Do what we’ve always done. Come running to the aid of countries when they are under attack or are hit by natural disasters.
Yes do that. :dubious:
Just as soon as the countries concerned have your aid you can bet you’ll be the bad guys again. :mad:
I’m not so sure, while the USA has behaved pretty disgracefully, and our sanctimonious a/sewipe Blair has gone along with it, things are not irrevocable.
Remember the Bam earthquake in Iran, they could not believe the good will.
The USA and a few others could start up a ‘natural disaster’ recovery task force that physically sorts out problems (not hands out cash to corrupt locals and US contractors).
If the USA were seen as physically competent and benign, then things could be reversed.
I reckon that the trick is to find things that really need sorting out, then getting in there and fixing them.
Mostly, it looks like the USA (and others) are long on words, but not materially effective.
Sorry, but I’ve seen “world opinion” waver like a flag in the wind over my entire lifetime. It flaps this way and that according to the latest news stories and political trends, and there’s nothing we can do that will make everybody happy. Nothing.
I’m not saying I approve of everything the US does, especially lately, but if we start becoming self-doubting and cringingly apologetic, we might end up like modern Britain. Judging from the Brits on this and other boards, they seem paralyzed with guilt for past sins and timid to take bold steps for their beliefs, and are frankly becoming rather insular.
I don’t berate the Canadians for pouring money into the corrupt government of Cuba by going to its beaches and using its women. I don’t understand the anti-death penalty view of the Europeans teamed up with their casual acceptance of abortion. But I don’t think such hypocrisy takes away the basic goodness of either community.
The wheel will turn again, especially after 2009. I’m not worried. Anti-Americanism is a hobby that every generation discovers, toys with, and ultimately stuffs in a closet to be largely forgotten. 
Hmmm … Mehitabel, I can’t disagree
But my case is that the USA could be seen to be competent.
I do not think the US should make any great effort to court good opinion in other countries: so long as we are powerful, they will hate us and fear us, and should we become weak, they’ll treat us as we have treated Iraq. The best we can do is live up to our own ideals of who we are. The Bush Administration has been a miserable failure in this regard.
Sorry, I was a little harsh back there. Never, ever come back to the SDMB after spending time in the “Have Your Say” section of BBC.com, where I read a thread on a possible union between Britain and France that turned into–yes!–an American-bashing one.
Evil Captor summed it up well.
I think that when Bush is finally out of the White House the U.S. will automatically get some of that goodwill back.
I’m a little surprised to be typing this, but I agree with ** Evil Captor**. From where I sit, much of the rest of the world seems to be very content with jumping our shit, regardless of what it is that we do.
We invade Iraq; Rest of world: “You’re evil imperialist warmongers.”
We give aid to tsunami victims; “Why didn’t you give more?”, or “You didn’t give the right kind of aid.”.
One thing to remember is that every, EVERY sovereign nation in the world is looking out for its own interests first, whether they be domestic or international. Granted, this may take the form of pretty altruistic behavior (see Denmark), or it may not be so nice.
Why should the US be any different? Just because we’re the 800 lb gorilla in the zoo doesn’t mean that our interests are worth any less to us. All it means is that we have a lot more wherewithal to protect or accomplish those interests without having to rely on consensus or compromise.
And many countries resent that, especially when it’s at their expense. However, given half a chance, they’d screw us six ways from Sunday to get their nut, and everyone knows it.
Not necessarily; if John McCain gets into office and declares that his Iraq policy is “more of the same”, it won’t do bupkis for regaining that goodwill.
I’d vote for electing someone sane back into the White House and turning over the Bush Administration to an international tribunal/court/whatever, but I realize that’s as likely as Rush Limbaugh admitting on national radio that he’s nothing more than a partisan hack who’s been stringing his audience along for over a decade.
Seconded.
As others have said, that will never happen. However, I do believe that in 10 to 20 years Bush et al will not be able to travel freely outside of the United States due to the fact they’d be imprisoned by any other country for war crimes.
I doubt this very much.
Remember that ex presidents are still afforded a certain meausre of security and protection
I don’t mean this as a hijack, but I am curious why the UAE made your list of countries we should cease supporting, ITR champion. I had understood them to be rather progressive.
While I am not as pessimistic as madmonk28, I do think it will take a great deal of time to recover any goodwill. The first step is a change of power in the White House, and a new administration that pours real effort into international diplomacy.
I think this is the first administration in a few decades that has put this kind of distance between itself and the people it ostensibly represents. The American people and government view each other as Other, rather than fellow Americans. Therefore I think domestic diplomacy is also going to be necessary. I don’t know what form this should or could take, but it’s distressing to have a President who has an extremely low approval rating say that public opinion will not sway his actions. As a new President will need to play well with the now heavily Democratic Congress and I sincerely hope that they will focus on the troubling but vital issues of education, health care and social security rather than trotting out the old, tired, divisive dogs of abortion and gay marriage. Enough of trying to get people het up; try caring for them instead.
Or perhaps create some ideals of how to treat other people, and then live up to them. The fact that the most powerful countries will always be hated - while true -does not excuse many of the things we’ve done, going back well before Bush.
Stop invading other countries.
Release all political prisoners.
Stop supporting the governments of terrorist sponsor nations, chiefly Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
Reinstitute the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Withdraw all military forces beyond our own borders. Especially in places where governments ask us to stay. (They know we are supporting tyranny, and they are the experts.)
Actually join the UN, in terms that imply that it was never supposed to be our puppet.
Make it illegal to trade with UN sanctioned nations, and make confiscation of all corporate assets the minimum penalty. (Confiscation of all US based assets for multinationals, and support for legal action outside of the US.)
Tris
Not enough, not even close. Assassins are one thing, but just about any nation could casually overwhelm the kind of security an ex-President would have.
Oh, to clarify; the political consequences of grabbing Bush might keep other countries from grabbing him. It’s his personal security that would be a nonissue.
OK. I stopped reading right here. I didn’t finish reading this post, nor have I read any subsequent posts. I feel this needs to be addressed first. Plus I love diving in head first with my eyes closed .
He was never elected. Yes - he got into office. Yes - he now holds sway over many a weak mind. But no, he was not elected. First it was hanging chads, then it was bad voting procedures. I wouldn’t be the least bit suprised if he somehow amends the constitution to allow himself a third term.
I’m not going to get into a conspiracy theory debate here. I just know one thing in my gut, and that is that he was never elected.
Actually, I expect he’d just claim that as President his desire for a third term overrides the Constitution. Fortunately, he doesn’t have the political strength to get away with it, but I have little doubt that he’d cheerfully declare himself President-For-Life. Now there’s an unpleasant scenario; I wonder what condition America would be in after twenty more years of this idiot ?
Does that mean that he could run for another couple of terms? 