Worlds most hated [country - U.S. (ed. title)]

Great Debates
61

Well…he DID win, and did so despite some fairly steep handicaps (including himself at the debates).

You are projecting whats happening now as if the exact same thing would have happened then. What do you base that on?

You are again basing this on your own wants and needs…not the national ones. Why do you say we didn’t want to topple Saddam during the first gulf war? Bush I urged the Iraqi people to rise up and do so after all…and they DID try but were brutally crushed for their efforts.

Oh, I’m quite certain that if I’m pushed to it I could dig up a cite or two backing this assertion up. I’m sure you think I’m a brilliant kind of guy ( :dubious: ) but I don’t generally make this kind of thing up out of whole clothe.

It appears, to quote yourself, ‘According to you’, to be ‘at least partially won by cheating’. Despite numerous inconclusive threads on this subject I remain unconvinced. Of course, despite even more numerous threads about the 2000 election, equally inconclusive, I also remain unconvinced on that score as well. As to it being close…well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by ‘close’. For instance, was it the closest Presidential election ever (on the surface I’d have to say no…the 2000 election is one I’d define as ‘close’ myself…and was probably one of the closest races in our history if not THE closest)? Was it in the top 5? 10? The top half of close run elections? What does ‘close’ mean exactly to you…how are you defining it here?

-XT

62

Would it be surly to point out that if the election were held today, he would have a tough time beating Carrot Top?

63

The fact that it did happen when we toppled him, and that it was obvious that it would.

And if we wanted them to succeed, we would have helped them; not encouraged them into a suicide run.

Within a few percent.

64

Nope, you’d be absolutely correct except for one thing…I’d give you 2 to 3 odds that Carrot Top would own his ass.

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

65

Well…no. The situation had changed. It HAD been over a decade after all. Saddam had time to rebuild his shattered force (as well as improve their completely shattered morale…recall, some of these guys were attempting to surrender to unmanned drones and such in the first Gulf War). In addition, Saddam had time to form paramilitary groups in Iraq (like his Fedayeen), as well as to distribute literally tons of small arms stashed throughout the country.

In addition the mood of the people there had changed. When we went in during GW II they were wary and sullen. After all, we had encouraged them to rise up and then basically left them to face the music on their own. Had we gone in when we had the army there we would have been HELPING them rise up…instead of unilaterally invading after they had already been crushed. A DECADE after they had already been crushed.

And this brings up the last point. When we went if for GW II, for whatever (boneheaded) reason the administration tried to do it on the cheap. We went in with far fewer assets than we obviously SHOULD have. We had less tanks, less ground troops, less planes, etc etc. However, in GW I we had a HUGE army on the ground there. More than double the size of the eventual invasion force. And it was THERE…already payed for. And it had ALREADY crushed Saddam’s army in the field, sending it fleeing back to Iraq in complete disarray. Also, as you pointed out, Bush’s daddy was a bit wiser than the son…and I have no doubts that, given this vastly larger force, there would have been no months of power vaccume that we saw in the second gulf war when we disbanded the Iraqi army but didn’t have the force to fill that vaccume ourselves immediately.

One last thing. You may remember that Osama Bin Laden chap, yes? Why was he (supposedly) so pissed at us? Well, because we ended up leaving part of our army in his holy land. At the time though, he probably wouldn’t have given two shits had we invaded Iraq…as long as we took our infidel asses out of Saudi and his holy land. So…its pretty doubtful that there would have been a flock of foreign fighters streaming into Iraq either. Saddam wasn’t exactly popular in the region during the first gulf war after all.

I agree. It was one of the big mistakes Bush I made in fact (IMHO), and a definite black mark on the US for it. Of course, Bush, by bowing to international pressure to let the war end, really had very limited choices on what he COULD do. The No Fly Zones were one of the things we tried for instance…and we got blasted even for that eventually. But I agree…we shouldn’t have encouraged them to rebel only to pull the rug out from under the poor bastards by not fully supporting them.

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but aren’t most elections within a few percentage points?? I mean, a ‘few percentage points’ could be literally millions of votes nation wide. I didn’t think that the election in 2004 was particularly close as these things go…certainly nothing like the cliff hanger 2000 election.

-XT

66

I was talking to a travel agent recently who coordinates all of the travel for the U.S. kayaking team. They were traveling to Eastern Europe recently for some kind of event. Half of their gear had “Team USA” on it; and the other half was unmarked. When they arrived, it looked like someone had taken a sledgehammer to the Team USA stuff; it was all very badly damaged.

67

Even more, Bin Laden offered to go all mujahedeen on Saddam´s rear flank to the Saudis.

68

It was obnoxious, but I think there’s probably some truth in the sentence which I’ve retained. It seemed to me that he was stating a fairly obvious conclusion based on human nature.

And if by “not fitting into your own cultural paradigms” you mean such things as the ideal of freedom, and of fair and equal treatment of genders, races, sexual orientations, and so on, then yes most of us are quite dismissive of cultures that reject those ideals.

I did say ideals. I know we don’t always measure up to them either.

69

We throw our weight around, and many of us feel we’re entitled to. I really don’t think there’s much more to it.

70

it’s mostly because it’s aggressive foreign policy and the fact that American politics have far more impact on people than any other country

people around the world don’t jump in the chair at Brazil foreign policy (far less impact on people outside Brazil, and they haven’t the possibility to us force on the scale that USA are able to)

US politics have often consequences for the rest of the world
cultural, economic and not at least military muscles like no other nation on earth

71

“With great power comes great responsibility.”

The current level of dislike for American policy is because our President is fixiated on the first half of the sentence. Which just shows that GWB is dumber than a comic-book character… :wink:

72

:rolleyes: Yeah, 'cause we all know that a dislike or even hatred of the US is a new thing. It all started just a little over 5 years ago…

(in that universe inside your own head at least)
-XT

73

It’s not like that! We’re in love! We just want your blessing!

74

No, it’s just gotten stronger and more widespread, thanks to Bush and friends.

75

Well, rolleyeman – seems to be your best answer to oposing POVs most of the time – it just so happens that yes, a short five years ago, the US was a hell of a lot more popular (liked) worldwide than it is now.

Perhaps you’ve forgotten the outpouring of goodwill after 9/11 and the near unanimous support (myself included) for the hunt for OBL – Afghan invasion included.

So, what do you think has happened since for the US to have such a negative view?

:rolleyes: to you too.

76

Uhuh. You have a cite that the US is at its most unpopular world wide today, and that this trend started 5 years ago?

I haden’t forgotten at all. Had you bothered to read my other posts I addressed this. I ALSO hadn’t forgotten that we were quite unpopular BEFORE 9/11 at various times in the past…especially in your precious Europe. But we have also had bouts of vast unpopularity in Latin America (more justified IMHO).

What? You figure that because, due to a horrible attack and a brief moment when the world sympathized with the US that somehow that errases all the past? Or that this WAS more than just a brief moment of shared sorrow?

We became a superpower, both militarily and economically? Europe lost its precious empires, slaughered each other in job lots and lots their own place in the sun? Your precious Spain pissed away its empire and eventually went bankrupt? We drink the blood of babies and push ducklings into ponds full of croc’s? (end of knee jerk response in keeping with your own).
And of course I freely conceed that GW hasn’t exactly caused an outpouring of love and trust toward the US either. Unlike your own knee jerk response, I am not saying that GW has had a positive effect on the world wide perception of the US…far from it. I’m well aware that he has not. But unlike you, I’m not blinded by bullshit…nor is my memory impaired. I can remember times of VIOLENT protest against the US in Europe, times when being an American in Europe was vastly more unpopular than even today. I can remember protest and anger against the US in Latin America as well…violent, vocal and deeply angry. South East Asia also didn’t have cause to love us like brothers at various times in the past…and its not exactly a new thing for the Middle East to be less than bosem buddies with the US as well. Maybe there was some tribe in Outer Mongolia somewhere, plying the stepes that used to love us well but over the last 5 years has had a heart felt change in attitude…but no where else can I think of where this is something new.

So, you can try and rolley eye me back, but I’d like to see some cites that this anti-American stuff is a mere 5 years old…because frankly I think your claim is full of…er, stuff and bother.

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

77

Why do people think “most well-known” leads inevitably to “most hated”? I’m not aware of many, say, Jesus haters out there. Even most of the ones who don’t think he’s what the Christians say he is generally think highly of him. Ghandi? Most hated leader of the 20th century because he’s among the most well-known? Einstein? Ring a bell? Are there billions of Einstein despisers out there? Uh…Canada? A fair number of Americans heap derision on it for not sucking our collective cocks, but the rest of the world tends to think it’s a quite respectable place, and it’s got plenty of name recognition. I think this exposure notion could be flawed.

78

I think you are only catching part of the arguement here. PART of it is that the US is well known. The OTHER part however is that the US has a great impact on various nations around the world…culturally, economically even militarily. Canada, sadly, does not come close to having the same international impact as the US does.

As to your example of individuals, its not really comparable to countries you know. Better examples would be…think of past superpowers and how they were perceived by other nations at the time. Just tick back through them…British Empire, French Empire, Holy Roman, Rome, etc. Those would be more suitable comparisons…after all, nations aren’t individuals.

I would say though that, though Christ may be fairly well known world wide and perhaps not equally loved and hated, the various Christian churches (especially the Catholic Church) have, at various times, been pretty well disliked by various peoples in other parts of the world. Take those Muslems for instance…

As to Canada and cocksucking, well, I have to say I knew this Canadian woman once who could…er, well. Never mind.

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

79

Yes it´s a part of human nature, but by no means the only source of hate and disagreement; that position: “they hate us because we are rich and powerful” is a convinient way to divert criticism just like a…

… strawman.

80

Was this post really neccessary :wally