In wake of Iraq war, allies prefer China to U.S. (1 Viewer)

[26 X World Champs]

Bush has destroyed America's standing around the world so much that our allies have a more positive view of Communist China than they do of the USA. Capiche? OUR ALLIES like China more than they like US!

Source: http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/247-2.gif

Poll: In wake of Iraq war, allies prefer China to U.S.
America's rating was lowest in Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan

Friday, June 24, 2005 Posted: 1128 GMT (1928 HKT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.

The poor image persists even though the Bush administration has been promoting freedom and democracy throughout the world in recent months -- which many viewed favorably -- and has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in relief aid to Indian Ocean nations hit by the devastating December 26 tsunami.

"It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, which surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States.

In Britain, almost two-thirds of Britons, 65 percent, saw China favorably, compared with 55 percent who held a positive view of the United States.

In France, 58 percent had an upbeat view of China, compared with 43 percent who felt that way about the U.S. The results were nearly the same in Spain and the Netherlands.

The United States' favorability rating was lowest among three Muslim nations which are also U.S. allies -- Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan -- where only about one-fifth of those polled viewed the U.S. in a positive light.

Only India and Poland were more upbeat about the United States, while Canadians were just as likely to see China favorably as they were the U.S.

The poll found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism.

"The Iraq war has left an enduring impression on the minds of people around the world in ways that make them very suspicious of U.S. intentions and makes the effort to win hearts and minds far more difficult," said Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution....

The entire story is here: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/23/poll.america.ap/

 

[akyron]

Bush has destroyed America's standing around the world so much that our allies have a more positive view of Communist China than they do of the USA. Capiche? OUR ALLIES like China more than they like US!

Source: http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/247-2.gif


The entire story is here: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/23/poll.america.ap/

Yes the polling was lowest among muslim nations.
What a surprise. I dont know why this is even considered a new story.

 

[GarzaUK]

In Britain and basically Europe as well, people are very suspicious of the US and there "reasons" for the Iraqi War.

Isn't it curious though that Germany got 60% favourability from the US compared to 46% that France got. Even though Germany would have voted no in the UN. Germany and France were together in this one.

In my opinion France was made as a scapegoat, or else Germany's appproval ratings would be down as well.

 

[akyron]

In Britain and basically Europe as well, people are very suspicious of the US and there "reasons" for the Iraqi War.

Isn't it curious though that Germany got 60% favourability from the US compared to 46% that France got. Even though Germany would have voted no in the UN. Germany and France were together in this one.

In my opinion France was made as a scapegoat, or else Germany's appproval ratings would be down as well.

Yes france scaped themselves quite thoroughly.

Memos: U.N. Knew Saddam Violated Sanctions

In 2000, Iraq was reported to have eroded sanctions and resumed commercial and diplomatic ties with many countries. Saddam got more than a dozen countries to start commercial flights to Baghdad, reopened a long-closed oil pipeline to Syria and illegally imposed a surcharge on its oil customers.

Many of the documents focus on U.S. and British efforts to end the illegal surcharges, which ranged between 20 and 70 cents a barrel of oil, according to a Feb. 13, 2001, letter from U.N. oil monitors.

Washington and London eventually succeeded in getting the sanctions committee to set the price of Iraqi oil at the end of every month - rather than the beginning - to prevent Iraq from taking advantage of fluctuations in the oil market to impose the surcharges.

The two countries said the policy cut illegal payoffs to Saddam's government. But U.N. officials and council members, including Russia and France, demanded an end to the retroactive pricing policy because it led to a sharp drop in oil exports, which meant less money for the oil-for-food program.


Hence less kick backs.

 

[GarzaUK]

Then why wasn't Russia victimised the same as France was? Russia was going to veto it as well you know, not just France.

If you actually heard France's dialogue, they were not against the Iraq invasion, they just wanted more time for the weapons inspectors to do their job.

But I suppose we all know now that the WMD's were just a legal front for the USA's realy intentions for going to war.

 

[Shadowlands]

Thats not a surprise.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yes the polling was lowest among muslim nations.
What a surprise. I dont know why this is even considered a new story.

Look again? The ratings are from European countries ONLY (except for Canada and the USA). Not sure where you see Muslim nations?

 

[akyron]

Look again? The ratings are from European countries ONLY (except for Canada and the USA). Not sure where you see Muslim nations?

"The United States' favorability rating was lowest among three Muslim nations which are also U.S. allies -- Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan -- where only about one-fifth of those polled viewed the U.S. in a positive light."


I try to look up peoples "facts" on my own before responding if I have time.

 

[MSgt]

It's a good thing we don't run our country or conduct policies to the fickle public that don't know what they want from day to day or is persuaded from one speech to the next. As far as the outside country mentality...who cares? They'll get over it the next time they need us.

Polls are always such a stupid thing to bring up. They only serve to tell the Presidents how best to appease rather than lead and are subject to change from one day to the next.

 

[akyron]

It's a good thing we don't run our country or conduct policies to the fickle public that don't know what they want from day to day or is persuaded from one speech to the next. As far as the outside country mentality...who cares? They'll get over it the next time they need us.

Polls are always such a stupid thing to bring up. They only serve to tell the Presidents how best to appease rather than lead and are subject to change from one day to the next.

Some people shy away from police officers until they need one.

Looks like a crappy way to treat people to me.

 

[MSgt]

You sound like someone that looks the part and blames others for any problems you might have brought on yourself.

You're being over dramatic. Some European nations frown on us, because we snubbed them after they snubbed us. Oh well. Diplomacy will resume. All the people out there that have been the recipient of American aid, but now criticize, will get over their hypocracy soon enough.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

They'll get over it the next time they need us.

Funny thing about the GWOT, we need them.
Which do you suppose is more efficient, to develop our own set of humint around the world or to develop cooperative relationships with countries who already have humint resources around the world?
While having our own resources may be better for a number of reasons, it not the sort of thing that can be done merly by passing a law, issuing an edict, or throwing money at the situation. It takes time and patience as well as skills, will, and elbow grease. I have no doubt that eventually we could have an adequate network of humint resources around the globe. In the meantime, it seems it would be helpful to make the struggle for hearts and minds an essential objetive in the GWoT.
The invasion of Iraq was a set back in the GWoT. We've alienated the moderates and friendlies in the Muslim world and elevated the status of the extremists.

Polls are always such a stupid thing to bring up. They only serve to tell the Presidents how best to appease rather than lead and are subject to change from one day to the next.

They can also be used as a metric in the struggle for hearts and minds.

 

[MSgt]

This is where everyone differs. Hearts and minds had to start somewhere in the Middle East. Saddam had to go anyway and it strategically split Syria and Iran.

If the majority or Europe really cared about GWOT they would be helping us by seeing the bigger need for change in the heartland of where terrorism is born rather than criticize. The sad truth is that Europe would rather do nothing and just hope that it goes away. They have that luxury, they aren't the constant target. Our people are.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Saddam had to go anyway and it strategically split Syria and Iran.

Has it? Just putting US forces in between the two isn't the same as driving a wedge between thier common interests. We may have given them an additional common cause for concern.

If the majority or Europe really cared about GWOT they would be helping us by seeing the bigger need for change in the heartland of where terrorism is born rather than criticize.

Perhaps it's just a criticism of methods rather a critism of goals. Perhaps they just think that alienating Muslims with the military invasion of Iraq isn't the way to go about it.

 

[MSgt]

I doubt it. Europes historical way is to ask nicely. They offered no solution other than more toleration.

Of course it's driven a wedge. We can attack from anywhere now if we wanted to. Sending all of their confused youth to their deaths in Iraq from across the Syrian border is only managing to accomplish the persuasion of the fickle American public. They aren't accomplishing anything else except more depletion of terrorist fundamentals. If we had fought in Iran, we would be dealing with insurgents from Syria and Iraq. If we attacked into Syria, we would dealing with insurgents from Iraq and Iran. Nothing would have changed except, with Iraq, we have a near 500 thousand Muslim army fighting against other Muslims with us.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I doubt it. Europes historical way is to ask nicely. They offered no solution other than more toleration.

Europe hasn't had much to do with warfare historically?
It's still not clear that alienating friendly and moderate Muslims with the military invasion of Iraq has been beneficial to the prosecution of the GWoT.

Of course it's driven a wedge. We can attack from anywhere now if we wanted to.

Only if we cut and run from Iraq. As long as that's not gonna happen, we can't "attack from anywhere now."

Sending all of their confused youth to their deaths in Iraq from across the Syrian border is only managing to accomplish the persuasion of the fickle American public.

Does TeamBush bear any responsibility for their prosecution of the invasion of Iraq? Does this prosecution have any effect on the "fickle American public?"
Good thing there're elitist lke yuou who know better than us regular Americans?

They aren't accomplishing anything else except more depletion of terrorist fundamentals.

That would mean that Team Bush is solely responsible for the replenishment of the recuitment pool. I find it hard to believe that Team Bush is solely responsible for that.

If the pool of recruits is not being replenished, why is the GWot described as a generational thing?

 

[MSgt]

"Team Bush" isn't responsible for depleting the martyr pool. We are. We're the ones pulling the triggers. They just finally dropped us in and allowed us to do what we should have done along time ago.

Europes way to combat tyranny is to wait until Germany marches half way across Europe to act. Then they did it again thirty years later. Now they have a problem with genocide in their own back yard. I believe America got involved with all three problems. Come to think of it....We have no problems at all on our side of the world. Nothing we aren't regulating anyway. I think perhaps one day after Europes learns their lesson enough times, they will stop tolerating aggression until it is too big to handle and get a little more involved with surroundings.

It's all written down in History for all to see. Confusing the black and white issues with political garbage and Utopian wishful thinking only clouds the facts.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"Team Bush" isn't responsible for depleting the martyr pool. We are. We're the ones pulling the triggers. They just finally dropped us in and allowed us to do what we should have done along time ago.

teach, if you're around, this is semantics.^

Team Bush bears some responisbility for replenishing anti-American terrorists' pool of recruits.

Confusing the black and white issues with political garbage and Utopian wishful thinking only clouds the facts.

Exactly my point.

 

[MSgt]

Replenishing? I guess you've been in the recruitment lines in Iran to substantiate this. Or are you just talking out of your ass?

I'll tell you right now, that there is nothing being replenished. Their tactics are desperate, their weaponry is becoming more and more rag tag, and their "martys" coming across the Syrian border are younger and inexperienced.

Wagging our finger at them and telling them to stop killing our civillians or suffer a time out wasn't going to fix it.

 

[galenrox]

Well think about this logically:
Why are there terrorists?
Because they hate us.
What does a lot of the **** Team Bush does do?
Make people hate us.
Which would imply...
Come on, just think about it really hard, it'll come to you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Replenishing? I guess you've been in the recruitment lines in Iran to substantiate this. Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Referencing DoD and CIA reports. I can post links to them again if you like. I know you've seen the links.

Wagging our finger at them and telling them to stop killing our civillians or suffer a time out wasn't going to fix it.

Add elevating the status and credibility of anti-American extremists to the list of things that aren't going to fix it.

 

[MSgt]

I don't consider that logic. I consider that an excuse to tolerate their behavior and hide in our homes and hope that militant Islams don't crash a plane into our houses.

All of you Internet detectives that think you know it all because you've seen some doctored documents or reports that only give the extreme cases need to wake up and realize the fact from fiction. You are in an uproar over embellished stories, exxagerations, and plain lies. I don't need to look at what you think is enlightenment. What you read is select cases and not the reality of things. It's too bad you do not have access to other things. Other things, of course, do not interest the media or it's financers.

Would it be fair of me as a diplomat in another country to look at the child abuse in America and declare that America abuses, tortures, and destroys their children? Should I even care that isolated cases does not define the "institution?"

 

[faminedynasty]

Replenishing? I guess you've been in the recruitment lines in Iran to substantiate this. Or are you just talking out of your ass?
I'll tell you right now, that there is nothing being replenished. Their tactics are desperate, their weaponry is becoming more and more rag tag, and their "martys" coming across the Syrian border are younger and inexperienced.
Wagging our finger at them and telling them to stop killing our civillians or suffer a time out wasn't going to fix it.

Oh they're certainly being replenished, multiplied, mass produced. And this insurgency will fight for a thousand years. You and Rumsfeld have been talking about their desperation for quite some time now, but for a group of desperate, dead-end fighters, they certainly kill with remarkable efficiency. In regards to their weaponry being more rag tag, I hear reports that they're detonating roadside bombs with lazers and using targeted explosives which rip clean through armor. They kill dozens of Iraqi police, losing only one suicide bomber. They kill a humvee full of troops with a roadside bomb losing no one. I'm not saying that our boys aren't killing insurgents, clearly they are, but these are sophisticated, terribly effective tactics. And as a whole, I am afraid that the insurgency is growing and becoming more sophisticated.

 

[MSgt]

What you heard is, AGAIN, isolated and probably just speculations. Their IEDs have become slapped together rather than manufactured as they used to be. Their "efficient" killings are largely fellow Muslim civillians. They can't afford to fight us anymore. Their numbers are dispersed. On the SIPRNET, there has been no mention of laser triggered explosives. What they have always used are what we call "CLACKERS". It is just a simple garage door opener, cell phone and pager, or receiver/transmitter trigger. These are less seen now.

It burns me up when politicians sit up in Washington and say "that we are losing" or "the insurgency is getting stronger" when it is not. It certainly is not what we see on the ground and is not being properly submitted to the public. All you hear is one tradgey after another, because politicians are just looking after their own interests and their own jobs. I'll tell you one thing-sitting in a chow hall in Al-Asad, after slicing through a hundred insurgents trying to cross the Syrian border, and hearing someone say this crap on the TVs, is completely perplexing and disheartening, because we do not know what they are talking about or what war they are referring to.

 

[faminedynasty]

It burns me up when politicians sit up in Washington and say "that we are losing" or "the insurgency is getting stronger" when it is not. It certainly is not what we see on the ground and is not being properly submitted to the public. All you hear is one tradgey after another, because politicians are just looking after their own interests and their own jobs. I'll tell you one thing-sitting in a chow hall in Al-Asad, after slicing through a hundred insurgents trying to cross the Syrian border, and hearing someone say this crap on the TVs, is completely perplexing and disheartening, because we do not know what they are talking about or what war they are referring to.

It's disheartening for me to hear as well, but much of it is fact. Large numbers of people are slaughtered, virtually every day. Even if it is Iraqi police, officials or civilians, it nonetheless demonstrates that it is not a secure country, not even close. And our soldiers are killed all the time. Perhaps journalists could better report on the successes of military opperations if it were safe for them to opperate in the country, which it certainly is not. The Iraqi security and infastructure has not improved in the least. You can talk about progress, but as long as people are killed every day, and people are living without consistent water and electricity, the standard of living drops, and insurgent attacks rise, it is hard to see it. And it begs the question: How many years of our soldiers dying there will make Iraq secure? Will any number of years? I'm not so sure.