Who made the US President the leader of the free world
 

One question:

Who made the US President the leader of the free world?

I was just wondering this and wanted to see if anyone knew the answer, because I don't see how this could be.

I would say the country I am in is part of this "free world". But I didn't have any say on the election of US president. But for this to be a free world, surely I should have a say on who my leader is.

If I didn't have any control over the choice of US president and I, like he is part of a free world, then there is no way that he is in any way my leader.

Just wondering,

sorry if its too confusing, its late and I should sleep.

Its one of those damned if you do damned if you don't. See since my beloved America kicks so much ass and has so much power and influence it is a role that is assumed and a role that we are propelled into. We are top dog, so we dictate the pace of the dance whether you like it or not :lol: . Furthermore yes I may be pompous in saying that, but prove me wrong. USA! USA! USA!

Also maybe perhaps you could list certain instances that would prove your point to better enhance this discussion. That way I can give a better response then the fact that America kicks ass.

He said it, in his own way. ;)

It's more a figurative title than a literal one. The U.S. is one of, if not the most powerful nation in the world....So the leader of said nation gets tagged with such a title. However, I think Bush is a tool. The man couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. :P

Don't worry Hanabal, you kiwis were positively rebellious with the whole 1985 Nuclear Ships ANZUS Treaty dealbreaker. Australian PM Johnny Howard is Bushlicker extraordinaire and he can't even get a lousy free trade deal. :crazy:

The Uberhawks in the US probably think the only thing us ANZACS are good for is their precious Pine Gap military base. To use a 'Star Wars' reference (wink, wink), we're like the Ewoks to them - we'll throw a few rocks at the enemy and then put some weird animal on the barbecue.

/I don't even know who I'm mocking anymore

We became the leader of the free world after WWII. We came out on top of everyone, and gave millions to each country ravaged by war.

During the cold war we were forced to weild the large shield and broadsword to fend off the Russian bear. The majority of the free world liked us because of that (except France... wont get into that). After the collapse of the USSR we were left with a large sword and board, yet with no one to fend off. We and the world looked at us now to become the police force.

Now everyone is wondering why we are policing the world, we're stuck in a position we can't back down from, and no one likes us where we are.

No, you dont have any control over our presidency. Unfortunately the way the world always has been is the strong countries have the power to greatly influence weaker ones. It could be worse... just over 100 years ago it was justifyable to conquor and subjugate weaker states, while we just use economics to sway most countries.

The people who voted him in did pretty much. It's just another way of saying "We're literally better then everyone. haha."

wasn't it florida?


(sorry i just had to say it :lol:)

Hmmm,

A little too much arrogance from my fellow Americans for my comfort, but anyway.


You're saying "leader of the free world" like it's an official position that you are forced to acknowledge, when the reality is, it's just word-speak that acknowledges the relative political, social-economical and military might of the United States.

As to the "free world" part, that simply says that if you don't want to listen to us, you don't have to (unlike the Warsaw countries and the USSR during the cold war.)

Of course, most countries at least listen, even if they don't do anything.

...now where in the hell did I put seretogis' troll gif? Damn, can't find it, anyways...
Look, most nations aren't that willing to step up and sort of be the leader in the world. I have great respect for Australia and New Zealand, which is why my family and I honor those who fell at Galipoli every year. However, it still remains that there are very few nations who want to stand up and be the bearer of the burden of the world. This isn't a slight to all nations, because being the leader of the world is a damn hard job and it costs a lot, and that cost isn't just in money. I can't honestly tell you why we happened upon that title, it just kind of fell into our lap on December 7, 1941 and we accepted that title and we continue to accept it.

Plus what Lebell said, it's not an official title, so no one has to recognize it, but it is still generally accepted.

Re: Who made the US President the leader of the free world
 

The american president is the "leader of the free world" in much the same way that micheal jackson is "the king of pop". It is more a meaningless title to provide certain people with superiority complex fodder. Obviously he is not really the leader of the free world because most of the free world told him to go to hell when he was laying his most recent war plans.

Yeah, fun thing is how they say the same thing when we're handing out billion dollar aid packages.

Re: Re: Who made the US President the leader of the free world
 

What they mouth off about and who they run to when their ass is in trouble is obviously two different things then isn't it!

Oooooh wow. Guess i hit a nerve. I was just making the point that the rest of the world doesn't necesarily bow before the "leader of the free world".

Hence it being the "Free" world...

Well that would actually be the free world trying to pull some wind from our sails.

Acutally, you are misinformed because we're not doling out billion dollar aid packages so much anymore... in fact american embassies in africa are having trouble even getting small grants to help train anti-corruption groups... something which is very much part of US foreign policy. I am american and involved with the foreign service, but all you americans out there who think America is on top of the world and fulfilling its duty to police... well i just don't even know what to say to that. Its americans who go around gloating about how great they are that give the rest of us a bad name overseas. Anyway, I agree with filtherton, Bush is by no means the leader of the free world, its just a title given to the president by the press.

It's easy to talk trash behind a computer.

When has the US EVER asked anyone to bow before us?

Our "leadership" of the free world wasn't something we gave ourselves, it was something appointed to us after WWII when the land/people/economies of the world were in ruin, and we helped rebuild.

and who, praytell, appointed anything to us??


yes, we did help rebuild... not out of the goodness of our hearts but of fear of communism but nevermind that... we also messed up many countries with our "rebuilding" like Angola and Congo and Afghanistan and Panama... still, I don't think anyone ever appointed us as the leaders

It was assumed because we were the last men standing. You got a problem with that? Think you can do better? Feel free to step up to the plate. Any takers? No? Ok thats what I thought

What could be wrong with hegemony ?

From the best article on hegemony "the lonely superpower"

"...IN ACTING as if this were a unipolar world, the United States is also becoming increasingly alone in the world. American leaders constantly claim to be speaking on behalf of "the international community." But whom do they have in mind? China? Russia? India? Pakistan? Iran? The Arab world? The Association of Southeast Asian Nations? Africa? Latin America? France? Do any of these countries or regions see the United States as the spokesman for a community of which they are a part? The community for which the United States speaks includes, at best, its Anglo-Saxon cousins (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) on most issues, Germany and some smaller European democracies on many issues, Israel on some Middle Eastern questions, and Japan on the implementation of U.N. resolutions. These are important states, but they fall far short of being the global international community.

On issue after issue, the United States has found itself increasingly alone, with one or a few partners, opposing most of the rest of the world's states and peoples. These issues include U.N. dues; sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, and Libya; the land mines treaty; global warming; an international war crimes tribunal; the Middle East; the use of force against Iraq and Yugoslavia; and the targeting of 35 countries with new economic sanctions between 1993 and 1996. On these and other issues, much of the international community is on one side and the United States is on the other. The circle of governments who see their interests coinciding with American interests is shrinking. This is manifest, among other ways, in the central lineup among the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. During the first decades of the Cold War, it was 4:1 -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and China against the Soviet Union. After Mao's communist government took China's seat, the lineup became 3:1:1, with China in a shifting middle position. Now it is 2:1:2, with the United States and the United Kingdom opposing China and Russia, and France in the middle spot.

While the United States regularly denounces various countries as "rogue states," in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower. One of Japan's most distinguished diplomats, Ambassador Hisashi Owada, has argued that after World War II, the United States pursued a policy of "unilateral globalism," providing public goods in the form of security, opposition to communism, an open global economy, aid for economic development, and stronger international institutions. Now it is pursuing a policy of "global unilateralism," promoting its own particular interests with little reference to those of others. The United States is unlikely to become an isolationist country, withdrawing from the world. But it could become an isolated country, out of step with much of the world.

If a unipolar world were unavoidable, many countries might prefer the United States as the hegemon. But this is mostly because it is distant from them and hence unlikely to attempt to acquire any of their territory. American power is also valued by the secondary regional states as a constraint on the dominance of other major regional states. Benign hegemony, however, is in the eye of the hegemon. "One reads about the world's desire for American leadership only in the United States," one British diplomat observed. "Everywhere else one reads about American arrogance and unilateralism."

Political and intellectual leaders in most countries strongly resist the prospect of a unipolar world and favor the emergence of true multipolarity. At a 1997 Harvard conference, scholars reported that the elites of countries comprising at least two-thirds of the world's people -- Chinese, Russians, Indians, Arabs, Muslims, and Africans -- see the United States as the single greatest external threat to their societies. They do not regard America as a military threat but as a menace to their integrity, autonomy, prosperity, and freedom of action. They view the United States as intrusive, interventionist, exploitative, unilateralist, hegemonic, hypocritical, and applying double standards, engaging in what they label "financial imperialism" and "intellectual colonialism," with a foreign policy driven overwhelmingly by domestic politics. For Indian elites, an Indian scholar reported, "the United States represents the major diplomatic and political threat. On virtually every issue of concern to India, the United States has 'veto' or mobilizational power, whether it is on nuclear, technological, economic, environmental, or political matters. That is, the United States can deny India its objectives and can rally others to join it in punishing India." Its sins are "power, hubris, and greed." From the Russian perspective, a Moscow participant said, the United States pursues a policy of "coercive cooperation." All Russians oppose "a world based on a dominant U.S. leadership which would border on hegemony." In similar terms, the Beijing participant said Chinese leaders believe that the principal threats to peace, stability, and China are "hegemonism and power politics," meaning U.S. policies, which they say are designed to undermine and create disunity in the socialist states and developing countries. Arab elites see the United States as an evil force in world affairs, while the Japanese public rated in 1997 the United States as a threat to Japan second only to North Korea.

Such reactions are to be expected. American leaders believe that the world's business is their business. Other countries believe that what happens in their part of the world is their business, not America's, and quite explicitly respond. As Nelson Mandela said, his country rejects another state's having "the arrogance to tell us where we should go or which countries should be our friends. . . . We cannot accept that a state assumes the role of the world's policeman." In a bipolar world, many countries welcomed the United States as their protector against the other superpower. In a uni-multipolar world, in contrast, the world's only superpower is automatically a threat to other major powers. One by one, the major regional powers are making it clear that they do not want the United States messing around in regions where their interests are predominant. Iran, for instance, strongly opposes the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf. The current bad relations between the United States and Iran are the product of the Iranian revolution. If, however, the Shah or his son now ruled Iran, those relations would probably be deteriorating because Iran would see the American presence in the Gulf as a threat to its own hegemony there..."

http://www.ub.edu.ar/facultades/feg/...superpower.htm

Feel free to read the whole article, it is quite large but a good read on why the US is bound to fall in status. Is that enough proving wrong for you Mojo ? Because I have a few other articles about how hegemony promotes brainless nationalism...

Solid read... it shouldn't come as any surprise, people never like the top dog, eventually we will become a Britain. Unless we just snap and start clipping people, if we feel like holding on to the status quo that is.

As compared to brainless anti-americanism we see?

Of course our status will fall, what goes up must come down, and its sad that so many of our misguided citizens want to hasten that fall.

Lets see, the unwarranted ad hom of "anti-american" followed by unsupportable, ancedotal claims. Nice try at refutation but it leaves a little bit to be desired, logic and evidence mostly.

Oh, is this personal? I wasn't aware that by not affirming the president's role as supreme commander of all that is good was something that amounted to talking trash. It seems like a peculiar course of action to call someone out about "talking trash" over the internet by "talking trash" over the internet.

Golly, lemme check my list.
1.Iraq, "You and your sons have two days to leave your country."
2.Maybe we didn't actually come out and ask france and germany and canada and the a large portion of what you might call the free world to bow before us. We certainly did throw a hissyfit when they decided not to bow in deference to "the leader of the free world"'s war plans.
3. I'm pretty sure that right now cuba, north korea, syria, iran and probably some i missed are on america's "To be made to bow before us" list.
Don't pretend that this superpower doesn't like to throw its weight around when to suit its whims.

And michael jackson is truly the king of pop.

Watching.

I just assume you're always watching.

It's all economics now anyway, it'd be more like "Who made the US President the leader of the free market?" Used to be the 'invisible hand' was just an abstract concept. Maybe some spinmeister is going to convince us that POTUS is such a God on earth that HIS hand is the so-called 'invisible hand' and any *cough*pork-barreling*cough* protectionism imposed by him is A OK for the rhetoric of global laissez faire capitalism.

Thats a bit odd... I was under the impression that we didn't win the war alone, and that there were many countries not even involved in the war... therefore that would make us a group of men among many that were left standing... you cant make the arguement that we won WWII and are therefore appointed leaders by default... perhaps it made sense to be the leader of the free world (as opposed to the soviet world) during the cold war, but now there is no war we've won, there are many other men standing around us who couldn't really care less what we think, and we are no longer leaders by default... when we try to act like leaders now, its by choice... and thats where the issue is

Lets see the World at that point in time Revolved around Europe... Britain was against the Wall, France was forced to surrender within 14 days ( hihi Maginot Line), League of Nations bowed down to the Blitzkreg, Eastern block was under Hitlers control until the US helped mount the western front, Russia suffered 20 million casulities.. History doesn't Lie. If we would've stayed out of the fray Europe and Northern Africa would be wearing Laderhousin and eating brats right now...

This is our boat, we are the sole HYPER POWER... other countries can putz around during the mean time, it doesn't change the status quo.... They have the choice surly, I'm not refuting that, but THEY have no control. Iraq Has proven the U.N. is obsolete (much like the League of Nations), and who is to stop us? Right now nobody... give China 10-20 years to catch up, maybe. What the fuck are countries like France going to do when the state of California is the 5th largest INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD? Sure they can contest our power, you can talk shit, but can you step up to the plate? Rummy was right, France and Germany's time is past, the show is our's and into the forseeable future. I'm no fool though, its the name of the game, and our time will come but that isn't going to be within our life time.

I'm curious how other societies around the world would want the US to behave...

Do they want the US to stfu and mind its own business, in a 21st century that finds the entire world interconnected by planes, computers, telephones, fax machines, and interdependent by trade and exchange of money, services, products, technologies?

Don't tell me my business devil woman....

Re: Who made the US President the leader of the free world
 

Not who... "what".


http://www.jaysnet.com/666bombpacific.jpg

They prolly want it to relax and exist for a few thousand years like they have before telling everyone how the world 'really' works.

great, so we waited for everyone else in the world to get screwed then came in to push for victory... leaving us the strongest at the finish, whopee... however we've had much time since then and now and many things have changed... the only reason we still try to command power is because we choose to... I have long believed that the UN is a bloated vessel about as useful as a turd, and Iraq demonstrated that, so they're not a world power. Indeed we are arguably the strongest world power at the moment, however, that isn't by default, thats by choice... we chose to supress communism and set up our own dictators the world over, chose to go into kosovo and iraq, and ultimately chose every day to try and run the show. Since we choose to do these things, its obvious that everyone else should be pissed off at us, and whether or not we have the power to be the leaders, we should perhaps consider earning the respect as well

Thank you for pissing on the graves of the men and women who died to keep Europe and Asia from under the swastika.

After the horror of trench warfare our country wanted to mind its own business, we were attacked, and thus we entered the war.

Wait, you just dogged America for NOT acting quickly enough. Now we're doing too much. This is where we find ourselves, if we dont do anything we're turning out backs to the world, if we DO do something we suddenly become the evil-empire.

you have quite misunderstood me... I don't think ive pissed on any graves in my life and don't intend to start now but perhaps you could offer some insight there...I was not dogging america for not acting quickly enough, I was merely arguing with Mojo about how we were appointed default leaders of the world... If you scroll up you'll see that he said we were appointed leaders by default because we were the only ones left standing and everyone else had been slaughtered... I pointed out that everyone else was slaughtered because they had been fighting the war years before us, and they shouldn't exactly be looked down upon for losing their citizenzs. I'm also not critizing america for taking action in cases like Iraq. on the contrary i support some of the decisions we make, my only point is that we should keep ourselves in check by remembering that we don't "have the right to do it because we are the leaders of the world by default" rather that we chose to do things as we see fit for the benefit of ourselves and hopefully others as well. Once we recognize that we lead by choice not by divine right, then we should also consider the bad feelings that are generated as a result of our actions and try to earn others' respect if we are in a position of power.

This thread started out so nice, and has gotten so nasty. There seems to be a great deal of anger and and mostly from Amercians. If I remember correctly (and let's be honest this is no sure thing) the term "Leader of the Free World" actually surfaced post WWI in reference to Woodrow Wilson and his desire to create the League of Nations. It has become part of the American vernacular due in part to our arrogance and in part to the fact that the US has served as a leader in international affairs and security since the first World War, and this role has only increased with time. Someone earlier said that this was one of those dammed if you do... and I tend to agree. Frankly, what we do militarily and economically effects the world, but that does not mean they have to respect us or follow our lead. My personal preference would be to listen to Teddy Roosevelt, and "Speak softly and carry a big stick".(This stick would include economic pressures as well as miliary ones.)

Thanks for clearifying Zamunda.

*shrug*

Seems like everyone is looking for a reason to be offended.

Try to relax, people.

Tell the citizens of Iraq it was over 100 years ago...