How the US is seen?

[MehYam]

This made me chuckle a bit. Some of the historical bits presented are exagerated, but they're actually beside the point, and not worth debating. The more interesting thing, IMO, is how representative this is of the cynicism with which other countries view the U.S.

I think it's safe to say that the world views the U.S. government with growing skepticism and criticism. Do you agree? If yes, do you think it matters? And if yes, what would you do about it?

Anyway, taken from an Eastern European website:

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)


: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass
destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find
something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a
war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with
them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons,
so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all
those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons
our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons.
We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was
a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his
country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor,
where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S.
corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain,
it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who
criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is
Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent
to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand,
is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws
that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba
until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started
doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein
came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate
leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by
force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our
friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly
overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate
leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us
invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians -
hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York
and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of
the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's
heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's
heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back
in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium
poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would
have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for
other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's
hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for
stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that
oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public,
with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet
fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes
and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal
oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and
fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our
friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from
Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad
man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan
talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call
them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after
they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our
invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and
the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries
and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we
want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our
friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the
other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our
friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an
enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit
by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America.
Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless
unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what
to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George
W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes,
make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

[Will Robinson]

Popularity contests are fun sometimes but never really useful.
I don't believe they all loved us, or that we had incredible unity and support of most of the countries in world just after 9/11 as was reported.

Just like I don't believe many of them hate us and have no respect for us now because of Bush.

Nothings really changed deep down. That was all rhetoric spouted by people serving their own needs.

No harm done, serving ones own needs is what makes the world go 'round...for every country.

Sure we have some long standing alliances but they aren't built on some magical bond or loyalty or honor. All alliances beyond family are ultimately self serving in nature (devout religious beliefs not withstanding).

Do I care what they think?
Only as a luxury...only as much as I can afford to without jeapordizing my own future.
And that is what motivates them too, regardless of what they might say or even truly think they believe.

Now, was that arrogance or reality?
You can interpret it however it suits you best but your perception doesn't change the simple nature of the beast.

What do I want to do about their perception?
Nothing.
Nothing that takes us away from securing a better future for my family first anyway. Once that much is secured then we can extend the circle of good will and harmony outward from there. When it can't be extended further...well that's life. My tribe has priority.

[Bold Deceiver]

This made me chuckle a bit. Some of the historical bits presented are exagerated, but they're actually beside the point, and not worth debating. The more interesting thing, IMO, is how representative this is of the cynicism with which other countries view the U.S.

I think it's safe to say that the world views the U.S. government with growing skepticism and criticism. Do you agree?

I think a better question, with all due respect, is do we care? Why is it important whether the "world views the U.S. government with growing skepticism and criticism." It just isn't, really, when you come down to it.

BD

[Krom]

They dislike and disaggree with us, we largely dont care. If they started to hate and oppose us to the point where we noticed; we would kill them, so they keep it quiet.

[TheCops]

They dislike and disaggree with us, we largely dont care. If they started to hate and oppose us to the point where we noticed; we would kill them, so they keep it quiet.

the reason you consider others opinions on the geo political scale is because all humans share the earth. you can play cowboy if you want right now... but there will be repurcusions for your actions. maybe your grand kids will eat your words, i dunno. maybe this administrations path is correct. you guys type with certainty that can't be proven... must be nice to be the armchair nothingback.

it's not a total joke to consider the opinions of the world (whatever that means). keep in mind the human race is represented by politicians whatever their desiginated status. that's not saying a lot.

ok. pick me apart now.

[Flabby Chick]

I want to applaud you "I don't give a monkey's left testical what the world thinks" people. You are well on the way to become fully fledged Israeli citizens.

[Ferno]

I hate you cops. you think just like I do.

I even got called anti-american for my troubles.

[Gooberman]

The reason the world views us as so arrogant is because Americans are forced to justify why we are number one.

We are either just better then they are (by this I mean people and/or structure) [republican], or we cheated [democrat].

Look at so many party issues that fall into these criteria. Affirmative action, heavily taxing the rich, well-fair, foreign aid, immigration, the war in iraq, etc etc.

/caned worms.

[roid]

we are number one.

for starters.. this (above) i'm pretty sure is an american term.
the rest of the world doesn't play this stupid "your a winner, your a looser" name game as far as i've seen.
"there is no number 2", "win at all costs", "survival of the fittest" this kindof rhetoric crap.
we don't teach our kids this kindof arrogent "neener neener" crap in school, we teach fair play.


i only just figured out what this "winner" / "looser" american labeling thing was a few years ago. and frankly i'm discusted.
arrogence with a heavy shallowness sauce.

just rambling

[Krom]

Losers always say that. "The rules suck, you cheated!"

Dont even start on how pathetic American public schools are.

[roid]

ok seems i still don't understand this looser/winner thing.
it seems as bad as someone insulting your mother.
i mean, you just... you just plain don't SAY things like that. maybe it's a cultural difference in "confrontation".

"the rules suck, you cheated"
this phrase makes no logical sense. (or is this a "well duh roid" moment?)

[Lothar]

roid,

we don't typically go around saying to people "we're number one, and you're a LOSER!" But when it gets brought up -- when people start whining and complaining about everything we do -- it begs the question, why are they complaining? It seems to me the answer is obvious -- we have the power, and they want the power. That's all there is to it.

Most of Europe believed the UN was a powerful organization, putting them on equal footing with the US -- so most of Europe believed they could force the US to cut a deal, so they could make some profit off of whatever actions we undertook. The UN has now been exposed as a fairly powerless organization, and that leads to complaining. The UN couldn't back up its own resolutions, and it couldn't convince the US to stay out of Iraq (or to give France and Russia their desired cut of oil revenues before going) -- so the illusion of "we have power" was shattered. No wonder people are complaining.

What's unfortunate is that the complaining further undermines their power -- the more you whine about it, the less we pay attention to you. It's like the teenagers who think they have as much power as their parents, and then the parents take away the car keys and the teens are like "whine whine whine moan complain whine whine" as their illusions of power are shattered. And the more they whine, the longer the parents are going to hold on to the car keys. And the more the UN (or any member nation) whines about not having power, the longer it'll be before they're given any.

[Kyouryuu]

Y'know how we all hate France and how we perceive France as being so arrogant? That France does its own thing and supports Hussein and stalemates the UN? I think America should be cautious that we don't become France.

You could say that "Why should we care what the world thinks about us?" but isn't that the same argument as the isolationist "living in a bubble" mantra? We aren't alone in this world. Our economies are linked by trade and our people are linked. We should very much care what others think about us.

It's not to say that we should bend over backwards for allies or do as they say. But, for the sake of being a good neighbor, we should endeavor to rationalize our decisions and invite the world community to participate in them, like Bush has at least tried to do. It's not his fault the world community doesn't seem that interested in Iraq, even though the Middle East - due to crude oil and so forth - is a dangerous common denominator among us. The terrorists could just as easily have struck Spain. Oh wait, they did.

[Bold Deceiver]

Y'know how we all hate France and how we perceive France as being so arrogant? That France does its own thing and supports Hussein and stalemates the UN? I think America should be cautious that we don't become France.

Let's back up to the context -- the U.S. in Iraq. I think as a general proposition you are correct: It is bad to be like France. Are we moving in that direction ? I really think not. I could go on, but I think you are aware this isn't a lead argument.

You could say that "Why should we care what the world thinks about us?" but isn't that the same argument as the isolationist "living in a bubble" mantra? We aren't alone in this world. Our economies are linked by trade and our people are linked. We should very much care what others think about us.

Excellent point. I agree. I also agree with the rest of your post.

BD

[Krom]

The key difference between the US vs France at being arrogant is the US has real power (military), France does not. As long as we keep that power, we wont become France. I can aggree with those points. I just think that regardless of what we do, they will hate us because we can really do something, they cannot.

[bash]

I agree with Krom. There was a funny line in Liar, Liar where the kid says *My teacher said real beauty is on the inside* to which his father replies, *That's just something ugly people say.*

roid, it's funny how much you thought being number one was important when you believed Australia beat the US in scramjet technology. Now, of course, the tune changes to make us look like there's something wrong with trying to excel. Typical. And a perfect illustration why we don't care what others think of us anymore. We can't get any credit no matter how much good we do or how cogent an argument we make for our actions. Most of our foreign critics latch on tightly to lies and distortions and cover their ears at the first hint of truth. A good many foreigners want to dislike us and we know that.

[Kyouryuu]

The key difference between the US vs France at being arrogant is the US has real power (military), France does not. As long as we keep that power, we wont become France.

How does military might equate to arrogance?

[Dedman]

One can be mindful of ones reputation in the global community without kowtowing for approval.

[Krom]

How does military might equate to arrogance?

You cannot justify arrogance without the military might to back it up and military might is something to be arrogant about. Arrogance is purely an ego thing, if you have no power its harder to fluff the ego.

"We are arrogant and are better then you, and we know the right way to do everything even if we have never done anything right!"

"We are arrogant and will overthrow your government to prove how superior we are!"

[Kyouryuu]

It doesn't add up though. Arrogance is arrogance. Just because you have the bigger army or the more powerful weapons does not somehow justify acting condescending toward or ignoring others in the world community.

By your logic, if the French had a vast nuclear arsenal and several trans-oceanic missiles superior to ours, their clear arrogance is somehow justified? I think not.

[woodchip]

for starters.. this (above) i'm pretty sure is an american term.
the rest of the world doesn't play this stupid "your a winner, your a looser" name game as far as i've seen.

America was founded on loser people. All those immigrants who emigrated here were for the most part the low enders from those very countries that continually open their Harpy beaks to try and tear bits of allegorical flesh from americas hide. Is it little wonder the descendants of these immigrants don't suck up to the likes of le Beak and Hans the Hun? Quite frankly, unlike socialist european ennui, america is number one because its people work for it.

[Tricord]

By the way, your hatred of the french is based on a lot of prejudice too.

It's nice to see Kyouryuu has the guts to stand still and reflect on the matter. So far everybody who disagreed on his point about France sounded like the daddy answering to his kid in the first post. "France is different". "France has no power". Etc.

It is not because you are blindly convinced of something that you do not have to bring arguments to a debate to back up your point of view.

[woodchip]

Ummm Tricord, ever go into a french restaurant and not speak french? Now there's arrogance.

[Tetrad]

Ummm Tricord, ever go into a french restaurant and not speak french? Now there's arrogance.

I have. I didn't notice anything.

[Top Wop]

I honestly do not care what other people think or believe, I believe in doing what is right regardless.

[Tyranny]

Respect is earned, not given. Time and time again the french have had chances to prove in modern times that they're made of sterner stuff. Each time though they make a hasty retreat with their tails behind their legs.

Then they stand idly by watching world events and constantly critique the US for what we're doing saying they would have done this or would have done that and all we can do is say "Why didn't you?". So is it any surprise most Americans view the French the way we do? It is kind of like "what have you done for me lately" type of a thing, where if France had actually done something to give them room to critique, we might be a little more capable of listening without being so judgmental, but guess what?

So yeah, we get tired of listening to all these other countries saying we're the big bad bullies who aren't doing this right, or doing that right etc...etc..when they're not even taking the initiative to do anything themselves half the time.

We'd like nothing more then to completely isolate ourselves off from the rest of the world. We didn't make ourselves the police of the world, we weren't appointed either, but when you constantly have other countries that are allies of the US who get in the middle of crap and can't defend themselves, guess who has to come running to the rescue? Then when we do our job we get nothing but flack that we could have done it differently and we're terrible monsters who want to control everything Then you wonder why we have no patience for other countries. We could have easily just not DONE anything at all and then lets see what would have happend.

We get bashed because we don't do something, then when we do we didn't do it right. People say that we think we're so safe and superior over in our country and yet we find ourselves out in YOUR countries cleaning up messes for you. Sorry if we really don't have a lot of sympathy anymore for all the cowards of the world.

As simplistic as it sounds someone calling you a "cheater" in a game is a really good comparison, especially when you don't cheat, and thats basically what the US deals with day in and day out, especially in recent times. Thats why we're cocky, because other countries continue to justify why we're so confident in the first place by calling us names all the time.

We make fun of people in other countries to motivate them to stop acting like little bitches

[TheCops]

We'd like nothing more then to completely isolate ourselves off from the rest of the world. We didn't make ourselves the police of the world, we weren't appointed either, but when you constantly have other countries that are allies of the US who get in the middle of crap and can't defend themselves, guess who has to come running to the rescue?

i disagree respectfully (which was earned )

"we" don't want to be isolationists at all. the entire motivation of policing the world is so our multinational corporations have access to cheap labor and natural resources... via "democracy". they sell it as liberty and justice and freedom fries but that's just a pile of bullshite.

"we" profit from policing. "we" open up markets to sell chicken kickers to. "we" hire cheap labor to make our 15 dollar shirts and cheap ram for our computers.

now back to your regularly scheduled socialist programming.

[bash]

What a pile of tripe, Meatnik. Take an economics class. No one is forcing anything on anyone. There's no freaking cabal of fat white guys smoking cigars plotting to exploit the wretched third world dirt scratchers. They are far better off with us than without us, and you damn well know it. People buy American goods because they want to. We bring employment at a standard of living that's compatible with their local standards of living, not our standard of living. What alternative to global supply and demand would you suggest? Global welfare?

[TheCops]

are you sure? nickname.

[bash]

Take a look at the last two nations we re-built; Germany and Japan. Economic powerhouses now and we don't own their corporations, do we? We don't exploit their people, do we? We don't control their economies, do we? We didn't install puppet governments, did we?

[TheCops]

forget it. no more.

you just added freakin' a paragraph AFTER i responded.

you abuse the editing feature bash.

[bash]

That was a response? Pfft. Whining about editing is the last refuge of a man without an argument.

[TheCops]

you'd be correct i have no argument. the initial post was supposed to be of comedic value with a touch of a possible point of view.
i.e. back to you regularly scheduled socialist programming.

i post quips off the cuff.... people ignore me... i don't write essays becuze i'm dum. BUT i don't manipulate discussions with editing and deleting... and come out smelling like a rose.

so i will leave this alone because i am not contributing.

forgive me for joking around.

[Lothar]

off topic:

bash, you know you can use the "preview" command to see what your post is going to look like, right? Maybe you should do that to help cut down on the editing.

However... for those of you who complain about bash editing his posts after he posts them... he's usually done editing within 2 or 3 minutes. If you've actually got a complete response written up in that long, maybe you should take a few more minutes to think about it before you post it -- quickly-written responses are rarely worth the time they take to read. (This goes even moreso for longer responses -- if you can read a 5-page post and respond to it with your own 5 pages in under an hour, your response is probably worthless.) Take the time to really think about what you're going to post, and by that time, bash will have finished editing :D

[Tangaroa]

Whether its logical or not, I find what is happening with the US to be extremley scary and im somewhat paranoid that the US may take over one way or another.

If the US invaded iraq for apparently economical reasons, then whats stopping them from invading other places for economical reasons?

They have not doind any decent evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons yet and if they realy wanted to defend democracy, they would have done something about East Timor and would be doing something about Zimbabwe.


Yep, im nuts, you may all laugh at me or flame me now.

[Kyouryuu]

However... for those of you who complain about bash editing his posts after he posts them... he's usually done editing within 2 or 3 minutes.

Which is also a good reminder that, yes, you can set the time that is displayed in the user profile. By default, the DBB bases times on GMT, which is why I can login tonight and see posts from tomorrow. Ooh, creepy. But Lothar's suggestion is sound - if the post is fresh (i.e. within ten minutes), assume that the author might still be editing it. I suppose if you really wanted to go out of your way, the poster could have a little "EDITING" flag to specify that you're still working on it. But, TheCops replied only a few minutes after bash posted. There's definitely editing time in there.

Uhm, let's see. Going back to the subject from this DBB tutorial tangent.

I honestly do not care what other people think or believe, I believe in doing what is right regardless.

It's easy for you to say that because you are one person. You can close your mind, convince yourself of your righteousness, and pursue it. Some will think you are a jerk, but you stand for what you believe in. But America is not a person, it is an amalgamation of 293 million people. The world is a stage of well over 6 billion people. Chances are, not all of these people share the same view of righteousness as you do. Suddenly, the notion of right versus wrong becomes a gray area.

We'd like nothing more then to completely isolate ourselves off from the rest of the world. We didn't make ourselves the police of the world, we weren't appointed either, but when you constantly have other countries that are allies of the US who get in the middle of crap and can't defend themselves, guess who has to come running to the rescue?

You speak in contradictions. First, it's possible that in terms of fighting and war we may like to separate ourselves from the rest of the world. But, as I remarked before, our economy is inextricably intertwined with that of many other countries. Wal-Mart alone is one of China's largest exporters. Without the third world and cheap labor to be had overseas, we would not be able to enjoy Roll Back savings.

The other contradiction is your assertion that we didn't chose to play policeman, but we get dragged into it. Prior to Bush's call for war, there was not tremendous support for invading Iraq from the majority of the world's leading countries. This is hardly the case of us being dragged into battle; this is rather us volunteering for it. This is also contradictory to your "isolationist" perspective. If we value isolationism so much, how is it that we should care what happens in the Middle East? In other words, why do we come running to the rescue in an isolated world? It's simple; for the reasons I outlined above. We are linked by oil and by having a giant target painted on our proverbial butt. There are clear economical and security reasons that explain our presence. This is unlike Africa.

Respect is earned, not given.

The same is true of reputation. Right now, the reputation of the US is really quite damaged. Much of the outside world perceives us as maverick cowboys that decided to go their own way in the face of everyone else not being keen on the plan. So, you may witness the dichotomy. We perceive the France as arrogant; we are perceived as wild west outlaws.

We chose to set the precedent. We chose to go to Iraq, against the judgement of our allies. And we chose to make a pre-emptive strike on the country. Was it justified? That's beyond the scope of this argument.

Instead, our focus is whether or not this the image we really want to have. The answer: probably not. Yet, fairly or not, it is the one we have been assigned. We burned many bridges to get to Iraq because of Bush's apparent conviction to do what he thought was right. We must be prepared to face the consequences of that action, not the least of which is a besmirched reputation towards the world community at large.

Again, this in no way implies that we must listen to our allies or always have popular support before acting gung-ho. However, we must realize there is a problem to be faced whenever we decide to do this. Explanations are warranted that are more convincing than "They question us; they are arrogant."

One thing is for certain however - a reputation is a difficult thing to mend.

ever go into a french restaurant and not speak french? Now there's arrogance.

And are Chinese offended when you order the Mu Shu Pork in English? Probably not. Like I said, you step and dance all over this notion of arrogance. But, defined simply, arrogance is following headstrong conviction, impervious to the potential consequences of the actions therein. It has nothing to do with armament, and has nothing to do with ordering dinner in a French restaurant.

[bash]

OT: Lothar, et al., I really don't care that people feel the need to bring up that my posts generally get refined over a minute or two. Preview might help but I don't see it as a big deal, their complaints and insinuations roll right off and I'm too old a dog to bother changing. It reminds me of the days when Sirian used to post and people would make such a big deal about his post length as a diversionary way to avoid addressing his content. As I mentioned to Beefis, the moment someone starts making an issue of it is the moment I know they got no game.

[Bold Deceiver]

Whether its logical or not, I find what is happening with the US to be extremley scary and im somewhat paranoid that the US may take over one way or another.

If the US invaded iraq for apparently economical reasons, then whats stopping them from invading other places for economical reasons?

They have not doind any decent evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons yet and if they realy wanted to defend democracy, they would have done something about East Timor and would be doing something about Zimbabwe.


Yep, im nuts, you may all laugh at me or flame me now.

Tangaroa --

You're not nuts. I think you're either uneducated about the pre-war circumstances, or you're ignoring them. These have been explored and debated here before.

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1179&start=0

As for your suggestion that an invasion of Iraq is flawed because the U.S. has not stepped into "East Timor", that just seems a little weak to me. We can't be everywhere at once, and it is reasonable to address a country that is threatening our security.

BD

[Tangaroa]

THe US was not invading any other countries as far as I know while the situation in east timor was going on.

[Bold Deceiver]

Prior to Bush's call for war, there was not tremendous support for invading Iraq from the majority of the world's leading countries.

That's quite wrong. See UN Resolution 1441.

Right now, the reputation of the US is really quite damaged . . . we are perceived as wild west outlaws.

We chose to set the precedent. We chose to go to Iraq, against the judgement of our allies. And we chose to make a pre-emptive strike on the country. Was it justified? That's beyond the scope of this argument.

Instead, our focus is whether or not this the image we really want to have. The answer: probably not.

I don't think you can simply elude the issue of whether the war is justified, in light of your implied statement that we should not have invaded Iraq in order to keep a better world 'image'. (Edit unreasonable assumption by BD).

You are right, that military action taken in the name of national security should always be balanced against the risk of disquieting relations with other countries. That's what diplomacy is for. But at a certain point, the chili meets the cheese. A good example is the country of Turkey. (Is anyone else getting hungry?)

(BD makes a sandwich, and comes back.)

Pakistan is a better example. A crucial country in a crucial region, they chose to ally themselves against the terrorists when we went to war in Afghanistan, instead of with them. Pakistan's acquiescence occurred without war. But the without the threat of war? They knew what was coming. It gave diplomacy had an edge.

Tyranny's view, I think, is that the disaffection of World when balanced against the national security of the U.S., is water of a duck's back.

I agree. It isn't even close.

BD