The impact of anti-BUSHism

[Djamila]

In October of 1996, polls in Bosnia showed that more than 98% of Bosnian Muslims viewed the United States favorably. The number dipped to 94% by 1998, and rose again to 98% following the attacks of 9/11.

Since George Bush came to power, the number has dropped to 13%.

Similar changes are obvious around the world - from Canada, to South America, to Europe, to Asia, to the Middle East, to Africa. George Bush is the symbol of a new and more powerful anti-American sentiment that has crossed all cultural and religious boundaries.

So my question is - will this problem fade with Bush, or is it here to stay? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and so on... are abuses of law that are shocking to Europeans. It's just shocking - but has it tarnished America in general, or just George Bush's America?

Can just getting rid of Bush make it all better, or is America ****ed in the eyes of the world for generations to come?

 

[kai]

In October of 1996, polls in Bosnia showed that more than 98% of Bosnian Muslims viewed the United States favorably. The number dipped to 94% by 1998, and rose again to 98% following the attacks of 9/11.

Since George Bush came to power, the number has dropped to 13%.

Similar changes are obvious around the world - from Canada, to South America, to Europe, to Asia, to the Middle East, to Africa. George Bush is the symbol of a new and more powerful anti-American sentiment that has crossed all cultural and religious boundaries.

So my question is - will this problem fade with Bush, or is it here to stay? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and so on... are abuses of law that are shocking to Europeans. It's just shocking - but has it tarnished America in general, or just George Bush's America?

Can just getting rid of Bush make it all better, or is America ****ed in the eyes of the world for generations to come?

getting rid of Bush will not make it better he will go anyway when his time is up the US is not a dictitorial state , there are two choices for America carry on as they are or revert to isolationism, because in some peoples eyes they and bush cant do a thing right, Europeans in particular want America when they need it then want it to fade back when they dont, yes Abu Ghraib was shocking but thats done with people have been and are going to trial Guantanamo is another story at the end of the day what do you want them to do, butt out of the worlds wrongs and stay on their side of the Atlantic or carry out an active role in the world. in my opinion the world is better off with them (for all their faults) than without them.

 

[Hacker]

I dislike what Bush is doing, I really don't dislike anyone but it's so hard for me to say any different. I don't keep up with the current polical issues, it all makes me sick. But I did read your post and I'd vote him out.

 

[Ody]

I find it sad that people look at a country based on the actions of thier leaders when they (the leaders, Bush in particular) recieve little support or liking from the countrie's public.

 

[Ody]

Can just getting rid of Bush make it all better, or is America ****ed in the eyes of the world for generations to come?

I truely hope so.

 

[kai]

I truely hope so.

getting rid of Bush will nor make the bad guys go away the next president will have to face up to it , appease or shrink back to an isolation policy

 

[Tigress]

I find it sad that people look at a country based on the actions of thier leaders when they (the leaders, Bush in particular) recieve little support or liking from the countrie's public.

The thing is, leaders don't get to where they are without support, so while I agree that we should not dislike, or come to question the entire country, you still must wonder. I do, at least.--I suppose it's my ego talking, but when people like George W. Bush get sworn in to office, it does make me question the minds of those who vote(d) for them.

As to the original post, I don't think the problems with the United States will 'magically disappear' along with George Bush. Problems existed before him, and they will continue to do so after him, unless a president with a mind for real change is elected. And by that I mean, a president who will (at least make an effort to) set aside his or her ego, and step on to a level playing field with the rest of the world, viewing us as equals, and not looking down on us, or seeing us as a commodity.

My $0.02,
Crystal

 

[Ody]

The thing is, leaders don't get to where they are without support, so while I agree that we should not dislike, or come to question the entire country, you still must wonder. I do, at least.--I suppose it's my ego talking, but when people like George W. Bush get sworn in to office, it does make me question the minds of those who vote(d) for them.

Then should I feel angst for the elderly germans? It doesn't matter what a people supported , what matters is how the people view things now.

 

[kai]

Then should I feel angst for the elderly germans? It doesn't matter what a people supported , what matters is how the people view things now.

the elderly germans didnt have the option of voting for someone else next time , i dont know what you expect the next president to do, theres no quick fix here

 

[Matt]

Perhaps the reason George Bush often acts alone without the United Nations and without the help of European Nations, is because there are things that need to be dealt with urgently that only George Bush is willing to deal with.

I think the United Nations and certain European Nations need to take a long hard look at themselves before they judge the United States.

 

[kai]

Perhaps the reason George Bush often acts alone without the United Nations and without the help of European Nations, is because there are things that need to be dealt with urgently that only George Bush is willing to deal with.

I think the United Nations and certain European Nations need to take a long hard look at themselves before they judge the United States.

thats a very good point

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Perhaps the reason George Bush often acts alone without the United Nations and without the help of European Nations, is because there are things that need to be dealt with urgently that only George Bush is willing to deal with.

He is also acting with out the support of a large section of his own country.
His sort of arbitary action, is what is usually associated with dictators.
In democracies is is usually the will of the perople that prevails.

I think the United Nations and certain European Nations need to take a long hard look at themselves before they judge the United States.

I am sure they do... and have done so, most have judged what they see, as unacceptable in terms of justice and world peace.

 

[Djamila]

He is also acting with out the support of a large section of his own country.
His sort of arbitary action, is what is usually associated with dictators.
In democracies is is usually the will of the perople that prevails.

That's the one thing about American democracy I've never understood.

In America, if you get 50.5% per cent of the vote - then you rule for that 50.5% and the other 49.5% of Americans are not, nor do they expect to be, really represented by their government. The just-under-half of Americans who did no vote for Bush... their opinions don't matter - Bush is in, Bush is in charge.

In Europe this would never happen. We have more parties, firstly, so neither would often win anywhere near 50% of the vote. And even then, everyone is represented. The parties voted for win seats and form coalitions that are forced to compromise to each others wishes, and so everyone is represented.

But you'll never see one leader, with one party, ramming everything they want through government with just 50% of the people's support. That madness is reserved for dictatorships.

 

[kai]

He is also acting with out the support of a large section of his own country.
His sort of arbitary action, is what is usually associated with dictators.
In democracies is is usually the will of the perople that prevails.
once he is elected he has certain powers to his office which the electorate have given him a mandate to use i see nothing he has done that could possibly be compared to a dictatorship


I am sure they do... and have done so, most have judged what they see, as unacceptable in terms of justice and world peace.

most europeans france in particular have their own agenda when it comes to the middle east , i am glad to see a lot of support for the UN peacekeeping force to Lebanon

 

[kai]

That's the one thing about American democracy I've never understood.

In America, if you get 50.5% per cent of the vote - then you rule for that 50.5% and the other 49.5% of Americans are not, nor do they expect to be, really represented by their government. The just-under-half of Americans who did no vote for Bush... their opinions don't matter - Bush is in, Bush is in charge.

In Europe this would never happen. We have more parties, firstly, so neither would often win anywhere near 50% of the vote. And even then, everyone is represented. The parties voted for win seats and form coalitions that are forced to compromise to each others wishes, and so everyone is represented.

But you'll never see one leader, with one party, ramming everything they want through government with just 50% of the people's support. That madness is reserved for dictatorships.

all this talk of dictatorships is a silly comparison to a twice elected president 50% is a lot more than a lot of countries leaders get including my own.

 

[sparc872]

all this talk of dictatorships is a silly comparison to a twice elected president 50% is a lot more than a lot of countries leaders get including my own.

That's fine and good and all when you have more than two people running for office. Bush got a little over half of the total vote, he barely won and is now in charge of everybody, including those that voted against him. In a fair democracy, people would be proportionally represented according to the percentage of votes for each party. In America, one just needs the majority vote, even in the majority vote is hardly a majority, to win.

 

[kai]

That's fine and good and all when you have more than two people running for office. Bush got a little over half of the total vote, he barely won and is now in charge of everybody, including those that voted against him. In a fair democracy, people would be proportionally represented according to the percentage of votes for each party. In America, one just needs the majority vote, even in the majority vote is hardly a majority, to win.

yes i get what you mean but in reality you end up with a government that has to please everyone and we all know thats impossible. it would take something in between ,but the leader still needs the authority to do his job

 

[egroen]

I lay as much blame on the democrats... for a full decade they have not been able to clearly define and distinguish themselves and the fact Al Gore and John Kerry were the best candidates they could come up with is sad. I did not vote for Bush, but I was far from happy to vote for Kerry.

-Erin

 

[Sunstone]

It's possible Bush will go down in history as one of the worse presidents the US has had. I think it will take quite a while for his legacy to be erased.

 

[!Fluffy!]

He is also acting with out the support of a large section of his own country.

Many of whom consider themselves well informed because they watch MTV News and Jay Leno.

T., are you seriously of the belief that the majority is always right? Isn't it the majority that voted for Bush in the last presidential election?

His sort of arbitary action, is what is usually associated with dictators.

The actions of any American president worthy of the position would be those associated with with strong leaders of an international superpower among diverse nations, many too internally divided, weak or indecisive to react to military threats before it's too late.

You'd have to prove G.W. has acted alone and outside of Constitutional law before labeling him a 'dictator'. So what's 'arbitrary'? You sound as if you believe the POTUS' entire administration is being run in a vacuum with no input or support from the rest of the government.

In democracies is is usually the will of the perople that prevails.

Good thing we are a representative republic. While I have no love for Bush, I have little faith in the will of a hopelessly ignorant and backwards perople who choose the likes of Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore as their idols. And I hope none here seriously believes they have some kind of special power allowing them to speak for the perople: Only cable news pundits and celebs are endowed with the power to sway public opinion and thus wag the tail of the dog that is the will of the perople.

I am sure they do... and have done so, most have judged what they see, as unacceptable in terms of justice and world peace.

(From the 'How to Mock a Superpower Doing Your Dirtywork While Not Getting Your Hands Dirty Handbook': how to retain the appearance of moral superiority while doing absolutely nothing constructive) :angel2:

No, the European pundits and talking heads are no more well informed or conscientous than their brotherhood of vipers in the U.S. Nor do they speak for all Europeans, anymore than the celebs (who think the size of their bank accounts is in direct proportion to their superior sense of morality), speak for all Americans.

Thank G_d in heaven.

'Justice?' We are the model of justice, the ACLU notwithstanding. 'World peace?' Real dictatorships and fascist regimes (not the phony rhetoric slung mindlessly at the Bush administration for effect) will give the world peace, hands down. Nothing more peaceful than a mass grave at sunset!

Yes, you have to ask how peaceful would the world be if the U.S. no longer intervenes anywhere - except via long distance rocketry and the latest in unmanned weaponry to defend itself against outside threats. And no, I'm not being 'sarcastic'. I'm just looking for realistic answers to those who hate the U.S.