Maybe a part of the problem is that people don't realize that most Americans don't approve of Bush or his actions in general. I don't think his approval rating has been above 40% for quite some time.

Personally, I can stand that he is our president. He has lost the respect for our country , that most people around the world had @ one time. He pretty much plays into all of the stereotypes that people have for Americans.

Though, I still say that some of the hate thrown @ us is because some people just have to hate the big guy on campus no matter what.

I think that part of the problem is historical, and part of it is Bush-specific.  Historically, there were a lot of times that you guys have had assholes running your government that basically shit on the rest of the world for their own interests.

Contrary to what you may believe, the Cuban Revolution didn't happen because the cubans "hate your freedoms", it happened because the US-backed United Fruit Company had tried to turn an entire continent into a slave plantation.

And the hatred an American might find in south america is because the Nixon white house specifically initiated a plan (Plan Condor) that involved intentionally destroying every democratically elected government in south america and replacing them with military dictatorships.

So you guys have a lot of baggage to make up for.

Part of the problem today is that in Bush the world sees that sort of government again, but worse. And its fine and good to say "50% of us didn't vote for him", but the democratic parts of the world look at the guy and say "yea, but 50% of you DID vote for a guy who wouldn't be able to fill a beerhall in any other part of the western democratic world. You let yourselves fall for him, TWICE".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that part of the problem is historical, and part of it is Bush-specific.  Historically, there were a lot of times that you guys have had assholes running your government that basically shit on the rest of the world for their own interests.

Contrary to what you may believe, the Cuban Revolution didn't happen because the cubans "hate your freedoms", it happened because the US-backed United Fruit Company had tried to turn an entire continent into a slave plantation.

And the hatred an American might find in south america is because the Nixon white house specifically initiated a plan (Plan Condor) that involved intentionally destroying every democratically elected government in south america and replacing them with military dictatorships.

So you guys have a lot of baggage to make up for.

Part of the problem today is that in Bush the world sees that sort of government again, but worse. And its fine and good to say "50% of us didn't vote for him", but the democratic parts of the world look at the guy and say "yea, but 50% of you DID vote for a guy who wouldn't be able to fill a beerhall in any other part of the western democratic world. You let yourselves fall for him, TWICE".

RPGPundit

I'm with you on most of this, It pisses me off that 50%  of our people are stupid enough to have voted for the guy TWICE!!!!!!!!!

Even so there are plenty of other contries that have had similar lapses in their government. England for one, but you don't see people actively insulting the english.

Quote from: McrowI'm with you on most of this, It pisses me off that 50%  of our people are stupid enough to have voted for the guy TWICE!!!!!!!!!

I'm not certain they really voted for him the first time.

I've heard the guy say one thing, ONE, that I totally got behind: "Let's go to Mars".

That's it.  

The rest has been...ehhhh, I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him, and frankly, I can't even get to him from here, so...

Quote from: McrowEven so there are plenty of other contries that have had similar lapses in their government. England for one, but you don't see people actively insulting the english.

If it would help, I could say something disparaging about limeys and their dubious dentistry.

So many specific responses, so little time. Instead,


I'm of the opinion stated here that runs along the lines of "grow a few and stand up."  Don't like the President, we have a way to change that.  It's called an election.  In fact, there's another one for President in a couple of years.  In the mean time, you can change Congress.  Christ you can change huge swaths of it every two years. And trust me, if you make Democrats the majority in Congress, you will see things come to a screeching halt - for better or worse, agree with them or not, that's what will happen.

So stop trying to hide behind "I didn't vote for him so don't blame me, " shit.  You're being a coward. I hated Clinton (except for welfare reform and a couple of other specifics), but I stood behind him whenever them thar fereners started howling. And then when it was time to vote, I voiced my opinion in the booth, baby. And look, he fooled everyone twice as well!

So, you don't like us being the big dog?  Take it away, fuckheads. You don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us?  Fine, take over your own protection. Don't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back.  Oh...wait...you don't want them?  Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.

I'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it.  Problem is, we can't.  Too many threats from too many corners, for one.  For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.

And bullshit on the idea that the world loved us before Bush.  Hell, take a look at the polls of Middle East feelings towards America before 2000 – they are already at something like 85% hate. Oh no, we went to 95%, how horrible. If you look at the numbers from 2000 and 2002, Western Europe was only slightly down. But after that, it drops like a rock.  What changed? Iraq.  Countries don't hate the US because of Bush, they hate the US because the US went to war in Iraq, against the "better judgment of the world community."  Agree with those outside the US or not, that's the reason.  Bush is just a nice target so that countries that disagree with that action, can still say "but we love Americans," and get our tourism (among other) dollars.

Lastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources?  You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD.  That's a damn good return on your investment, I'd say - and all with just a tiny little 4% of the population.  What the fuck are the rest of you all doing, jesus, how 'bout you chipping in a little, huh?  And just like I said before, if you don't like it, change it.  It would be nice to take a vacation from that kind of responsibility once and a while. I'd love a guaranteed job from which I could never be fired and could have 10 paid weeks of vacation (have to take holiday in August!).  Come to think of it, no I wouldn't – at least not for what I'd have to give up in return.

I think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?

Is it that people are idiots, or that they actually approve of his actions?  Naw, couldn't be...

Shocking it may be, but it takes more than "I'm not Bush!" to win over voters who don't actively hate him.

Quote from: James J SkachSo many specific responses, so little time. Instead,


I'm of the opinion stated here that runs along the lines of "grow a few and stand up."  Don't like the President, we have a way to change that.  It's called an election.  In fact, there's another one for President in a couple of years.  In the mean time, you can change Congress.  Christ you can change huge swaths of it every two years. And trust me, if you make Democrats the majority in Congress, you will see things come to a screeching halt - for better or worse, agree with them or not, that's what will happen.

So stop trying to hide behind "I didn't vote for him so don't blame me, " shit.  You're being a coward. I hated Clinton (except for welfare reform and a couple of other specifics), but I stood behind him whenever them thar fereners started howling. And then when it was time to vote, I voiced my opinion in the booth, baby. And look, he fooled everyone twice as well!

So, you don't like us being the big dog?  Take it away, fuckheads. You don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us?  Fine, take over your own protection. Don't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back.  Oh...wait...you don't want them?  Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.

I'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it.  Problem is, we can't.  Too many threats from too many corners, for one.  For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.

And bullshit on the idea that the world loved us before Bush.  Hell, take a look at the polls of Middle East feelings towards America before 2000 – they are already at something like 85% hate. Oh no, we went to 95%, how horrible. If you look at the numbers from 2000 and 2002, Western Europe was only slightly down. But after that, it drops like a rock.  What changed? Iraq.  Countries don't hate the US because of Bush, they hate the US because the US went to war in Iraq, against the "better judgment of the world community."  Agree with those outside the US or not, that's the reason.  Bush is just a nice target so that countries that disagree with that action, can still say "but we love Americans," and get our tourism (among other) dollars.

Lastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources?  You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD.  That's a damn good return on your investment, I'd say - and all with just a tiny little 4% of the population.  What the fuck are the rest of you all doing, jesus, how 'bout you chipping in a little, huh?  And just like I said before, if you don't like it, change it.  It would be nice to take a vacation from that kind of responsibility once and a while. I'd love a guaranteed job from which I could never be fired and could have 10 paid weeks of vacation (have to take holiday in August!).  Come to think of it, no I wouldn't – at least not for what I'd have to give up in return.

I think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?

Now that is a fucking rant! 9/10 in my book.

It was hard to rant given the blood that had fountained out of my eyes splattering the monitor from reading the whining going on here. So, I thank you.

:bow:

Quote from: McrowEngland

You mean 'Airstrip One'.

If its any consolation, a lot of us despise Tony Blair even more than we despise Bush; because we actually expected much more from Blair.

RPGPundit

Ask the people of Somalia and Darfur about being the US being the protector of the world.

That rant has the ill-informed smell of the isolationist about it.  The petulant and childish bleating of "Well if you don't like it we can leave you all to rot, you need us more than we need you".

The problem, of course, is that while that line of argument might have held some water in the 1950's when the US economy made up half the world's wealth.  It's certainly not true now.  As a protector of human rights and dignity, the US's record is essentially nill and based largely upon the now-irrelevant, then-questioned and ultimately fictional counter-factual that should the Russians have invaded that you'd have come over the help us out, protecting us.

Yeah right.

Since then America has bombed from 40,000 feet in 2 successive genocidal european conflicts, sat by while hundreds of thousands were butchered with machetes and are now happily doing nothing while genocide goes on unquestioned and unmolested in Africa.  Not only does your government do nothing, but your population's largely uninterested.

In fact, even as a strongman, you're being sidelined.  During the recent war in Lebanon you flexed your muscles and tutted and nobody listened to you.  You've alienated the middle-eastern powers to such an extent that even being seen to co-operate with you is a liability and your political pull with your friends is negligeable too seeing as pretty much everyone thinks your president's a cunt and standing up to him would probably give them a boost in the polls.

The basic fact of the matter is that America can't afford to be isolationist.  It needs to keep those foreign markets open, it needs to drum up those trade talks, it needs to keep the other powerblocks sweet.  At this point in time, you need the rest of the world because you owe hundreds and hundreds of billions to the Chinese and if you shut the doors on the rest of the world you wouldn't be able to pay the interest on those loans, let alone pay them off.

I'm actually quite sympathetic to the US and in terms of Hegemons there are worse possibilities.  But trying to pretend that you're A) somehow victimised and misunderstood or B) doing the rest of the world a favour is utterly ludicrous.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf its any consolation, a lot of us despise Tony Blair even more than we despise Bush; because we actually expected much more from Blair.

  But that anger's more about being angry with oneself.

  Tony Blair's premiership has been nothing short of cataclysmic.

  He's overseen the plundering of British pensions, pissed BILLIONS up the wall in public spending with very little to show for it, reacted to genocide in Kosovo by bombing Belgrade and killing hundreds of innocent Yugoslavians, overseen a war in Afghanistan which cost tens of billions and had no effect as all it did was send the Taliban scurrying into the mountains for a couple of years, followed the US into a war in Iraq which would have been far more humane and morally justifiable if instead of going to war we'd given Saddam 100 billion in return for shooting several thousand of his own citizens a month AND he's so profoundly fucked up community relations in this country that we seem close to going through a period of religious intolerance and diviciveness unheard of in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell.

   Not only has it been the fault of the British people for systematically re-electing him with huge mandates but the abject cowardice and moral degradation of his own party that refused to stand up to him and the conservative party for thinking that this is still the 1950's and that the way to unseat the most gifted British politician of the 20th Century was to talk about the UN being soft on asylum seekers.

  Tony Blair's a moralising authoritarian but he's nothing when weighed against the intellectual and moral failings of the British political classes which, since the time of Thatcher hasn't come up with any vision of the way forward for Britain other than "we need to pay more tax to save the NHS".

Quote from: James J SkachSo many specific responses, so little time. Instead,


I'm of the opinion stated here that runs along the lines of "grow a few and stand up."  Don't like the President, we have a way to change that.  It's called an election.  In fact, there's another one for President in a couple of years.  In the mean time, you can change Congress.  Christ you can change huge swaths of it every two years. And trust me, if you make Democrats the majority in Congress, you will see things come to a screeching halt - for better or worse, agree with them or not, that's what will happen.

So stop trying to hide behind "I didn't vote for him so don't blame me, " shit.  You're being a coward. I hated Clinton (except for welfare reform and a couple of other specifics), but I stood behind him whenever them thar fereners started howling. And then when it was time to vote, I voiced my opinion in the booth, baby. And look, he fooled everyone twice as well!

So, you don't like us being the big dog?  Take it away, fuckheads. You don't like us being the protection for most of the western democracies you all see as enlightened so far beyond us?  Fine, take over your own protection. Don't like us holding terrorists in Guantanimo? Fine, take your people back.  Oh...wait...you don't want them?  Can't afford to keep track of them so they don't start blowing up subways again? Too fucking bad.

I'd be perfectly happy to take our marbles and go home. I believe Rand called it shrugging - and I wish we'd do it.  Problem is, we can't.  Too many threats from too many corners, for one.  For two, we'd be abandoning huge swaths of the worlds population to despair - kinda like when we fucked up after WWII and let the Soviets have so much - and that just ain't us.

And bullshit on the idea that the world loved us before Bush.  Hell, take a look at the polls of Middle East feelings towards America before 2000 – they are already at something like 85% hate. Oh no, we went to 95%, how horrible. If you look at the numbers from 2000 and 2002, Western Europe was only slightly down. But after that, it drops like a rock.  What changed? Iraq.  Countries don't hate the US because of Bush, they hate the US because the US went to war in Iraq, against the "better judgment of the world community."  Agree with those outside the US or not, that's the reason.  Bush is just a nice target so that countries that disagree with that action, can still say "but we love Americans," and get our tourism (among other) dollars.

Lastly, you can take your 4% of the population/25% of the resources and shove it up your ass. Where would the world be if the US was held to that 4% of the resources?  You may not like it, but the US is the economic engine of the world. Since 1995, the US has taken that 25% of the resources and turned in into 60% of the economic growth OF THE WORLD.  That's a damn good return on your investment, I'd say - and all with just a tiny little 4% of the population.  What the fuck are the rest of you all doing, jesus, how 'bout you chipping in a little, huh?  And just like I said before, if you don't like it, change it.  It would be nice to take a vacation from that kind of responsibility once and a while. I'd love a guaranteed job from which I could never be fired and could have 10 paid weeks of vacation (have to take holiday in August!).  Come to think of it, no I wouldn't – at least not for what I'd have to give up in return.

I think it's Madagascar's turn to be the economic engine and protector of the world. I mean, why do they get to have a movie? Hmm?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAsk the people of Somalia and Darfur about being the US being the protector of the world.

That rant has the ill-informed smell of the isolationist about it.  The petulant and childish bleating of "Well if you don't like it we can leave you all to rot, you need us more than we need you".

The problem, of course, is that while that line of argument might have held some water in the 1950's when the US economy made up half the world's wealth.  It's certainly not true now.  As a protector of human rights and dignity, the US's record is essentially nill and based largely upon the now-irrelevant, then-questioned and ultimately fictional counter-factual that should the Russians have invaded that you'd have come over the help us out, protecting us.

Yeah right.

Since then America has bombed from 40,000 feet in 2 successive genocidal european conflicts, sat by while hundreds of thousands were butchered with machetes and are now happily doing nothing while genocide goes on unquestioned and unmolested in Africa.  Not only does your government do nothing, but your population's largely uninterested.

In fact, even as a strongman, you're being sidelined.  During the recent war in Lebanon you flexed your muscles and tutted and nobody listened to you.  You've alienated the middle-eastern powers to such an extent that even being seen to co-operate with you is a liability and your political pull with your friends is negligeable too seeing as pretty much everyone thinks your president's a cunt and standing up to him would probably give them a boost in the polls.

The basic fact of the matter is that America can't afford to be isolationist.  It needs to keep those foreign markets open, it needs to drum up those trade talks, it needs to keep the other powerblocks sweet.  At this point in time, you need the rest of the world because you owe hundreds and hundreds of billions to the Chinese and if you shut the doors on the rest of the world you wouldn't be able to pay the interest on those loans, let alone pay them off.

I'm actually quite sympathetic to the US and in terms of Hegemons there are worse possibilities.  But trying to pretend that you're A) somehow victimised and misunderstood or B) doing the rest of the world a favour is utterly ludicrous.

See, I love responses like this... I love them even more from Americans, but you can't have everything.

I'll translate it for you:

How dare you invade other countries when we, the rest of the world, didn't like it. Why the fuck aren't you invading these other countries instead?


Seriously, the Kurds were being slaughtered systematically. Female Afghans were being rapped and murdered more or less systematically.  The US goes in, gets a by on Afghanistan but not Iraq. But get's pasted over not going into Darfour? What the fuck is up with that?

YOU go to Darfour then.  I'm fucking busy.