Not much of a surprise?

cheerful_deviant

Head of the Flock
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Posts
10,487
Ripped this from the associated press.

Any comments from our friends across the pond?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Reputation Goes Downhill In Worldwide Polls
Most Think Iraq War Did Not Aid In Global Terror War


POSTED: 9:43 AM EDT October 15, 2004


LONDON -- America's reputation around the world is hurting, according to a series of coordinated polls published Friday from 10 countries, including many of the United States' closest allies.

In eight of the countries where the surveys commissioned by major newspapers were conducted, more people said their view of America had worsened in the past two to three years than improved. That question was asked in nine countries.

By big margins, those questioned said the war in Iraq did not aid the global fight against terrorism.How Important Is Reputation?How important would you say it is for the United States to be well respected throughout the world?Very importantImportantSomewhat importantNot that importantNot important at all

And in eight out of 10 nations, those polled said -- often in landslide proportions -- that they hoped to see Democrat John Kerry beat President George W. Bush in next month's election. Bush won backing from a majority of respondents only in Russia and Israel.

The polls were conducted in Canada, France, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Mexico, Israel and Russia, with results to be published in the participating newspapers on Friday. Not all questions were asked in every country.

On average, 57 percent of those questioned said their opinions of America had worsened over the past two to three years, compared with 20 percent who said their view had improved. That question was asked in nine of the countries, but not in Russia.

Seventy-four percent of Japanese, 70 percent of French, 67 percent of South Koreans, 64 percent of Canadians and 60 percent of Spaniards said they had a worse opinion of America now than two to three years ago.

Only in Israel did more people say their view of the United States had improved than worsened in the past two to three years.

In that period, which began just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States has led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While much of the international community backed the invasion to oust the Taliban, Bush's decision to invade Iraq has fueled anger around the world.

However, many of those polled separated their feelings about the U.S. government from their views of the American people. Sixty-eight percent said they had a favorable opinion of Americans.

Asked whether American democracy remained a model for other nations, 52 percent of those asked said yes and 42 percent said no.

In Britain, Mexico and South Korea, more people thought the United States was no longer a model, while in Canada, Russia, Japan and Israel, majorities said it was.

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in seven nations - including Britain, America's closest ally in Iraq - said the war there was not helping the world fight against terrorism, while 35 percent said it was, as Bush contends.

People in all 10 countries were asked who they hoped to see win the White House on Nov. 2, and the result will make Kerry wish they had a vote.

The Democrat was favored by healthy to enormous majorities in eight of the nations - 72 percent supported him, compared with 16 percent for Bush in France.

In South Korea, it was 68 percent for Kerry and 18 percent for Bush; in Canada, 60 percent to 20 percent; in Spain, 58 percent to 13 percent; in Australia 54 percent to 28 percent; and in Britain 50 percent to 22 percent.

Bush came out on top in Israel by a margin of 50 percent to 24 percent and in Russia, 52 percent to 48 percent.

The newspapers involved were La Presse in Canada, Le Monde in France, the Guardian in Britain, El Pais in Spain, Asahi Shimbun in Japan, JoongAng Ilbo in South Korea, the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age in Australia, Reforma in Mexico, Haaretz in Israel and the Moscow News in Russia.

The sample sizes in the 10 polls varied from 522 people in Israel to 1,417 in Australia. Margins of error were mostly around 3 percentage points, but varied between 2.6 and 4.38.

The polls were conducted on different dates from September through early October.
 
Thanks.

I'm not from across the pond, but right in your neighborhood. But thanks anyway.
 
Last edited:
On this side of the pond, a little over 60% of the people think that the greatest threat to world peace comes from the U.S.
 
To bad we did not have Kerry's 'global test' in 1941. International opinion would have swayed our politico's not to enter World War 2, not to keep the Communists out of Asia or lend support in the Balkans.

In my alternative world, the United States would have simply occupied Canada and Central America down past Panama and let the rest of you silly asses become Nazi's and Reds.

Hmm...not a bad idea.

Y'all could do without Big Mac's and Freedom fries and we can live without snails and volvos.

Well..I thought it was funny...


amicus...
 
How many people in how many countries had to finally come around to the threat posed by Hitler and Tojo to the world before the world banded together to stop them?
 
If there is a country, that deserves the lion's share of credit for defeating Hitler and the nazis, that country is Great Britan. The soviets paid the highest price in blood. the Americans turned the tides of war with both their manpower and industrial might. But if it weren't for a small islan nation that refused to give in when that option was presented again and again, The russians would have faced the whole might of the wermacht and barbarosa would have begun ontime. If it weren't for the british, the U.S. would have brought her industiral might to bear too late.

Assigning any of the foes of the axis powers more credit than others is an exercise in subjectivity and playing what if's with history.

-Colly
 
I could not agree more, Colly...the books and films I have read and seen about Dunkirk and all after...the bombing of London, the magnificent Royal Air Force and Navy...and the British people who would have defended that Island to the last man.

And the Russians...yes...it is hard to find anything comparable to what they endured defending their homeland.

But my comments were in context to the 1930's had someone, somewhere...had the courage to fight the terrorism of the Nazi's in Europe and the Japanese in Asia...perhaps we would have a different world.

And although it is hard to see the future...I see stopping radical Islam to be essential now...or we will revisit a world war scenario.


amicus...
 
We live in a snapshot world ladeled with sound bites. Few in Europe 'know America', what we see and hear are the incoherent rambles of a political powerhouse that doesn't know its arse (ass) from its elbow - no one can be suprised by these figures.
 
amicus said:
To bad we did not have Kerry's 'global test' in 1941. International opinion would have swayed our politico's not to enter World War 2...
What kind of Global Test would that be? The British, the Australians, the Canadians, the Free French, the expatriate Poles, and all the subjected countries of Europe that were fielding a resistance to the occupiers of their country — all since 1939 at the latest?
amicus said:
In my alternative world, the United States would have simply occupied Canada ...
Following James Madison – another War President – that is exactly what we did, without noticeably encouraging results. With a victory in the battle on Lake Champlain we were able to negotiate a settlement to Madison’s War, before a horde of soldiers released by the second defeat of Napoleon could be reassigned to the North America theater.
Originally posted by amicus
... Big Mac's and Freedom fries and we can live without snails and volvos.
Well..I thought it was funny ...
I must confess that a steady diet of escargot doesn’t appeal to me, either, but that can’t blind me to the dangers of high cholesterol and deathtrap vehicles.

You mean funny — dumb — right?
 
When Germany broke the terms of the Versailles Treaty, long before 1939...there were those who advocated acting in a pre emptive way....as the United States is doing in Arabia.

I have been highly critical of my government for over 40's years, yet you folks have placed me in the position of defending America, right or wrong...at least get your history straight...
 
amicus said:
I could not agree more, Colly...the books and films I have read and seen about Dunkirk and all after...the bombing of London, the magnificent Royal Air Force and Navy...and the British people who would have defended that Island to the last man.

And the Russians...yes...it is hard to find anything comparable to what they endured defending their homeland.

But my comments were in context to the 1930's had someone, somewhere...had the courage to fight the terrorism of the Nazi's in Europe and the Japanese in Asia...perhaps we would have a different world.

And although it is hard to see the future...I see stopping radical Islam to be essential now...or we will revisit a world war scenario.


amicus...

I don't know. Radical islam isn't a political ideology that seems to have the appeal of Faschism. At the very core Naziism, Italian fashism and Japanese militarism promised to build something. It seems to me the radical islamists are intent on destroying not building.

As an ideology, it seems to lack a very powerful or large political base.

-Colly
 
Perhaps you are correct Colly....but two recent online friends, both for almost two years...one in the Philippines and one in Singapore...have been converted to Islam and now their chats are filled with anti american rhetoric...

They are both unmarried women in their mid 20's if that means anything...

The stark thought that many people cannot endure freedom and prefer to become 'chattel'; taken care of....is a little unsettling.
 
amicus said:
Perhaps you are correct Colly....but two recent online friends, both for almost two years...one in the Philippines and one in Singapore...have been converted to Islam and now their chats are filled with anti american rhetoric...

They are both unmarried women in their mid 20's if that means anything...

The stark thought that many people cannot endure freedom and prefer to become 'chattel'; taken care of....is a little unsettling.

I'm not saying it couldn't. Only that I don't see it now possessing the neccessary ingredients to attract a large enough following to provoke war on a global scale.

By and large a political ideology has to promise something. Mousillini was praised for making the trains run on time. A small thing, but one that was considered a vast improvement over the government before his.

Radical islam, if it took over a country would offer what exactly? The only example we have is the taliban and they had to keep control through terror. It seems to me to be a dead end philosophy that is geared solely to the attack. Most folks aren't going to find that appealing as a way of life i don't think.
 
amicus said:
When Germany broke the terms of the Versailles Treaty, long before 1939....
You, Sir mentioned 1941. Not I.

How does 1941 fit into “long before 1939"?
Is that Old Math, or is your memory slipping?
 
Possibly you're right. America may well be able to amass a truly global empire before enough people have had it with our program of world dominance and finally slap us down.

The British, the Australians, the Canadians, the Free French, the expatriate Poles, and all the subjected countries of Europe that were fielding a resistance to the occupiers of their country

So far, the people of latin America and of the occupied middle east don't seem to have the effect that the people of Europe and China had the last time. Europe sees us as a great threat to peace, but there is not yet a real movement to oppose us with a united military opposition. Blindly continuing to break international treaties as it suits us and pursuing sole control of the world's resources in war after war, though, will make it only a matter of time.

I remind you that Japan was disarmed for two generations after that happened to them. And Germany divided and occupied for forty years or so. If that's what we'd like for America, then by all means let us ignore the opinions of the rest of mankind and continue our empire building.
 
Had it not been for the anti nuclear power liberals and hippies from the 60's on...we could have had 100 percent of energy created by nuclear plants.

Of course the coal labor unions would not want that, nor perhaps the heating oil industry....

America imperialist? geez...even your coterie of look alikes here don't buy that....
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Radical islam, if it took over a country would offer what exactly? The only example we have is the taliban and they had to keep control through terror. It seems to me to be a dead end philosophy that is geared solely to the attack. Most folks aren't going to find that appealing as a way of life i don't think.

We also have the example of Iran as a radical Islamic nation. Iran is prosperous and peaceful, by and large, in spite of years of war with Iraq and a level of repression at the begining of the revolution that rivaled the Taliban's.
 
Weird Harold said:
We also have the example of Iran as a radical Islamic nation. Iran is prosperous and peaceful, by and large, in spite of years of war with Iraq and a level of repression at the begining of the revolution that rivaled the Taliban's.

Is Iran radical Islam or just very fundamentalist Islam Harold?
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Is Iran radical Islam or just very fundamentalist Islam Harold?

Is there a difference?

At the time the Shah was overthrown, it was as radical and repressive as the Taliban. The only real difference between Iran and Afghanistan is the infrastruture, including the educational level of the populace, that the radical Islamists took control of.

Fundamentalist Islam does have something to offer many countries around the world -- relief from chaos. Whether they get Iranian style or Taliban style fundamentalism depends mostly on circumstances.

Iranian Radicals took over a fully functional country with an educated poplulace and and external threat.

Afghan Radicals took over a divided country with virtualy no infrastructure, a generally unsophisticated populace with minimal education and internal power struggles.

Different strategies were used against different challenges, but there is little to choose between in the two regimes.
 
Weird Harold said:
Is there a difference?

At the time the Shah was overthrown, it was as radical and repressive as the Taliban. The only real difference between Iran and Afghanistan is the infrastruture, including the educational level of the populace, that the radical Islamists took control of.

Fundamentalist Islam does have something to offer many countries around the world -- relief from chaos. Whether they get Iranian style or Taliban style fundamentalism depends mostly on circumstances.

Iranian Radicals took over a fully functional country with an educated poplulace and and external threat.

Afghan Radicals took over a divided country with virtualy no infrastructure, a generally unsophisticated populace with minimal education and internal power struggles.

Different strategies were used against different challenges, but there is little to choose between in the two regimes.

Point taken.
 
amicus said:
...But my comments were in context to the 1930's had someone, somewhere...had the courage to fight the terrorism of the Nazi's in Europe and the Japanese in Asia...perhaps we would have a different world.

And although it is hard to see the future...I see stopping radical Islam to be essential now...or we will revisit a world war scenario.


amicus...


Maybe someone needs to stop the Bush's.


Ed
 
Amicus, you are on my ignore list so I wouldn't have seen your post had someone else not quoted it.

If America tries to annex Canada, you will find yourself pining for the quiet days of Iraq and Vietnam. You will have well and truly put your prick in the pickle slicer if you come after us.

Our border is too long to be defended, we're just as tough as you are… and I and a lot of other's know the U.S. weakness.

The only animal I ever heard of who beat a wolverine in a straight fight was a beaver.
 
Lauren Hynde said:
On this side of the pond, a little over 60% of the people think that the greatest threat to world peace comes from the U.S.

Yes unfortunately this is the case
 
Could easily be accurate; that's the problem. I daresay Mugabe is a thousand times the vicious bastard megalomaniac Bush will ever be. But his reach is not as long.
 
One minor question: Wasn't it Saddam who was offering a $25.000 "Consolation Award" to the surviving family of any suicide bomber who killed an Israeli citizen?
 
Back
Top