World opinion of US rises under Obama, BBC

[J.B.]

Indifference is what led to that bad reputation in the first place. Because the US trampled evreywhere doing what it wanted at the expense of everyone else, no one liked them. Why, because you did what YOU wanted. It's only America that matters and screw eveyone else that says anything otherwise. You did this in the Cold War, getting what America wanted at the expense of a few thousand lives. Of course, they don't matter, because they aren't American.

I can liken the US to a spoilt child. The child is happy when it gets want it wants, even if every other childs has to suffer for it. If it doesn't, then it screams, cries and has a massive tantrum. Respect other countries, and other countries will respect you.

I meant we need everyone else to be indifferent to us, not the other way around. Well, both ways really, but the only way to work that is if the States behave ourselves and don't overstep into everyone's back yards. If you can refute this idea, go for it, if not, I think you can agree. We don't need to have our military all over the place, and if we leave everyone else alone for long enough, with barely token assistance as they shuffle through their problems, any hate that comes from the sudden - or maybe not so sudden - unplugging of our cash to everyone could be forgotten.

We really would just be another player on the map, playing our own way without ruining everyone's day, or our own.

If everybody starts liking us, we're not "Just another player" as Astute One claimed, because everyone else doesn't even like one another on a national level. They're playing a game trying to get what each wants. If Obama managed to get everyone liking us, we'd still be something special, just not the way we'd like. . .

[AROCES]

Indifference is what led to that bad reputation in the first place. Because the US trampled evreywhere doing what it wanted at the expense of everyone else, no one liked them. Why, because you did what YOU wanted. It's only America that matters and screw eveyone else that says anything otherwise. You did this in the Cold War, getting what America wanted at the expense of a few thousand lives. Of course, they don't matter, because they aren't American.

I can liken the US to a spoilt child. The child is happy when it gets want it wants, even if every other childs has to suffer for it. If it doesn't, then it screams, cries and has a massive tantrum. Respect other countries, and other countries will respect you.

Or you can say that America knows that when it comes to the dirty job they will end up shouldering most of it as always, so it is but natural for them to do what they want.

[MichaelW]

I meant we need everyone else to be indifferent to us, not the other way around. Well, both ways really, but the only way to work that is if the States behave ourselves and don't overstep into everyone's back yards. If you can refute this idea, go for it, if not, I think you can agree. We don't need to have our military all over the place, and if we leave everyone else alone for long enough, with barely token assistance as they shuffle through their problems, any hate that comes from the sudden - or maybe not so sudden - unplugging of our cash to everyone could be forgotten.

We really would just be another player on the map, playing our own way without ruining everyone's day, or our own.

If everybody starts liking us, we're not "Just another player" as Astute One claimed, because everyone else doesn't even like one another on a national level. They're playing a game trying to get what each wants. If Obama managed to get everyone liking us, we'd still be something special, just not the way we'd like. . .

That's exactly right. The US is behaving itself now and that's why everyone likes it. Before, the US was everywhere and no one could do anything on an international scale without American interferrance. Those who said that there isn't a country who has influence but doesn't want to use it, have you ever thought that they possibly couldn't use it for fear that it would not be what America wanted. Now, I don't mind America as a country itself, and I enjoy the people, but I don't like the way it had conducted itself on the international stage. I wouldn't have minded if the Soviet Union had come out on top because I think Gorbachev had done well with his reforms.

Edited April 27, 2010 by MichaelW

[Harte]

I wouldn't have minded if the Soviet Union had come out on top because I think Gorbachev had done well with his reforms.

What a self-centered opinion you hold there.

Of course you wouldn't have minded this. You aren't cut off from the rest of your country by a huge wall bristling with machine guns.

You never had to worry that you, your family, maybe even your entire country would face starvation if you happened to disagree with Moscow.

You never had to worry about instant vaporization at the whim of whatever autocrat was in power.

You never had to worry that you could be forced into becoming a refugee due to Soviet influence in New Zealand.

New Zealand, being of little influence and importance in the world, wouldn't have been much affected by the Soviets "coming out on top." At least, not immediately.

Harte

[Lord Umbarger]

Those who said that there isn't a country who has influence but doesn't want to use it, have you ever thought that they possibly couldn't use it for fear that it would not be what America wanted.

So, other countries would do what the US is allegedly doing if they weren't afraid of the US stopping them? Well, then, you should be quite pleased with the US for keeping some of thost rogues at bay then!

Now, I don't mind America as a country itself, and I enjoy the people, but I don't like the way it had conducted itself on the international stage.

A lot of us in the US aren't too fond of the way that some of the other countries have conducted themselves either. We're particularly disgruntled with the seeming lack of long term memory and the disire to see just how bad things can get before they resort to that tried and true "re-boot"... calling the US to come bail them out. (Yes, France. I'm looking dead at you.)

I wouldn't have minded if the Soviet Union had come out on top because I think Gorbachev had done well with his reforms.

Let's think about that for a minute.... the Soviet citizens had a Soviet government and they tossed it out because of the deplorable living conditions, the constant food shortages, the economic stagnation and the fact that they simply weren't keeping up with what was going on everywhere else in the world... and you'd be happy living like that? Honestly, if you think Soviet style socialism is so wonderful, why do you think they got rid of it?

O.K., that WAS out of bounds as it was a personal question and all but, do think about the logic of what you posted there. It really doesn't make a lot of sense.

BTW, I still want to know how many non-US citizens living in other countries ask themselves what we in the US are going to think of their leaders when they go to pull the lever and do they vote in a manner that they think will appeal to the US and our policy or do they vote for their own self interest. I'd honestly like to know if anyone here gives a damn what we in the US think of their leaders.

[J.B.]

That's exactly right. The US is behaving itself now and that's why everyone likes it. Before, the US was everywhere and no one could do anything on an international scale without American interferrance. Those who said that there isn't a country who has influence but doesn't want to use it, have you ever thought that they possibly couldn't use it for fear that it would not be what America wanted. Now, I don't mind America as a country itself, and I enjoy the people, but I don't like the way it had conducted itself on the international stage. I wouldn't have minded if the Soviet Union had come out on top because I think Gorbachev had done well with his reforms.

You do realize we've still upped the war with 30,000 more troops. Obama might say we're pulling out later this year or next, but you'd better wait til that time rolls around before saying good job.

So far, other than the nuclear agreement - which still didn't include the two people we've been worried about the most yet - Obama hasn't done anything except talk and use different demeanors with different people as far as the world stage is going.

We're not "behaving" ourselves yet.

[Fluffybunny]

A lot of us in the US aren't too fond of the way that some of the other countries have conducted themselves either. We're particularly disgruntled with the seeming lack of long term memory and the disire to see just how bad things can get before they resort to that tried and true "re-boot"... calling the US to come bail them out. (Yes, France. I'm looking dead at you.)

Yeah...Not like France has ever done anything for the U.S....

Anyway...

I would love to see the responses from the bush fans had this article been about him...I somehow doubt that so many would be so quick to shoot down such an attribute if their particular parties leader were dealing with the idea that they made relations better with the rest of the world.

This country would be in a much better position if it werent for this petty bickering. Perhaps then we could hold more than 50% of the responsible party at fault when things go bad, and celebrate when things go right.

[MichaelW]

Hey, I'm used to living in deplorable conditions. Our houses leak, PT is crap, not to mention the fact that we did indeed had socialism thrust upon us. But that's a bit out of topic.

Harte-what would happen if I disagreed with Washington nowdays? I'd be expecting a lot worse than simply starvation or a gulag.

What matters is the US starting to realise that simply stepping on everyone else in order to get what they want is not how to conduct itself on the world stage. Yes, Obama hasn't done much these days, but he is trying to get America's reputation back on the good side.

[Astute One]

Yes, Obama hasn't done much these days, but he is trying to get America's reputation back on the good side.

Yes his priorties are screwed up, aren't they. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Harte-what would happen if I disagreed with Washington nowdays? I'd be expecting a lot worse than simply starvation or a gulag.

What happened to the people who called Bush a Hitler-esque fascist and called for his assassination? Please tell me what Bush did to them that was so much worse than starvation or thrown in a gulag.

If nothing happened to those people, who did more than "disagree" with Washington, what do you think happened to people who opposed (or disagreed with) Washington on, say, amnesty, Medicare Part D, the Iraq war, etc.?

[Harte]

Harte-what would happen if I disagreed with Washington nowdays? I'd be expecting a lot worse than simply starvation or a gulag.

You are projecting your paranoia.

Plenty of people disagree with Washington, myself included.

Harte

[AROCES]

Hey, I'm used to living in deplorable conditions. Our houses leak, PT is crap, not to mention the fact that we did indeed had socialism thrust upon us. But that's a bit out of topic.

Harte-what would happen if I disagreed with Washington nowdays? I'd be expecting a lot worse than simply starvation or a gulag.

What matters is the US starting to realise that simply stepping on everyone else in order to get what they want is not how to conduct itself on the world stage. Yes, Obama hasn't done much these days, but he is trying to get America's reputation back on the good side.

Jimmy Carter did the same thing, and instead the rest of the world stepped on the US instead. Then Reagan came, the rest of the world said he will start WWII and the rest is history....