Is president Bush killing the reputation of the USA ?

the way i see it, people are hypocrits.
in all countries of the world you’re gonna find uptight, ignorant, patriotic idiots. but because of americas’ scale and media influence, and word of mouth, the us’s reputation takes a downfall real quick.

although, when you look at all the tv shows and movies, and you see how sex and cursing is bad, but violence is somewhat ‘accepted’ (just watch texas ranger, what red blooded southie doesn’t love that show and scream “kick his ass!” to the tv every week, but when his kids say ‘fuck’ or even brings a girl into the house without permission, all hell is lose, i should know, my friend was an exchange student there for a year.)

this is not all about the military, and the operations the us have conducted abroad, it’s also about the general attitude it conveys through movies/tv/whatnot to other countries.

it’s also a well known ‘fact’, that ‘the american dream’ encaptures the ignorance and coldness of americans of which so many foreigners hate.
it’s not all about money, sex and fame. it’s about love, and caring and whatnot.
the all around shallowness of americans i think bother people, and on top of that, they think they’re the greatest country in the world.

so people generally think “oh my god, how can they be so fucked up”

of course, there are always exceptions, in all countries of the world, there are people who might like or even love, the us because of the american dream, they hate the poverty in their own country, so they move to northern europe because it seems like the us, with lots of money, etc.

i think most europeans are hypocrits though.
americas actions and opinions have no effect on europe as a whole, they just hate the us cause it’s fashionable and they think they’re so enlightened, and so more smarter than the avera american.

this is a load of horsecrap of course.
during the second world war, the us did considerable for the allies, and they got hit pretty hard at pearl harbour, and i think they have every right to make a movie about it, because it was tragic. like with wtc too.
people are far too cynical towards the us.

down in the middle east, people had fucked up opinions, and wars over religion, way before the us made any intervention down there. they have to look at their own contribution to the wars, the us didn’t start them, they did that themselves.
and even if the us stayed out of it, the war would;ve gone on for years to come. and as a previous poster said, the us should be given credits for freeing afghanistan from the taliban.
i believe that action did nothing but good for the people down there.

on the other hand, muslims might have completely different reasons for hating the us, purely based on how they helped israel etc.
which i won’t get into here.

the americans might have a shallow view on things, but that’s their problem. if they wanna be shallow, stupid and whatnot, let them, it doesn’t affect you and it doesn’t give you a right to hate them because of it. that’s prejudice.
but as far as the rest of europe goes, you can shut the fuck up about the us, cause you;re not doing too much about anything either.

im REALLY sorry about the double post, i cant delete or edit it :frowning:

I’d say this thread shows ample evidence of Americans thumping their chests and waving the flag in patriotic flurry.

Why should we meddle in affairs we have no right to poke our noses into? Its this sort of interfearance that causes so many problems in the first place - as I understand it the Taliban were CREATED by the US in the first place, who funded them against the Russians (I’m a bit hazy on it). And the Northern Alliance that have been touted as the ‘good guys’ have just the same terrible human rights record as the Taliban. American funding have made them acceptable, not their own merits.

Welcome to the SDMB coax.

I think you meant well with the your post so I’ll be light on you. We Europeans don’t hate Americans in average. To the contrary Europeans in general have a pretty solid admiration for our friends in the West. Maybe there is some jealousy, what do I know. What I do now is that both peoples are sure guilty of some pretty silly stereotyping and at times it goes a little over the top, but as I said on average I think the relationship is one of mutual respect and understanding.

To end, just some friendly advice; the ‘shut the fuck up’ stuff might be frowned upon in this forum, and should probably best be left unsaid.

Sparc

**

Sure. By that same token I suppose we’ve also seen plenty examples of whiney Europeans.

**

Interference? Does that mean the United States should never have enacted the lend/lease act and sent equipment to England during WWII? If you think the United States created the Taliban you don’t understand it very well.

Marc

I personally don’t see why people find the American stereotype to be all that offensive. For the most part it’s true. I think we give the rest of the world a fairly accurate depiction based upon the fact that we cram our culture (yes we do actually have a culture) down their throats as much as possible.

I think msmith did more to reinforce the negative stereotype with his posts than he did to get rid of them. Especially that vitriolic bit about Clinton, where, from what I can tell Clinton is viewed pretty favorably internationally, and was a very elegant statesman and was actually friendly with many of the foreign diplomats. With images of Clinton crying his eyes out at Rabin’s funeral with Rabin’s family, that I don’t remember seeing in our media when Rabin died, though they may have been. I don’t think he portrayed the hillbilly image to anyone outside of America particularly, and I don’t think he portrayed that image for anyone IN America that wasn’t on the “Rush is right” bandwagon.

Erek

**
And Sephic, perhaps unaware, has hit upon the crux of it.

Why should America give a rat’s red ass what Europe or Europeans think of it or its policies?

America has to look out for Number One, because nobody else is going to. But I fully admit that the international cooperation we have received in the War on Terror has likely prevented further attacks. The intervention in the terrorist plot involving our embassy in Italy springs to mind, and the arrests in Germany and Spain.

Where it counts, we’re getting the cooperation that we need. So let the critics critique, the bitchers bitch and the whiners whine.

Again, why should America let people who would like nothing more than to see the USA’s power and influence, economically and otherwise, be diminished, dictate how we do business?

From what I can tell, much of anti-US sentiment is just European colonial guilt. America doesn’t run things like the European colonial powers did. Sure we make mistakes, and sure we out and out shaft people. However I tend to believe that there will always be an alpha male in the pack, and right now I’m glad we’re it, because having seen the other contenders in the last 100 years*, I think we look like the Virgin Mary.

*(In order of appearance England, Nazi Germany, Japan and the USSR)

Erek

From what I can tell, much of anti-US sentiment is just European colonial guilt. America doesn’t run things like the European colonial powers did. Sure we make mistakes, and sure we out and out shaft people. However I tend to believe that there will always be an alpha male in the pack, and right now I’m glad we’re it, because having seen the other contenders in the last 100 years*, I think we look like the Virgin Mary.

*(In order of appearance England, Nazi Germany, Japan and the USSR)

Erek

Milossarian, you’re quite possibly right in that the US should not have to be answerable to anyone else – in theory. Unfortunately, if the US wants to retain certain diplomatic and economic niceties then isn’t some moderation inevitable?

The British newspaper The Guardian ran an interesting opinion piece last summer on this subject – “The US must learn that to lead you have to be loved” – and although you can take the content with a pinch of salt given the paper’s left-of-centre leanings, it makes one interesting point. Eventually, being loathed abroad causes problems at home. I don’t see any point in rehashing arguments about the US bringing terrorism on itself, but in terms of domestic opposition and popular consensus it might be worth considering (edited to remove anachronistic references):

A * madman*??? Oh dear. It’s statements such as this that make Americans look rather simpleminded. It’s as if the whole world can be reduced to Good Vs Evil–like an old western movie starring John Wayne. The only reason why Americans are parroting this line of thinking is because it was drummed into their heads by the Gov’t. “Saddam is the new Hitler!” “He’s an evil madman!”

Yes, Saddam is a nasty man. The U.S. constantly repeats the chorus that “He gassed his own people” as proof that he’s “mad”. But how did the U.S. react in 1988, when he began his gas campaign against the Kurds, and used nerve gas against Iran? Poppy Bush increased food aid to Iraq! Yet Americans seem to be blind to this inconsistency. He wasn’t “evil” back then, but now it’s convenient for him to be a “madman” to justify our coming war.

**

I don’t think he’s mad but I do think he’s evil. How anyone could disagree is beyond me.

**

Oh yeah, we’re all a bunch of drones who cannot hold an opinion of our own without government assistance.

**

I love this. We’re criticized for the embargo and we’re criticized for sending food aid.

Who said “Irrational consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?” Believe it or not things can change within the span of 14 years.

Marc

Almost forgot to add the biggest reason why President-Select Bush is ruining the reputation of the US abroad.

It’s his sheer hipocracy. His “with-us-or-against-us” philosophy. On one hand, he expects the world to unite & stand behind the U.S. on our “war on terrorism”. And in order to successfully execute this war, we need international co-operation and goodwill.

Yet on the other hand, the U.S. is projecting an image of standing alone against the world. Our rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, our outright hostility towards the International Criminal Courts, and our reluctance to use the U.N. to form an international coalition to fight terrorism–all this makes us look schizo.

We expect–no, we demand international co-operation when it’s important to us…but we turn our backs on the rest of the world when it doesn’t suit our interests! This attitude just makes the U.S. seem selfish & arrogant. Not the best way to foster a good image abroad.

Say what you will about the man, but President Clinton was a much better international statesman than Bush II. Clinton cultivated personal relationships with many world leaders, and was well-liked & respected abroad. And no–Monicagate did not make the U.S. a laughingstock around the world. Unlike this country, the rest of the world–Europe in particular–is able to seperate personal scandal from political scandal. And a sex scandal is nothing new–or shocking–in Western Europe! President Bush, however, is a buffoon. I’m embarrassed by the image he’s presenting to the rest of the world. Read the editorials of foreign newspapers & you’ll see how much he is ridiculed.

Irrational consistency? If the same situation is being used to justify the label, it’s certainly worth questioning why the actions weren’t the same then and now.

If I get a chance later tonight, I might start a thread elsewhere about the perception people outside of the US gain from top-rating US TV shows alone. Sitcoms, in particular, often have such nasty self-absorbed characters that I’m surprised they rate at all in the US, let alone that you’d happily export them for viewing in the rest of the world.

Here is a link to an online TV guide for my city (Australia’s largest). Channels Seven, Nine, and Ten are our free to air commercial networks. If you look at the US TV shows aired on those networks over the course of a week, you might get an idea of what picture we’re getting about “average” America.

I actually care what our allies think of our foreign policy. Of course I don’t think the United States should enter into agreements that would not prove advantageous to us. Even if it makes other nations unhappy.

Marc

The problem with that is that refusing to give a little in some areas may reduce the opportunities to enter into more advantageous agreements. I take your point, though.

Hear hear.

Sums it all up really. This is precisely the attitude that pisses people off. “Don’t care what you think.” Fair enough. If you don’t care, why get worked up about it? And if you don’t care, be prepared to get “whined” at.

I don’t like a lot of US foreign policy. However, I do not want to see the USA’s power be diminished. I would like see it used equitably and compassionately. As for economic power: the US is the engine that keeps the rest of the world running. Please continue to be a market for us to sell to (though it would be nice if y’all didn’t wreck the environment while doing it).

Ahem. Britain, thank you (don’t want to take all the heat for that one; though I seriously question your comparison between the military expansionism and genocidal nature of the other three, and the more subtle barbarism employed by the British Empire).

Sorry, but I’m one of those people who actually believe in shades of gray. I don’t live in a black-and-white world.

Right–public opinion can’t be influenced by messages drummed into us by the media. I guess someone should tell this to the multi-billion dollar advertising industy.

Tell me this…why wasn’t the American public demanding the removal of Saddam in 1988? He was “evil” back then…and possessed chemical & biological weapons. Sure the Bush Administration told us he was an ally…but the public can think for themselves…right?

My criticism is that we, in effect, rewarded Saddam soon after he performed the very actions that we’re now condemning.