Reagan said the US should be like “a shining city on a hill”. Bush I said the US should be “a kinder, gentler nation”. Bush II promised to be “a uniter, not a divider”. Hitler acted in his nation’s self-interest. :rolleyes:
I think most of us understand what it means to be a “team player”. Is the US being a team player under Bush? Should it be?
And the US certainly isn’t acting like the “Christian nation” that many conservatives insist it was intended to be.
We could makes mistakes in the future. So could the US. Your point?
Well, the EU will send a UN peacekeeping force. I really hope they don’t mess this one up.
I’ve heard this anecdote so many times I have no idea who to attribute it to, but it’s appropriate here:
Cocktail party. Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Year: 1972. Woman expresses shock at Nixon defeating George McGovern: “No one I’ve spoken with planned on voting for Nixon.”
While I, personally, have little doubt that GWB is NOT well liked outside of this country (nor, as I said, do I particularly care), Jackmannii and Dewey Cheatem Undhow (love that name btw :)) both make excellent points on anecdotal information and its unreliablility. I, too, can’t stand reality TV shows, nor do I know a single person that does…there for it MUST be some conspiricy that they are still on the air. Oh, and none of MY friends voted for Nixon either…
None of the Europeans answered my counter question from before as to why we, as Americans, SHOULD base our judgement of our president on what ‘The World’ thinks of him. Do YOU base your judgement of YOUR president (or whatever you have) on what the US (or ‘The World’) thinks of them, or on issues that are internal to you? Do you care if he/she is popular in the US (or ‘The World’), or that he/she is doing good things for your country?? I’m sure most of you, if you were being honest, could care less what people from other countries feel about YOUR president.
DO you care, you European types (if so, you French, better get rid of YOUR president…I dont’ know ANYONE who likes him, and of course thats a very representitive sample. Ah, the irony…lol)? Or do you not care what ‘The World’ thinks of your leaders, and simply enjoy holding us to a dual standard?
-XT
i’d just like to say that I didn’t like bush before he was elected, i didn’t like him after he was elected, and i certainly don’t like him for starting a war. anti-bush sentiment abroad has not made me like him anymore. although, i do have to agree that after the advent of the war pro-bushism did considerably rise here. i’m in oklahoma where saying i don’t believe in bush is now considered even more unforgivable than saying i don’t believe in god (BTW Oklahoma is considered the buckle on the bible belt)! I do have to give bush credit for one thing though. Nobody tries to kill his daddy and gets away with it!
I would have thought the answer was mind-numbingly obvious, but since the point seems to have gone over your head, here’s the answer: Because the United States needs to work with the rest of the world to get things done.
Or do you really want a scenario like this:
GWBush: “Did we call the President of XXXXX? Did you tell him we believe there are al Qaeda terrorists in their country and we want them to help us capture them?”
Aide: “Yes, sir. The President of XXXXX told us that since we are a bunch of war-mongering unilateralist dipsticks, he sees no obligation to help us at all, and he asked you to perform an anatomically impossible feat.”
Who says it has to be one or the other?
The problem is that even without being defensive it is simply the truth. Most Americans just don’t care what foreigners think of our president. Clinton was so popular in the United States because people liked him not because he was popular abroad. The opinion of some guy in Austria or France just doesn’t enter into the equation. Likewise I’m sure there aren’t many Canadians who give a rats ass what we in the United States might think of their Prime Minister.
Marc
Hijack : actually, Nigeria is one of the most influential and powerful african country, and involves itself in most conflicts and international political issues on this continent. So it’s sphere of influence would cover essentially all of sub-saharian Africa. Nigeria is far from being a “shitty little country” whose opinions nobody cares about.
Well, I do care a great deal what the rest of the world thinks of our PM. Like it or not, there is always at least a slight link between opinions of leaders and opinions of countries, and it’d be nice to have a leader that is thought well of, for that reason if nothing else. Also, as it is virtually impossible for any country outside the US to act unilaterally, it is very important for everyone to get on.
I agree.
People from other countries aren’t any different in this regard. I couldn’t imagine the French or Austrians to judge their politicians on what foreigners think of them. We aren’t that different.
Nevertheless I think, we should care. It isn’t the most important thing for a politician, but it does matter.
No arguement from me, Kalimero…I agree we SHOULD look more at that. And to be equally honest, it DOES factor in to most peoples equations on who they vote for…its just well down the list for MOST people (exceptions like rjung and DrNick who appearently vote on world popularity instead of domestic issues) But human nature means that people will always worry more about their little group (tribe, city, state, country) before worrying about someone else. And sometimes the leader of a country HAS to do things that HE/SHE feels are in the best interest of his citizens, even if its unpopular abroad (BTW, I’m not defending Bush here…this is a hypothetical statement). Its just the nature of running a country.
Maybe its painfully obvious to YOU, rjung, but its not to me. Maybe YOU vote for a politician based on his popularity in the world, on how he is percieved by other countries. IF so, then more power to you. I vote for a president based more on what he does for THIS country first, with his international positions being secondary, and how he’s percieved by the rest of the world a distant third (and before you get all bunched up here, rjung, I DIDN’T vote for Bush, nor am I planning on voting for him in 2004). And my guess is, most people, reguardless of country, do the same thing. To me, THAT is painfully obvious, as its human nature. I’m not saying its right or wrong…I’m saying it IS how we, as HUMANS, usually opperate.
But thats just my opinion…I could be wrong.
-XT
Not a whit. I don’t know that I’d dislike him less if he was respected abroad. As I see it, the fact that his actions and style inspire so much distaste is just another of his failings.
Although I’m American born & bred, I have to say that I despise Bush and (generally) like Clinton. This may have something to do with my status as a liberal DC resident; I can’t say that I’m affected that much by how other countries view our leaders.
As a generalization, I think that people overseas probably view Americans the same way as I view the so-called “Middle America”–i.e., religious, white, somewhat conservative, 2.5 kids, etc. I also think that many Americans don’t take the time to closely examine what people stand for and form their own opinions rather than relying on the biased info the media spoon-feeds America.
You know, the antipathy doesn’t make me feel defensive for Bush himself. Didn’t vote for him, don’t plan to do so, but to his credit IMO, he’s not one of the politicos who lets his belief system be dictated by polling here or abroad.
What I do get defensive about, however, is people (foreign OR American) who seemingly attack everybody who voted for Bush back in 2000. I know plenty of good, decent, fairly liberal people who honestly thought, with the info they had at the time, that Bush was a better choice than Gore. Republicans aren’t some monolithic group–I know gay ones, athiest ones, working-class ones, etc. I mean, our Mayor’s one but he just switched at the last minute so he could run on the ticket Giuliani had been forced to vacate because of term limits! Aside from the fiscal policies (which I happen to think are correct and needed) Mike Bloomberg would be a blazingly liberal Dem in most of the rest of the country. A Repub in Queens may not share the exactly same philosophies as a Repub in Alabama, and I think that distinction is lost in the foreign press all too often.
I highly resent the implication that pulling the lever for Bush meant each and every voter who did so can now be considered a right-wing nut. People forget how visceral the hatred of Clinton for some was (even among Democrats), how uninspring Gore was, and what the world was like before 9/11.
Oy, Jackmannii, have you checked out page 32 of the Pew Report you keep banging on about?
Others despising Bush is not enough to inspire me to like him. I will say this though… Better the moron that we have whose hands are tied by the system, than some moron with absolute power. But his faux pas’ are always good for some not so cheap entertainment… Can you believe the president gets 400k a year, plus all the extras?
Hijack:
Now I have an image of jjimm dressed as a 70’s female Manhattan socialite. Dangly earrings, kaftan, martini glass, the whole shooting match. If I could stab my mind’s eye with a knitting needle I would. Thanks a bunch.
:Hijack ends. 
Hey, it’s your fantasy…
For some reason I felt a need to correct this:
Europe = 3,837,081 Sq. Miles (9,938,000 Sq. Km) (cite)
US (all 50 states) = 3,536,278 Sq Miles (9,158,918 Sq. Km) (cite)
my italics
Being Belgian, I take exception to what you state about the Belgians. Here’s a link where you can learn some more about my country, Congo as a colony and why and how the Belgians obtained it. (they didn’t. it was their second king, who wasn’t even a Belgian himself. First son of our first king, Leopold I, Leopold II was a brutal, hard, and viscious man. Only after he had robbed Congo blind, did he hand it over to the government. Oh, and in case you’re wondering, the name of our monarchy is Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Hardly a Belgian name. He was Queen Victoria’s husband’s cousin. So English from German descent. Nice, innit?)
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0857522.html
"The Congo Free State
Beginning in the late 1870s the territory was colonized by Leopold II, king of the Belgians (reigned 1865–1909). Leopold believed that Belgium needed colonies to ensure its prosperity, and sensing that the Belgians would not support colonial ventures, he privately set about establishing a colonial empire. Between 1874 and 1877, Henry M. Stanley made a journey across central Africa during which he found the course of the Congo River. Intrigued by Stanley’s findings (especially that the region had considerable economic potential), Leopold engaged him in 1878 to establish the king’s authority in the Congo basin. Between 1879 and 1884, Stanley founded a number of stations along the middle Congo River and signed treaties with several African rulers purportedly giving the king sovereignty in their areas.
At the Conference of Berlin (1884–85) the European powers recognized Leopold’s claim to the Congo basin, and in a ceremony (1885) at Banana, the king announced the establishment of the Congo Free State, headed by himself. The announced boundaries were roughly the same as those of present-day Congo, but it was not until the mid-1890s that Leopold’s control was established in most parts of the state. In 1891–92, Katanga was conquered, and between 1892 and 1894, E Congo was wrested from the control of E African Arab and Swahili traders (including Tippu Tib, who for a time had served as an administrator of the Congo).
Because he did not have sufficient funds to develop the Congo, Leopold sought and received loans from the Belgian parliament in 1889 and 1895, in return for which Belgium was given the right to annex the Congo in 1901. At the same time Leopold declared all unoccupied land (including cropland lying fallow) to be owned by the state, thereby gaining control of the lucrative trade in rubber and ivory. Much of the land was given to concessionaire companies, which in return were to build railroads or to occupy a specified part of the country or merely to give the state a percentage of their profits. In addition, Leopold maintained a large estate in the region of Lake Leopold II (NE of Kinshasa).
Private companies were also established to exploit the mineral wealth of Katanga and Kasai; a notable example was Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, chartered in 1905. The Belgian parliament did not exercise its right to annex the Congo in 1901, but reports starting in 1904 (particularly by Roger Casement and E. D. Morel) about the brutal treatment of Africans there (especially those forced to collect rubber for concessionaire companies) led to a popular campaign for Belgium to take over the state from Leopold. After exhaustive parliamentary debates, in 1908 Belgium annexed the Congo."
so the BElgians themselves protested against their own king’s antics in his “personal” colony. Granted, we weren’t pussy cats either, but don’t blame the whole nation for the actions of their king. After all, it’s not as if we chose him ourselves.
here’s a very short history of belgium
just in case you’re interested:
http://www.expat-online.com/moving/belgium/History/decisive_dates.cfm