Non-American viewpoints on Election
 

It seems that this forum is dominated by US members, it may be interesting to see how non Americans feel about the candidates/election.

Just about everyone I know sees red at the mere mention of Bush, is there anybody outside of the US that feels he should continue his "leadership"?

I remember watching a 20/20 type broadcast several weeks ago (maybe it was 20/20) and they said that 80% of non Americans around the world want Bush out of office. He is easily the most hated man on the planet right now. I am going to look for a link and post it.

Quick link: http://www.whywehatebush.com/news/04_09_world.html

That sounds about right, outside of this website I can honestly say I've never once met a Bush Supporter. I have lived in UK, Germany, Bahrain and South Africa, and have been fortunate enough to travel around much of Europe + Middle East.
I really hate the guy.

Imagine that...an American who says "We don't care what you think, we've been attacked, so we're going to take care of ourselves, and screw you if you don't like it" isn't liked by the people he's basically telling to bite us as a nation.

George Bush was not elected to make the world like us. He was elected to act in the best interests of our nation, and to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

There's a reason why that 80% of the world population that hates America can't vote...now if we could just extend that courtesy to the Americans who hate America, the "treason is patriotic" crowd, we'd be much better off.

""Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." --President Abraham Lincoln

I think having the world like us is a cruical part in protecting the nation....

rekna, the world has NEVER liked us. During WWII, the Germans and Japanese REALLY didn't like us, since we were in a shooting war with them. Why should we care what they thought?

WRT the Iraq war, it's been pretty conclusively shown that Saddam was in fact paying politicians off in France and Russia, and possibly other places too, to prevent the invasion of his country and see to it that the sanctions were relaxed and lifted. Those countries weren't betraying the US by being bribed by Saddam, they were looking after what they saw as their own self-interest. They are NOT our friends.

The US has NO need to be liked by the rest of the world. We are what we are, and if they don't like it, they can kiss our super-sized ass. Our safety isn't a popularity contest.

That may be true, but compared to Clinton, Bush is actively alienating the rest of the world. He created an enemy, and recruits them every day with his actions. He is a truly super-sized ass. Your safety is being seriously jeopardised by him.

Before Bush was elected, the US was respected. Sure, some people still disagreed with some things the US did, but they weren't hated like they are now. Bush has made everyone loose faith in the US, and I find that very sad. With Kerry as leader I'm hoping people might start to listen to you again.

This is an honest, non-flip answer.

We make those who have a propensity to like us, like us.

The rest we make to fear us.

That is the major victory of Iraq.

Those countries that have traditionally supported terror, especially in the Middle East, now know that there is a man in the White House that isn't afraid to take them out of power if they identify themselves as our enemy, as Afghanistan did by not handing over Bin Laden and Iraq did by the first Gulf war and repeated UN violations.

I see Kerry as being a guy big on doing the first part, but unwilling to do the second.

As to Germany, I note that they LOVE our money, even as they hate Bush. Maybe George should close ALL the bases over there, just so they don't have to take our filthy lucre.

Neutone, so you're saying that OBL recruited his people, trained them, planned 9/11, and executed it all between the time Bush took office and when it happened?

The democrats gutted, and I mean GUTTED, our military. It's barely a fraction of what it was when Clinton took office. Why don't we have more troops on the ground in Iraq? Because the Democrats took the military from being able to deal with two brush wars and the Soviet Union invading Europe simultaneously to being unable to deal with one brush war effectively.

OBL's animosity towards America FAR predates Dubya's taking office. And Clinton taught the Terrorists that the SAFEST thing they could do was to attack American targets by treating their attacks as a law enforcement matter.

There are two main lines of thought in foreign policy now. There's the "walk softly but carry a big stick" approach, and there's the "If we surrender now, they will not attack us anymore, maybe" approach. The Big Stick approach is far more effective.

Trillions for defense, not one goddamned penny for tribute.

Let me say this.
Im an American, and as the oil for food scandal proceeds to become more clear, its obvious why people in Russia, France and Germany might be "upset" we went in. Their leaders atleast--- we cut off their source of bribes to reduce sanctions.

Daswig, I know you're right about terrorist activity brewing well before Bush, aside from the obvious jibe pointing out OBL's US recruitment and training, I abhor Bush's phenomenal lack of respect to the world to create a war based on lies, drag so many countries into it only to have their soldiers killed, their truck drivers beheaded etc. If Bush had not been the warwonger he is, it's true that the foreign policies would still be evoking animosity, but at least there wouldn't be the global dislike for America among your average global citizen.

That is exactly what "terrorists" want. It gives them even more reason to murder innocent people and have it justified because America oppresses them and their country. This in turn leads to more hatred around the world and even, maybe, just a bit more sympathy toward "terrorists". The “terrorists” want Bush to get re-elected to get their point across that America is the enemy. America kills our children. America attacks our religion, etc. If another 9/11 happens tomorrow, I think much less people globally would care much compared to the first attack because they feel Bush is doing the same to Iraq and fear he will do the same to Iran, N. Korea or Syria if he gets re-elected. To be feared is one thing, to be hated is another.

Neutone, are you familiar with what constitutes a casus belli? The US has had long-standing casus belli to go into Iraq. Every time they fired a missile at our planes after the cease-fire, they created another one. They sheltered terrorists who had killed Americans. We don't know for sure what contact existed between Saddam and Al Queda, but we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Iraqi government publicly admitted to sheltering other terrorists responsible for killing American citizens. Tariq Aziz held a frigging PRESS CONFERENCE about it while Saddam was still in power.

You say Iraq was a war based upon lies. Yet the recent CIA report documented at least 56 cases of our finding 1980's vintage WMDs in Iraq. Was Saddam producing WMDs during the 1990s? Best guess, no. Did Saddam still possess WMDs from his 1980's stockpiles? Well, they've found 56 so far, so that would be "YES". Did Saddam maintain the technology and the desire to produce WMDs? According to the report, yes, he did, and he was waiting for sanctions to be lifted to do so. The report stated that it would have taken him weeks to months to reconstitute WMD production. And Saddam was very actively working to get those sanctions lifted, by bribing damn near everybody in sight.

As far as our world-wide image, the "ugly American" stereotype has been around for decades. We're largely seen as spoiled, uncultured, lard-asses, and have been seen that way for a very, very long time. So before you say that Bush has made us globally disliked, please explain how the long-existing "ugly American" stereotype meant we were LIKED beforehand. Thanks.

Dude I live outside the US, I know that the US was not this hated before Bush took over. Of course some people disliked you then as well as now, but in no way as much as nowadays.

The hatred has always been there, it just has become more politically correct for people to voice that hatred now.

On the positive side, all that hatred means that if the Europeans get themselves into ANOTHER mess, and it's not in our interests to back them up, we can in good conscience tell them where exactly to go.

NATO is an alliance, and alliances work BOTH ways, it's not just America's job to back the other members up, they have an OBLIGATION to back us up too. As an American, I'll tell you that I'm getting pretty sick of having to put our asses on the line to defend Europe's interests, while they stab us in the back over and over again over something as stupid as large-scale bribery by people who hate ALL of us, Americans and Europeans alike. honestly, I'd like to see the US get out of NATO, and simply form another alliance with the British and Eastern Europeans who want our help. Let the French deal with the rise of the right in Germany...I'm tempted to quote Brecht, but nah, why bother?

No, I'm telling you, the hatred has NOT always been there. The US has always been respected. Not necessarily loved, but not hated. People might have disliked some of the things you did, but in no way did the mock or hate you as they do now.

Bush is why this has happened. He didn't only lie to the american people about why he entered Iraq, he lied to the entire world. There were no WMDs, he knew that, he went in anyway. Yet some people seem to like to bend over and take it up the ass from him. When the US got attacked on 9/11 you had all the right to attack Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden, Europe had no problem with that at all. (Well I'm sure some nutbags thought it was wrong but lets just ignore them for now) It's when you went against the ENTIRE WORLD and entered Iraq, which had nothing to do with those attacks you got the world against you.

How many WMDs did Saddam have to have to "have WMDs"? Isn't 50+ WMDs enough?

We went against the entire world? There were 30 countries involved to one extent or another. The "biggies" were the US and England. In Gulf War 1, care to guess who put up the majority of the troops?

We're in a war against terrorism. Not a war against some terrorists, but against ALL terrorists, and the nations that aid them. Saddam INDISPUTABLY aided terrorists. This is beyond doubt, since Aziz admitted so while acting as a spokesperson for hte regime.

I'll tell you what. If Saddam was so NOT an evil bastard that had to go, what would you say to the idea that the US reaches a deal with him, and puts him back into power? How well would that go over in your vaunted world-opinion poll??? If our war against him was so unjust, why isn't the world clamoring for us to do EXACTLY that? I'll tell you why...because the rest of the world knows we did what needed to be done, but they are too busy hating Bush to give him ANY credit at all.

I've travelled extensively all over the world on business. Europe, Asia, Africa, been there, done that. I'd put money on it that I'm far more well travelled than you are. Remember that when you accuse me of living in my "little world".

Well I guess having travelled all over the world then obviously does not mean you know everything about the world.

50+ WMDs? Where the hell did that figure come from? Last time I checked THERE WAS NONE! The Bush administration even admitted that.

As for Saddam, I am not saying he was a good guy, he was an ass and I think most people will agree on that. People does not want Saddam back into power since he was a shitty leader, ok? The thing is though, you had no reason to go into Iraq, and I'm sorry to have to break this to you, Bush did not enter because he felt that the poor Iraqis needed your help, no matter what he wants you to believe. Diplomacy would have worked, even though Bush tries to convince the world it wouldn't.
Your own president lied to you and you think that's ok? It's a weird world indeed...

connyosis -

The vintage WMD's were all over the news here in the states.

How old are you? I specifically remember years and years of public displays of American hatred. Does the name Reagan ring a bell? Your age has a lot to do with this argument, because this is not a new problem for us. Most of us have been dealing with it for decades.

If we were so liked, then what was up with all of the attacks against us in the 90's? Why were the Marines massacred in Beirut? What about the hostages during Carter? Vietnam?

This is not new, but I suspect, it is new to you.

Call me elitist, but I don't give a squirt what another country thinks of us. I hear all of the whining and complaining, then I look at the money/industry/military assistance/training/importing/exporting/etc. that they receive from the US.

Every country that is bitching and griping about our President being the devil would also be the first ones knocking on our door for help from the same man that they call the devil.

And guess what?

We would help them. Regardless of the bile that spews from their mouths.

Now, who is the better country?

We don't talk the talk, but we will walk the walk. We have proven it time and time again. And when help is needed, where do you go? To the country that talks or the country that backs up their words?

/I apologize in advance for the rant--this topic really grates on me.

All terrorists? You may want to rephrase that. Terrorists that threaten the US is more appropriate for this argument.

All terrorists are a threat to the US and it's Allies.

It is a semantical argument, but I would agree with daswig on this one. We are not going to let our "friends" hang in the breeze by only focusing on terrorists that directly threaten us.

My take on our position is: If you threaten our friends you are threatening us...yes....even France.

And you, a student who apparently have not travelled extensively around the world, somehow have a better grasp on the world than I do, a guy with a postgraduate degree, many years in business of a worldwide nature, and literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of miles of travel "under my belt"?

The 50+ WMDs were reported in the "fine print" of the recently released CIA report. The media is playing up the "no post-1991 WMDs" aspect of it, but is playing down the "a fair number of 1980's vintage WMDs" contained in the same report. You MIGHT want to read a little bit deeper before you start basing your political philosophy on media-reported soundbites.

As for our reasons to go into Iraq, I'd like to remind you of a few minor facts: 1. the 1991 resolution to go into Iraq was still in force. There was a cease-fire in place (you DO understand the difference between a ceasefire and a peace treaty, don't you?), but Iraq had REPEATEDLY violated the conditions of it. 2. You say diplomacy would have worked. 12 years had passed, 18 UNSC resolutions had passed, and Saddam was still non-cooperative. Were we supposed to wait until he died of old age? One of the terms of the ceasefire and earlier UN resolutions was that Saddam was to divest Iraq of ALL WMDS. Pre-1991, post 1991, it didn't matter, he was to get rid of them ALL. So far, 56 pre-1991 WMDs have been found. 3. Iraq INDISPUTABLY committed acts of aggression that qualified as casus belli under the international standard. They sheltered terrorists that killed Americans. They paid people to blow themselves up in Israel. They were, by ANY definition, a rogue nation.

I don't believe that Bush invaded Iraq to help the Iraqi people. He invaded Iraq to kick Saddam's ass, and Saddam deserved it. Once we were in Iraq, however, Bush decided to try and make things better. We could have simply slaughtered the Iraqi military, captured the people we wanted, and then pulled out, with our mission accomplished (which was "get Saddam"). Instead, we tried to do the right thing.

Ok, I did not know about that. Have a link with any info about that? (I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see it for myself)

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying the US has been loved by everyone, I'm just saying that the hatred has not been as strong before as it is now. Also yes, during Reagan years the US was disliked in many places, but it was still respected. People didn't mock or laugh at it as it is today. I myself like the US. It's a country with flaws but so has any country.

And to some extent I agree with you, your own country should be the highest priority, absolutely, but it's not a good idea to alienate the rest of the world, which is what has happened.

I'm not saying any country is better than any other, I hope my post didn't come out like that. The US has helped a lot of countries in the past, and for that they should be grateful. They also have stuck their nose where it does not belong sometimes, we have to remember that too.

I understand that, and I hope you don't think I'm some kind of US hater, I'm definatly not. I just really dislike some of the desiscions Bush has made, and I have nothing against the people of the US themselves.

I like hearing what other countries think of us. It both further proves my insistance that our foreign policy sucks and that we are the only mainworld country on the planet to hold religion as an important aspect in who we elect as our leader.

connyosis - As I mentioned, it is a sore subject for me, so I should probably drop it. I dealt with this issue personally years before Bush was in office, so I don't see it as new. I can't tell you how many US leaders have been burned in efigy in the past decades.

Anyway...

er, Halx - Aren't Muslim leaders "elected" based on religion? Could a Christian hold a position of power in any Muslim country? Or are they not mainworld? The U.S. isn't the only country, mainworld or not, to hold religion in high regard.

Just because we have company doesn't mean we should be proud of it.

I was disputing your assertion stated here.

Anyway, I am pround that we live in a country where a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian can serve in the same government together. I think that speaks volumes as I do not know many countries that are as tolerant.

Unfortunately, only a Christian can hold the highest office. I'm not proud of that.

It's interesting that when you look around at most other Western democracies, they do not depend and require such faith based leadership as we do here in the States - and yet, it was our country that wrote down the doctrine of seperation of church and state as a foundation of our government.

Well most Americans are Christians, and when people vote the majority wins. So when another religion is in the hearts of Americans then the leadership will be as such.

And many countries have religious leaders. Even in Europe leaders are Christians. But, I do not think that we are hated because Bush and every other President before him goes to Church.

As I understand it.. and from the mouths of europeans, to invoke god during a political speech is a faux pas. I have no issue with the fact that people are religious.. just the fact that our presidents HAVE to be.

I don't have much of a problem with someone calling on God in a political speech, I don't believe in a god, however like anything I cannot say with 100% certainty that he doesn't exist so if someone wants to call for help even from a higher power IMO it isn't hurting much.

Personally I could careless what a non-American thinks about our politics, because if it was the Eiffel in France getting nailed...we would respond...if it was Vatican city....we would respond...not to mention likely still recieve 90% casualties in the ensuing "coalition" operation. It would also be more than likely a president like Bush to do so. As many say if Kerry or Gore would be in office this wouldn't have happened. Just as if the attack hit somewhere else, we likely wouldn't have extended a hand had they been in office.

I dunno about that one :D
I'm still putting the W Ketchup on my freedom fries - and I think when this oil for food thing is more fledged out, those of you that arent " far right extremists" like myself might feel the same

I believe now the French may have crossed the line of future assistance however before if it was them we would have come to their aid. I think them not supporting our decision was a great slap in the face to the many living vetrans who prevented them from speaking German. Oh right....we got a statue, yeah, well I guess we can call it even.

Oh my god, the world could not stop laughing when 'Freedom Fries' happened.

Perhaps to re-enforce my intention with this thread, I wanted to know how non-US members feel about the elections and candidates. I think most of us realise that America is not a bad place full of lard asses (although I'm sure there are many Americans who'd disagree) and every American I know is great. I suspect that I like them because they are well educated and well travelled, and have had the opportunity to become global citizens with global experiences and international friends. Perhaps it's because they are open minded and cultured, and they embrace the world.

Every country has it's insular religious conservatives who resent change, don't like foreigners and have no interest in crossing borders, it's just truly mystifying when a country that is so pioneering, is governed by such a person.

Daswig, you can have a million miles but how many days, months or years have you spent abroad? Have you lived abroad?

This pretty much encapsulates what i think about the USA. Its not 'fun' or 'PC' to dislike the actions of the US, most other citizens of the planet are genuinely worried about it. Bush's behaviour really reinforces that negative stereotype of the arrogant/ignorant american. His actions would be comedic if they wernt so important. He really doesnt deserve to be the head of state of the most powerful nation on earth. Interestingly, all of the americans (some of the nicest/most friendly people i have met) i have met outside the US agree with me. Another thing that kinda scares me about the current climate is the lynch mob type patriotism.

I've never been abroad for more than 4 months in a single stretch. One year, I was overseas for 10 months total out of 12 months possible. As a SWAG, I'd say I've spent close to 5 years total overseas since 1986.

Tell me who would be safer

Person 1:

KKK member living in harlem who openly displays his white pride but has a tun of guns in his house.

Person 2:

Person living in a suberb of some large city that knows all their neighbors well and invites them over often. Has a gun, everyone knows it, but no one ever sees it.

i've been over both oceans for at least month's time time each since GWB has become President... this is what struck me about the perceptions of US politics:

except in rare circumstances, those people who i discussed US politics with were fairly ignorant. not in an unintelligent way, just in an uninformed way. granted, they were probably better educated on our politics than i was in most of theirs... but the opinions i heard were taken straight from their local news source.

and this is the problem: foreign news agencies are just aweful in their reporting of US events. the strain of anti-americanism may not be rooted in media reporting, but is certainly exacerbated by it. i remember sitting in a kyoto hostel watching cnn international (among the most american friendly international news outlets) thinking: if this is how foreign persons get their information about my country... no wonder they think the way they do! i can't comment on the quality of reporting on their own national issues, but i do know my country's politics and i know that they aren't being represented in with a balanced perspective abroad. if we expect to gain any international support for anything, no matter the cause, this issue must be addressed.

I know for a fact, that the Chinese really like and respect Clinton as president. He created some of the strongest ties to China in history. He was also one of (if not) the first presidents to walk the Great Wall. Considering that China is in an economic boom at the moment, we will do better with more ties there.

Agreed, If anything China will be the next "super power" if the US doesn't stay with the ties and also keeps its technology with in its borders. That’s what I am more afraid of than terrorism; it’s a war with China. And now that looks highly doubtful. But who knows if we get in a fight with North Korea all hell may break lose.



As an American I am sicken by this rhetoric. I do believe that if it wasn’t for the French helping us in the American revolution, and footing a huge amount of the men and money to run the last half of that war. Tony Blair would be running our lives not GW

I would like to point out that it isn't Bush's religion that is a problem, it is the religion of Iran that is a problem.

That and the Palestinian/Arab/Israel problem.

With this logic, Indians would still fight us, we would not have and alliance with Britain, Japan, Germany, and so on. There are living people at the present who suffered and lost loved ones in WW2.

Bush's religion is indeed a problem in many people's opinions. He may not sanction suicide bombers but his fundamentalist beliefs can and do come into play as far as his policies are concerned.

I grant you that, but you can say the same thing about "X" trait about "Y" president.

Clinton's (and Kennedy's) sexual proclivities were a huge problem for some people while others didn't give a damn.

As to their effect on policy, many people also like them.

Thank God we live in a country where you can vote or not vote for such a person!

In Iran, you don't have that option :D

No I don't think he should continue his leadership. Never liked the guy or his policies, both foreign and what I've heard of the domestic ones.
Bushes hardline attitude on the China really changed after Chinas support of the 'war on terrorism', reverting back to a more even handed approach to the cross straits issue. I found his hardline attitude on China dangerous.

That's what happens when you sell secret American military technology to a national full of communists.

The world wants Kerry to be the next U.S. President? I can't think of a better reason to vote for Bush. There's a good reason why my ancestors came to America.

i've noticed that in spite of the title and startpost, this thread has been dominated by americans saying they don't give a rats ass about what the rest of the world thinks. well, i'm going to continue the trend. i feel like w. is a real life darth vader and we have become the official villains of the earth on his watch. and i feel like thats a damn shame.

As an "outsider", I don't think Bush should gain the presidency, since he actually didn't win the first time around.
As for the other options, I think the US faces the same problem most countries have, picking the lesser of two evils.
It will be interesting to see how the election will go, lets hope it's based on votes this time around.

Islam is the problem? Forgive me if I haven't understood you correctly, but it seems to me that this is what you're saying. In which case, would you please explain?

Are there links for any of this?

80% of non-americans want bush out and 50% of americans do. we're not so different after all! considering the mad proaganda that's fed to the population over there (80% thought that Iraqis hijacked the 9/11 planes and many think WMD was found (someone ought to tell Tony BLiar so he can stop apologising for not finding anything)) I think 50% is quite high.

As a non-American, his foreign policy scares me. It scares me that Colin Powell might not be around for the next term. It scares me that the foreign policy prime movers of this White House have been called "fringe" by the old guard conservatives. Despite being a liberal, I can sorta respect your classic stuffy old Edmund Burke type conservative. These guys are far from it. I don't know WHAT their deal is.

They seem ideologically bent on sqeezing the world like a lump of clay and reshaping it into....what exactly? Is there even a plan, or just a whole lot of pie in the sky? That is the great "known unknown".

Good point. Powell for US president and Clinton for EU president!

How do you forsee any country having a "propensity to like us"? The true lesson of Bushwar for the world is that Americans are willing to elect and support a leader who will make bat-shit crazy military moves including unprovoked invasions. The other lesson for dictators and fundamentalist governments is that they had better develop nuclear weapons because that is apparently the only deterant effective against the right-wing that holds power in the U.S. (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea). How do you explain our government's handling of Saudia Arabia with kid gloves when it has been proven as an ongoing source of terrorists? The Bush docterine is untenable and arbitrary at best.

Not exactly.

I specified Iran for a reason because the radical brand of Islam they practice.

I have no problem with Islam as a concept, but I do have a problem with any religion, or flavors thereof, that oppress non-believers.

"Bat-shit crazy military moves including unprovoked invasions" certainly is a colorful turn-of-phrase, but it is partisan and not universal opinion.

And many countries do like us, which you should at least admit, including many former Eastern block countries, many countries in our own hemisphere, and many western European countries.

As to Saudi Arabia, I explain our policy towards them in two ways.

Yes, we handle them with kid gloves when IMO, we should not, but we do it because the government there is amenable to change as well as to working with us against al quaeda (even though it is not as fast as I would like).

This was not true with Afghanistan or Iraq.

And it was Clinton and the presidents before him that "allowed" North Korea to get nuclear weapons. To lay that at Bush's feet is dishonest.

It seems to me that this discussion is taking on the general view of: The rest of the world is jelous of us. And untill we beat sense into those savages, they will never be civilized like us.

Sad, really sad.

American here, and this needs to be said. Not all American's want to tell the world to fuck off. Some of us see the benifit of having neighbors you get along with. Some of us realize that despite what some people believe we cannot honestly say the USA is the best country in the world. It's time the world started to work together for the greater good.

I just don't understand it how a country as big as the USA composed of such a large diverse geographical, ethnical, and political spectrum can't see the value of the world working together. This country was founded on seperate governmental entities working together to further the greater good. What happend to that ideal?

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahre...raqalqaeda.htm
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahre...prewariraq.htm

A most interesting thread I must say. More quality content than many.

It appears that America should carry a big stick and never use it according to a few people. Because if we have a big stick and use it without the worlds permission we are HATED for it. Hated for seeking out those who have wronged us. Hated for utilizing our big stick for its intended purpose. Maybe we didn't smooch up to a few less that supportive countries and give them a chance at the contracts? Maybe we no longer view them as best friends and now consider them to be a liability? I say we hit the non-supporters in their checkbook and now they are crying foul.

Funny how Colin Powell can be the next "Great American Hope" after being a part in all that makes us HATED around the world. I guess he just sits in his office and collects a check every month while planning his presidency with Hillary. Its all GWB's fault.

IMO - NATO is now cowering in fear of having to perform a police action (like in Africa maybe) because the US may not support it by providing 100% of the money, aid and troops. I guess the many nations that now HATE us don't want to put their sons, daughters, and money where their mouth is.

I am from Germany and I live in the US right now. We would be happy if you would close down all your bases, spy posts and other crap in Europe. We don't want them and the economy would perfectly go on without them.
Talking about illegal/strange investments... I would like to see those blacked-out names of American companies that were on that list which was intended to blame France. And I would like to see the reasons behind the trillions of Saudi-Arabian Dollars invested in the US.
But, I have accepted that politicians lie to you and to us more than you can imagine.

These sites seem to take circumstantial evidence and disputed theories and present them as hard facts. They do exactly what they complain Michael Moore does himself (and I agree with them about what they say about Moore - I'm not a particularly big fan of his myself).

Okay, remove the "bat-shit crazy" phrase, of course that's opinion, and look at what you're left with: truth.
I'll admit that many countries did like us. The U.S. was looked to as a source of optimism, democratic ideals, and, in general, a beacon of light in the world. In the last two years however I've seen that light extinguished by an overwhelming wave of anti-americanism. The turning point is obvious too, there was a great deal of sympathy for the U.S. following 9/11 that was reversed when the Bush admin. began selling the world the "product" of an Iraq invasion (see Andrew Card for quotes).
Our differences here are minor, I won't quibble.
You're right that blame doesn't entirely fall on Bush for N. Korea's nuclear proliferation, but it did happen on his watch. And, in any case, you miss my point about nuclear weapons. My point is that the Bush doctorine apparently doesn't apply to nations that have nuclear capability, the lesson being that if your nation is a possible target of U.S. aggression you had better develop them post haste.

I think your reasoning is sound that when the U.S. flexes its military muscles it gains respect from some would-be enemies who may respect nothing else. But why did this occur only with the Iraq invasion and not Afgahnistan? What will happen to that respect after another 1, 3, 5, 10 years of Iraq war? Another 1000, 5000, 10,000 U.S. casualties? Will we have to kill 20,000 more Iraqis? 50,000 more? News trickles out of Iraq slowly, unbiased news reports are almost entirely missing, but it does not appear to be a war we are winning. I'm not even sure who we are actually fighting. Saddam is in jail and yet we're fighting in regions that historically hated Saddam as much as they apparently hate us. What happens to that respect for our military might if resistance to U.S. forces continues indefinitely?

so true, everytime I hear something bad about the French and how they didn't help us, seriously...wow. If WW1 is your only example, we're, "even," WW2, yea ok we don't help the french and we'll be fine...heard of zimmerman?

It's amazing what spreading our national legs will do to increase your popularity with the leadership of our enemies.

The greatest thing about Clinton was that he could be bought. Cheaply. And he often was.

Did you ever notice how the Republican saber rattling over China disappeared along with Clinton? Aren't they still a "most favored nation?" Don't we have a republican president and sentate?

I'm not a Republican. I DO recall strained relations with China after Bush took office...after they forced that US military surveillance plane to land and refused to release the plane and crew. That took second fiddle after 9/11

Al Queda is a minor threat. In 20-30 years, the US will be at war with Communist China. Mark my words...

lol, and i guess it is China's fault that an american SPY-plan landed in their military base.

Given the nature of the world economy and how succesfully China is playing along in it I think that this prediction is more then a little farfetched.

By the way, isn't it time that we switched to the term "totalitarianist Chinese?" It's a lot more accurate then calling a country with massive capital infuxes, private factories and "investment opportunities" communist.

I recall the incident.

The plane was FORCED to land at the air-base.

It had been flying in international air-space.

So yes, it is China's fault.

The point of China's involvement in the world economy is too make sure this war never happens Cthulu. The time frame and possibility of war with that is not all that farfetched. I'm getting a little anxious, it's been a long time since we've had a world war, we are due.

Considering that they had to crash a fighter plane into the surveillance plane to get it to land, yeah, it was their fault.

Considering the close ties that American companies have made to China over the past 5-10 years, including factories from Detroit's "big 3" automakers this seems highly unlikely.

Then why is the chinese military being told that their ultimate enemy is in fact the US, and that they need to be prepared? Why is the PLAN building a blue-water navy?

I don't get what you're saying...China is in the world economy to enrich itself (as is every other nation), but that has the pleasant side effect of making conflict less logical...you don't attack your best trading partner, right? Given the increased trade and cultural engagement with China, who is going to start the war? Taiwan is always an issue, but we've avoided war over that issue through much more tense times then today.

Why? Who was France's largest trading partner in 1938?

Even if this is true, it has no relevance. Germany and France had a history of conflict, Germany blamed France for their economic collapse and post-WWI "humiliation" and they are located near each other. The US and China are completely different nations in a completely different world.

Yessir, the US and China never got into it, not when the PLA invaded Korea, nor when they supplied massive logistical support to the Vietnamese. I have friends that are still alive that killed Chinese Communists in a real-live shooting war. No history of conflict there...

The chinese were so concerned about obtaining missile technology to allow them to construct inter-continental ballistic missiles because....we were too far from them to use intra-continental ballistic missiles for their nukes?

As an outsider, I will also refocus the original intent of this thread:

When I watch Bush speak, I see an unintelligent warmonger who can't coordinate an organized thought. I don't like the fact that many people here are supporting a president who is constructing economic as well as cultural walls around your great country... Before you know it, you'll be all alone... If that's what you want, so be it... But don't think that globalization will stop just because America isn't involved.

When I see Kerry speak, I see someone who wants to rebuild bridges burned by the Bush administration, improve america's foreign policy, rebuild your floundering economy, hell... fucking make healthcare more available to everyone! That's something most Canadians take for granted. I see an educated man who is extremely well spoken.

I take pride in the fact that when I travel abroad, I can wear a Canadian flag with pride... Hell, many American travellers sew Canadian flags on their bags simply to be better received in the country where they travel to. The world exists outside of your borders, I hope that Kerry gets elected so that you can realize it.

Please read real history instead of taking them for your brainwasher GI friend who pride himself for killing a fellow human being.
Last time I check US invaded Korea and Vietnam first. And given the location of the 2 countries, China has way more right than US.

China has never stated any statments which have shown agression against US during the last decade.
Meanwhile, bush is calling China a competative oppenot.

I guess china sent some suecide poilet to crash US SPY plane so that it will land in chinse military base.
Last time I checked, the plane was bad damnaged to land in chinese military base without chinese concent.

Btw, was it also china's fault to built their ambessy on a location that will soon be bombed by the US.

Uh huh, Comrade. Yessir, the US of A was a Capitalist Aggressor in Korea, all right, that's why we were there under the UN flag.

I bet you support freeing Tibet, eh?

Uh huh. A chinese pilot, flying a very nimble, very fast jet fighter aircraft, was unable to avoid ramming a lumbering, very slow propeller-driven transport aircraft. RIIIIGHT.

The chinese either buy or steal their technology. This is just another example of it.

Then why is China building that blue-water navy?

/hopes we give many nukes to Taiwan...

So when does the statuate of limitations on French gratitude expire? I mean, the Americans / British / Canadians landed in 1944. As far as I am aware, only the US constantly whines about the French somehow owing the them (the US) for all eternity.

I think that even if the Germans hadn't been kicked out in 1944, they would be gone by now and the French would still be the French, speaking French. Only difference is that they wouldn't have to put up with the tired old refrain, "we saved your ass twice".

Very well put

And you base this upon.....???

You speak doom and gloom about the specter of Chinese aggression and then advocate an action almost guaranteed to spark said aggression. How does arming Taiwan with nukes make any sense? I know of no one who advocates that position .

Some may fear the Chinese and secretly wish for a confrontation with them, but the foreign policy of our nation demonstrates that our own leaders support engagement over saber rattling. Of course China is a potential threat but the hard-edged ideological battles of the cold war are over. Capitalism won and the Chinese are just jockeying for position. They have more to gain from playing along then they would by returning to the aggressive past, as can be seen by their succesful emergence in the global economic order.

This is not to say that I condone the human rights abuses of China or think that we should soft-peddle them on such issues. There are always right ways and wrong ways to apporach a situation. I think that most reasonable people understand that direct military confrontation with China is most definitley the wrong way.

daswig, there is no way to tell if you post nonsense, or if there are facts in
your posts, since you seldom post links to sources of the facts in your posts.
I can find no irrefutable facts to back your statement that "democrats
gutted the military. In fact, I find the opposite is the factual case:
And.....from factcheck.orgThis is attributed by factcheck.org to Bush's father's 1992 State of the Union address, 12 months before Clinton took office:
Your criticism of Clinton's strategy and results in fighting terrorists is equally
lacking in accuracy. Here are links that contain facts of Clinton effectiveness
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/hersh_080404_republicans_sabotaged.htm">Republicans Sabotaged Clinton's Anti-Terror Efforts</a>
Please alert me when you are ready to carry on a fact based discourse
concerning the points you raised in your post.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17702-2001Oct6&notFound=true">Conservatives Sound Refrain: It's Clinton's Fault</a>

Did you even read what you quoted? From your quote: What does that mean? It means that Bush I cut the military to the bone to take the so-called "peace dividend", and then Clinton took it 15% FURTHER. Your links prove my point FOR me. Yeah, we've got a high state of readiness, which is why we're scrambling for troops in Iraq. Damn, those 15% of the armed forces personnel would have sure come in handy about a year ago...but they'd already been cut.

That's funny, I seem to remember that the Bush administration has lobbied for a smaller, more strategic force of elite soldiers....it's almost as if they hadn't planned for a long occupation of Iraq. Of course, it will always be easier to blame everything on the last administration that you opposed.

The history of the Status Quo.

And the Americans write back......

Responses back to the Guardian - For and against the letter writing campaign.

as a non american perhaps i can addmy 2 cents worth. I think a nation a large as the US that has become heavily involved in world politics needs an exceptional leader. I am sorry but Bush does not seem to me to be intelligent and forward thinking enough to keep "all the balls" in the air for the greater good of your country.
I was amazed at the florida debacle last time around, if that had happenned in an african state there would have been many comments from an administration.
Also Bush`s ignoring the Kyoto agreement will come back to haunt him.