World opinion of US rises under Obama, BBC

[THE MATRIX]

link

Views of the US around the world have improved sharply over the past year, a BBC World Service poll suggests.

For the first time since the annual poll began in 2005, America's influence in the world is now seen as more positive than negative.

The improved scores for the US coincided with Barack Obama becoming president, a BBC correspondent notes.

As in 2009, Germany is viewed most favourably while Iran and Pakistan are seen as the most negative influences.

Nearly 30,000 people in 28 countries were interviewed for the poll, between November 2009 and February 2010.

Fifteen of the countries have been surveyed every year since 2005, allowing long-term trends to be discerned.

In these nations - or 14 of them, not including the US itself - positive views of the US fell to a low of 28% on average in 2007, from 38% in 2005, but recovered to 35% in 2009 and 40% in this year's poll.

[Lord Umbarger]

I think that many out side the US view Obama as being more pro-world and less pro-US than Bush was... for this reason, I think a lot of non-Americans like him. Of course this is sort of like asking "Who likes the hole in the coop better, the chickens or the fox?".

I never really understood why so many Americans feel that people in other countries have to like our choice for POTUS anyway. I mean, do people in France worry themselves over how their new PM is going to be recieved by us in America? Do people in the UK ask themselves how Americans are going to feel about the person before they elect him/her to office? In the end, shouldn't AMERICAN Presidents make it a point to look after AMERICAS interests first? Don't the leaders of other countries put a higher priority on their own countries than they do on other nations? How many times has Brazil instituted a new tax to improve the living conditions of folks in Nigeria? Compare this to the Marshall Plan or just yearly US Foreign Aid spending in general.

In short, if you don't get to vote for a particular office, rather you like the person who fills that position or not is really none of your business. That's why non-citizens are supposed to be ineligible to vote in US elections... to insure that we elect leaders that look after OUR best interests...not the best interests of Japan or Mexico.

[Michelle]

"Views of the US around the world have improved sharply..."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/world-citizens-prefer-obama-mccain-nearly-4to1.aspx

Gallup Polls conducted in 73 countries from May to October 2008 reveal widespread international support for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain in the U.S. presidential election. Among these nations, representing nearly three-quarters of the world's population, 24% of citizens say they would personally rather see Obama elected president of the United States, compared with just 7% who say the same about McCain. At the same time, 69% of world citizens surveyed did not have an opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/533.php?nid=&id=&pnt=533&lb=btvoc

All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama elected US president instead of his Republican rival John McCain. Obama is preferred by a four to one margin on average across the 22,000 people polled.

The margin in favour of Obama ranges from just 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya. On average 49 per cent prefer Obama to 12 per cent preferring McCain. Nearly four in ten do not take a position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that really a surprise? The day Obama was elected the news kept showing people from all over the world rejoicing over the election results... and he hadn't done anything yet. He still hasn't, as far as I'm concerned.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Michelle

[gabe]

Is that really a surprise? The day Obama was elected the news kept showing people from all over the world rejoicing over the election results... and he hadn't done anything yet. He still hasn't, as far as I'm concerned.

You may have missed it, but he did some stuff to health-care. Also, he reversed the ban on stem cell research which is a pretty big deal, but I never hear anyone talk about that.

[Michelle]

You may have missed it, but he did some stuff to health-care. Also, he reversed the ban on stem cell research which is a pretty big deal, but I never hear anyone talk about that.

Stem cell research, I'll give him that. The "stuff" he did with health care doesn't help the majority of the people, including me.

[J.B.]

Well, U.K. leaders currently look at their supposed Muslim overlords and have their focus on impressing them, really. At least some do. America's been playing World Police for long enough that what y'all think of our leader kind of feels important, though it shouldn't. Don't forget, despite the fact that we've been footing quite a hefty bill for our actions out in the world theater, we're not paying all of it. We've been asking for and receiving support from several other nations. If our support for the war drops to nil from the other nations, we may or may not drop back home. If we don't, we're going to sorely miss the tactical support from the other nations in the war, I'm sure. If we do finally end this damn war and bring our troops home, sorry. I don't think world opinion of us is going to matter nearly as much as we feel it does now.

Edited April 19, 2010 by J.B.

[Cradle of Fish]

I think that many out side the US view Obama as being more pro-world and less pro-US than Bush was... for this reason, I think a lot of non-Americans like him. Of course this is sort of like asking "Who likes the hole in the coop better, the chickens or the fox?".

I never really understood why so many Americans feel that people in other countries have to like our choice for POTUS anyway. I mean, do people in France worry themselves over how their new PM is going to be recieved by us in America? Do people in the UK ask themselves how Americans are going to feel about the person before they elect him/her to office? In the end, shouldn't AMERICAN Presidents make it a point to look after AMERICAS interests first? Don't the leaders of other countries put a higher priority on their own countries than they do on other nations? How many times has Brazil instituted a new tax to improve the living conditions of folks in Nigeria? Compare this to the Marshall Plan or just yearly US Foreign Aid spending in general.

In short, if you don't get to vote for a particular office, rather you like the person who fills that position or not is really none of your business. That's why non-citizens are supposed to be ineligible to vote in US elections... to insure that we elect leaders that look after OUR best interests...not the best interests of Japan or Mexico.

A Prime Minister is just the head of government though, not the head of state as the US President is. You elect one to represent the country, not just run the government.

[MichaelW]

I think that many out side the US view Obama as being more pro-world and less pro-US than Bush was... for this reason, I think a lot of non-Americans like him. Of course this is sort of like asking "Who likes the hole in the coop better, the chickens or the fox?".

I never really understood why so many Americans feel that people in other countries have to like our choice for POTUS anyway. I mean, do people in France worry themselves over how their new PM is going to be recieved by us in America? Do people in the UK ask themselves how Americans are going to feel about the person before they elect him/her to office? In the end, shouldn't AMERICAN Presidents make it a point to look after AMERICAS interests first? Don't the leaders of other countries put a higher priority on their own countries than they do on other nations? How many times has Brazil instituted a new tax to improve the living conditions of folks in Nigeria? Compare this to the Marshall Plan or just yearly US Foreign Aid spending in general.

In short, if you don't get to vote for a particular office, rather you like the person who fills that position or not is really none of your business. That's why non-citizens are supposed to be ineligible to vote in US elections... to insure that we elect leaders that look after OUR best interests...not the best interests of Japan or Mexico.

It's exactly that view why the US was so badly viewed upon by the rest of the world. The US only does what the US WANTS to do and screw everyone else who disagrees. It's what they did in the Cold War, and up until recently, it is what it did too.

Put it this way. If the US wanted oil, all they would have to do is invade a country with oil. Because who cares if they aren't American. So long as the people back home are happy.

Edited April 19, 2010 by MichaelW

[the1truebat]

It's exactly that view why the US was so badly viewed upon by the rest of the world. The US only does what the US WANTS to do and screw everyone else who disagrees. It's what they did in the Cold War, and up until recently, it is what it did too.

Put it this way. If the US wanted oil, all they would have to do is invade a country with oil. Because who cares if they aren't American. So long as the people back home are happy.

Wow, I just love being a boogieman. God Bless America.

[preacherman76]

It's exactly that view why the US was so badly viewed upon by the rest of the world. The US only does what the US WANTS to do and screw everyone else who disagrees. It's what they did in the Cold War, and up until recently, it is what it did too.

Put it this way. If the US wanted oil, all they would have to do is invade a country with oil. Because who cares if they aren't American. So long as the people back home are happy.

We still do. The rest of the world is dumb enought to fall for the old slight of hand trick is all. I mean aside from talk, what has 0bama done differently then bush on foriegn policy? He has advanced war.

[Lord Umbarger]

You may have missed it, but he did some stuff to health-care.

You honestly haven't heard all the crowing the Left has done over ObamaCare getting shoved through?

Also, he reversed the ban on stem cell research which is a pretty big deal, but I never hear anyone talk about that.

Alright, now here I do agree with you 100%. Stem Cell research IS a pretty big deal and it CAN potentialy lead to life saving treatments and the ease of some suffering. If it was the killing of viable babies, I'd be totally against it

but, what it REALLY is is the use of fertilized eggs that are going to be destroyed anyway. If the embryo has to be destroyed, we should at least not do that in a wasteful manner.

A Prime Minister is just the head of government though, not the head of state as the US President is. You elect one to represent the country, not just run the government.

Quite true but, the point is STILL there though. People in the US don't get all i a tizzy over who is representing or leading other nations, for the most part. In fact, most of us probably couldn't tell you who is in charge in Russia right now! What's more, we don't really expect the President of Mexico to do anything for us or to "give us a break" in any way, shape or form.

It's exactly that view why the US was so badly viewed upon by the rest of the world. The US only does what the US WANTS to do and screw everyone else who disagrees. It's what they did in the Cold War, and up until recently, it is what it did too.

Well, perhaps but, the question I posed is "Why should we care what any one else thinks of our POTUS?". When it really comes down to it, do YOU care what I think of YOUR national leader(s)?

Put it this way. If the US wanted oil, all they would have to do is invade a country with oil. Because who cares if they aren't American. So long as the people back home are happy.

Alright, I have to admit, although this one is a wee bit off topic, it's still a valid point. The US does have the economic and military ability to bulldoze our way into pretty much any place on the planet. Let me take this one in two parts:

1). Most of the oil that is produced in the lands we have invaded in the last twenty years doesn't come to the US to start with. The vast majority of Middle Eastern crude oil ends up in Europe and Japan. The US still produces about 35% of our own fuel needs from home. If we were really after the oil for our own needs, why not invade Mexico? Mexico is much closer and woudl require far less in the way of effort to take it. Point of fact here is that we haven't been at war with Mexico since long before oil became the commodity that it is today.

2). The US can be a bully on the world stage. In fact, we have from time to time flexed our muscles. But, before one can in good faith slam the US for doing so, can you name one nation that hasn't or wouldn't do all in it's power for the well being of it's people? Lybia hid the terrorists that destroyed that Lockerby airliner, the USSR shot down KAL 007 in 1983, Iran has been suspected of supplying terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, the UK stomped Argentina over the Falklins in 1981 (?), in the 1970's and 80's, Cuba sent Communist Advisors to a number of places in Central America, and on and on... In all honesty, can you think of ONE nation, other than maybe nepal and France, that HASN'T flexed it's muscle when it believed that doing so was in it's best interest? This isn't just a new thing either. The Romans invaded Spain for gold, the Macedonians invaded India for, the heck of it?, the Mongols invaded Europe to expand their empire.

In short, trying to shame some nation into NOT looking after it's own best interest is a manner of self interest in and of itself.

We still do. The rest of the world is dumb enought to fall for the old slight of hand trick is all. I mean aside from talk, what has 0bama done differently then bush on foriegn policy? He has advanced war.

Although I agree with you that Obama has done nothing but get praised for doing almost the exact same thing that Bush was bashed for, I don't think that it was "the rest of the world" that got dupped. I mean, the rest of the world didn't have a say in who we elected. If anyone got the screw job here, it was Americans ourselves.

Let's compare:

after one year in office:

Bush = President of a nation that had suffered the worst attack on it's mainland ever and was at war with an enemy on the other side of the world.

Obama = Awarded a Nobel Prize for giving a few inspiring speeches.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

These "America invaded Iraq for oil!" types are apparently unaware that America has far more oil than Iraq, and we can drill for it at a cost of... well, less than a trillion dollars, obviously.

[AROCES]

The liberals and socialist does not represent the worlds opinion.

They gave Obama the Nobel p*** Prize for basically talking the way they want any leader to talk.

[conspiracybeliever]

The liberals and socialist does not represent the worlds opinion.

They gave Obama the Nobel p*** Prize for basically talking the way they want any leader to talk.

Maybe because they had to give up trying to get Bush to talk the way a leader should talk? At least Obama can pronounce the words. That's a step up.

[AROCES]

Maybe because they had to give up trying to get Bush to talk the way a leader should talk? At least Obama can pronounce the words. That's a step up.

Like I said, the way they want a leader to talk.

Obama is not even a leader, he is just an organizer.

Obama better pronounce it right since he is using a teleprompter. Without it, he gets lost and does not make any sense. A great orator, that is all he is.

Edited April 19, 2010 by AROCES

[J.B.]

These "America invaded Iraq for oil!" types are apparently unaware that America has far more oil than Iraq, and we can drill for it at a cost of... well, less than a trillion dollars, obviously.

Iraq was for a few reasons, at least IMO: 1.) Finish what his dad started. 2.) get rid of a dictator who abused his people. 3.) There are insurgent groups there and have been since after WW2. We've been playing the World Police role since then, so a take-over of Iraq helps build a base to start working on really pacifying the M.E. for Israel's efforts to stay safe/grow.

That's for starters. If we want oil, just override the EPA and Green groups, and drill for it here. Obama's already got that set.

Edited April 19, 2010 by J.B.

[conspiracybeliever]

Like I said, the way they want a leader to talk.

Obama is not even a leader, he is just an organizer.

Obama better pronounce it right since he is using a teleprompter. Without it, he gets lost and does not make any sense. A great orator, that is all he is.

Link please?

[Poopie]

The liberals and socialist does not represent the worlds opinion.They gave Obama the Nobel p*** Prize for basically talking the way they want any leader to talk.

That award holds no esteem as I see it... On par with a golden star stick IMO....

Iraq was for a few reasons, at least IMO: 1.) Finish what his dad started. 2.) get rid of a dictator who abused his people. 3.) There are insurgent groups there and have been since after WW2. We've been playing the World Police role since then, so a take-over of Iraq helps build a base to start working on really pacifying the M.E. for Israel's efforts to stay safe/grow. That's for starters. If we want oil, just override the EPA and Green groups, and drill for it here. Obama's already got that set.

Agreed. It's a strategic move... People don't want to digest it, but strategic moves are necessary for the preservation of peace and protection.

[J.B.]

I would say that after WW2, our. . .um, Foreign Policy was pretty much absorbed by the baby nation of Israel. Technologically, they're advanced. They're surrounded by enemies, though, so it only goes to show that War breeds invention. Most of what we have now came about as a result of WW2.

The only good reason, or necessity, at all of us being in the M.E. is protecting Israel. Had the allies not made that state, the Muslims wouldn't have been quite as angry towards us, and most of what we're doing there is really to protect them, not simply for oil.

Edited April 19, 2010 by J.B.

[ninjadude]

I never really understood why so many Americans feel that people in other countries have to like our choice for POTUS anyway.

Mostly because we have to live in the world. We cannot isolate ourselves from it or ignore it.

[J.B.]

Mostly because we have to live in the world. We cannot isolate ourselves from it or ignore it.

The same can be said for the rest of the world, yet you don't see people from other nations displaying their leaders for all of us in the States to cheer on.

I understand everyone else's interests in our President, since we've had such a large effect on everyone else, they want to know who'll screw them over next, and actually hope it won't happen. . .

[The Silver Thong]

The same can be said for the rest of the world, yet you don't see people from other nations displaying their leaders for all of us in the States to cheer on.

I understand everyone else's interests in our President, since we've had such a large effect on everyone else, they want to know who'll screw them over next, and actually hope it won't happen. . .

As soon as oil dries up and water becomes the next source or excuse for war Canada has a lot to be worried about. We have years and years to be cool about as I don't mind having America focused on the M.E. I just hope Obama doesn't say Canada has WMD's if so I will be an insurgent. I'll be the little old man with a back pack I can hardly carry.

[J.B.]

As soon as oil dries up and water becomes the next source or excuse for war Canada has a lot to be worried about. We have years and years to be cool about as I don't mind having America focused on the M.E. I just hope Obama doesn't say Canada has WMD's if so I will be an insurgent. I'll be the little old man with a back pack I can hardly carry.

No worries. We have other sources for power, the Oil companies are just sitting on them while they're still in power. Soon as the Oil reserves dry up, they expect we'll forget there was ever anything else, and then miraculously provide the new sources. Astute provided a source on a Patent for Power in a cube, nuclear power cells you bury and forget for fifty years before reaplcing the fuel cells. And I know they'll have improved electric and hybrid power by then too.

[The Silver Thong]

No worries. We have other sources for power, the Oil companies are just sitting on them while they're still in power. Soon as the Oil reserves dry up, they expect we'll forget there was ever anything else, and then miraculously provide the new sources. Astute provided a source on a Patent for Power in a cube, nuclear power cells you bury and forget for fifty years before reaplcing the fuel cells. And I know they'll have improved electric and hybrid power by then too.

LOL damn you type quick. I was posting tongue in cheek. Once we become the NAU there will be no worries, oh wait crap that wasn't tongue in cheek lol. I think the U.S. and Canada will have a long lasting relationship, is that good or bad well hmmm for some. For others the only reason Canada exists is because of the U.S. and that we know to be false.

Ok wait a sec, did you say the oil companies are waiting on a new fuel?

Edited April 20, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[J.B.]

LOL damn you type quick. I was posting tongue in cheek. Once we become the NAU there will be no worries, oh wait crap that wasn't tongue in cheek lol. I think the U.S. and Canada will have a long lasting relationship, is that good or bad well hmmm for some. For others the only reason Canada exists is because of the U.S. and that we know to be false.

Ok wait a sec, did you say the oil companies are waiting on a new fuel?

Ya, they've already shot down designs that actually work, both for better electrics and better fuel mileage. If you need sources for this I'll track some down. I've only heard it so far, some of that from this site. There's also a bug in the works that can convert farm waste into crude oil anyway. That from an article posted on this site, which I can dig up soon. I'd say America could be on her way back to greatness if we turn back into a primarily agricultural nation, and use those bugs on our waste to create crude fuel. Add in the power in a cube idea, and our power problems are set. Only problem is if they finally nail the coffin on the idea that the correlation between CO2 and GCC is just correlative with no causal links.