I have heard many times from many nations that they all love America, just not Bush because he is a "tyrant with psychopathic tendencies". And to think that is just the nicest ever said There are worse things said

Question to debate:

Is this true? Does the world love America....just not Bush?

In my experience this pretty much sums it up. I'm not a real globetrotter, but I did grow up overseas and have traveled to several other countries. Everywhere I've gone, people have been delighted to talk to a real live American, get that person's perspective instead of the one fed to them through either American or domestic media. We are often admired for our ingenuity, our bravery, our generosity, our openness and our hard work.

Then things start to turn. We are not admired for our crass materialism, or cocksure refusal to believe that anyone else ever did anything different that wasn't wrong. Unfortunately, those are exactly the traits most evident in our "public face" in general, this administration in particular, and George W. Bush most of all. People abroad dislike GWB for much the same reason that so many right here at home do, and most of them would cheer if GWB were to be replaced by any of the Americans they have actually met in person.

I've often said that there wouldn't be any hatred of the US if they saw more of us as regular people and less of us as invaders or exploiters. Unfortunately, the rampant xenophobia that is nurtured by the right and continues creeping toward the mainstream makes that seem less and less likely.

What I've found in dealing with folks from other countries is that they love us as individuals, but as a group: they admire us, look up to us, love our culture, fear us, and think we just suck as citizens of the world. They see Bush as a "cowboy" and a "zealot", unknowledgeable about the world outside of the US and integrating religion too much into our government dealings and his language. They worry that he's making the world LESS stable. They still have a great deal of empathy for our loss on 9/11, but they don't believe that it lessens our responsibility as one nation in a world of nations.

The don't like that we consume more than we produce, that we pollute more than our fair share, that we feel that we can attack any country we don't like (that's the fear part).

So, in answer to your question: the world has a complicated view of us. On one hand, they love us and love our ideals and our strength; on the other hand, they don't like it when we project our strength or when we don't act like good world citizens.

The Bush team started out wanting to build an empire in our image, but the world doesn't want that. So, other countries -- Germany and France especially -- feel they need to counter our empire building. Go figure.

This rambled a bit and might be a bit simplistic, but it's hard to encapuslate the range of emotions that others feel about the USA.

Why the assumption that this is a new phenomenon? There has been anti-American sentiment for many years now, and this is not just a recent product of the current administrations policies or perceived image. Even if there is any evidence that this has increased recently, is there no recognition on the left that the inherent liberal bias in the media here is by its very nature even stronger in Europe, where the general sentiment is much more liberal in general? People over there are likely to object to any US President with a conservative nature, and their press is just going to add fuel to that fire. This is naturally going to show up in the portrayal of American actions, painting a very biased picture of any American actions. Given all this, I find very little reason to pay particular attention to what they think of us, as they have almost no basis in forming any sort of an objective opinion. Case in point--I think, by and large, they loved Clinton, but look where that got us. As has been pointed out in several other threads, it is perhaps the previous administration's excessive concern with world opinion that contributed to the very situation we are now trying to combat. If that's the price we have to pay for world favor, I'll pass, thank you very much.

Which is not to say that all this anti-Bush sentiment doesn't emphasize Bush's weak points. I doubt there are any, even among staunch conservatives, that would claim he is gifted with excess charisma. This is both what largely creates this perception of him around the world, and also prevents him from effectively combating it.

America not being liked, for whatever the reason, isn't new at all. The or now, should it matter? Not really.

On a local level do any of you really lose sleep over worrying whether or not everyone in your school, neighborhood or town likes you? the way you dress, act, what you eat, think...the list is endless and if you try to please everyone all the time, you'll fail...at being yourself. You ultimately either need to do what is best for you or be pulled in every direction imaginable and end up without an identity.

where our detractors see us as arrogant, I see us as confident. where our detractors see us a bully, I see a country willing to take lead in an situation and risk being unpopular. If "they" don't care for our leaders, well maybe we don't care for theirs.

Clinton was seen as a good president because clinton never stepped up. Never stood out on the proverbial limb. The man was far too concern with polls and popularity. Did he have an easy 2 terms? yah, he did. "don't ask don't tell." that is the legacy of the clinton presidency. I am still unsure where his focus was on the vision he had of America OR the world..

Bush was NOT given an easy ride from the onset. I suppose the rest of the world would have liked a continuation of the clinton status quo, would be satisfied with an America just willing to rejoice and bask in the glow of a sympathetic international community as "the poor victim" after 911...forever. That just isn't America. Not the America that I think the majority of Americans want. when the going gets tough the tough get going.

I lived in Europe during the "change". When Clinton was president it was a very different feeling then when Bush won...and it all started well before 9/11 or Iraq.

Also seeing Bush from overseas, how he is portrayed over there, what issues Europeans care about and how Bush deals with and handles them...you can understand why.

I think it is sad really...I heard from the mouths of children probably aged 10-11 that "Americas is poo-poo" - translated of course I saw graffiti stating the same sentiments. And Bush and his admin. do share some blame because this is an issue of foreign affairs and some of the garbage that has come out of their mouths shouldn't have.

So I have to totally disagree with your analysis SoCaliente_1 it is a new attitude and it is because of the Bush admin and our current "path"
You also should be worried because it does affects us in many different ways. I know in the area I lived one of the American schools had to shut down for a few days because it had received bomb threats. A sour relationship sours all of the relationship, trade, economics etc.

I think it is extreme to say that generally, people love America but Bush has changed their minds. It is true, however, that it was a lot easier to live in a world with Clinton than Bush.

Now, despite what people say about Clinton and how bad he was at anything other than being popular, he did recognise that popularity is important. People in my nation were still unsure of America in the Clinton days, as its policies still clashed with the majority of our populations opinions. But they weren't given the impression that what they thought didn't count. They didn't feel that they were irrelevant, they didn't feel that they were looked down on.

Whether it is intentional or not, this is how I personally feel. Clinton made me feel that he would actually listen to me if I was important enough to be worthy of his attention. It doesnt matter if he took on board anything I said, but I got the impression that he would think a regular nobody from a foreign country was as worthy as any person in America.

Bush has gone in the opposite direction. Yes Ill admit hes had a tougher time, and he has taken actions. Ill also admit that I appreciate that he has taken actions, even if I disagree with the majority of the big ones. But he has forgotten one thing. He has zero charisma. I hear what people are saying about focusing on polls and popularity, but it is very, very important.

With George Bush Jr, I feel like he just wouldn't give a toss about me. He doesn't care who I am, some foreigner from a place he would never find on a map. If I were to be presenting an idea to him that was considered too liberal, I get the distinct impression I'd get a phoney smile, a fake handshake, a snide comment and then brushed aside. This is his failure. His attitude and the way he presents himself, his ideas and his vision makes me feel infinitely inferior. This is the worst thing the most powerful man in the world can do.

Again, this is just the impression I get. But impressions count. I don't know about everybody else, but certainly my family and close friends feel exactly the same way. We have to laugh, because there is no point crying or shouting our heads off at the TV screen. There is nothing we can do. It'll be over soon, and Bush will return to Sesame Street or wherever he came from, and hopefully the next American president will recognise that the whole world looks up to him (preferably her), not just Americans.

My feelings towards America haven't changed since Clinton, or even Bush Sr. I like America, even though Ive had bad experiences on my visits there with more than a few arrogant swines (unfortunately they are my family ). Bush is just one man, and no matter how much I despise the fact that a system could allow for such an imbecile to have so much power, it does not mean I despise America.

In fact my feelings for America have changed since Bush came to power. I have to say I feel very, very sorry for all the Americans who feel the same way as me about Bush. I remember my mum and dad talking about how bad the Thatcher days were. No matter how much good she did do for the nation, they always felt like second class citizens.

children of 10-11 are not equipped yet to have a full understanding of the world. How different are these kids to fundamentalist's kids who grow up indoctrinated to think those who have different views are "poo-poo?" Do I think it's sad? Yes, for them, as ignorance perpetuates.

On this and a very similar thread "Why do they hate US" (where I see THIS thread heading) it has been determined that part of the problem is with the freedom and objectivity or LACK of in the media. All I have to do is look at AlJezeera.com to see the problem. Even the BBC is no longer the standard in unbiased reporting. America is not and never WILL be for sale based on polls or the way the wind blows.

And yes, this is not a new thing. Kennedy was hated, Carter was hated, Nixon, Reagan, heck even FDR was hated...obviously. So to say that this phenomena magically appeared on GW's initial footprint on the White House steps is just not accurate.

I'll venture to say that on a hate scale of 1-5, America is consistently at 2.5 and fluctuates depending on whether a Republican or Democrat is in office.

IN my opinion.

I hate to break it to you SoCaliente, but we never DETERMINED that media bias was the problem, you and several other people just said it repeatedly. I don't dislike Bush because of how my local news sorts portrays him, I dislike him because him (and his government) and the American people have consistently pursued policy that seeks to take advantage of the close ties with Canada and these policies have often led to harm in this country that I love. Some presidents are more guilty of this than others, and American sentiment has of course waxed and wained in this area as well. How did the old catchphrase go, "54-40 or bust!" This has nothing to do with our media, although the American media does figure into international opinion in the way that it reports the news through a distinctly American framework.

well joe, we'll just agree to disagree on the selective media.

many parts of the world do not have the luxury of 24/7 media and 900 channels, internet FOX AND BBC.

Is this a good thing, though, for America? To turn it around, do you feel that an American, or American opinion, should hold equal footing with policy in your country? Would you think it was good that your administration were doing things specifically to please foreigners at the expense of your own citizens?

I don't think Clinton is a good comparison. Perhaps moreso than any other President in history, he craved popularity, and would do almost anything to achieve it. (This is not a bash on Clinton, just a statement of his charisma and motivation). It is also true, however, that our foreign policy during his years had no consistency, largely because of this very attititude. Naturally, to move from one extreme to other is bound to be a bit of a shock.

I do not really understand what you mean. I do not view how Europe, one of the most vocal against the current admin's foreign policies, sees America equivalent to one's religious views. This is not something they are being indoctrinated into feeling or believing...it is how they interpret , view or feel about our govt actions...and how and why they react and feel about it has to do with their own culture, something we do not share, unlike religious beliefs which is something we DO share.

These are the same kids who a year or so prior were doing everything they could to emulate American rock stars, singing me Brittany pop songs and telling me how they like power puff girls. It is a current phenomenon, a fad not something that years of teaching or misguidance has led them to believe.

Here is a wonderful article that lends a lot of perspective on this issue. I always enjoyed Ed Vulliamy's observations and I was sad to see him go....but I agree with him...even I feel kind of lost...I have returned to a country that changed tremendously while I was away. Things are different here and maybe it is just easier for those looking in to see it?

Well, I for one love America and it reamins my favourite tourist destination. My two short trips (just over 5 weeks in all) have just made me realise how much of it I haven't yet seen.

I don't go there because I feel at home, and I can't imagine circumstances where I would want to live there permanently, but I do like the land and the people very much indeed, largely because they are so different from the British.

Of course, like anything else there are things about America I dislike, just as there are things about individuals that I consider to be friends that irritate me. That's normal. Uncritical relationships are just infatuations - it's when you can accept things and people with their faults that you can have a properly fulfilling relationship with them.

I think that Americans consistently misread much of the criticism of America that comes from Europe, if not the wider world. Most Europeans do not hate America, even if they dislike Bush personally or for what his policies are doing.

For one thing, we are culturally different, in that we tend to be more critical and less complimentary, even among ourselves. The attitude of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" just doesn't have the same hold on the public imagination as it does in the USA. And the seemingly constant fishing for compliments doesn't happen at all. There are quite a few British, Canadians and Australians on these boards, but when was the last time any thread started debating whether or not the rest of the world likes Britain, Canada or Australia? (A skewed example, I know - this is America's debate, after all.)

As I've said before, European culture (and certainly British culture) tends to ignore or avoid people they dislike. There was little vocal condemnation of regimes like Saddam's because, largely, we deem them to be beneath contempt. That doesn't mean we won't do anything about them, just that we won't wave placards and demonstrate, because we don't believe they will listen and would rather they disappeared than make cosmetic changes. In the main, I would say that demonstrations against America or American policies are so frequent and so vocal because even people that do not like America still think that you are open to persuasion, that you are still prepared to do the right thing if only you might be persuaded what that is.

Of course, setting aside the huge economic, military and cultural dominance of the world's only superpower (currently), I think it is something of a compliment to ordinary Americans that so many people around the world are clamouring for your attention. Except at the extremes of terrorism, most of even your harshest critics have not written you off so much that they do not believe you could change if could only see the counter-arguments. That is not something that very many people would believe of Saddam-era Iraq, Iran, Israel, or indeed of less worrying countries like France or Japan.

But I think that the perception of the Bush administration is that more of the characteristics we dislike in America (ignoring disagreements rather than debating them; dismissing criticism as if it is not only based on erroneous information but that it is motivated by hatred or envy rather than genuine concern; acting without even the pretence of following international convention; putting short-term US interests above long-term worldwide ones, which may impact long-term on the USA as well etc.) are being expressed.

The trickier point is whether these characteristics are part of a trend of which Bush is a symptom, or whether his administration is suppressing more liberal instincts that would give a more positive picture. Clinton always gave the impression of being more reasonable, even though his actions were little different to Bush II's on the international stage. It seems more a difference of style than substance, really, but Bush makes people outside the USA uneasy in ways that Clinton never did.

Alright, then what about the rest of my post. I explained in some detail why I dislike Bush; and it has nothing to do with the media. How then can you still cling to your original hypothesis.

I have a question: What did you think of the coverage of Bush before the election?
Where the attacks on his intelligence as prevalent in Canada as they were here?

It seems to me that the hatred (and I think it's safe to say that's what it is) of Bush started well before any of much of his policy platform was even known.

Yes it is very safe to say that. I almost feel as if, and I am European myself too, just lived in the US many many years and I am in fact a Naturalized Citizen that Bush was disliked from the get go...he is almost like a mockery to the rest of the world. He is very wealthy, he is of oil, he is from Texas and any Brit can tell you how American Texans are portrayed in Europe. So he embodies many of the stereotypical dislikes or uglies Europe has of the US and then they have to view all of that up there as the leader of the free world, the commander in chief of the world's most powerful army, and the benefactor of the world's largest economy. It is all very upsetting to them. Bush mocks them.
Bush is imo an anomaly that only Americans can understand...he is a very very American president. He is terribly misunderstood in Europe and probably the rest of the world too.

I "cling" to my "Hypothesis" because based on what is available to me as far as interactions with foreigners, research, this is what I've concluded. Could I be wrong in some of what I concluded, sure, however, for right now it is what it is. As for American policies taking advantage of Canada, I am not sure what particular policy you are talking about.

Here is what I've concluded for right now as being relevant to overall Bush-hate-negativity towards America.

1. possible media bias and or lack of media.

2. combined with an irrational hatred of Bush on a personal basis as what is suggested by... Whether or not this sentiment a minority or majority sentiment it is a sentiment that has been voiced more than not.

3. combined with ......

4. and then of course there is one's particular politics. would I be wrong in saying that a good majority of western euro's and Canada's populace think in socialist/liberal-leaning terms? The same cannot be said for a good majority of Americans. Are we closer in thought and ideology to that of Europe's leaders than we are to those leaders who dominate the ME? yes.

There are MANY policies of MANY countries, Canada's included, that conflict with America's policies. disagreements happen. Agreements can also happen.

What makes it safe to say that? Not a single foreign person in this thread has said that they hated Bush before he was elected. I don't know a single Canadian that hated him at the time. If anything we considered him with detached bemusement. Mostly we laughed that someone so horribly unqualified could run for the position of President, and that he could actually get people to vote for him.



Care to share? I'm a foreigner, and I know a whole lot more of them than you do (since I only know two Americans and I know a whole lot of people.) With the rare exception none of them have said that they hate America for the reasons you describe, and I talk about anti-Americanism with surprising frequency.



You then offer this gem:



It has? Where? I've been following these threads for a while and most "foreigners" have gone to great lengths to say how they don't hate Americans, and they don't hate Bush for who he is but rather what he does. THat doesn't sound like an irrational hatred borne of personal sentiments. If it has been more often than not then care to demonstrate? Personally, I think that you've just ignored the overwhelming volume of posts where people from outside the U.S. (and Bucket himself says he lives in the U.S.) refute exactly what you're saying.



There are two things wrong with this statement. First and foremost, socialist and liberal-leaning are NOT the same and your continued efforts to paint the two as equal are insulting. Secondly you misunderstand politics outside the U.S. in a common fashion, but one that undercuts your arguments. While many Europeans and Canadians are left to the American political spectrum we are not nearly so partisan as you would think. Political figures are asessed on their ACTIONS first and their affiliations second. Now in the past when I've tried to explain this to you my comments have gone largely unregarded, but it is a truth that you will need to accept if you want to truly understand how "foreigners" think about American politics.

Now I will get to myself. Despite my pleas, you have ignored the REASONS that I dislike Bush; apparently because they seem to contradict your hypothesis on the subject, so I will elaborate.

In the last three years Bush has imposed a punitive tarriff on softwood lumber from Canada that has been declared illegal by the WTO. He has also restricted the import of potatoes from PEI (a province that depends on it's potato exports) over the "fears" of a blight which was isolated and contained and posed no threat to American markets. The U.S. has granted ridiculous farming subsidies to allow Americans to undercut Canadian exporters. It has imposed ridiculously draconian measures against Canadian beef since the outbreak of a SINGLE case of Mad Cow disease (in a country that is larger than every nation on earth except Russia). Does the list end there? Of course not. But this is neither the time nor the place. If you actually want to learn why I dislike Bush, and American politics try asking me.

You seem a little hostile. "a whole lot more of them than you do." But, of course, being from Canada makes your's the absolute last word on what all foreigners think? hardly.

Being 1st generation american born to parents of foreign origin, most of my relatives are scattered throughout south america. Having spent endless summers, and weeks of from birth till now treking through every country in central and so america with the exception of columbia, paraguay and panama I've come to know maybe one or two foreigners. I think I can safely say that the absence of the extensive access to the MEDIA, let alone internet, we are privledged to have in the states DOES not make for a well informed individual. Information and knowledge is freedom AND powerful. The lack of it is sometimes dangerous.

going through a laundry list foreigners I've had interactions with for you just seems too petty.

disagree with me all you want based on YOUR experiences but just watch the condescension level, it's really unpleasant

Well let's see...
1. How was Bush portrayed as extremely unqualified? He was governor of the rather large state of Texas? What are we to measure his qualifications against?

2. First the anecdotal evidence... From BBC's "Talking Point"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1061733.stm
I picked out the best ones
This is of course a month before his inauguration...
Will that do, I'm pretty sure I could find more, Bush was a real media darling after all

interesting links turnea indeed, and troubling

I disagree with ultimatejoe because many people I know and have spoken with did not care for Bush well before any of his political actions were made or even before he became president. I am an American and I have lived and traveled outside of America for many years in different parts of the world. I have had to deal with anti-americanism, I have dealt with people being mean to me, nasty or rude because of my nationality. I am part of a expatriate group and I know that what I have experienced has been by many others just like me all over the world.

I think it does us absolutely no good to act like this does not exist because it DOES. I do not think it is like caliente thinks it is, I do not feel it is always irrational, I do not feel it is always hateful and I feel it is a UNIVERSAL occurence. All nationalities dislike other nationalities for various reasons...hate exists in this world. Nationalism is not always a pretty thing. As much as we can say certain Europeans have negative beliefs about Americans or anti-American feelings I can say my nan in UK despises the French so intensely that she has not purchased a French product since the start of wwII or that Koreans hold hatred for the Japanese or that Americans have a very negative portrayal of Mexicans and now certain Europeans.

I do not believe that perpetuating this hate does us any good...but I also feel it doesn't do us any good to not admit it exists.

oh, I know it exists bucket. I've seen it and felt it. But there is no way i'm going to apologize for being american or for the president's policies. As horrible as Vincente Fox's policies has been in mexico I would never, while IN Mexico, insult a mexican by badmouthing their president the way some of us in this country give right to foreigners to disrespect us in our own country as well as when we are abroad.
Our Russian acquaintances think nothing of blasting away at americana and america but take them to task on Putin, something my husband and I would never do, and it's a close to committing blasphemy as one gets.

Common respect. it does not exist and where Americans or America is concerned it's been a free for all. We're correct (non-americans) and you and yours are wrong.

Can I just say...that there really is nothing I can do as far as others believing they can be as rude as they can be but MAAAAAAAAAN, I'm tired of it. lol. dang. get a life.

rant over. there are ashes all over my car....

Yes I would agree Hobbes. Foreigners should definitely be below US citizens on the priority list for a president. However, because of the role America has carved out for itself, Bush must recognise that America is looked up to by a lot of the world. There are lots of people saying that the world hates America, but I don't think thats true. Yes there are people who hate the US, but the majority look to the US President as one of the most important men in the world. America is the super power, America should lead by example. Bush admits to this, and most in the world would agree that the US should be the main player. However, with great power comes great responsibility. By assuming this role, the citizens of the rest of the world become increasingly important. Its not that we have to be represented or looked after, its just that we have to be recognised as equals.

And sadly that is where Bush seems to miss the mark, for me at least. He may be doing a great job at home, I really don't know. But he comes across in international speeches and debates as a man who doesn't really care, and doesn't want to. Its a bit of a low blow and a cliche, but Ill have to point it out - hes proven on several occasions that he has a minimal knowledge of the world geographically, politically and socially. For me, this just isn't good enough for a man who wants to be taken seriously and not scoffed at by his allies when they don't follow his lead.

I believe Bush may project a negative image of America to the world, but I don't believe he is a reason for someone who likes America to suddenly turn against it. He is afterall just one man, and its clear to anyone with eyes and ears that his strings are being pulled by the real men in charge. Even though I disagree with nearly all of his international actions and foreign policies, I would find it easier to listen to him if he just came up with a likeable persona. Sadly, it isn't there, and the result? He is no longer on my TV screen for more than 2 seconds. Thats a bad thing, but you can only take so much of feeling like a person that is surplus to requirements.

I think what you said about one extreme to the other is correct, it is a bit of a shock. There needs to be some sort of compromise between making decisions and taking relevant actions AND being a nice guy. Bush... well maybe he needs to go on a PR course, because the only people he seems to appeal to are those that agree with him.

Is this true? Does the world love America....just not Bush?

I think perhaps love may be too strong a word, but I certainly respect, and admire the American people.

However, I have nothing but contempt for George W Bush and his administration.

The basic premise that we like Americans and hate the American administration is absolutely right. Living in the UK we are arguably America’s strongest allies yet there will be no public walkabouts for Bush when he arrives next week, no meet and greet.
What there will be are huge demonstrations up and down the country telling Bush to get out. The anti Bush crowds are estimated to run into the 100,000's in the capital alone. And this in the country that has stood by America no matter what the cost. Also remember that Clinton was warmly welcomed, this attitude is specific to the Bush administration.

I give you some my own personal reasons for hating Bush, it might give some insight into how opinion can change on a larger scale.

Firstly it did not start with him becoming president. It started with the campaign. What happened in Florida with Jeb Bush cast some serious doubts on the validity of the Republicans claim to office. I found it hard to recognise Bush as a democratically elected president.

Refusing to ratify the Kyoto treaty- so the world’s biggest polluter tells the rest of the world that we can pay the price for its massive consumption. (Imagine a grotesquely obese man throwing his burger wrapper away in a national park while the rest of the world picks up after him, that's how America came across)

Resurrection of the Star Wars programme endangering an anti nuclear missile proliferation deal which was working. When the deal was struck it brought to an end an age of fear. Bush has threatened to bring that crashing down.

Dragging us in to a war the public did not want. What was worse we were lied to. It was never about regime change for us. It was all about WMD's and WMD's only. From what we were told not only did we expect to find them but we expected to find them immediately. I thought they were such a danger that special forces would be going in early to destroy the weapon sites before they could be used on our troops. In fact to only sites to be secured early we the oil wells...and seven months on there are still no WMD's (a bit of botox doesn't count as anywhere near enough in my book). As a result our PM who was voted in on a wave of optimism has lost the confidence of his voters and his career in on the ropes. All because he stood by Bush.

Rumfeld's insulting and contemptuous attitude toward any country which didn't support the war. The level of ignorance he displayed when dealing with Europe was frightening. (Hell, the English and French have been insulting each other for centuries but even I know where the line is drawn... )

The Steel tariff ('special relationship' my arse!) I live in Sheffield - the city that invented steel- we have lost many jobs over the years and this has contributed to the loss of many more.

Gunatanamo Bay. The detention and (as far as I'm concerned) torture of British citizens. 2 years without trial, without charges even. They can't release the suspects back to Britain because they would be released immediately as any evidence would rightly be treated as gained under duress. Guantanmo Bay is the most disgusting human rights abuse any American government has committed against the British. It's time to call in the SAS...

And finally as you can probably tell from this post (and the grammar! ) I'm not the brightest person in the world. But I am intelligent enough to know that I'm not intelligent enough to be a President. And Bush is considerably dumber than me! Anyone who has a website devoted to how thick he sounds every time he opens his mouth should not be leader of the free world! (and it's not a small site!)

I'm sure all of the reasons I have made can be argued against but that's not the point of the post. What I want to do is show the impression the American government has given me. How an average citizen of Americas greatest ally can turn from liking (or at least respecting) the American administration to hating it in two short years.
So far it has done nothing to earn my respect and everything to earn my contempt. And in world poltics impressions really, really count.

hear hear.

I would but add one further point of my own, and that is GW Bush's total lack of a spine when dealing with Ariel Sharon.

I can't help but wonder, just what the world would look like if Colin Powell were President...

Or Jacques Chirac.
and yet he seems greatly beloved.

Hatred of Bush isn't half as rational as it is sometimes portrayed...

No fair - we're in a thread called "Bush America and the world" that asks us what shapes foreign opinions about the Bush administration and America itself. Not France or Chirac.

And, given the last few posts, where whole lists of reasons why Bush and his administration are disliked have been posted, half as rational would still be a long list.

I simply mentioned Chirac in comparison to make this point:

They're are any number of prominent leaders on the world stage whose policy runs contrary to world public opinion. Even given the difference of Bush's position as the American president, the application of hatred is far from balanced. I'm not saying there aren't reasons to dislike Bush, clearly there are. However, there is more to this issue. Surely Bush is not the only leader the world disagrees with. Not to mention as I've demonstrated before, hatred of Bush was well ingrained even before he was inaugurated.

Certainly, I'd say every world leader will have millions who disagree. But the leaders of Papua New Guinea, Albania, El Salvador or any other small state are of little relevance. If smaller nations like these were to acquire a leader that a lot of the world didn't like, then so what? It's their leader, they elected them. Foreign policies of the other nations are rarely that important, and they don't expect the rest of the world to look up to them or do as they say.

With America it is different. People do look up to America. It is the wealthiest and most powerful nation, and it can do whatever it wants really. Thankfully America is not an oppressive regime (although Im sure that could be debated ) and, instead of imposing itself on others, asks to be the leader. It seems clear to me that the American government is keen to be the leader of nations, the judge and jury of the world. Some acept this, others don't. But regardless, America is important to the majority of the people on the planet. The decisions America makes have a far greater effect on other nations than anything the leader of Micronesia or Chad decides to so.

So yes, other leaders are just as bad if not worse than Bush. I personally dislike Chirac as he comes across as a childish bufoon. But then so does GWB. And America is more important to the world than even France. It has to be one way or the other: either America takes a backseat and follows the orders of the UN, NATO and other joint organisations when it comes to international debates, and the world will not be as interested in its leadership. Or America continues with the current trend, doing what its leadership believes is right regardless of the opinion of the international community; but due to its size, power and wealth, the world will take a very deep interest in said leadership and put more pressure on them than the likes of Chirac.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a very bad man and shouldnt have been a leader. Robert Mugabe is a very bad man, as is Kim Jong II and many others. But not one of them is the most powerful man in the world. The leadership of America will always be a cause for greater concern if the international communtiy are unsure of it, because if it turns sour, that leader can do pretty much whatever he wants...

I would argue with the fact that greater concern might be justified. But this goes beyond mere concern. Bush has been the target of vitriol ever since he started to run against Gore. He is more than simply disagreed with, he is hated with a passion. I can understand greater focus on Bush, that I believe is perfectly rational. But it is the level of hatred that is so "off the charts". Very few compare Chirac or Putin to a "wild inbred". The media resists the temptation to label them with derogatory terms in supposed reference to their homeland. (Bush the "cowboy", those rascally Texans....) Hatred of Bush is both greater in amplitude and in acceptance by those institutions that are meant to promote civil discourse. That is the loss of perspective that has many Americans so confused...

Bush is an easy target, but it is unfair to say he is hated more than anyone else. In an international sense of course, I can't speak for domestic issues. I know plenty people who have a greater resent for Chirac, Putin, Schroeder and British party leaders Blair, Duncan-Smith, Tommy Sheridan, Charles Kennedy...politics will always be a subject of heated arguement and hatred will always arise.

The one mistake that musn't be made is that Bush is representative of America. If someone hates Bush, there should be no offence taken, as although he is the elected leader he is not representing the opinions of every American. That is what parliaments are for. Bush is not America, and anyone who wrongly makes that distinction can definitely be considered irrational. I have no evidence from personal experience that the hatred for Bush is "off the chart". In fact I know about as many people that love him as I do those who despise his very existence.

Comments such as "wild inbred" I agree are a bit much, but as for things like "cowboy" or "rascally Texans", I have heard far worse insults aimed at Chirac and France, both in the media and real life.

I think this thought is central to the dislike of Bush, but it is one I would have to disagree with. I don't think America is keen to take on this role, but rather finds it thrust upon us. I don't think this has changed under Bush, although he has certainly been more proactive in things which he felt might affect our security. But it seems that one of the underlying tones in most criticism of Bush from abroad stems from the perception that he is acting as described above, which I think is a false impression. Before the events of 9-11, Bush had actually been pretty isolationist, with a mindset to keep America out of world politics as much as possible. I don't think that basic mindset has changed so completely.

turnea



The difference is, Chirac's policies have only tickled the world, where as Bush has bruised it considerably.

But your right, Bush is not theonly leader who is frowned upon by the world at large. Tony Blair is alos viewed with considerably scepticism.

Chirac...? well, he's not as 'disliked' as you might think... mostly I think because his opposition to America over Iraq has distorted his media image and brought him praise from many who otherwise would not give him the time of day.

Why must the United States answer to everyone else? Why are they not permitted to pursue their own national interests, if need may be?

Incidently, the united Nations is not a viable tool to measure the world's compliance with the United States. Quite frankly, I see no use for the United Nations.

Well, if those national interests have something to do with other countries, your pushing it into the international domain.

Thus, in that domain, its generally a good idea to get everyones okay before you do something stupid and alienate yourself from the rest of the world.

G Iron



The United States is subject to the same conditions which exist for all nations. Following your national interests without regard to other nations and their national interests will only lead to war.

As has happened in Iraq.

Now, that may not bother you considering the former regime of Saddam Hussein, but bear in mind, that; A_ the USA is not invulnerable, B_ Saddam Hussein is still at large, and C_ The war in Iraq, is far from over, no matter what GW Bush claims.




Just because you cannot see a use for something does not mean it has no use.

I hardly think the Bush administration would continue to represent the USA at the UN, if the UN were as useless as you say.

Taking int'l impact into account is one thing. Allowing it to dictate your policy is quite another. Far too many libs, leftists, dems and other elites push for us to bow to the 'int'l community'. All this will do is to eventually undermine our position of strength and I fear that is exactly what they strive for.

But why do you think that? Why would people on the left of the political spectrum wish to undermine America's strength?

It seems to me that you have an unrealistic and unfair idea of those with whom you disagree.




Whats the difference?

What are you basing it on exactly? The Marshall Plan was a phenomenal success was it not? The League of Nations (while a failure in and of itself) certainly didn't weaken America's position.

I would settle for US "working and playing well with others" as opposed to bowing to the international community. Why does it always have to be "my way or the highway" with far too many cons, rightists, reps and other cowboys?



Why indeed? Why is the idea of leveling the playing field for more fairness construed as a wish to undermine our country's strength?

Barring the effectiveness of that strategy, we can still snarl and bare our fangs to the smaller dogs if we think we're losing that juicy bone. Inevitably the smaller dogs will gang up and bust a move to get their share, but what do we care?

I've just been to see a preview of the new Richard Curtis film 'Love Actually'. In it Hugh Grant plays the newly elected British Prime Minister. The way he quickly gains favour with the British public is by standing up to The American president by telling him we won't be bullied anymore and a special relationship is a two way street and can't exist with one party just taking all the time. Shortly after the Prime Minister is hailed by the press as 'the hero of the hour'. The scene went down very well with the cinema audience.

That scene would have been unthinkable before Bush. The idea that in relation to Britain the American President is the bully/bad guy? It would never have worked. But now not only has it happened - it's a believable plot device that reflects the growing feelings of many of the British public.

It is also an unusual indicator of just how much damage this administration’s foreign policy has done. You can now bring the mistrust and dislike of the American leadership confidently into mass entertainment.

Correct. If there was no benefit from the war, or, was detrmental to our interests, then of course, logic would suggest they would not engage.

I never said anything about going to war with everyone. I was saying if we an oppurtunity that would benefit America, then we are in full right to pursue it, without the consent of everyone else.



Wrong.

No other country in the world dictates American foreign policy. If we see not acting would benefit the United States, then they would do so. However, the opinion(s) of France, Germany and the other countries who would not join the war, have no real bearing on foreign policy.

We will do what's best for America, with or without their consent.



Which conditions?



Having all nations of the world declare war on you will not be in your best interests...



In either case, I see the opinions of the aforementionned countries to irrelevant in all American-related topics, as they are not within a position to dictate what America should or should not do.



I didn't know America was at war with France, or Germany.



A) No, it is not invulnerable, which is why we went into Iraq in the first place.
B. Point?
C) And how would you know more about the situation in Iraq then "GW Bush"? You must know something the Bush administration does not know. In either case, the media is highly exagertaing this war. The worst I see from this is that it is expensive. Hell, only 200 or some odd America soldiers have died in Iraq, of a group of 130,000 soldiers.

Yes of course you do. Just make sure you don't ask other countries to send troops to die on your behalf and then get all bullish and upset when they don't.



And when you do and it turns into a godforsaken mess like Iraq don't you dare ask them for money or support. After all you don't need them. You can do what you want.



The UN charter for starters. America is a signatory.



No, but if you continue a policy of pre-emptive strikes without the support of the International community you will find yourself fighting many wars on many fronts (with no help from anyone else). Do you really think you can do that? As you said this war has meant you needed to use 130,000 troops, and spend over 100 billion dollars. Just how many fronts do you think Americas army and economy can handle? Do you reckon good ole' George can wage war on the whole 'axis of evil' alone?

America has to work within the international community. The time it can spend outside it is finite.

Die on our behalf? International stability does not just apply to America. Our allies did not help us out here. Of course we should be *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off.



It's hardly "a mess", unless you want to believe the over-hyped media rhetoric. The war is expensive, yes it is. So, to save some money, we told our allies, "here, we'll give you another chance to make it up to us by helping us out with the reconstruction."

I mean, comeon. There have been, like, 250 casualties out a group of 130,000 soldiers. Hardly a damn quagmire. Sure, their are enemy attacks every so often, but, it's war guys, people shoot bullets at you.



Given that the UN Charter isn't legally binding in any way, the fact that we signed the charter is pretty irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, hence anything that the UN Charter says is inferior.



I did not know the world community was restricted to 5 countries, who were vehemently against this war.

America, of course, would rather have allies in a war then not. However, if a country/nation wants to take a position that is against our better interests, we should not have to apease them. We are #1. Not France, not Russia, not Germany. No major power will ever declare war on America, and we can do pretty much do anything within our utmost jurisdiction, which is rather large. I doubt France or Germany would want to suffer economic ruin by challenging America. Sorry, America does not exhist to appease the rest of the world. We exhist to benefit ourselves.

In either case, the American war on terror is, even today, being fought on multiple fronts, not just Iraq/Afghanistan.

We have been working with the international community. There are a select few, however, that are stuck-up ########, and don't want to help us out. Perhaps delusions of European grandure, but silly nonetheless.

PROFANITY REMOVED - JAIME

Odd, I seem to recall Article Six of the Constitution saying otherwise:



Since the United States approved the U.N. charter through the process set out in the Constitution it IS the law of the land.

Under the authority of the United States. I do not think that applies to France, or Germany.

Now, this begs the question of just what the UN Charter is. Is a treaty establishing an organization like any other document of that nature, or is it the constitution of a world government that supercedes all other national constitutions?

UJ has often relied on this argument, but it holds no water and never did. We are not bound to the UN charter by our Constitution.

Playing that game, what happens if the United States' obligations under the UN Charter conflict with its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty?

You're correct, it doesn't work that way.