Newsweek: Why the world fears America

[conjur]

hmmm...something's wrong with the search engine here, then. I searched for arrogant and empire in the body and it didn't find this thread.

 

[Morph]

In fact, while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel.

Funny how the US and Israel are the ONLY countries in the world where the majority of people support this war with Iraq. In fact in most of the world, public opinion AGAINST the war is overwhelming.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: Dari
what a terrible article. God, I'm spoiled. I only read british newspapers (with the sole exception being the New York Times) and they are so much better in writing, style, foundation, etc... I can't stand american writers anymore. They are too simplistic. They follow writing procedures that we first learned in junior high. If anyone is interested in professional journalism, I would highly recommend The Economist and Financial Times.

Really? They follow rules presented in junior high?

I bet they look both ways before crossing the street too.

It's msnbc. It's professional journalism. And this article is pretty good. I haven't read much better recently, including articles from The Economist, which are typically not only boring and uninteresting, but also don't personally correlate as well as articles from most American sources.

If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning.

I think we're onto something there.

Personally, I think the world fears America because America values internal democracy and global supremacy. I'm just glad to be on the inside.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Morph

In fact, while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel.

Funny how the US and Israel are the ONLY countries in the world where the majority of people support this war with Iraq. In fact in most of the world, public opinion AGAINST the war is overwhelming.

But how much of that opinion AGAINST the war is just anti-American sentiment from the viewpoint that many outside the U.S. view us as arrogant and aggressive?

How much of that anti-war sentiment is based in the viewpoint that Saddam does not have WMD and is an all-around good guy?

 

[RanDum72]

Very good article,almost excellent.

But how much of that opinion AGAINST the war is just anti-American sentiment from the viewpoint that many outside the U.S. view us as arrogant and aggressive?

The issue here is not about Saddam being good or bad (the world knows how bad he is) but how the Bush administartion is going about its 'tunnel vision' stance on removing him. Sure, maybe he's bad for his country but the U.S. right now is doing its diplomacy in such a way that its high-handed and without consideration for other countries. Can we justify doing so because we happen to be ' the richest and most powerful country in the wolrd'? To some, maybe but that doesn't help with relationships and will actually foster more resentment and terrorism (the very things we are trying to prevent).
Just imagine having that rich neighbor who has the biggest house in the neighborhood. He has the fastest cars and burns the tires everytime. During neighborhood meetings, he likes to tell others how rich he is and doesn't care what they think and he will do as he pleases. Maybe he'll listen to you but you have to his bidding first. Sounds familiar? Now, how does this neighbor come across to you?
He comes across as a JERK. This is exactly how people around the world views the Bush administration.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: RanDum72
Very good article,almost excellent.

But how much of that opinion AGAINST the war is just anti-American sentiment from the viewpoint that many outside the U.S. view us as arrogant and aggressive?

The issue here is not about Saddam being good or bad (the world knows how bad he is) but how the Bush administartion is going about its 'tunnel vision' stance on removing him. Sure, maybe he's bad for his country but the U.S. right now is doing its diplomacy in such a way that its high-handed and without consideration for other countries. Can we justify doing so because we happen to be ' the richest and most powerful country in the wolrd'? To some, maybe but that doesn't help with relationships and will actually foster more resentment and terrorism (the very things we are trying to prevent).
Just imagine having that rich neighbor who has the biggest house in the neighborhood. He has the fastest cars and burns the tires everytime. During neighborhood meetings, he likes to tell others how rich he is and doesn't care what they think and he will do as he pleases. Maybe he'll listen to you but you have to his bidding first. Sounds familiar? Now, how does this neighbor come across to you?
He comes across as a JERK. This is exactly how people around the world views the Bush administration.

Good analogy but that rich nieghbor is also your employer (Trade for dollars) and he pays better than the other rich guys too. He also, is the lender for your home mortgage (stock market/huge US corpoartions foreign invetment/IMF). And owns the sheriffs Deparment (US military)to evict you if you get complaints. Must be fustrating not to be American.

 

[Stark]

that was an interesting piece. I may concede that Bush and co haven't played by the same rules as former Presidents, but it was inaction by former administrations as well as the world community that let madmen like bin laden and hussein survive and grow in power. I don't think we need to be especially pleasant when we clean up the mess nobody else was willing to touch.

Hopefully once Saddam is out we can bring the troops back home, take a deep breath, and evaluate our relationships with other countries. NK may allow the UN to restore itself to a place of quasi-respectability. Once that thread is gone, we can start being "nicer."

One part of the piece, where the author suggested sending more manufacturing jobs overseas to appease other countries showed some bias. If the author is Muslim, that could also account for the view expressed. Still, it's interesting to see how "they" see us.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: RanDum72
Very good article,almost excellent.

But how much of that opinion AGAINST the war is just anti-American sentiment from the viewpoint that many outside the U.S. view us as arrogant and aggressive?

The issue here is not about Saddam being good or bad (the world knows how bad he is) but how the Bush administartion is going about its 'tunnel vision' stance on removing him. Sure, maybe he's bad for his country but the U.S. right now is doing its diplomacy in such a way that its high-handed and without consideration for other countries. Can we justify doing so because we happen to be ' the richest and most powerful country in the wolrd'? To some, maybe but that doesn't help with relationships and will actually foster more resentment and terrorism (the very things we are trying to prevent).
Just imagine having that rich neighbor who has the biggest house in the neighborhood. He has the fastest cars and burns the tires everytime. During neighborhood meetings, he likes to tell others how rich he is and doesn't care what they think and he will do as he pleases. Maybe he'll listen to you but you have to his bidding first. Sounds familiar? Now, how does this neighbor come across to you?
He comes across as a JERK. This is exactly how people around the world views the Bush administration.

I'm not trying to defend Bush here but resolution 1441 was a diplomatic effort. It's only recently that Bush is running into a brick wall of resistance (France, Germany, etc.). All of these countries admit Saddam is ruthless and has stores of bio-chem materials and has given the U.N. a big F-U for a dozen years but no one wants to bite the bullet and oust him via force, except Bush. Why is that? Well, it's been said up here many times that France has many business dealings w/Iraq and France and Germany have sizable Muslim populations and probably fear reprisals should they support the attack. Which action is in the best interest of the people of Iraq, the Mideast in general, and the rest of the world?

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Stark
that was an interesting piece. I may concede that Bush and co haven't played by the same rules as former Presidents, but it was inaction by former administrations as well as the world community that let madmen like bin laden and hussein survive and grow in power. I don't think we need to be especially pleasant when we clean up the mess nobody else was willing to touch.

Hopefully once Saddam is out we can bring the troops back home, take a deep breath, and evaluate our relationships with other countries. NK may allow the UN to restore itself to a place of quasi-respectability. Once that thread is gone, we can start being "nicer."

One part of the piece, where the author suggested sending more manufacturing jobs overseas to appease other countries showed some bias. If the author is Muslim, that could also account for the view expressed. Still, it's interesting to see how "they" see us.

i can't let you get away with that. it is pretty much established and accepted that the US provided Hussein with the means to become what he is, so don't act as if the US had nothing to do with Hussein becoming what he is.

I have no problems with the war etc. but you should get your facts straight too.

 

[XZeroII]

What was said in the beginning was pretty true, but when they started talking about current events, they started getting off track. The made is a p***ing contest comparing the world to the US and acting like what we did was wrong and they knew it all along, etc.. I noticed several times when they compared Bush to Clinton and made Clinton out to be a saint, and Bush was a piece of trash. Clinton kissed everyone's butt. He just went around the world and did everything and anything anyone asked. Now that Bush is in office, we are not doing that anymore. We arn't selling our nuclear secrets, we arn't just signing treatys at random and the world hates us for it. We are no longer the laughing stock of the world when it comes to leadership and the world leaders are all afraid. They can't control us anymore. As they said in the article, Clinton bombed 3 countries and never once asked permission from the UN and no one had a problem with it (and they were all very questionable bombings too). Bush wants to take out an actual threat, and all the countries of the world are ganging up on us! Explain that!

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
What was said in the beginning was pretty true, but when they started talking about current events, they started getting off track. The made is a p***ing contest comparing the world to the US and acting like what we did was wrong and they knew it all along, etc.. I noticed several times when they compared Bush to Clinton and made Clinton out to be a saint, and Bush was a piece of trash. Clinton kissed everyone's butt. He just went around the world and did everything and anything anyone asked. Now that Bush is in office, we are not doing that anymore. We arn't selling our nuclear secrets, we arn't just signing treatys at random and the world hates us for it. We are no longer the laughing stock of the world when it comes to leadership and the world leaders are all afraid. They can't control us anymore. As they said in the article, Clinton bombed 3 countries and never once asked permission from the UN and no one had a problem with it (and they were all very questionable bombings too). Bush wants to take out an actual threat, and all the countries of the world are ganging up on us! Explain that!

it was explained in the article. it was a matter of perception. clinton could excercise military power because it never occurred to anyone he would threaten them. Bush has made it abundantly clear that he will do what it takes to establish the US as THE military power of the world. the actualy fact that under both presidents the US clearly had the strongest military in the world really doesn't seem to be relevant. it's about perception and i thought that was the point of the article.

 

[AndrewR]

Pearl Harbor comes into mind. The average American is pretty much running their lives the same post 9-11 and pre 9-11.

There were fewer deaths in Pearl Harbor than in the WTC: 2,403 for somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,800 or more (don't have final figures). Further, the average American is not running his/her life in the same manner. Look at the hysteria with the plastic sheeting and duct tape a little bit ago. If nothing else, people are aware these days -- aware of the danger and aware of odd things happening. The government is by no means operating the same as it was pre-9/11, and the military even more so has changed operations since then.

The UNSC fails because 5 powers have veto.

Perhaps, but the U.S. will not abide by an organization where it does not have the power to assert itself, for the simple fact that we are the dominant country in the world and as a result deserve more of a say than anyone else. It's not arrogance -- it's reality.

Everyone brings up Rwanda, Kosovo as failures of the UN. Technically, they arent failures because the UN charter states that the UN cannot intervene with internal strife (civil war, etc).

That restriction was used to justify inaction for countries who wanted to wring their hands and profess impotence in the face of the UN's lack of authority. In Rwanda, you are mistaken because there was most certainly another country involved -- Burundi. I am not a UN expert, but if the UN charter forbids involvement to stop genocidal activity, then it is a worthless piece of trash. "Internal strife" be damned -- if people are being slaughtered, the UN should have the means to act.

with the exception of the Middle Eastern Countries

The irony is that the Middle Eastern countries actually support us -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar. We have troops in every single one, which goes a long way to explaining their position on our intentions in Iraq.