- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,536
- Reaction score
- 429
- Location
- Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The entire story is here: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/06/23/poll.america.ap/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....
26 X World Champs said: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/
GarzaUK said: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 said:Yes the polling was lowest among muslim nations.
What a surprise. I dont know why this is even considered a new story.
26 X World Champs said:
Look again? The ratings are from European countries ONLY (except for Canada and the USA). Not sure where you see Muslim nations?
GySgt said: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.
Funny thing about the GWOT, we need them.GySgt said:They'll get over it the next time they need us.
They can also be used as a metric in the struggle for hearts and minds.GySgt said: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.
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.GySgt said:Saddam had to go anyway and it strategically split Syria and Iran.
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.GySgt said: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.
Europe hasn't had much to do with warfare historically?GySgt said:I doubt it. Europes historical way is to ask nicely. They offered no solution other than more toleration.
Only if we cut and run from Iraq. As long as that's not gonna happen, we can't "attack from anywhere now."GySgt said:Of course it's driven a wedge. We can attack from anywhere now if we wanted to.
Does TeamBush bear any responsibility for their prosecution of the invasion of Iraq? Does this prosecution have any effect on the "fickle American public?"GySgt said: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.
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.GySgt said:They aren't accomplishing anything else except more depletion of terrorist fundamentals.
teach, if you're around, this is semantics.^GySgt said:"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.
Exactly my point.GySgt said:Confusing the black and white issues with political garbage and Utopian wishful thinking only clouds the facts.
Referencing DoD and CIA reports. I can post links to them again if you like. I know you've seen the links.GySgt said:Replenishing? I guess you've been in the recruitment lines in Iran to substantiate this. Or are you just talking out of your ass?
Add elevating the status and credibility of anti-American extremists to the list of things that aren't going to fix it.GySgt said: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.GySgt said: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.
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.GySgt said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?