[dcolton]

Should we care?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114608,00.html

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Should we care?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114608,00.html

I don't. No, really, I don't.

[Zimphire]

The US has NEVER won ANY popularity contests in the world.

EVER.

Yet we still get by.

HOW DO WE DO IT!?!?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The US has NEVER won ANY popularity contests in the world.

EVER.

Yet we still get by.

HOW DO WE DO IT!?!?

Very true. They hate everything about us, except for our protection and economic viability. Nonetheless, I do think it is time we shut off the French!

[macvillage.net]

We've never been in this bad shape in our history.

I think the next time there is a real threat, or a terrorist attack, we will feel it. Personally I don't think even Britain's government will risk involvement in another US campaign, regardless of the "evidence" we show, or the events that lead to it.

I think regardless of what happens, the US needs to aknowledge we are now, what the Communists were during the cold war. Isolated from the rest.

Like it or not, it's a fact of life. Nobody wants any part in the US's stupidity and mismanagement. Everyone who gets involved gets burned, no exceptions.

What benefits are there from siding with the US? Nothing. There really isn't. The benefits from siding with the rest of the world are quite signifigant.


I still hold the popular belief that the UN and perhaps even NATO will be disolved by the end of the decade. They don't serve a purpose anymore, and have been abused for too long. I do think however, they will be reincarnated into stricter organization(s) that will be much more controlling, and not allow abuse of power like they do today.

Lets just hope they don't base it in NY, so the parking situation in midtown improves .

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Should we care?

Yes.

[macvillage.net]

We've never been in this bad shape in our history.

I think the next time there is a real threat, or a terrorist attack, we will feel it. Personally I don't think even Britain's government will risk involvement in another US campaign, regardless of the "evidence" we show, or the events that lead to it.

I think regardless of what happens, the US needs to aknowledge we are now, what the Communists were during the cold war. Isolated from the rest.

Like it or not, it's a fact of life. Nobody wants any part in the US's stupidity and mismanagement. Everyone who gets involved gets burned, no exceptions.

What benefits are there from siding with the US? Nothing. There really isn't. The benefits from siding with the rest of the world are quite signifigant.


I still hold the popular belief that the UN and perhaps even NATO will be disolved by the end of the decade. They don't serve a purpose anymore, and have been abused for too long. I do think however, they will be reincarnated into stricter organization(s) that will be much more controlling, and not allow abuse of power like they do today.

Lets just hope they don't base it in NY, so the parking situation in midtown improves .

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
We've never been in this bad shape in our history.

I think the next time there is a real threat, or a terrorist attack, we will feel it. Personally I don't think even Britain's government will risk involvement in another US campaign, regardless of the "evidence" we show, or the events that lead to it.

I think regardless of what happens, the US needs to aknowledge we are now, what the Communists were during the cold war. Isolated from the rest.

Like it or not, it's a fact of life. Nobody wants any part in the US's stupidity and mismanagement. Everyone who gets involved gets burned, no exceptions.

What benefits are there from siding with the US? Nothing. There really isn't. The benefits from siding with the rest of the world are quite signifigant.


I still hold the popular belief that the UN and perhaps even NATO will be disolved by the end of the decade. They don't serve a purpose anymore, and have been abused for too long. I do think however, they will be reincarnated into stricter organization(s) that will be much more controlling, and not allow abuse of power like they do today.

Lets just hope they don't base it in NY, so the parking situation in midtown improves .

Oh please. If you'd been around during the great depression, you'd have been peeing in your pants on a daily basis. In comparison, this is nothing.

[macvillage.net]

damn double post

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yes.

Why?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Oh please. If you'd been around during the great depression, you'd have been peeing in your pants on a daily basis. In comparison, this is nothing.

The difference between the great depression and this is intent. Here we have an intent to alienate the international community, and put ourselves in this position.

That's something the international community sees as well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

only one of eight foreign countries surveyed did a majority give a favorable rating to the United States. That nation was Great Britain.

Ironically, the only nation surveyed that can be fairly confident in and proud of its own history traced back in an uninterrupted straight line that doesn't end at some horrific fork(s) of complete madness less than 60 years ago (or is still on them).

Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco,

Oh no, break out the Kleenex! These titans of global stability, rocks of democratic principals, and stanch allies don't like us! Whatever shall we do?

France, Germany

Like minded twins since their glorious like-minded allegiance of shared goals and ideals began in those fun and carefree days of 1940. Every American just LIVES for the desire to please these twin giants of world order and harmony.

Russia

Our bestest-est buddies since... what, 1992 is it now? Ditto the above about Americans having dedicated their lives to pleasing this great nation that’s done nothing in its history but bring peace to and joy to everyone it ever subjugated. And now with an entire 11 year history of rock-solid stability behind it, Russia’s lofty global track record must be given the highest consideration on such matters as important as ‘who they approve of’. Preach on Russia!

Everyone in the US is now waiting on pins and needles for what the rest of the world’s former (and current) dictatorships think of us. I can hardly wait for Angola to weigh in. China needs to speak up, not sure if I can make it through the day without their lofty opinion.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The difference between the great depression and this is intent. Here we have an intent to alienate the international community, and put ourselves in this position.

That's something the international community sees as well.

The intent was there too. How about not coming to the aid of Great Britain during WW2 and turning a blind eye to Hitler's aggression? We alienated them alright, by our lack of interest in their survival. And even before then, Roosevelt and the "great white fleet" anyone?

Everyone seems to have such short memories...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
We've never been in this bad shape in our history.

You are kidding right?

I think regardless of what happens, the US needs to aknowledge we are now, what the Communists were during the cold war. Isolated from the rest.

Isolated, but not to be compared with Communist Russia.

Like it or not, it's a fact of life. Nobody wants any part in the US's stupidity and mismanagement. Everyone who gets involved gets burned, no exceptions.

Stupidity? we seem to be doing just fine.

What benefits are there from siding with the US? Nothing. There really isn't. The benefits from siding with the rest of the world are quite signifigant.

So it's not about doing what is right, but about which nation can we side with to get the better deal?

BTW that is highly subjective. Ask Israel. They seem to be doing fine siding with the US.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are kidding right? [/b]

var kidding = honest;
kidding == yes

Isolated, but not to be compared with Communist Russia.

Communist Russia, like the US today had just as many allies, and foes. It's the exact same thing, but different sides, and different leaders.

In fact, we once again do bombing drills in schools. So it's even similar in that sense.

Stupidity? we seem to be doing just fine.

Once again, you call events like 9/11, and the fact that no western nation wanting anything to do with the US "fine".

So it's not about doing what is right, but about which nation can we side with to get the better deal?

No, it's about what's doing what's best for the human race, and not screwing ourselves, and the rest of the world over. It's about not lying to several other countries to free up some oil supplies, and give a good friend's company a job.

BTW that is highly subjective. Ask Israel. They seem to be doing fine siding with the US.

Yep.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News

Israel is slammed in every direction by every non-US party for violating human rights, and it's also completely alienated from the rest of the world.

And communist Russia was the utopia that Marx dreamed it would be.

Israel is the modern day equvilant of Cuba, to the US who is the modern day Communist Russia.

Both hated by all... and eventually the governments will change and the people will be freed.

But not until they take enough human lives.

[fizzlemynizzle]

"alienate the international community" as billions of dollars in trade flow back and forth between us and the rest of the world as do millions of people.

don't be a drama queen.

Israel is the modern day equvilant of Cuba, to the US who is the modern day Communist Russia.

Statements like this show how disconnected from reality people have become. Either that or you're 11 years old and have no actual memories of what went on in the USSR.

[dcolton]

We are the superpower. Naturally, other nations are going to fester negative opinions when we can unilateraly effect the world with our policy. If, as a superpower, we decided to become isolationists, how do you think the world would fare? Do you think the French woud have the backbone to stop the aggression of another nation; or do you think they would "appease" that country and relive the horrors of WWII.

If we want to talk history, it was the "enlightened" Europeans that are responsible for this world's greatest wars and atrocities - not the US. With the US in the picture, it gives the International community the opportunity to whine about the greater good. We give these nations the comfort of peace, while they expect us to defend their borders. Maybe we should start charging the world for our protection instead of offering up billions in "aid".

Bah...all you American haters, think of what the world would be like if China was the superpower!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
\Communist Russia, like the US today had just as many allies, and foes. It's the exact same thing, but different sides, and different leaders.

I guess you could compare Disneyworld with Communist Russia with the right spin.

In fact, we once again do bombing drills in schools. So it's even similar in that sense.

When did they stop? I did them in grade school back in the 80s and High school back in the 90s.

Once again, you call events like 9/11, and the fact that no western nation wanting anything to do with the US "fine".

9/11 was caused by ignorant hatred by the terrorists.

"LEAVE ISRAEL BE SO WE CAN RUN OVER THERE OR ELSE!!"

Sorry, that doesn't cut it here. No western nation? I hope you aren't saying the rest of the world is against us. That is FAR from the truth. Just the same ones that have wanted to see us fail from the beginning.

Not a surprise. There has ALWAYS been animosity towards America. Just for existing.

No, it's about what's doing what's best for the human race, and not screwing ourselves, and the rest of the world over.

Yeah , and keeping Saddam in power is what was best for the human race! Just ask France.
Well, it's what was best for them anyhow.

It's about not lying to several other countries to free up some oil supplies, and give a good friend's company a job.

Let me put my tin foil hat on.

Israel is slammed in every direction by every non-US party for violating human rights, and it's also completely alienated from the rest of the world.

LOL!!! How is does that make Israel not benefitting from US relations?
People are mad because Israel is teaming with the US. SO IT MUST BE BAD.

Israel is the modern day equvilant of Cuba, to the US who is the modern day Communist Russia.

Both hated by all... and eventually the governments will change and the people will be freed.

Hated by all? Do you feel the need to exaggerate every point to try to look more in the right?

America is HARDLY hated by all. Either is Israel.

If you want to take a look at the people who hate them we can. It tells a even bigger story.

I think you are being a bit.. no very dramatic here.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
We are the superpower. Naturally, other nations are going to fester negative opinions when we can unilateraly effect the world with our policy. If, as a superpower, we decided to become isolationists, how do you think the world would fare? Do you think the French woud have the backbone to stop the aggression of another nation; or do you think they would "appease" that country and relive the horrors of WWII.

The US from the end of WWII to the late 70's was far from abusive. It's really within the 80's to today that it built this hatred. There are very few countries that have beef that goes further back. In fact most countries were on very good terms with the US.

Take Poland and Spain as two more countries that want Bush to go F*** himself. I'm sure Tony Blair is in that group as well. These were allies of ours only a year ago.

We had the vast majority of the world on our side not to long ago. Look back 20 years and there were quite a few more countries who respected and felt united with the US.

Now it's just Canada and even they are starting to distance themselves politically.

If we want to talk history, it was the "enlightened" Europeans that are responsible for this world's greatest wars and atrocities - not the US. With the US in the picture, it gives the International community the opportunity to whine about the greater good. We give these nations the comfort of peace, while they expect us to defend their borders. Maybe we should start charging the world for our protection instead of offering up billions in "aid".

Well, the US had quite a bit to do with setting the political environment leading into Germany's launch of WWII. Remember the US was in WWI, which unquestionaly laid the groundwork. read the treaty of versailles for more info on that:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/ve...rcontents.html

It was the US in cooperation with it's allies that created much of the resentment of the German population, which the eventually (wrongfully) blaimed economically on the Jews, creating the basis of the holocaust.

It was this that Hitler used as saying the Germans people were "opressed", and how the Germans were really the "superior race". Hitler took advantage of peoples resentment to the treaty as an excuse to give him more power.

So yes, the US was involved in the start if WWII. Just not in a military manner. but to say the US wasn't involved in the war completely wrong. the US had a giant diplomatic role.

In WWI, the US did play a political role, and set some of the political climate... but there were way to many things involved to say anyone was responsible. All that's known is what the catalyst was.

Bah...all you American haters, think of what the world would be like if China was the superpower!

Actually China has been walking a tight rope political wire for quite some time. If they were in our seat, it's safe to say they would be a lot more careful, and less eratic.

China knows more about International Relations than the US.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
don't be a drama queen.

[fizzlemynizzle]

China knows more about International Relations than the US.

Just ask Tibet.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The US from the end of WWII to the late 70's was far from abusive. It's really within the 80's to today that it built this hatred. There are very few countries that have beef that goes further back. In fact most countries were on very good terms with the US.

Well, the US had quite a bit to do with setting the political environment leading into Germany's launch of WWII. Remember the US was in WWI, which unquestionaly laid the groundwork. read the treaty of versailles for more info on that:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/ve...rcontents.html

It was the US in cooperation with it's allies that created much of the resentment of the German population, which the eventually (wrongfully) blaimed economically on the Jews, creating the basis of the holocaust.

It was this that Hitler used as saying the Germans people were "opressed", and how the Germans were really the "superior race". Hitler took advantage of peoples resentment to the treaty as an excuse to give him more power.

So yes, the US was involved in the start if WWII. Just not in a military manner. but to say the US wasn't involved in the war completely wrong. the US had a giant diplomatic role.

In WWI, the US did play a political role, and set some of the political climate... but there were way to many things involved to say anyone was responsible. All that's known is what the catalyst was.

So it is our fault that Europe appeased Hitler? Are you saying that we contributed to the catalyst of WWII because we were involved in a peace treaty with Europe? How revisionist is that. I suppose we loaded the guns for Hitler too.

Actually China has been walking a tight rope political wire for quite some time. If they were in our seat, it's safe to say they would be a lot more careful, and less eratic.

China knows more about International Relations than the US. [/B]

Hmmm...they are not THE superpower...so they have a need to walk a tight political rope. Did you even read my post? I believe it starts out defining everything with the statement..."We are the Superpower." and that is what I based the whole reply on.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So it is our fault that Europe appeased Hitler? Are you saying that we contributed to the catalyst of WWII because we were involved in a peace treaty with Europe? How revisionist is that. I suppose we loaded the guns for Hitler too.

I never said it was only the US. That's your rebuttal.

But the US was no less involved than any other nation. Our diplomats were in all the meetings, and took just as much involvement post WWI. It wasn't just Europe.

Hmmm...they are not THE superpower...so they have a need to walk a tight political rope. Did you even read my post? I believe it starts out defining everything with the statement..."We are the Superpower." and that is what I based the whole reply on.

Never said they were "THE superpower"

My point is that if they were, the world would be much closer to complete peace. They are much smarter in regards to international relations than the US.

And tebet is one tiny issue, compared to the delecate balance in the region they managed for decade. From the Russians, Afganistan, US, Japan, etc. All countries that butted heads with them, and they kept it remarkably peaceful. If China were run by the US, the population would be only 1 million because ther rest would have been lost in wars with those countries.

The biggest problem with the US is that to few even know the definition of the word "war". We don't show it on TV, only Press release video, while the rest of the world watches the good and bad of war. Sees soldiers get shot right on TV, sees bodies pile up, right before the camera. The FCC censors what we see.

Then we have politicians, who for large part dogged war themselves. Even our president decided to protect Texas from the evil Mexicans during Vietnam.

Talk to a real war vet and see how their opinions differ from a vet who never saw warfare.

The last time America could say they saw war was the civil war. Since that, only soldiers have seen war. The rest see edited clips approved by the pentagon.

While many in Europe are still alive and remember WWII, and the reconstruction after. It wasn't that long ago.

The US perspective on War is warped. It's orchestrated by those who were never ther, and know they won't go. And backed by people who see holywood wars.

[theolein]

Originally posted by dcolton:
...

Bah...all you American haters, think of what the world would be like if China was the superpower!

I think that within our lifetimes or those of our children that question will be answered.

As for the topic: I agree that bashing America is more popular, but it has also changed quite a bit since GW came to power and with the 9/11 aftermath and Iraq and a whole load of other things. I have a theory that foreigners liked Clinton more, simply because he was less of a tongue tied bufoon than GW. He came across as friendly and having a heart, which GW doesn't.

But mostly, I think that there is a stereotypical view of the USA in large parts of the rest of the world and that there are numerous American who have really strange ideas of what life is like outside their borders, and possibly, like the ranting about how America can only do good, very naive ones too. Vietnam springs to mind, and the United Fruit Company and an ousted Iranian prime minister called Mossadeq also appear in that picture to cloud the crystal clear waters of shiny patriotism.

That doesn't mean that the US is some evil empire some like make it out to be. I just think that there is no nation on this planet that hasn't fu©ked up mightiliy a couple of times in its history, and the US has certainly made the occasional error. It happens. Also, relationships between nations change. This should be obvious, but it isn't. Much as you Americans get so pissed off because France does its own thing instead of bending over for George, so do nations that have the USA to thanks for their freedom (S.Korea, France, Germany etc) get cheesed off having to hear time after time how grateful they should be to the US for such things such as oxygen and water. Hint: less bullying and more diplomacy with allies would work wonders. Just as the US gets into a fit because the UN says something that is not in line with the US foreign policy, so do other nations get tired of being told what to do all the time. Hint Nr. 2: Colin Powell made more friends than Donald Rumsfeld did.

I suppose its a case of you respect us and we'll respect you.


Disclaimer: In the real world the above is not a hard and fast rule.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
all you American haters

I resent that comment. It brings a a pretty radical and unilateral view that confirms the paranoïa that often comes through American media.

I do not agree with that, at all.

Although there are clear cultural differences with the rest of the world, none make you so apart. The rest of the human race pretty much shares about all the same values and aspirations than most Americans.

I do.

What I cannot stand is that attitude that Americans should be better in all, as if nobody else can provide anything but crap. "Americans are good, and the World is Evil"; it is pretty narcissistic and arrogant, and not much else...

Anyway, here is a link with a similar discussion:

http://www.politicalmachine.com/Foru...&AID=10314

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
I have a theory that foreigners liked Clinton more, simply because he was less of a tongue tied bufoon than GW. He came across as friendly and having a heart, which GW doesn't.

Clinton was apologetic and suitably embarrassed about his cultural inferiority from being American. Plus, he is articulate in a way that Europeans seem to like in their politicians, while Americans by and large prefer theirs to be more rough about the edges. What made Bill Clinton "slick willie" to us plays well in Europe. Bush's "swagger" that seems to set Europeans off plays well here. Americans like to see their presidents driving pickups.

But you have to admit also that Bush got absurdly bad press from the get-go. Much of that press (e.g. cartoons depicting him as a chimp) has been quite unfair, and quite knee-jerk. Being anti-American is a prejudice that is popular to express in public. Bush is easy to stereotype because in many ways, he fits what Europeans in particular already stereotype Americans to be. In that way his press is pretty much identical to the press I remember Reagan getting in Europe. Well, Europeans are proud of their recycling programs.

On top of all that, Bush's presidency has simply been in more challenging times. Clinton had it easy. It's not hard to be popular abroad when you aren't really doing anything.

On the positive side for Clinton, and negative side for Bush, Clinton had a way of saying no to Europeans in a way that for some bizarre reason they thought was yes. So he said no to Kyoto, no to the ICC, and no to the landmine treaty. But I swear that most Europeans think that Clinton was for them, and Bush against.

As I say, I think a lot of it stems from the media, and from some more opportunistic politicians who saw profit in fueling a little bigotry.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by theolein:

That doesn't mean that the US is some evil empire some like make it out to be. I just think that there is no nation on this planet that hasn't fu©ked up mightiliy a couple of times in its history, and the US has certainly made the occasional error. It happens. Also, relationships between nations change. This should be obvious, but it isn't. Much as you Americans get so pissed off because France does its own thing instead of bending over for George, so do nations that have the USA to thanks for their freedom (S.Korea, France, Germany etc) get cheesed off having to hear time after time how grateful they should be to the US for such things such as oxygen and water. Hint: less bullying and more diplomacy with allies would work wonders. Just as the US gets into a fit because the UN says something that is not in line with the US foreign policy, so do other nations get tired of being told what to do all the time. Hint Nr. 2: Colin Powell made more friends than Donald Rumsfeld did.

Very good points.

But Diplomacy isn't a key part in US Politics. It's military power, and has been so since the Reagan Administration. And wrongfully so.

There is a reason why Britain pre-Iraq had so much power over international politics, and despite being a but of an outsider in Europe by not accepting the Euro as it's currency... regained lots of power diplomatically. Britain has nukes, bio weapons, and a fairly advanced military. The difference is that Britain also invested a lot in deplomacy, making it quite a secure country, with a ton of allies. It's surrounded by countries that like it, you can go to other continents and find countries that are allies with them as well.

Britain has also been involved in brokering many international deals in the past few years on behalf of the US, because of it's popularity. They were really the driving force behind Lybia's recent change of heart. Lybia did not want to talk to the US, but welcomed discussion with Britain. So have most other countries.

France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Japan, China... all the same deal.

Then there is the US, all alone. All of the above are cautious, at best about the US. Nobody trusts it, and with good reason.

It's key to world stability for the superpower to be a leader in deplomacy. When every world power in the past has went towards military power... they fell. The Romans, Greek, Britain itself too lost it's title slowly during wars where it flexed it's muscles rather than talked. And eventually lost the title during war.

Every superpower that fell, fell with a lack of deplomacy taking place, and the US is beginning to travel down that path.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Very good points.

But Diplomacy isn't a key part in US Politics. It's military power, and has been so since the Reagan Administration. And wrongfully so.

There is a reason why Britain pre-Iraq had so much power over international politics, and despite being a but of an outsider in Europe by not accepting the Euro as it's currency... regained lots of power diplomatically. Britain has nukes, bio weapons, and a fairly advanced military. The difference is that Britain also invested a lot in deplomacy, making it quite a secure country, with a ton of allies. It's surrounded by countries that like it, you can go to other continents and find countries that are allies with them as well.

Britain has also been involved in brokering many international deals in the past few years on behalf of the US, because of it's popularity. They were really the driving force behind Lybia's recent change of heart. Lybia did not want to talk to the US, but welcomed discussion with Britain. So have most other countries.

France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Japan, China... all the same deal.

Then there is the US, all alone. All of the above are cautious, at best about the US. Nobody trusts it, and with good reason.

It's key to world stability for the superpower to be a leader in deplomacy. When every world power in the past has went towards military power... they fell. The Romans, Greek, Britain itself too lost it's title slowly during wars where it flexed it's muscles rather than talked. And eventually lost the title during war.

Every superpower that fell, fell with a lack of deplomacy taking place, and the US is beginning to travel down that path.

First, Britain doesn't have bio weapons. No western country does.

Britain does punch above its weight. But that stems from a number of things -- its history of empire leading to global contacts, trade links, military power, fairly robust economy, a permanent seat in the UN. It also has a farily unique bridge position between the US and the EU and that is very important. But don't exaggerate. Britain skillfully leverages it's influence, but that doesn't make a it an independent power. What it is is a medium ranking power with a small power projection capability. In that way it is very much like France.

Germany is influential in the EU. Nowhere else. The Netherlands, Portugal, and the other bit players you mention aren't even important in Europe.

Now, if you want a power that has diplomatic strength from diplomacy alone far out of any rational proportion, you need to look at the Holy See. The Vatican diplomatic corps is legendary.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Clinton was apologetic and suitably embarrassed about his cultural inferiority from being American. Plus, he is articulate in a way that Europeans seem to like in their politicians, while Americans by and large prefer theirs to be more rough about the edges. What made Bill Clinton "slick willie" to us plays well in Europe. Bush's "swagger" that seems to set Europeans off plays well here. Americans like to see their presidents driving pickups.

But you have to admit also that Bush got absurdly bad press from the get-go. Much of that press (e.g. cartoons depicting him as a chimp) has been quite unfair, and quite knee-jerk. Being anti-American is a prejudice that is popular to express in public. Bush is easy to stereotype because in many ways, he fits what Europeans in particular already stereotype Americans to be. In that way his press is pretty much identical to the press I remember Reagan getting in Europe. Well, Europeans are proud of their recycling programs.

On top of all that, Bush's presidency has simply been in more challenging times. Clinton had it easy. It's not hard to be popular abroad when you aren't really doing anything.

On the positive side for Clinton, and negative side for Bush, Clinton had a way of saying no to Europeans in a way that for some bizarre reason they thought was yes. So he said no to Kyoto, no to the ICC, and no to the landmine treaty. But I swear that most Europeans think that Clinton was for them, and Bush against.

As I say, I think a lot of it stems from the media, and from some more opportunistic politicians who saw profit in fueling a little bigotry.

You know, that is one thing that I have never understood about you Americans and your obsession about France: You really are obsessed about France. I'm sure there must be some Europeans that have the strange idea that they are in some obscure way culturally superior to Americans, but I have never really seen that in real life.

I've seen more of an obsession with so called French culture in the US than I have anywhere else, with one exception: South Africa. There, the South African whites used to have this idea (I know, I had it too) that Europe was in some way more civilsed and cultured than South Africa. The irony of this cultural inferiority trip, and it really makes me laugh, is that here in Switzerland, up until GW started off on his crusade, America was the big cultural idol and mecca and it used to be a sort of cultural prerequisite for young Swiss kids to do a year or so in the US. I speak fluent Swiss German, but I've got an accent, and it is sadly amusing to watch the reactions I got in bars when I spoke English (and everybody would be tripping over their feet to be nice to me) and when I spoke Swiss German (I would get the usual brush off and be ignored).

AS for Bill C, I find it amusing that you forgot neatly about Bosnia, Kosovo and Billy sending off the pacific fleet to cruise the Taiwanese straights, as examples of external events and Waco, Texas, the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as internal events. Not to mention the Christian right's obsession with Bill's dong (Their ersatz for porn). I'll have to call bullsh1t on your comment there.

I think the impression tha Billy C gave is that he listened. GW gives the impression that he doesn't even understand what others are saying.

The only real anti-americanism I ever saw in my years here in Europe (and I've lived in 5 countries here) was in the Berlin Wall, cold war era, when the anarchists and punks would get out on the streets and demonstrate against the anti-establishment issue of the day, notwithstanding the fact that it was the Americans, French and British that kept West berlin free so that they could in fact get on the streets and do their thing.

I've seen people get pissed off with American tourists because of their attitude that the world should be speaking English, but having worked in tourism in both Spain and Turkey, I know that the Spanish get far more pissed off at tourists from the UK that drink themselves into a stupor every day and cause fights and destroy stuff than they do at the Americans.

I think you misjudge the amount of anger caused by GW's fixation on Saddam and Iraq. That is the primary reason for much of what you see as anti-americanism today.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First, Britain doesn't have bio weapons. No western country does.

All western countries have military bio research labs, and have done research on weapons.

Post 9/11 investigative journalism is very sure that it can go from parts to weapons virtually overnight if necessary. The treaties only ban assembled weapons. Not parts. The research was done years ago. All that remains is once again putting it together.

So it's a misnomer to say the US and Britain doesn't have it. They don't have it loaded.

Britain does punch above its weight. But that stems from a number of things -- its history of empire leading to global contacts, trade links, military power, fairly robust economy, a permanent seat in the UN. It also has a farily unique bridge position between the US and the EU and that is very important. But don't exaggerate. Britain skillfully leverages it's influence, but that doesn't make a it an independent power. What it is is a medium ranking power with a small power projection capability. In that way it is very much like France.

A good point that it serves as a bridge between the US and Europe.

Germany is influential in the EU. Nowhere else. The Netherlands, Portugal, and the other bit players you mention aren't even important in Europe.

Germany for example was pivotal in the cold war diplomacy. Aknowledge it or not, German diplomats played a key role. Portugal also has quite a few international ties. Netherlands inherits a bit from the World Court. All these nations have quite a bit of power. Just not in the raw sense you want to aknowledge. The difference here is that all these nations, including Britain know when to flex, how much, and when they shouldn't.

Now, if you want a power that has diplomatic strength from diplomacy alone far out of any rational proportion, you need to look at the Holy See. The Vatican diplomatic corps is legendary.

Depends on how you look at it. It was also a driving force in the diplomatic effort known as the Crusades, it played a rather aweful role during WWII... and since then has fallen somewhat quiet, with an occasional plea, and very rare diplomatic action.

Here's one with a lot of potential, but seems to far back in time to do anything today.

I'd give it the award for greatest potential. But application to benefit humanity... not even close. It could take a far more useful, and beneficial role... but to do that requires money, and they don't want to sell all that gold.

I'm starting to feel more and more that a corrupt few have turned the church into a corporation rather than a religious body, and social diplomatic engine. Ever since the pope started to lose it, there has been serious change. If the pope was 10 years younger, today, I think the role of the vatican in the current post-9/11 world would be quite different. But it now looks like he is a puppet to those behind the stage running the show.

Really sad to see. really sad. Just hope the next Pope initiates a Vatican Council on day 1 and goes right back to the bedrock of Christianity and rebuild, making sure to burn whatever they don't reuse, so it won't contaminate the earth.

I'm a strong believer that the Church serves the people, not the more commonly held inverse.

I also believe that Jesus won't hate us because the Church doesn't have 24carret gold everything. I'm sure Jesus would be just as happy with bronze, silver, glass, or even aluminum or tin. In fact, I doubt he would notice. I find it sad so much donated money goes to vanity, rather than doing good will as the Bible preaches.

Yea, I'm ranting. But it gets on my nerves how backwards and corrupt a handful of people can be, and how it could taint such a large body. It's like disease in an athlete. It just sickens and withers a once strong body.

[mo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The US has NEVER won ANY popularity contests in the world.

EVER.

There are many books available in your local library regarding the World War I and World War II eras, and the tremendous swell of American popularity in many, many places across the globe in the wake of both. You may wish to peruse some of these books. It may persuade you to cease downplaying the enormous accomplishments of the American veterans of those wars, and the great appreciation of same among many people around the word.

Or it may not. EVER.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by theolein:
.
I think the impression tha Billy C gave is that he listened. GW gives the impression that he doesn't even understand what others are saying.

I think you misjudge the amount of anger caused by GW's fixation on Saddam and Iraq. That is the primary reason for much of what you see as anti-americanism today.

Why is it that a South African seems to have a clearer perspective than most Americans do on why we're less popular these days? -- Cracking good post, Theo.

Bush all but flipped-off the international community's opinion when he decided to invade Iraq. Now that Bush has become the Boy who cried Wolf on WMD, it gives the (perhaps correct) impression that the US is more interested in manipulating support out of its allies than coming to a consensus with them. Other countries are simply not cool with sending troops and spending money for a war they feel like they were duped into.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First, Britain doesn't have bio weapons. No western country does.

...

*Cough* Anthrax attacks US 2001, Ames strain, Fort Detrick US Army bioweapons research facility *cough*.

I'm pretty sure almost every single country that can afford it, does do research on bioweapons, in case they ever get attacked with them, and I'm just as sure that stock samples are kept by those same countries in the case that they are ever needed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mo:
There are many books available in your local library regarding the World War I and World War II eras, and the tremendous swell of American popularity in many, many places across the globe in the wake of both.

And there was HATERD right along with it. America is wining popularity contests in Iraq by a great many people as well. Some also HATE the US.

It's a lose lose situation. Yet we still do it.

It may persuade you to cease downplaying the enormous accomplishments of the American veterans of those wars, and the great appreciation of same among many people around the word.

I was not downplaying any accomplishments of any American veterans. Thanks for being dishonest with your approach. That is such a breath of fresh air around here.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yet we still do it.

I wonder why...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
*Cough* Anthrax attacks US 2001, Ames strain, Fort Detrick US Army bioweapons research facility *cough*.

I'm pretty sure almost every single country that can afford it, does do research on bioweapons, in case they ever get attacked with them, and I'm just as sure that stock samples are kept by those same countries in the case that they are ever needed.

Cough. Not weaponized. Certainly not deployed. Ft Detrick does research into defense.

I imagine Britain probably has similar facilities. But they don't have bio weapons.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
You know, that is one thing that I have never understood about you Americans and your obsession about France: You really are obsessed about France.

Really now? The post you replied to never mentioned France.

I think you are obsessed with finding obsessions about France. Much easier than thinking.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Really now? The post you replied to never mentioned France.

I think you are obsessed with finding obsessions about France. Much easier than thinking.

Come on, you know what I was talking about. You mentioned Bill C and him being apologetic for his supposed cultural inferiority. I then expanded on cultural inferiority and mentioned France, because france is apparently, from what I've seen in American media, THE place to go for cultural holidays, from where the good wines and cheeses come from etc etc. It also gets bashed regularly in the media, and on this board. And talking about obsessions, Simey, there are no less than 3 threads going on at France right now on this board. (Should I use the poking stick icon now?)

But you couldn't resist taking a poor dig at Bill C again, now could you, and when I pointed out that yes, one or two major events did in fact occur during his presidency, then you had to resort to this lame arsed post.

I apologise regularly for my mistakes on this board when pointed out to me, with one or two exceptions of posters that I really don't like. I have yet to see you once, just once, even admit that may have made a mistake. Is it perhaps an obsession?

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Cough. Not weaponized. Certainly not deployed. Ft Detrick does research into defense.

I imagine Britain probably has similar facilities. But they don't have bio weapons.

To bring up that sore topic again: the Anthrax used in the 2001 attacks was weaponised. The articles on the investigation stated that the weaponisation technique was one devised in America. The knowledge is there. I don't claim that stocks of bioweapons are deployed, and they don't keep in any case, with the exception of Anthrax spores, but the knowledge is there and the time required to breed the weapons is minimal. If they would ever be needed they could be produced in fairly rapid order.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by theolein:
To bring up that sore topic again: the Anthrax used in the 2001 attacks was weaponised. The articles on the investigation stated that the weaponisation technique was one devised in America. The knowledge is there. I don't claim that stocks of bioweapons are deployed, and they don't keep in any case, with the exception of Anthrax spores, but the knowledge is there and the time required to breed the weapons is minimal. If they would ever be needed they could be produced in fairly rapid order.

It's not a weapon until it's fully assembled.

So they can develop methods to deploy, and release, as well as the agent.

Provided those projects don't collide. Then it's a weapon.

Similar to how nuclear weapons are. Having a nuclear power plant is friendly. Having weapons grade uranium is so-so. Having a detonation device is only for US allies. But you don't have a weapon until it all comes together.

[theolein]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's not a weapon until it's fully assembled.

So they can develop methods to deploy, and release, as well as the agent.

Provided those projects don't collide. Then it's a weapon.

Similar to how nuclear weapons are. Having a nuclear power plant is friendly. Having weapons grade uranium is so-so. Having a detonation device is only for US allies. But you don't have a weapon until it all comes together.

The methods to deploy, and release and the agents are all well known. Both the US and the UK (as well as the USSR) used to have stocks of bio and chemcial weapons and the corresponding systems. The point with those weapons is that they are far less complex to deploy than conventional weapons. that is what makes them so dangerous and, in my mind, they are far more likely to be used than a nuclear weapon by terrorists.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
Come on, you know what I was talking about. You mentioned Bill C and him being apologetic for his supposed cultural inferiority. I then expanded on cultural inferiority and mentioned France, because france is apparently, from what I've seen in American media, THE place to go for cultural holidays, from where the good wines and cheeses come from etc etc. It also gets bashed regularly in the media, and on this board. And talking about obsessions, Simey, there are no less than 3 threads going on at France right now on this board. (Should I use the poking stick icon now?)

But you couldn't resist taking a poor dig at Bill C again, now could you, and when I pointed out that yes, one or two major events did in fact occur during his presidency, then you had to resort to this lame arsed post.

I apologise regularly for my mistakes on this board when pointed out to me, with one or two exceptions of posters that I really don't like. I have yet to see you once, just once, even admit that may have made a mistake. Is it perhaps an obsession?

Ah, so you attack me personally in a response to one of my posts because you think that Americans in general have an obsession about France.

There's a word for that kind of logic. But it's not pretty.

[Spliffdaddy]

heck, theo mentions France more than the rest of us combined.

[Sven G]

Maybe "America" is obsessed by "France" (the politicians of both countries, rather) because they both share a tendency to some excessive grandeur.

[Ayelbourne]

You know, one might get the impression that some Americans have developed a persecution complex. I know Americans have been through a difficult time, so it's understandable. When one has such a frightening and determined opponent which such focused hatred, perhaps one begins to see enemies everywhere.

I don't hate America. No one I know hates America. Sweden as a whole actually has quite strong cultural ties to America. When Sweden had such difficult economic troubles at the beginning of the last century, nearly 1/4 of our entire population at that time emigrated to the States to find better opportunities (if you are inclined to the literary, there's a fantastic series of books about this starting with Moberg's The Emigrants). There are almost 9 million people living in Sweden, but there is much more than that amount of people descended from those emigrants (20 or so million, IIRC) living in the U.S. today. Many, many families here have relatives in the U.S.. We are very connected to the U.S., even if you don't feel you are connected to us. That said, we like who we are, we like our culture and we love our country as much as you love yours. We don't want to be you, but we do care about you.

Although we have different styles of living our daily lives, we as a culture like Americans quite a bit. We hold the same democratic values and we want the same security and quality of life for our families. Something to remember, though, is that Swedes, in the course of their educations, take classes in critical analysis, and are encouraged to not take things at face value, to ask difficult questions. As a result of that, we are very tough on our politicians. That is part of what an open society is about for us - an open, accessible and accountable government. The expectations we place on your politicians are no different than those we place on our own.

What Simey insists on painting as "anti-americanism" is merely a growing distrust and understandable concern with the Bush administration's foreign policy. Conceptually, there is a large and important difference. We don't hate. We are concerned. The U.S. has been through a very difficult time and has arguably become disillusioned - and I mean that in the true sense of the word, as in "stripped of illusions". We don't want the U.S. to have such troubled times. We don't want to see you get hurt. We also don't want to see someone make things worse for you, and right or wrong, if we perceive the current administration as doing just that, it's still out of fondness, neighborliness and a desire to see you be able to lead the same peaceful lives that we want for ourselves that we express those concerns to you.

The fact that some Americans can misconstrue that as anti-American hate and envy only concerns us more.

In the process of coming to terms with a fierce and diabolical enemy, you seem to have also forgotten who your friends are, or that you need friends at all. Who wouldn't be troubled to see that happening to someone they care about?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
(...)In the process of coming to terms with a fierce and diabolical enemy, you seem to have also forgotten who your friends are, or that you need friends at all. Who wouldn't be troubled to see that happening to someone they care about?

Excellent post; could not agree more.

I'd also like to add that America's population, although represented by its politicians, is not its politicians.

As in: "The map is not the territory". We can very well appreciate the difference and appreciate people for who they are rather than by their spokespersons.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
You know, one might get the impression that some Americans have developed a persecution complex. I know Americans have been through a difficult time, so it's understandable. When one has such a frightening and determined opponent which such focused hatred, perhaps one begins to see enemies everywhere.

I don't hate America. No one I know hates America. Sweden as a whole actually has quite strong cultural ties to America. When Sweden had such difficult economic troubles at the beginning of the last century, nearly 1/4 of our entire population at that time emigrated to the States to find better opportunities (if you are inclined to the literary, there's a fantastic series of books about this starting with Moberg's The Emigrants). There are almost 9 million people living in Sweden, but there is much more than that amount of people descended from those emigrants (20 or so million, IIRC) living in the U.S. today. Many, many families here have relatives in the U.S.. We are very connected to the U.S., even if you don't feel you are connected to us. That said, we like who we are, we like our culture and we love our country as much as you love yours. We don't want to be you, but we do care about you.

Although we have different styles of living our daily lives, we as a culture like Americans quite a bit. We hold the same democratic values and we want the same security and quality of life for our families. Something to remember, though, is that Swedes, in the course of their educations, take classes in critical analysis, and are encouraged to not take things at face value, to ask difficult questions. As a result of that, we are very tough on our politicians. That is part of what an open society is about for us - an open, accessible and accountable government. The expectations we place on your politicians are no different than those we place on our own.

What Simey insists on painting as "anti-americanism" is merely a growing distrust and understandable concern with the Bush administration's foreign policy. Conceptually, there is a large and important difference. We don't hate. We are concerned. The U.S. has been through a very difficult time and has arguably become disillusioned - and I mean that in the true sense of the word, as in "stripped of illusions". We don't want the U.S. to have such troubled times. We don't want to see you get hurt. We also don't want to see someone make things worse for you, and right or wrong, if we perceive the current administration as doing just that, it's still out of fondness, neighborliness and a desire to see you be able to lead the same peaceful lives that we want for ourselves that we express those concerns to you.

The fact that some Americans can misconstrue that as anti-American hate and envy only concerns us more.

In the process of coming to terms with a fierce and diabolical enemy, you seem to have also forgotten who your friends are, or that you need friends at all. Who wouldn't be troubled to see that happening to someone they care about?

Very mildly put, but right on.

I think the US model of reaction is framed after Israel's cries of anti-semitism. Even the announcement of an investigation being launched on the USS Liberty attack was considered anti-semitism, despite being a routine procedure when 35 or so sailors were killed without engaging in combat.

It's politics. And it's sickening.

It's not about humanity, good will, or the wellbeing of anyone, it's about power, genocide, and greed.

People claim that democracy eliminates the risk of tyrany... when in fact, it just makes people blind to the idea.

I think almost 100 nations agreeing on 1 thing is a rather amazing event. Not to many times in world history do that many nations agree on 1 single thing.

It's rather creepy that our government is telling us 100 nations governments are wrong (many of which don't even get along), and it's a conspiracy against the USA...

If the US government had a clear respect for democracy, and truly believed in it... the world democracy has spoken very clearly. If you go by the number of nations (senate), or by population representation (congress), you see it on a world level. If the world was structured like the US government, it would be very one sided right now.

[itai195]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

I think the US model of reaction is framed after Israel's cries of anti-semitism. Even the announcement of an investigation being launched on the USS Liberty attack was considered anti-semitism, despite being a routine procedure when 35 or so sailors were killed without engaging in combat.

Thumbs up to Ayelbourne's post, but this seems to be a non sequitur.

[3gg3]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sven G:
Maybe "America" is obsessed by "France" (the politicians of both countries, rather) because they both share a tendency to some excessive grandeur. [/QUOTE

Post of the Month

Followed by Ayelbourne's Post of the Year

Scandinavian motion and notion seconded by Canada (or at least, by interior B.C.)

[Spliffdaddy]

A hundred reasons why it looks like envy, but it's really not.



Thanks, non-Americans, for the laugh.