America as seen from other countries

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html

It doesn't matter. He is doing God's work and your puny opinion means nothing, mortal.

 

He reminds me of Reagan, except that Reagan was a professional actor. Of course I was just a child during those years, so my opinion isn't the most informed.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...,5737372.story?coll=la-headlines-world-manual

http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?vts=031620032025

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/middleeast/17RECO.html

 

If ya just can't get enough misgiving, here's another heaping helping from Business Week.

Fair warning: it is very harsh, perhaps even unfair. This guy is very upset about the economic ramifications of the (apparently) coming war.

 

Bingo! We have a winner! I very much agree with that article too. I would modify this point though:

From my perspective as a Canadian, I fear what to me seems to be your government's recklessness and ham handedness rather than its ill intent. I don't foresee you massing troops on the boarder in preparation to invade Saskatchewan anytime soon, but militarily and even economically you often seem to stomp around like a half blind bull in a china shop.

I really like and agree with this:

Bring back the enlightened self- interest!

This is very true and a very good point too.

And the commentary on the Iraq situation is bang on.

Birds of a feather … That may be little harsh, but there is more than a grain of truth to it.

The bit in part III on the lack of diplomacy is bang on too.

Excellent point too.

Team building. If you're with us you won't be against us.

Great comments on the Turkey situation too, and a great conclusion.

I must say that reading articles like this in the American press, and seeing some even conservative Americans understanding the points, is very encouraging. That half blind bull has eyes, they just aren’t in its head, but if they're there maybe they will get to the head, or get back to the head … soon, I hope.

 

Honestly, I think there was already plenty of anti-American sentiment before Bush became president, and I think we would have all these protests even if we had Al Gore using a softer diplomacy in support of removing Saddam Hussein. It's been growing for a while, it didn't just pop up because Bush is bad at diplomacy.

 

I disagree, and I don't think it cropped up immediately with Bush's lack of diplomacy either. I think he had to squander a lot of the good will established by his father and Clinton before he really lost the respect of the world. I think he largely had the world with him in the Afghanistan intervention, and even at the beginning of the Iraq situation many, including me, were trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. It took a lot, and a long time, for him to bury himself in as deep as he is.

 

I am interested in what will happen once the war is won in the face of French-German-Russian opposition and the people of Iraq are praising the United States.

 

It wont change the method of diplomacy he uses or the feelings of mistrust that the rest of the world seems to hold towards us.

Maybe the Bushies need to read

 

I think its a great point. I remember reading about General MacArthur and how when Japan Surrendured her gave the highest respects to the Japanese leaders and by allowing them their honor won over the people which led to the development of a country that became a long-time aide of Washington

 

Bush is just dumb. That is the problem, no matter how much 'phone talking' he does. That doesn't mean that France IS relevant, or that our policy choices are wrong, or that we should give Saddam more time. It just means we are perceived in the wrong light.

 

Immediately after 9/11, we had the entire non-terrorist world on our side in the War against Terrorism.

In a year and a half, George W. Bush has managed to flush that support right down the crapper.

Unbelievable.

 

You gotta admit, that takes talent.

 

1441 received unanimous support in October/November right?

What the hell happened?

 

Mr. Clutch,

You are right that there was significant anti-American sentiment before Bush became president (almost typed 'elected' -- just can't bring myself to do that), but you leave out what's happened since then. Backing out of Kyoto with no explanation other than 'we can' and 'we feel like it' increased anti-American sentiment among our allies. The needless tough talk Bush employed with China early on in his presidency didn't help either. In fact, it was downright dangerous. He stumbled early and often on international diplomacy and that was the consistent story of his foreign policy until 9/11.

And then everything changed. America enjoyed the support of the world community possibly unprecedented in our country's history. A process had begun whereby, while there will always be some anti-American sentiment, those people who would seek to harm us were becoming marginalized even in regions and countries which had previously harbored and supported them. And our allies were willing to do anything within reason to support our war on terror.

Not only have we squandered the good will the world showed us only a year ago, we have now alienated virtually all of our allies. Even England, the only major ally which supports this war, shows among its populace unprecedented anti-American opinion. Not to mention throwing gasoline on the fire of those people who already hated us enough to die for the cause of destroying us.

The world supported the war on terror and wanted to help. They do not support pre-emptive action and they do not support this Iraq war. Bush and his people have not made the case that this is a necessary war nor have they made the case that this has really anything to do with the war on terror. If they had, they would have international support. Instead they chose to act like bullies. Offended that they should even be asked to explain themselves, they replied "because I said so." They blew it.

You can think this war is wrong or you can think it's right. But even if you think it's right you have to admit that, when the rest of the world thinks it's wrong after having shown such an outpouring of support only a year ago on what Bush would have you believe is the exact same issue, there has been a monumental failure of diplomacy. A monumental, unprecedented, extraordinarily dangerous failure.

I am not surprised that these people subscribe to that arrogant old take on the golden rule -- "He who has the gold makes the rules." -- but I am ashamed. Flat ashamed. Flame on, reactionaries. Sincere dissent is twice as patriotic than waving a flag. I love my country and I am proud to be an American and I am ashamed that our leaders are behaving like such arrogant assholes.

 

If I remember correctly, Spiderman let Sadaam escape with the money because it wasn't his problem, then Sadaam Killed his father. So the point should be made that if spiderman just stepped up at that time he'd still have his uncle Ben. Sadaam would still be alive. And everybody would be happy. But instead he let him go and everything became a big funeral.

What we are doing now may not seem like the right thing to do. Saddaam may not seem dangerous. It may not be our problem. But it will be if we let him go.

These things are not easy. That's what Spiderman is trying to tell us. But we must try to stop evil at every instance. Not kill it. Just stop it.