"U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership"

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So what? Who cares? Big deal? Does it really matter what the world thinks of our President?

It's useful information. You're talking about world opinion, meaning opinions coming from multiple cultures with multiple sets of values, histories, and dispositions.

Yet they have two things more or less in common: They're not American, meaning that they can be more objective about America, and they mostly agree with Trumps domestic detractors.

 

[Stevicus]

Isn't it though? :0)

For decades, the common citizenry has been expressing their frustrations, grievances, and concerns, and to the largest extent, only to be largely ignored and discarded, while the focus remains unceasingly on matters of foreign policy and international affairs with little deviance from those things. Domestic issues and affairs seems to be a perpetual back burner endeavor in government.

This is true, and this may be part of the reason why there's so much polarization in this country. A lot of Americans seem to have an inferiority complex, so desperate for approval from foreign aristocrats, while denigrating the lower class Americans as "hillbillies" and "bumpkins." They're so concerned with America's "image," but only in a Madison Avenue kind of way. That's how these people think; it's all about advertising and image - very superficial and short-sighted. It's yet another example of how the ruling class prefers image over substance.

 

[Stevicus]

Interesting, why do you think that is? Why do you think they know more? Better news outlets and exposure?

Probably, although we also put ourselves out there - and we were in the best position to do so following WW2 - particularly with the recording industry, film, and TV.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wouldn't even expect the big city sophisticates or Ivy League graduates to take a step back and take an objective, analytical look at the big picture. If they did, they wouldn't be in such a panic over Trump nor attributing America's purported "tarnished image" to Trump.

That's what these others countries do perforce. They don't have to take that giant step back. They are already back, which makes them more objective judges - just as you are suggesting Americans themselves do.

And they attribute their loss of confidence to Trump and his performance as president.

 

[BSM1]

"Their share"? I'm tired of this nonsense peddled by people without the first clue of what NATO is, how it was formed, and what its purpose is. There is NO rule in the NATO charter or in any NATO documentation stating that the members have to pay anything. NATO was an American invention, we were the one pushing for it, so we could have bases of operation for our armed forces in Europe. They were meant initially just to be infrastructure for the United States Armed Forces. Places to refuel, rearm, rest and redeploy our men and material. That's it.

The 2% number bandied around? That pompous dumbasses have claimed the other member-states should be paying? That wasn't a rule. It was a suggestion. Why didn't we make it a rule? We could've. We have the over-whelming majority of the power in NATO after all. But why didn't we? Because the people actually running the United States Military know that NATO does more for us than it does any other member-state. NATO provides the logistical backbone of American military might. Our Airforce in particular depends on NATO bases.


Spare me this jingoistic garbage. European forces(largely Anglo-French) played the vital role in the ground operations during the Yugoslav Wars, and that is both before and after the United Nations organized the likes of SFOR, KFOR, IFOR ad etc.

Europe is not to blame for whatever "problems" exist regarding NATO, made-up and otherwise, because we're the ones who built it, pushed for it, wrote the charter, so on and so forth. This was our baby. We cajoled numerous states to join.

You want to start fixing NATO? Then make it more than just a glorified extension of the United States Military. Because that's what it was when it was first created, and that's what it is to this day. These problems are of our own design. Trump is the first President to raise a serious fuss* about how NATO is run. Coincidentally he is also the single least-qualified individual to have ever won the office.

I wonder if those two things are somehow related.


*Obama and Bush jr both brought up they'd like to see some European members expand their responsibilities within NATO, but they never phrased it in the childish insulting manner Trump has, probably because Trump is just a tactless moron.

It is my understanding that the member countries agreed to support NATO with a certain amount of blood and treasure, neither of which is really forthcoming.

As far as an extension of the US military, we must be talking about a different NATO. However, if this is the case then I believe that you and I can agree that NATO should be disbanded and the billions of dollars thta we bleed into the organization could be better spent here.

 

[BSM1]

That is very sad.

Maybe for you. For me it is very liberating. I could not care less what the world thinks of me or this country.

 

[BSM1]

It's useful information. You're talking about world opinion, meaning opinions coming from multiple cultures with multiple sets of values, histories, and dispositions.

Yet they have two things more or less in common: They're not American, meaning that they can be more objective about America, and they mostly agree with Trumps domestic detractors.

Again, who cares what they think? World opinion and a buck and a quarter will get you a soft drink in most vending machines.

 

[Quetzal]

It is my understanding that the member countries agreed to support NATO with a certain amount of blood and treasure, neither of which is really forthcoming.

But it is not mandated. This is why Trump's pressure to get other nations to "pay more" is ridiculous because the US has a much higher military involvement. It makes sense that the US should pay for it's own conflicts.

The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently, they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.

Also for consideration...

While the original goal of NATO was clear - to defend Western Europe from Soviet influence - its post-Soviet goals have long been debated. Members of all participating countries have often noted that the United States spends more on the organization than all other members combined. According to the Huffington Post in 2017: "... it can’t be argued that NATO has served American interests since 1991. For the last 15 years, the U.S. has been engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and other Muslim countries. ... NATO is a military alliance and one of its members, the United States, has been involved in wars for 15 years." However, not all US-led invasions have received automatic support. After Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time due to the September 11 attacks, the NATO members showed support for an invasion of Afghanistan but not for one of Iraq. While some countries independently aided the US in Iraq (such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands), others like France and Germany refused. Furthermore, countries had no obligation in terms of numbers and involvement regarding Afghanistan. As such, any country in the alliance was free to contribute whatever served their interests best. The Post article refers to the group as "a group of sovereign nations that will respond to American requests as they see fit", as well as having "devolved into bilateral relations between the U.S. and each NATO member".

NATO - Wikipedia

 

[Jeremiahcp]

But the data you are looking at only says "favourable" vs "unfavourable". It doesn't really give a full picture of how America is viewed in the world. A genius scientist and a lovable dufus might both be viewed favourably. Which do you think is the better analogy for how the world views the U.S?

I understand how surveys work.

"Which do you think is the better analogy for how the world views the U.S?"

I don't know and neither do you, and neither does @SomeRandom.

I am not trying to define the exact manner the world sees America, just asserting that the data did not support his conclusion and that his conclusion was based in opinion. I don't care how mighty a person thinks their perception is, they don't just know the disposition of the entire world because of the few people they have encountered or their own personal persuasion.

 

[BSM1]

I am afraid I'm going to have to apologize to you and the others. I was thinking of the United Nations and failed to realize that we were discussing NATO. My only excuse is that it was too early in the morning for me to be posting. Mea culpa.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership

It seems the world dislikes Trump even more than Americans do.

I have friends and relatives who live near the Canada/US border and used to visit the US frequently, but who refuse to visit while Trump is in office.

 

[tytlyf]

At least America is respected again in the world....because apparently we weren't before.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

He said he liked Obama, not America. They are not synonymous.

Being favorable of the US and liking Obama are not the same thing and the percentage I was talking about was being favorable of the U.S.

 

[Altfish]

Maybe for you. For me it is very liberating. I could not care less what the world thinks of me or this country.

That is very sad

 

[Quetzal]

I am afraid I'm going to have to apologize to you and the others. I was thinking of the United Nations and failed to realize that we were discussing NATO. My only excuse is that it was too early in the morning for me to be posting. Mea culpa.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Haha. Get that coffee flowing!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you fail to comprehend is who will they come to if they get it trouble.

Quite possibly not the US.

Seriously: The press in other NATO countries has made a big deal about Trump's (apparently deliberate) avoidance of answering the question of whether the US under his leadership will honour Article 5 of the NATO treaty (i.e. the one that says every member will consider an attack against any other member as an attack on themselves). Right now, there's a growing worldwide perception that the US is an unreliabile ally that can't be trusted to keep its promises. Other countries are starting to plan accordingly... i.e. planning to do their own thing and just leave the US out of the loop.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Maybe for you. For me it is very liberating. I could not care less what the world thinks of me or this country.

"I could not care less what the world thinks of me"

I also don't care what the world thinks of you, as you are not the president.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe for you. For me it is very liberating. I could not care less what the world thinks of me or this country.

It seems you also couldn't care less about any American business that relies on trade treaties.

Or any tourist-oriented business in a border state.

 

[tytlyf]

Maybe for you. For me it is very liberating. I could not care less what the world thinks of me or this country.

I've always wondered why conservatives all say that. I see conservatives dismiss accurate opinions because someone may not be American.

It's an anger thing

 

[Quetzal]

Maybe for you. For me it is very liberating. I could not care less what the world thinks of me or this country.

I have a thought regarding this, interested in your input. What do you think would happen if the citizens of these countries began to vote on political platforms that are against US interests due to the undiplomatic nature of Trump and the boys? Would that shift your thinking at all?

For a fictional example: "Newly elected president to Quetzal-land vows to make good on political promise to reject *super money making business deal for the US*. Here is what he had to say: 'We will no longer bow to the bully tactics and bullish tendencies of the US led my President Trump-.'" etc.