even if she doesn't even agree with what she said. 

If Spain had not withdrawn she would have said how that showed many countries were behind us. Just like they said it was important that countries like Georgia and Fiji were sending troops. LOL! To most Americans that's a state in the South and a brand of bottled water.


----------

