Recent Study showing GB and America popularity dropping!

[Corporal Hicks]

Unfortunatly I've lost the actual report for this study but I'll see if I can find it again. I also heard it on the radio this morning.

The American President George Bush next four years in power has caused the most discomfort in people viewing what the future could bring for people in lots of different countries around the world. The nations people that are dreading this forefront in power, are the nations of France, Belgium and Britain (I believe). The popularity of Americans since the Iraq war has also been steadily dropping with the majority of attitudes pointing to Americans being viewed as "Those trying to take control of matters that do not concern them".

I disagree with this even though I'm not American seeing that the liberation of Iraq was indeed a good thing for its people, no matter what the media say. Though I agree with that George Bush is pushing it a little too far, especially with that new secetary of his threatening countries such as North Korea and China. This move is not wise, North Korea isnt big but it is backed by China and an invasion of it could mean wide scale war.

Maybe I'm wrong (probably am) what you guys think?

Regards

 

[someguy]

I'll take a bet that China isn' all of that happy with the idea of north korea having nukes.

 

[michaeledward]

Global attitude toward America peaked on September 12, 2001. At that time, the nations of the world would have done just about anything for America, all we would have had to do is ask.

After the 7 week campaign in Afghanistan, world-wide attitudes toward America have been declining rapidly.

No country in the world supported the United States military action in Iraq. On March 20, 2003, the only countries that showed even modest support for the United States actions were the isles of Great Britian, and Australia.

Since the end of major combat operations (May 2, 2003), the majority of Great Britianers are against the occupation of Iraq. English Prime Minister Blair will have a difficult time securing another term in office.

The only light outside of America, in relation to the United States (& Coalition) actions, has been an election in Australia. The opposition candidate campaigned on a reduction of forces from the Iraqi theater and lost.

As of this moment ... I think to presume that we have 'liberated Iraq' is a bit premature. The future of Iraq is uncertain. If elections take place on the 30th, and if they are deemed to be 'free and fair' (there is no guarantee of this), we may find that the parting on the left, has become the parting on the right, and their beards have all grown longer overnight. --- We replace a repressive Saddam Hussein regime with a repressive Grand Ayatolla Ali-Sistani regime. This could lead to Sunni genocide by the Shi'ite majority.

Yesterday, Nominated Secretary of State C. Rice stated the United States would not leave Iraq until the 'job' is complete. I just wish someone would define what the 'job' actually is?

Rest assured, the entire world, outside of the the United States, is opposed to the American actions and attitude.

michaeledward

 

[MisterMike]

If the global attitude toward America peeked after 9/11, then it was temporary and doesn't say a lot about what they thought of us before we were attacked. Obviously "someone" didn't like us because we were attacked.

I think that they are concerned with the America 1st attitude at this point. That we would throw caution to the wind and pre-emptively attack another country we deemed a threat. People's attitude like mine, who put American's first and the rest of the world second. To that I say, "too bad."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, maybe it says that nobody likes a bully--especially a self-righteous, short-sighted one.

Hey, whatever happened to that whole, "the world and especially the Iraquis will stand up and cheer when we liberate them," routine that we heard again and again and again?

Did it get forgot, along with a) WMDs as the reason for the war, b) the Big Link between Hussein and Al Quaida, c) floating the rationale for torture, d) ignoring Colin Powell's advice, e) telling the UN to stick it, we're invading, f) throwing out at least three major treaties to which this country is signatory because well, we just want to?

 

[Tgace]

When somebody says they dont like me, it may cause me to introspect somewhat and see if there is anything about myself I should change. If the answer there is "no. nothing I should change" then its the other persons problem, not mine. I dont believe in changing direction with the wind.

 

[michaeledward]

If the global attitude toward America peeked after 9/11, then it was temporary and doesn't say a lot about what they thought of us before we were attacked. Obviously "someone" didn't like us because we were attacked.

When a tomato plant sprouts in the sun box, it, too, is temporary. We could choose to nurture the plant, with water and appropriate amounts of sunshine.

Or we could let our Rottwieller urinate on it. That would make our tomato harvest short-lived, though.



Or, according to the yellow belt sayings:

Whatever the attitude, so is the response.

​

​

 

[GAB]

When somebody says they dont like me, it may cause me to introspect somewhat and see if there is anything about myself I should change. If the answer there is "no. nothing I should change" then its the other persons problem, not mine. I dont believe in changing direction with the wind.

Regards, Gary

 

[OUMoose]

When somebody says they dont like me, it may cause me to introspect somewhat and see if there is anything about myself I should change. If the answer there is "no. nothing I should change" then its the other persons problem, not mine. I dont believe in changing direction with the wind.

May I offer another example?

You live in a neighborhood, and are a member of a neighborhood watch. Everyone in the neighborhood comes to these meetings and agrees on a course of action to keep their neighborhood safe (foot patrols, lighting petitions, etc). Through all of this, your house is broken into. Do you take the law into your own hands and hunt down the perp yourself, or do you work with the police and neighborhood watch group to apprehend them as a team, and most likely better your group as a whole?

Granted this is a simplistic look at things, as I'm not taking into account social, religious, economic, or cultural biases. IMO, Our president basically thumbed his nose at the rest of the world, and has taken the rest of us down in his arrogance.

 

[ghostdog2]

OUMoose:
Respectfully, no one is helping keep our neighborhood safe but us. And we are the guarantors of neighborhood safety to half the world.
But to expand on your analogy, what if the neighborhood watch was in collusion with the crooks? Didn't want them caught or would turn them loose if caught. What then?
"The Lord helps those who help themselves."

 

[Cryozombie]

I agree with you guys here.

I think we should pull our troops and "support" out.

Of Everywhere.

Bring em all home, and leave the world to police itself. After all, Its none of our buisness, and as you say, no one wants us there.

So, pull all our troops and forces out of Iraq. Our Bases in Europe. Everywhere.

Cuz no one wants us there.

Although, somehow, I feel that sentiment might change once we are gone, but probably not.

 

[Tgace]

All the post 9-11 "support from the world" was nice. Does anybody think any of those nations would have done anything about the Taliban/Afganistan for us because of it? Being such good friends and all?

 

[MisterMike]

Gee, that's a real head-scratcher there, TGace. I'mmmmm gonna wager -- "No."

 

[Flatlander]

All the post 9-11 "support from the world" was nice. Does anybody think any of those nations would have done anything about the Taliban/Afganistan for us because of it? Being such good friends and all?

This reminds me of the story of the wealthy gentleman who, during church collection, placed two big bags of money in the collection. As the plate was passed around, a little old woman at the end of the pew pulled a quarter out of her pocket and placed it in the collection plate. After the sermon, the minister was eager to thank the woman, and hurried to do so. He embraced the woman and told her, "Surely your generosity knows no limit. Thank you for your kindness." When the minister got around to the wealthy gentleman, he offered a handshake and a hello, but not much more.

Witnessing this, a young man from the congregation approched the minister and asked, "Minister, why were you so grateful to that old woman, yet kind of cold in responding to the gentleman who contributed so much money?"

The minister answered, "Son, that gentleman has more money than he can count, and what he gave was a drop in the bucket compared to what he has. That little old lady survives in the soup kitchens, and hasn't the money to pay for her rent. She gave all she could."

How do you guys quantify help?

Gee, that's a real head-scratcher there, TGace. I'mmmmm gonna wager -- "No."

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490

 

[Hengest]

English Prime Minister Blair will have a difficult time securing another term in office.

I seriously doubt that. Unless the Conservative Party pulls a miracle and turns itself into an opposition party rather than a joke, Blair will secure another term, simply because their is no one else right now.

 

[Tgace]

This reminds me of the story of the wealthy gentleman who, during church collection, placed two big bags of money in the collection. As the plate was passed around, a little old woman at the end of the pew pulled a quarter out of her pocket and placed it in the collection plate. After the sermon, the minister was eager to thank the woman, and hurried to do so. He embraced the woman and told her, "Surely your generosity knows no limit. Thank you for your kindness." When the minister got around to the wealthy gentleman, he offered a handshake and a hello, but not much more.

Witnessing this, a young man from the congregation approched the minister and asked, "Minister, why were you so grateful to that old woman, yet kind of cold in responding to the gentleman who contributed so much money?"

The minister answered, "Son, that gentleman has more money than he can count, and what he gave was a drop in the bucket compared to what he has. That little old lady survives in the soup kitchens, and hasn't the money to pay for her rent. She gave all she could."

How do you guys quantify help?
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490

All good points Flat, everybody helps as they are able. My question wasnt an accusation about the ammount of help other nations have provided. Although even in Afganistan, which seems to be the "good fight" we got involved in, it seems like the little old lady is putting in a penny cut in half. My question was, if the US didnt act against the Taliban after 9-11 do you think that NATO or anybody else would have?

 

[Flatlander]

Oh, I misread. Would anyone else have gone after the Taliban? Probably not, but, it's tough to speculate on that.

 

[OUMoose]

OUMoose:
Respectfully, no one is helping keep our neighborhood safe but us. And we are the guarantors of neighborhood safety to half the world.
But to expand on your analogy, what if the neighborhood watch was in collusion with the crooks? Didn't want them caught or would turn them loose if caught. What then?
"The Lord helps those who help themselves."

I would hardly consider the UN (my analogous neigborhood watch) in "collusion" with the terrorists. Ineffective perhaps, and somewhat lethargic in action, but the appropriate route nonetheless.

Now, WHY are we the guarantors of safety? Perhaps Techno is right. We SHOULD pull out of everywhere. Perhaps turn our attention internally to fix the problems here first, before we try to fix everyone ELSE's problems. I know, too idealistic, but it's a thought. Think of it this way, while we're out protecting the world, who's calling the fire department when our house starts burning down from inside?

 

[Tgace]

Because WWII showed that by waiting untill "everybody elses" problem becomes "our problem" you wind up in a huge pile of ****. The same thing can be said of drawing down the military to pre-WWII size, as we did after every war before then. We were lucky we had the sea as a barrier back then. I dont know if that can be relied on anymore.

 

[PeachMonkey]

My question was, if the US didnt act against the Taliban after 9-11 do you think that NATO or anybody else would have?

It wouldn't have even been appropriate for anyone else to act against the Taliban after 9-11.

The United States was the country that was attacked; NATO invoked the mutual defense clause. The US chose to act against the Taliban because they were harboring terrorists that attacked the US, and various NATO members chose to assist.

Should China settle our military disputes for us?