<p>TheDad is right. Empirically, the world’s opinion has changed radically during W’s reign. It’s visible even without the studies…terrorists killed ~3000 Americans on Sep. 11, and throughout the developed world there was an outpouring of sympathy and support, candlelight vigils, and more. Now we’ve lost another 3000 Americans in this war (according to W, of course, they were casualties of the terrorists, just like the Sep. 11 victims), but you don’t see a whole lot of candlelight vigils for those dead Americans in Japan, Australia, or Holland.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I pick Gulf War I, when a true international coalition was formed through goodwill, much deft diplomacy, respect for our allies, etc. and the result was that we paid very little in treasure for that war because our allies paid. Measured in the barest of terms – these financial terms – we were doing much better then than we are now doing with our high-handed false multilateralism related to the Iraq War.</p>
<p>If you think this is merely about moral fabric, you’ve let the incompetence of this Administration of the hook way with standards that are far too low. Your position amounts to “I think we are innately good; therefore anything we do, any way we do it is ipso facto correct.” Different people in the White House equates to different ways of doing things. Are you suggesting that no matter what we do our actions demonstrate a greater moral fabric?</p>
<p>This is the worst administration since Nixon - it’s not just Bush; you have to look at the whole package and they literally suck.</p>
<p>I spoke with a German high school teacher who was taking a bunch of 15 year olds to Colorado for a 3-week exchange. He said an important part of the trip was for the students to meet real Americans - a warm, welcoming, gracious people (his words) - and not the warmongers we are perceived to be. He said the young generation of Europeans perceives the US to be the world’s biggest threat to peace, a nation of subliterate but well-armed yahoos. (OK, some of these are my words. His ideas, tho.) And with a president like Bush, who can blame them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is about as far as my position could be. And I believe you know that! </p>
<p>However, to avoid any further misunderstanding, the moral bankruptcy I discussed was symptomatic of the last liberal administration, not the current one. And no, I do not believe that “we” are innately good, despite often TRYING to to do the right thing. Of course, some of our “beloved” leaders have found that it is easier to do nothing, even when being aware of what should be done. Self preservation and cynicism does work very well for former residents of 1600 Penn Ave.</p>
<p>katliamom, for a different view of the American role in the world, you might want to read this. (This is probably a hit and run post, since I don’t plan to stay and argue!) <a href=“http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDk5NmJmODE4ZTg4OGY1ODFkN2QwMmY0ZjE5MDJjMzI=[/url]”>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDk5NmJmODE4ZTg4OGY1ODFkN2QwMmY0ZjE5MDJjMzI=</a>
There’s more to the article, of course, if you are interested in reading it.</p>
<p>Of course “they” blame America first. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US was perceived to be the only superpower left. We are also the richest country on the planet and therefore the easiest target. </p>
<p>That’s not the problem, that’s a given of the situation. The problem is that Bush does nothing to change that perception. In fact, he only reinforces it.</p>
<p>“A nice, elegant theory. But it doesn’t explain why regard for the USA has declined under Bush as measured in longitudinal surveys.”</p>
<p>Even if true, the net effect of this, using a term near to your heart, is “bupkis”. The allies are more cooperative with us than ever before when dealing with terrorism and indeed we now have allies that we didn’t have before - the most important being Pakistan. Additionally, we are now seeing signs of support from China and Russia on international issues - quite a novelty. </p>
<p>So, other than having a warm cuddly feeling of being loved by all (which we never were), who cares what world opinion of us is? High world opinion and $5 buys a nice latte and that’s about it.</p>
<p>I work with people around the world on a daily basis and what their opinion of the US is means absolutely nothing. They are still very glad to be doing business with us and that is all that matters to them.</p>
<p>We are safer when we are not hated.</p>
<p>“it is our fault; if peasants in Latin America are living in squalor, it is our fault; if there are climate changes that have any bad effect on anybody, it is our fault.”</p>
<p>Not “our” - but bipartisanship, led by Bill Clinton, with NAFTA/CAFTA, WTO, “free trade”, the export of polluting industries to places without pollution controls, the impoverisation of self-sufficient peasantries (many of whom, thrown off their land, are now trying to high-tail it across our southern borders.)</p>
<p>“While I don’t disagree with the idea of the fmla, it does come with a cost to employers.”</p>
<p>As a side note, the market forced many companies in New York to be more generous than what FMLA eventually demanded, and people in those companies (like me) actually took several steps backward in terms of maternity leave. This was quite common in New York.</p>
<p>“it is our fault; if peasants in Latin America are living in squalor, it is our fault; if there are climate changes that have any bad effect on anybody, it is our fault.”</p>
<p>When it comes to peasants in Latin America living in squalor, yes, it IS often America’s fault. Read up about America’s involvement in that part of the world. It’s quite nauseating.</p>
<p>Unless things change DRASTICALLY (which is not likely), BUSH II will go down in history as one of the worst US Presidents.</p>
<p>“it is our fault; if peasants in Latin America are living in squalor, it is our fault; if there are climate changes that have any bad effect on anybody, it is our fault.”</p>
<p>It is partially our fault. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>We have long supported corrupt, right-wing dictatorships in Latin America and have instigated coups against left-leaning democratically elected govts. for trying to institute land reform.</p></li>
<li><p>NAFTA has flooded Latin America/Mexico with cheap, subsidized American farm goods which has devastated the peasants’ livelihood (that’s why the majority of the illegals from Mexico are from the agrarian Southern part of Mexico).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“2. NAFTA has flooded Latin America/Mexico with cheap, subsidized American farm goods which has devastated the peasants’ livelihood (that’s why the majority of the illegals from Mexico are from the agrarian Southern part of Mexico).”</p>
<p>Same worldwide with WTO and free trade - all wonderful Clinton legacies. (Let me take you to South and Southeast Asia to visit the Clinton shrimp factories, where 10-year-olds spend 14 hours a day peeling shrimp.) Actually, it is worse, as these all encouraged the relocation of the U.S. most polluting industries in other parts of the world, where most are free to pollute to their hearts’ content. Global warming is a clear legacy of the Clinton-Gore Administration.</p>
<p>I always wondered why right-wingers hated Clinton so much? </p>
<p>Most of his administration’s policies were quite middle-of-the-road (if not leaning a little to the right).</p>
<p>Mini isn’t a right winger, but he sure does hate our man Clinton!</p>
<p>In fact, he may hate Clinton as much as FF, or HH!</p>
<p>I’m sure he’s a perfectly nice, well-spoken person (I’ve heard the same about Idi, and they shared in the charisma).</p>
<p>Since I always find mini’s posts interesting, I’d love a longer comment about his criticism of Clinton. Especially when he links Clinton to the civilian deaths of children he mentioned somewhere else in the past, poverty, pollution etc. Truth be told, I’ve never heard such allegations against the man – and would simply like to hear more. </p>
<p>And then I’d like an equally brutal indictment of Bush. In the spirit of fair play. ;)</p>
<p>I voted for Clinton twice.
Because I thought the man was a uniter, not a divider. 
I liked his ability to connect with many types of people (“the first black president”).
He messed up big-time.
I thought what Ken Starr did was wrong.
I think the country would have been better off had we not known about Monica.
I would have preferred to live in the era of Franklin and Lucy (in fact, in my own mind I still do).
I don’t hate him at all; now that I understand he has NPD and an addiction, on some level I feel sorry for him.
I am sorry for the kids that had to witness that spectacle.
When it ended I would have preferred he go hide himself away somewhere and shown a tad bit of shame for his oval office activities.
The man has no shame.
Neither does Hillary. but on some level I feel sorry for her too.
Way to go, boomers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, some elements of the “carping” left and the neoconservatives share a very similar worldview. They both think that we have the right, the need, and the manifest authority to involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations and other peoples and that we have the power to change the outcome always to an eventuality of our liking. </p>
<p>I consider myself left of center, but I am far from thinking everything is our fault or that we can do something about all situations in the world. Concluding, as the neocons (whose efforts on behalf of the Iraq War basically enabled our involvement) did with over-arrogant facility, that we could go into Iraq and install democracy and turn the country into a paragon of democracy and capitalism that favors us was the height of starry-eyed idealism. It was particularly ironic since neocons describe themselves as liberals or idealists “mugged by reality.”</p>
<p>And thinking that Darfur, for instance, since someone mentioned that, is our fault or that a solution to it would require only a minor exertion on our part is equally misguided, in my mind.</p>
<p>I am not a blanket anti-interventionist, and I think the “world community” may very well be able to do a lot about Darfur (for instance, since someone raised that issue) with us playing a leading role amongst equals. I frankly haven’t focused on it. </p>
<p>But on Darfur, as I understand it, there is an ethnic cleansing going on aimed at making Sudan a purer, Arab/Islamic state. Standing against this in the world community ought to be Arab states. Where are they?</p>
<p>Our Iraq War: a stupidly conceived war fought, in my mind, at the behest of starry eyed idealistic neocons (many of whom did believe their own rhetoric about democracy) and essentially aimed at establishing a front to bolster the security of Israel and protect some of our key oil-producing allies. Though much of its justification revolved around our security fears in a post 9/11 world.</p>
<p>Having said what I said about people in the carping leftist camp, many people in our country have no clue about the chickens we have put out there that will proverbially come home to roost.</p>
<p>Much more eloquent on this topic than I can be was Rick Rescorla, British recruit who fought in Vietnam and was a tremendous warrior, and then who went on to save the lives of nearly 3,000 in the 9/11 tragedy in New York and died that very day. From a man who had seen it, and from someone who predicted 9/11 while sitting in the World Trade Center, as seen in the following interview, listen to what he says about our role in the world:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.atomfilms.com/film/voice_prophet.jsp[/url]”>http://www.atomfilms.com/film/voice_prophet.jsp</a></p>
<p>Most Americans don’t have a clue about the misery that we’ve been responsible for, in addition to the many wonderful things that we have likewise been responsible for. It’s hard for people to hold two conflicting notions about such emotional topics in their heads at once – i.e., that we’ve done a lot of bad as well as good. </p>
<p>Certainly right now we are seeing a war in which a lot of bad is resulting from our good intentions. More than anything, it is necessary to calibrate our power as interventionists against the likelihood of achieving success. Yes, sometimes we will perhaps need to reach. But Iraq has been a reaching much too far – and many reasonable people foresaw that it would be.</p>
<p>And it is the miscalculation and miscalibration of an idealogue, a mistake for which Bush will be blamed long after people have forgotten other elements of his presidency, I do think.</p>