Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
President Bush
Does the rest of the world dislike Pres. Bush as much as we do here in the United States?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ldel1969. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thats something I forgot about, both sides of the pond have screwed up economies, only Mr Brown hides it better, but I can foresee another recession in Britain before the next general election, the amount of money people are borrowing for this,that and the next thing I don't think can be sustained, the bubble has to burst sooner or later!
Clanad you don't mention the likes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. An America that condones the use of torture; that uses rendition flights to get other states to do its torturing for it; that permits indefinite detention without trial - this is not the America I grew up admiring. America's concern for human rights was once a beacon to the world; Bush has betrayed that great legacy. He is, I suppose, trying to make it a country to be feared instead of loved - and failing, since Islamists seem unafraid, while everyone else is scared.
Some interesting points made so far in this thread with colours being clearly nailed to the mast. However I'm going to resist the temptation to join the party-political side of the debate and go back to Ldel's original question.
The question asks about the rest of the world's view of Bush.
So far that question has only been addressed in two ways: firstly by noting that the majority of people in the UK don't like him and what he stands for, but also noting that on a lot of foreign policy (a lot but not all) Tony B and his government seem to go out of their way to pander to this US hegemony.
Secondly a couple of posters in this thread have astutely observed that if you live in a country currently getting bombed by the US on a regular basis then your hatred for Bush will probably be stronger than the dislike felt within parts of the US itself.
However, most of "the rest of the world" do not live in the UK or countries being attacked by the US...
Having travelled extensively around the world in 2003-4 and talked with people about their view on the world the easy answer to the original question is a higher percentage of people in the rest of the world dislike Bush than within the US. These views are held extensively (but by no means exclusively) on the decisions taken on attacking Iraq and Afghanistan and with the ongoing attrocities commited there and in Guantanomo.
In large parts of South America there appears to be a wind of change blowing across the continent with Chavez (Venezuela), Lula (Brasil) and now Morales (Bolivia) coming in to power, some almost primarily on an anti-Bush/anti-US stance to their current situation: unable to work themselves out of poverty while the US and other multinational companies continue to benefit more directly from the national resources than the countries themselves.
ctd later (work calls)
I think the people in the rest of the world dislike Bush, but they are not so guillible as to believe that Bush is to blame for everything.
Personally, I find Bush a harmless, inept man who is also an incompetent liar. He is simply a puppet. It is Cheney and Rumsfeld I hold my unreserved contempt for... as clearly, they are the masterminds behind Bush's actions and policies. They are a lot more cunning and vile, hovering in the background, and their scandals have proved that they have vested motives at heart, from which only they can gain.
Personally, I find Bush a harmless, inept man who is also an incompetent liar. He is simply a puppet. It is Cheney and Rumsfeld I hold my unreserved contempt for... as clearly, they are the masterminds behind Bush's actions and policies. They are a lot more cunning and vile, hovering in the background, and their scandals have proved that they have vested motives at heart, from which only they can gain.
Continuing around the world...
In New Zealand the "Don't attack Iraq" anti-war lobby's views tended to be admired and adhered to by more of the people I met than any pro-Bush sentiments. politically too Helen Clark has received boosts in popularity when challenging US trade and/or environmental policies.
Australia like to challenge the UK for the title of US's closest ally and this is refected in there being a few gung-ho Aussies who are of the "we're with you Georgie, not against you", "Let's get them before they get us" approach. There are however a couple of people willing to risk life and limb to daub "No War in Iraq" on the Sydney Opera House. I'd say pro Bush: anti-Bush ratio is similar to UK and that he's less popular in those two countries than in the US itself.
In SE Asia you start to find countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos where people are still being born hideously disfigured due to chemical defoliants dropped by US troops in the 70's and I didn't meet anyone there willing to forgive that and move on - their historic (and moving) museum to the War known as the Vietnam War in the West used to be called the American War Crimes Museum; they have now dropped the "Crimes" from the title but your average Vietnamese, even in the South remain deeply distrustful and resentful towards the US and will whoever is president I imagine.
In Buddhist Thailand any violent warmongerer is going to get the thumbs down.
ctd
In Indonesia you have the well-publicised (in the west) Islamic fundamentalistss, but despite being the nation in the world with the most Muslim inhabitants, religion and politics are kept mainly separate; there are influences like there are in the US but most parties standing for democratic elections are non-religious. This rubs off on the people who may look down on some of the western world's ways but are more likely to dislike Bush for his stupidity than any anti-Muslim stance people may perceive him to have. Interestingly, Muslims I met there see Jihad as a war within - identifying your own faults in order to better yourself as a Muslim rather like people trying to become better Christians through atonement of sin.
Moving further west, in India while I was there Manmohan Singh was elected Prime minister ending aterm of NDA rule, a party seen as anti-Muslim as opposed to Congress (Singh and Ghandi's party). Also while I was there the first pictures of the torture in Abu Ghraib were released and plastered all over the front paged of daily newspapers and TV reports, without the censorship of some western media). Editorials tended to use that as an excuse to reveal an anti-Bush bias.
And then on to the Middle East where with one obvious exception (Israel) anti-americanism has become a way of life. For me the only way to change this feeling is to approach the whole Palestinian occupation as a less worthy cause for the billions of dollars of US "aid" currently feeding the regime that breaks more UN resolutions than anyon else ever has.
Surely if that money was spent on a war on poverty, there would be more Bush fans in the world.
Rant over.
Obviously, no one's heart or mind is going to be altered by this debate, but, in closing it needs to be pointed out that if one looks solely at the changing allocations of U.S. foreign assistance, the Clinton years seem the age of austerity and the Bush administration in contrast appears generous. Starting in fiscal 2002, economic aid began a steady and dramatic rise�rising $4.3 billion over 2001. By 2004 the U.S. government�s economic aid commitments had risen to historic levels�rising to levels not seen since the post-World War II years with the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction. Which, if history is not distorted, is what made Europe (and England) what it is today. This, of course, does not include private aid by charitable organizations and individuals.
The U.S., in my opinion, will still be disliked, just because of its wealth and power. Both of which have been used to the world at large as a huge benefit, especially by this President.
Does anyone in this debate seriously think that Al Qaeda intended to stop with only the bringing down of the World Trade Center? If you do, I've a bridge I'd like to sell you. For all the dislike of the world, the U.S. remains the beacon towards which all look during times of trouble.
Contd.
Contd.
I would like to respond to jno; A recent (read: within the last weeks) commission from Belgium found that the conditions of the prison and the treatment of the war prisoners in Gitmo far exceeded any prisons in Europe and especially the prisons in the prisoners home countries. So much so, that a lot of the prisoners do not want to leave.
The "torture" in Abu Ghraib, does not rise to any level of treatment that, previously, defined torture. That's is not, understand, an effort to condone the treatment. But, frightening prisoners with dogs, and the other things that were detailed certainly does not rise to televised beheadings, in my opinion. The perpetrators are now in prison. As far as indeffinite imprisonment, when were the prisoners in the Second World War released? It seems to me that happend at the end of the war. During that time, they were not accorded any of the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the country where they were housed.
There are things on which I disagree with the President, however, how have we come so far from the picture of him standing with the fireman on top of a heap of rubble and promising, to the cheers of almost everyone in this coutry and many around the world, to do what was needed about terrorists?
Do you really not understand that we are in a war? These people would just as soon behead you or line you up against the wall and shoot you as blink an eye. The rights you enjoy (posting on a website thread like this for one) would soon be denied to you, and Bush, with America, sees that clearly, regardless of the myopic vision of others. Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher told President George H.W. Bush "Don't go wobbly George", in the face of the first Iraq War... same thing applies here. If this is not seen through to its end, God help us all...in my opinion...
It is all a mirage. Politicians, terrorists, the nuclear threat, torture. How are we to know the truth when the politicians are playing with words? Do you want an exercise in frustration? Listen to a US news report - listen to Bush, Condi, any Congressional hearing - they have all absolutely lost the plot! Everyone is so consumed with playing the political game that we - the citizens of this world - do not know who or what to believe in.
It is interesting Clanad, what you say of the US legacy of charitable giving and the role it played in rebuilding Europe after WWII - unfortunately, no one knows this anymore. The people who lived through it are dying off and it is not taught in any school.
Meanwhile what are we presented with? Accusations of torture, invasions of two soverign countries and corruption of the highest order - leaking the name of a CIA operative out of spite, possible election fraud in Florida, no-competition contracts handed over to political cronies (people really hate it when companies are obviously profiting from War - sensibilities and all), links to Enron (buddy Ken Lay!) and that joke of a Energy Plan Cheney had a direct hand in drafting, hello Jack Abramoff!, providing false information to the UN Security Council in the lead up to the Iraq war (part Deuce!), etc...etc...
I could go on, but frankly, I'm getting a bit fired up! What I don't understand is in Thailand right now people are protesting against corruption in the Prime Minister's office. Why don't Americans do the same - if you dislike Bush so much?
Be the beacon of democracy you claim to be - learn your History, learn the WORLD's history, VOTE!, bang on your Congressman's door and stand outside the White House until your voice is heard. THAT is the American way. Otherwise, you sound just like any other European whinger and moaner.
Explain again, in calm tones, metagirl, where the corruption is? Perhaps part the problem is the source of news one uses. I don't think I'm a head-in-the-sand ostrich, reading or persuing only Bush favorable reports, but, when a fair and balanced approach is used, one gets a far different picture... in my opinion. An example is your reference to false information given to the U.N. Security Counsel in the run-up to the war... where has your statement been shown to be factual? We could address each of your examples, but I expect that Ldel1969 is rapidly tiring of all the e-mail announcements of yet another post... as is the rest of the audience...
Clanad, I'm a terrible debater - I prefer ranting and raving. I just love my country and hate hearing bad things about it everyday, my bank account also hates that the Dollar is worth so little while my student loans keep rising along with the federal interest rates and the price of food. I also hate that our President has a twisted view of what makes our country great - and no, it has nothing to do with being able to shop at Walmart and spend spend spend.
forget it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2137691/?nav=tap3
this article in slate says it best.
Realizing now, which I hadn't before, that you would rather rant and rave, which is OK with me, I'd offer the thought that facts are funny things... they get in the way of obstreperousness. The dollar is actually quite strong in the international monetary exchange market. Additionally, the rise in interest rates, while only slightly affecting a student loan (government subsidized, I might add)it is good for most Americans who are saving money and investing it. Additionally, our rate of inflation, the real killer of income, is very effectively controlled. Our interest rates are about 5 to 6 and one half percent, compared to 18 to 20 percent under the Democrat Carter (you're probably to young to remember). The true interest rate for consumer loans and mortgages has only risen about 1 an 1 half percent form an historical low of about 4 and one half percent... all under the Presidency of Bush and his tax cuts! The unemployment rate is less than 5 percent in many places, something economists said couldn't happen. A little historical perspective could do wonders for rants and raves tendencies. I think Bush's idea of what makes America great centers on the belief that, first and foremost, as his oath of office required of him, i.e., The defense, protection and preservation of the Constitution of the United States... and against that measuring rod, he's doing well...
link doesn't seem to work Clanad, do you have another?
I don't know about the strong dollar - it seems to be nearly $2 to �1 currently; I can remember when (under late Carter or early Reagan, I think) it was twice that (ie $1=�1). Good news for foreign visitors, of course - I will be there myself in a couple of weeks, as I love the USA, whatever my views of the president - but that doesn't sound strong to me.
Interest rates were of course high under Carter; but, in the lingering wakes of the oil shocks, my recollection is that they were high everywhere.
Incidentally, kudos to Bush for backing the ports sale to Dubai, and boo to Congress for blocking it by putting protectionism ahead of Republicans' notional support for free trade. Given that the Emirates have been firm supporters of Washington, this seems a poor reward: they're valued allies in times of war, but untrustworthy Arabs when it comes to business.
Good international round-up by bongerman, though I suspect the average Vietnamese is more forgiving of the US than his leaders are.
Sorry about that, jno... try this one:
The interest rates under Carter were double digits as well as the rate of inflation. By the way, Nixon was President during the oil embargo of 1973 and had instituted policies that ameliorated the effects, leaving a pretty good economy by the time of his resignation, which ushered in "Jimmuh Caataah"... The strength of the U.S. dollar has increased over the last few years, but is one of the reasons foreign investment in the U.S. is at an all time high.
Latest Posts
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music5 mins ago
