That’s like saying an individual should only look out for his/her own interests and has no kind of duty at all to society.
“Like” as in “equally patently false,” in case I’m not being clear on that point.
If Candidate A would be more successfull at forging alliances and minimizing hatred toward this country than Candidate B, isn’t that a positive thing?
No. Its our planet, they abide at our sufferance.
I reject your assumption. The only duty one has to society is to obey it’s laws.
Those tasks have nothing to do with how personally likable a president is, and if foreign leader X enters into a treaty based upon how well they like the president, then they should be impeached (or whatever their equivalent is) by their own people.
That depends on whether it is better to be loved or feared. 
First off, your disagreement doesn’t work - it’s not a defense against it happening, it’s saying that it could happen but it would be wrong of the foreign leader to do it. IOW, if your argument relies of us foreign types being always reasonable, rational people, you’re probably not in luck.
Anyway, I think you’re misunderstanding. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t mean that it’s important that the President is a likeable person between fellow leaders, though that probably wouldn’t hurt. I mean in terms of the public of other countries. The public who vote for their own leaders - and probably won’t look too nicely upon those leaders or governing party should they sign treaties with a potentially disliked President. A poorly thought of President essentially helps the election of those foreign leadership candidates who badmouth him, not those who’ll mention how much they agree with the guy.
And it’s pretty much in American interests to have America-friendly governments.
They all hate us anyhow; let’s drop the big one now.
Not true. Sometimes one has a duty to disobey those laws. I trust this is not news to you.
I’m just curious why people think Obama would be so welcomed in the world. Isn’t this the guy who wants to kick off a new round of protectionism? How is that supposed to win friends and allies?
Obama’s world ‘honeymoon’ would last for a few weeks after he takes office, but soon the dictates of realpolitik will require him to do things other people around the world don’t like, and that will be that. And if he follows through on his plan to renegotiate NAFTA and demand that all other trading partners come up to 1st world labor and environmental standards or have their trade cut off, he’ll be hated more than Bush. Oh, they’ll probably love him in Davos and Brussels, but not so much elsewhere.
If he goes through with his promise to pull all U.S. soldiers out of Iraq within 16 months no matter what the conditions on the ground are like, he’s also going to lose the approval of Iraqis and pretty much every country bordering Iraq.
Oh yeah, and he’s threatened to bomb Pakistan without their approval. That should win some hearts and minds.
If you think he’ll be loved just because he’s got dark skin, methinks you are projecting American values on the rest of the world.
They want us to stay? News to me. Advise.
Cite that Obama plans on demanding that all other trading parterners come up to 1st world labor and environmental standards?
Cite?
I know he has said he’ll approve searching out terrorist cells on the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that is nothing new for any administration. An Obama Administration would be smart to continue to persue terrorist cells and training camps wherever they are…Pakistan knows we are in the borderlands between the two countries already.
You can read the whole piece at the link, I’ve highlighted some of the relevant portions here, clearly Obama doesn’t have any problem with the idea of using military force inside Pakistan with our without their consent. It’s a damn tempting idea, but do Jesus is it risky. Couple strikes inside Pakistan with the economic pressures he’s talking about and I think we could wind up handing Pakistan to fundamentalist Islamofascists-and they would have nukes.
If I understand the talking heads correctly, didn’t Bush do exactly this not more than a month ago?
Lawmaker: Terrorists to cheer Obama win
Well, now that that’s all sorted out, we can all move along…
I read an Op-Ed in the Washington Post called Obama’s First 100 Days
Obama’s 100-day agenda would be designed, in part, to improve America’s global image. But there is something worse than being unpopular in the world – and that is being a pleading, panting joke. By simultaneously embracing appeasement, protectionism and retreat, President Obama would manage to make Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.
Of course Michael Gerson does lean a little to the right. 
Not as far as you’d expect from a former Bush speechwriter (he finally couldn’t take it anymore). Gerson remarkably manages to be both thoughtfully moderate and thoroughly partisan, depending on his subject matter.
We’re talking comparatives here. He would be welcomed as an alternative to, say, McCain.
-
The Iraqis don’t want us there. NOBODY wants us in Iraq. Pulling out is a critical step in gaining international good will.
In other words, he only said he would strike at terrorist targets in Pakistan if the Pakistanis were uncooperative and gave him no choice (and he never said "bomb).
Are you saying that if we learn that Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan and know his exact location, but Pakistan refuses to do anything about it, that we should say “ok, then,” and just fuck off back to America? Is that what conservatives hope McCain will do?
3.Bush bombed Pakistan without their permission just last month. Can you tell me why there’s any difference between what Bush just did and what Obama has said he would do?
I thought, before I saw your post, that Americans are such assholes they would think the approval of the rest of the world would be a detriment… that they are all our enemies, or something.
Of course, not ALL Americans are assholes like that. Just some.