|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
MADDOG 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,12:49 pm |
|
   |
CPU | Quote | | In the process, we have alienated most all of our allies, been shown to be liars to the world, |
I think that most people would be shocked if they knew what our allies think and describe America. Read some of the press over there and you can see that we are thought of as a bunch of racists, greedy americans riddled with poverty. They look at U.S. foreign policy as a master plan to control the world.
When Bush was going to England last fall, London Mayor Ken Livingstone described Bush as | Quote | | "the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen." |
and | Quote | | "The policies he is initiating will doom us into extinction." |
The European Cimmission recently had a poll and asked which nations of the world posed the worst threat to world peace. We tied for second with Iran and North Korea. Isreal won.
We are growing more powerful in the world, where it used to be the Great Britian and France had some world clout. This has caused resentment in the European community, and most of them would like to see us get "knocked down a peg or two."
When we sent peacekeepers to Kosovo to stop the genicide, we were labelled warmongers, when we sent billions overseas to aid the impoverished, we're Imperialists.
Face it, while most of Europe thinks we're all of that, or in fact fascists, Europe is comprised of most of the totaltarian and dictatorships of the world.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
ironmaiden
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,4:45 pm |
|
 |
What the other countries think of the U.S. are for the most part unsubstantiated innuendos for the regimes that put down America and Bush for that matter then go home to their american invented conveniences, drink their coca-colas and watch Terminator videos. Look at all the items like these that they found in the Palaces. I stand firm in not apologizing and feeling guilty for our wealth or knowledge and know how. When we had prisoners in Iran back in the 80's, no other country stood by us, offered to help or answered our calls for assistance. Why do we care what they think of us and sadly why do we come to their assistance? Basically, they say what low lifes we are but want our $$$$.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,4:55 pm |
|
|
Maddog--good observations. People in other countries view the U.S. on 3 different levels--Americans as PEOPLE, America as a NATION, and America as a WORLD LEADER.
Traveling all over the world, it is interesting to see what people think of the U.S. Many times, their opinions are formed by the press--and increasingly, by what they see on TV. You are correct in that in many countries, people believe that the U.S. is crime-ridden, self-centered, deceitful, and greedy. Think of most sitcoms or shows in sydication--Seinfeld (the characters get into trouble by lying and covering up--and all Jerry's friends eat his food whenever they visit), I Love Lucy (Lucy gets into trouble, usually of her own making), NYPD Blue (cops on the take and with personal problems, set in a gritty city). That doesn't mean we have to put on a "Beaver Cleaver" face on shows--but these shows--plus the news media--are what people in foreign countries formulate opinions upon.
For the most part, people are INTENSELY interested in what goes on in the United States. If you can ever get by the "make nice" banalities, most will ask what life is like in the U.S.--even things like "what do you eat?" or "have you ever seen a movie star?" or "How are the Indians?".
Your point about how AMERICA is viewed is also valid. The U.S. is probably responsible for most of the success (such as it is) of the European Union. European nations have felt diminished in stature since the end of the Cold War--troops pulled out of Germany, the French not consulted, etc. They see their ability to thwart the U.S. in the U.N. as preserving their once-mighty positions. No wonder the U.N. is ineffective--but it creates a new role for NATO and U.S.--EU partnerships--as in the Balkans. The EU has banded together as an economic bloc to rival the U.S., as well. No wonder that their world is Eurocentric.
As bad as the U.S. can be portrayed in Europe--it is "George Booosh" who is the REAL lightning rod. Europeans have picked up the Democrats "Cowboy" image--even using the NAME "Cowboy". When asked specifically what they object to, most can't specify their objections--generally referring to "American Imperialism" without specifying what "George Booosh" has to do with it. To further the "cowboy" image, they sometimes refer to him as a "gunslinger" (where do you suppose they pick up THAT idiom?) that "shoots from the hip", or alternately, that "George Booosh" is the self-appointed Sheriff in town.
It's funny--Europeans talking about "American Imperialism"--when many of their countries are ruled by Royalty! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
KODIAK
Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,5:03 pm |
|
|
Jim, you have to be careful about how you talk about the French, they have always been there when they've needed us.
--------------
"Dyin ain't much of a living.....boy" Clint (Outlaw Josie Wales)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,5:51 pm |
|
|
LOL Kodiak, your right, they've been there when they needed us in WW1 and WW11. Let's not forget that their advisors were in 'nam long before us too. Remember that when our army was ready to roll into Paris after liberation. We stopped and let DeGualle lead the troops through the city. We were there for them then, too.
Edited by MADDOG on Jan. 14 2004,5:52 pm
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,6:19 pm |
|
|
But Paris has the Arch d'Triumphe--"Through which every victorious army in the world has marched--EXCEPT THE FRENCH!"--Oscar Wilde
Edited by jimhanson on Jan. 14 2004,6:19 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,6:34 pm |
|
|
It appears that Pres. Bush is not the only one that would "take us to war unilaterally". From USA Today | Quote | In the 1995 letter, Dean argued for unilateral action in Bosnia on moral grounds. "As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility," he wrote.
The civil war in the former Yugoslavia gave rise to war crimes and mass murders not seen in the West since World War II. U.N. peacekeeping had failed, but the Clinton administration was undecided on whether to take military action.
Dean told Clinton that America had to intervene alone because the United Nations and NATO were unable to act effectively. He called for Clinton to bomb the Bosnian Serbs and supply arms to the Bosnian Muslims. He opposed using American ground troops |
Sound familiar? This shouldn't be a partisan issue.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
minnow
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,8:32 pm |
|
|
Hrmmmm....so...if I'm against the war, and staying in Iraq----> I should just vote Republican?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Goodyear Pimp
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 15 2004,8:39 am |
|
|
| Quote | | He opposed using American ground troops |
just a slight difference between what was proposed then and what is happening now.
I also fail to see where anyone recommended spending Billions of dollars on reconstruction!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 15 2004,10:15 am |
|
|
Should we NOT spend money on reconstruction? We did in Europe, we did in Japan, we did it in Korea, we did it in Panama, we did it in Grenada, we did it in Afghanistan, our Foreign Aid goes all over the world. Are you saying we should change our foreign policy?
I'm not staking out a position here--maybe we SHOULD NOT do rebuilding, "Nation Building", or foreign aid--those programs have been a part of our policy for 60 years--perhaps their usefullness has waned. If so, this should be a bipartisan decision--but in an election year, what politician would be so bold as to offer to make this change? No matter what is proposed, it would be political fodder for the opposition--example--Democrats against the war in Iraq, then blast Bush for NOT SENDING ENOUGH TROOPS. YOU CAN'T WIN! 
Edited by jimhanson on Jan. 15 2004,10:16 am
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
