Frankly, the next US government (which might very well be the same one as now) should do absolutely nothing inorder to address any of the non-issues laid out by the OP.
If it is true, that certain people around the globe subscribe to the same hateful, intellectually deficient points which the OP lays out, then it would be in those people’s best interests to change their hating ways, and not the other way around.
example: If I found myself in a room together with 9 KKK members, I would not suddenly change my viewpoint on race relations, inorder to accomodate the misinformed, hateful majority.
All I have to say about this OP is Argh!! She BLOWS!!
So…the rest of the world (and by this I assume you mean the stupid ass hippies who protest everything under the sun) hates the US because:
a) We disposed a regime that was harboring the people responsible for the worst terrorist attack in history
b) We removed a ruthless dictator and are in the process of establishing a free and democratic nation in its place at considerable expense to ourselves both monetarily and in lives
c) We didn’t sign some stupid-ass environmental treaty (because any treaty that’s about the environment MUST be signed).
I think it is better that we avoid eachother until you have something to say that can eventually make sense to me.
By the way:
Try to distinct “recognizing Israel as a State” from " Inviting both Palestinians and Israeli representatives in order to make them talk with eachother".
As for which nation that was the first to do this:
If you are such an intelligent person, so much more educated and intelligent then I am, then you must be able to know what I talk about without having it served on a golden plate by this person you take for a teenager.
Oh God… a supposed teenager who knows more then you…Must be embarassing, no?
Until you can bring yourself to refrain form such silly comments I can only say:
The rest of the world did not support us wholeheartedly in the reconstruction of Japan and Germany after WWII.
a) The Russians, or more correctly, the Soviets took half of Germany for their own, blocked Berlin in an attempt to get all non-Soviets out of the “their” terroritory, and literally built a wall across the German captial. This does not constitute “support” but rather “opposition”. The Soviets also snapped up Eastern Europe, with consequences still being felt to this day.
b) The Soviets also wanted a slice of Japan. So did the British, who attempted to gain control of the conquered nation, or at least parts of it, after the Japanese surrender. The Soviets “supported” our takeover of Japan as much as they “supported” us in Europe. The British tried to have the Japanese surrender to them instead of to the US. While they may have provided some “support” they clearly would have prefered to own Japan rather than let us have it. I’m not sure the British would have ever left to the extent we did (on some levels we never did entirely leave Japan, and since we pledged to be their defenders we’re sort of stuck having a military presence there)
2) I’m not sure abdicating after your country has had two nuclear bombs dropped on it can be described as “voluntary”. The Japanese Emporer surrended to save what was left of his country (already devasted by war and shortages) - that in no way meant he was happy about or doing it willingly.
I will also point out that, in reconstructing Germany, we were dealing with people with whom we had far more culturally in common with than those of Iraq. Both sides had certain mutual understandings of proper conduct, motivation, and expection that are missing in the present conflict. There is also the fact that Germany had been the agressor - Iraq, on the other hand, has never attacked the United States.
During the first Gulf War Iraq had invaded and conquered a “sovereign state”, which has a lot to do with why world feeling united against Iraq and provdied support to that particular conflict. This time is completely different.
The Japan reconstruction was NOT as neat and tidy as the history books would have it. There was resistance, the Japanese felt humiliated (and this in a culture where death is frequently preferred to humiliation), and there were some pockets of serious resistance and hold-outs fighting to the death. Americans were resented by many and, for all that we are allies now we still have deep divisions between us. If we fight no more wars with each other it is because we have learned the price of fighting between us is too high - we still have serious conflicts from time to time. Truth is, there are still parties on both sides nursing vile hatred towards each other. A major difference between the Japan/US divide and the current one with the MENA/US region is that the Japanese and US are not engaged in terroist acts towards each other, shooting at each other, or dropping bombs on each other. No, these days we fight using economics, where the casualties are jobs, not lives.
So far only a few memers contribute really to the duscussion about my two questions.
All the others seem to focus on patriotism (even coming from outside the USA, that must be heartening for you, US’ers) and a bit of flag waving.
Well, this is not what this topic is about. It is about
Giving short and therefore in nice black/white shades painted overview of how the current US government managed to have the reputation of the US go down unto about non existent
How in your view this can be resolved by an eventual other president and government/administration
What the result of re-election of Mr. Bush shall be when it comes to this today almost non existing reputation of the USA.
Thank you for focussing on this.
For the US’ers wh are a bit hurt in their patriotistic feelings by the nice black/white shades of my points:
I really like the design and cheerful colours of the US flag.
I only wished it would wave where it belongs and under the wings of a president and government worth protecting its values.
Salaam. A
This is Aldebaran having a bit difficulties to express his ideas in a language he doesn’t master.
Therefore may I ask you to use your fantasy and add the shades of grey and eventually the bright colours you wish to see painted in my writings to them.
You can eventually appreciate this intellectual challenge I offer you… But that is no obligation.
For those who wish to correct my spelling and grammar:
These efforts are always much appreciated, be it not by my birthgift twinbrother Dyslex who always tries to take over and steal the show. Turning of course the tendence towards incoherence of my posts into complete incoherence.
This however can also form a real intellectual challenge for the readers.
Salaam. A
Always ready to send his readers tons of aspirine
So your premises is that the rest of the world are hippies.
a) You disposed of a regime you didnt care about before 9/11 and somehow they were full of terrorists for years.
b) Your removed YOUR ruthless dicatator and chaos has ensued ever since there… no free or democratic BS.
c) You didnt sign any treaty or propose a new one and a heat wave killed thousands in Europe. While getting more oil in Iraqi field for the future.
d) You kick ass when its not necessary and diplomacy is unheard of. There are EASIER ways to do things… if Bush rather go the troglodyte way then you shouldnt complain when emotionally loaded OPs are presented.
There’s so much talk about how the the rest of the world distrusts the US and how our relationship with our traditional allies has been damaged. While I won’t dispute any of the opinion polls, I’ve as yet to see one documented case where a “traditional ally” of the US has refused to cooperate with us on anything significant. If anything, it appears the only measurable fallout is that France’s tourism industry tookk a bit of a hit due to a decrease in Americans vacationing there.
The rest of the world is still clamoring of the US to take a leadership role in the various hot spots: Liberia and NK to name the two most recent.
Sorry, but I just don’t see any tangible evidence that “world opinion” going one way or the other has affected policy in any significant way.
Are you kidding? Talk about being on drugs. Now you want to blame the US for the heat wave in Iraq? I’m surprised you don’t just come right out and claim Bush has a weather machine.
My “premise” is that when you see a group of protesters out marching, it does not necessarrily represent the entire population of whatever nation they are protesting in. You annecdotal experiences with your immediate friends does not constitute world oppinion.
For the record, next time you might want to articulate an OP that is more than a thiny veiled “have you stoped beating your wife?” rant against the US.
I can only answer: Next time you read an OP of mine introducing questions:
Try to answer the questions and take the rest for what it is: background to the origin of the questions.
As I already said a few times:
This discussion isn’t about the background illustrating the questions I posted, it is about the answers to the questions.
And as I also already said: Flag waving and patriotism aren’t the subject of this thread either.
Salaam, although the current yahoos in Bush administration have pissed off a lot of people, the US has hardly been deserted by it’s traditional allies.
A lot of folks who are anti-US right now are anti US government and don’t have anything against the people of the US. I base this on my reading of foreign newspapers, which I take to be somewhat indicative of what’s going on there (Unless you think LeMonde is a tool of the Bush administration).
For that matter, quite a few people here at the Dope have taken pains to distinguish their dislike of our current crew in Washington, DC from their feelings towards the US population at large.
Merely electing a very different administration will go a long way towards “rehabilitating” our image with allies in Europe. And regardless of who gets elected (other than Bush) folks will not believe the words so much as the actions. It is true, however, that it is extremely unlikely any new administration will criticize its predecessors.
As for what will happen if Bush is re-elected (by no means a sure thing - there being some question of whether he was actually elected in the first place)… if he gets back into office he will see it as a vindication of what he has done, and it will be four more years of the same, only more so.
If he is NOT elected… the next administration will probably start making overatures to the UN, Europe, and other allies to repair some of the diplomatic damage done. Most likely, this will occur in a low key or behind the scenes manner.
Yeah, I can´t understand why some USA dopers (let´s put moronic ones out of here) don´t seem to understand some simple facts:
We all know that USA has an economic and military supremacy in the world.
2)That may (MAY!) lead to the disliking of other countries/nations
3)Given the first fact, USA foreign policy affects us all
4)Thus, we feel entitled to have an opinion on your government, your policy and your country
5)That opinion may (again MAY!) be negative on such things
6)Criticism is not per se an attack on that things
And adding a little more. If France opposed the Iraq invasion it was because they have economic interest in the country and a war would eventually lead to a harm in those interests (cite? I got none at the moment, sorry). But finally USA and France seemed to get to an agreement, anyway (what did USA promised to France? dunno).
Same goes for every government that opposed that war at first.
USA must understand that any action that may lead to a negative result in his allies economic interests, won´t get support unless they give them something in exchange. I find this quite reasonable, by the way.
Finally, not everybody outside USA hate you, maybe some US people are being manipulated to beleive thta, because it´s an easy way to gain support for the government (and thus, for it´s foreign policy).
If you want to bypass the UN and take over the world because you have the power to do so, well, do it, but don´t expect the world to be cheerful for that. If you want to gain sympathy, then you have to be more respectful with other countries, specially your allies. I find this quite reasonable too.
mssmith537 arguments are those of US people who won´t get you sympathies, and are also dangerous not just for the rest of the world, but for US people as well, and also are so lame they don´t need to be replied.
It depends on how that other administration would look like and how they present themselves from the very first days.
And words are never really believed in the first place.
That would be a precedent nobody really expects. Yet there are other ways then the explicite verbal critique. And my guess is that this is what governments and diplomats are curious about.
I’m afraid that this would be a very bad thing for the USA itself, not to speak for the already catastrophical foreign policy.
Some of those low key tactics are already on the scene of course. Yet the problem is what I describe as the reputation of the USA being lower then zero. Allies have seen how they were treated and how childish and over-reacting this was on top of it.
Europeans especially don’t like this type of dramatizing and empty rethorics. It can be amuzing sometimes, but this time it went above that level and was really seen as the summum of immaturity and incredible arrogance.
I live as a sort of traveler between two countries and cultures, actually. The first is in the northern part of the MENA region which is my Arab father’s side and the other is my European mother’s side.
Your questions are based on a bullshit premise. That’s the problem:
The US government? People from the US? US businesses? Who exactly are you talking about? Trusted to do what? We can certainly be trusted to look out for our interests and the interests of our allies. Trusted to kowtow to the demands of every country on the planet? I don’t think so.
“Freedom fries” is hardly an issue worth debating.
“Murder plans”? I suppose murder is ok as long as it’s committed by Arab “freedom fighters”. It’s perfectly acceptible to overlook a muderous dictator as long as he doesn’t bother his neighbors.
Which treaty exactly?
I suggest you look up the terms “mass” and "murder. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
This is both factually and historically incorrect.
So my anecdotal experiences dont represent anything… but yours do ? Since all your neighbors in Ohio or somewhere else think Bush is great… Polls all over the world indicate ovewhelmingly people are against Bush. Countries in South America that are normally pro US had figures like 92% to 97% against the war.
Spain that is an “ally” has over 90% population against the war.
This denial of reality is wierd... when you have millions of people marching in a few key cities... then something is happening. I doubt ALL the Nay sayers left their homes. So those millions represent many more people.
Now of course they dont represent the majority necessarily and they certainly are the more "vocal" people... but when you have mass marches with the numbers seen in Europe it certainly constitutes more than a few pinko liberals or "stupid ass liberals". Not everyone things bloodshed goes well with foreign policy.
Keeping Americans distinguished from Washington gang is important... still things get blurred easily.
Now if Bush deos get reelected... then the US population at large are willing accomplices ? Any distinction falls apart. After all there are no doubts about what Bush is. The first time he got elected he was an incognita... winning now means the US population prefers the Bush warpath.
Yep. If a different admin does it take over... it certainly will go a long way to mending things. Most will be so relieved of seeing Bush gone that diplomacy should be helped along by a lot of good will.
You claim that Bush has ruined relations with other countries. Give us a concrete example of any policy change Brazil has made or steps that have been taken as a result of Bush’s actions. I’m not talking about “Brazilians are against Bush”, I mean specific actions of the government. Some significant area of cooperation between our two countries that has stalled.
I think a lot of the rhetoric about America from abroad is overblown. The Europeans, from the vantage point of having slaughtered millions of their own during World Wars I and II, are in no position to claim wisdom in the matter of keeping the peace, and a lot of them know it.
I think the U.S. would have to nuke a few nations in an unprovoked sort of way to sink to the level of regard generally bestowed upon Middle Eastern nations by countries outside the Middle East. Most folks would rather entrust themselves to the tender mercies of America at its most corporate than to the tender mercies of the sons of Islam, given their respective records in the area of “tender mercy.”