What the World Thinks of America
Posted on 10/18/2008 1:25:55 PM PDT by Roger W. Gardner
What the World Thinks of America
Foreign poll favours Democrat but shows hostility to US
From The Guardian.co.uk
People around the world are pinning their hopes on Barack Obama in next month's presidential election, according to an international survey published today. It shows that America can no longer count on the friendship even of its closest neighbours and allies after eight years of the Bush presidency. Only a minority in the countries surveyed describe relations with the US as friendly.
Julian Glover reports that a newspaper poll around the world on the US election favours Obama. The research, carried out by eight leading newspapers including the Guardian, finds overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed, including Britain, where he is ahead of the Republican candidate John McCain by 64% to 15%.
Support for Obama is stronger than backing for John Kerry in 2004, when the Guardian participated in a similar polling exercise. Then, the Democrat was the preferred candidate of 50% of British people.
The poll, conducted by papers including France's Le Monde, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, Canada's La Presse and Mexico's Reforma, also shows that opinion of America has dropped sharply since the start of the decade. In France 75% say their view of the US has got worse or much worse since President George Bush replaced Bill Clinton in 2001; in Canada 77%; in Switzerland 86% and in Japan 62%.
People everywhere have turned to Obama. He would win by a simple majority in six of the eight countries surveyed, including Canada, where he leads McCain by 70%-14%, and Japan, where the margin is 61%-13%.
French voters are even more hostile to the Republican candidate, who gets the backing of only 5%, against 68% who hope Obama will win.
In British results, from ICM/Guardian polling, 67% of voters say their opinion of the US is worse than it was before the Bush presidency began. Only 21% say it has improved.
But the special relationship endures. People in Britain are more likely than in any of the other seven countries surveyed to say relations are friendly: 49% think this is the case, against 18% who say relations are tense and 30% who say they are neutral.
Support for an Obama presidency is strong among all types of voters in Britain - 64% want him to win. He is most popular among more prosperous voters, where he has 71% backing, and least popular among people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, 54% of whom want him to become president.
Elsewhere, only in Poland and Mexico, both emerging democracies, is there any hesitation about the prospect of an Obama victory. In Poland he leads by 43% to 26% and in Mexico by 46% to 13%.
Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the US are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.
Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of US intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the US are friendly and 14% tense.
The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and - in the six countries questioned on the issue - majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The possibility of military intervention in Iran is opposed by a majority everywhere except in Poland and Britain. In Britain 47% say the next president should specifically rule out an attack, against 42% who say options should be left open.
Read the rest here ---------------------------------------------------------
One American's Response
Obama and the Peace of Vichy
The text from the Guardian article above is highlighted in yellow for a reason. This is why they hate America and love Obama. They hate America because we are unwilling to subject ourselves to the tyrants of this world like Hitler and Ahmadinejad. And this means war. And war means fighting and the disruption of civilian lives and the possibility of death. For some, the fear of the consequences of defending themselves is more onerous than the shame of capitulation. They have therefore embraced the cowardice of Chamberlain as their role model, and attempted to disguise their weaknesses by pretending that they are some higher form of civilized behavior called Multiculturalism.
For at least two generations now we Americans have been taking it on the chin from ignorant, self-righteous student activists and disillusioned psuedo-intellectuals from here at home and from around the world, brought up on that pervasive academic witches brew of those Marxist-driven, Moscow-coordinated, sanctimonious and cynically manipulated student protest movements of the 60s. We -- and you -- are now living with the bitter fruits of their destructive labors. Cynicism and disillusionment have become a refined art form throughout Old Europe and the UK, the motley uniform of the latest anti-capitalist, anti-American, antiwar avant-garde. To be wise is to be cynical, distrustful, and anti-American.
To be wise in 2008 is to vote for Obama and appease the Devil and hope for a few more years of diminishing freedom and tenuous peace. It's an old familiar hope, an old familiar plan. It's called the Peace of Vichy. - rg
Excerpts form The New Barbarians and Resignation, Accomodation and Capitulation.
Ungrateful!
Here’s another american’s response....
If I really, really tried,I could care less,but I just can’t make the effort.They can all go to hell as far as i’m concerned.
When the rest of the world comes close to achieving 1/10th of what America has accomplished, I might force myself to listen to what they think.
Until such a time arrives (and I’m not holding my breath), the rest of the world can go pi$$ up a rope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGJynE37Npg
I’m gonna do Gordon Sinclair one better and give Europe the finger instead.
Hey, Roger, I realize you’re new ‘round here so I’ll be nice...but we reeeeeeeeeeeely couldn’t care less what the “world” thinks of us...the “world” doesn’t pick up the tab ‘round here...quite the contrary...the “world” expects us to win their wars, “take out their trash”, feed & clothe their people and generally be the “cop on the beat.”
So what the “world” thinks of us is about as consequential as a fly on a horse’s ass...one flick of the tail and the fly is gone...
Have a good one...
N-U-T-S
I really think the EU hopes that the US will soon join them them in mediocracy: free health care, no longer a world leader in manufacturing, weak defense capabilities, and anything goes morality. And Obama will do just that.
Pure jealosy!
I’m noticing a lot of strange threads (like this) lately with ‘born on’ dates in early June.
On second thought, I dont give a sh!t what the rest of the world thinks of us.
They’ve felt this way a long time....just didn’t have the courage to speak up until now when they think we’re going to have a “girlie-man” in the White House.
I might be “new around here”, but I’m not an idiot.
Before you start lecturing me why don’t you finish the article. You seem to have missed the whole point. But that didn’t stop you from giving me the benefit of your condescending little pointers, did it?
The difference between European socialist “democracy” and the American brand is illustrated in the political ideologies of Obama and McCain. Europeans, starting with France, were of the opinion that citizens surrendered their innate natural rights for civil rights. They made a contract with the government to abide by the will of the majority in exchange for enhanced protection of their health and safety and the gurantee of basic civil rights.
Under the American system that evolved from England, men were endowed by God with inalienable rights which could not be altered by the majority. A purpose of government was to protect those individual rights from the whim and will of the majority - except were such individual exercise would substantially injure public health or safety. If privately owned property was needed for a legitimate public purpose, any “taking” was to evoke just compensation to the owner, who was to remain whole in his estate. Government was delegated only limited powers and the individual retained all that was not delegated. Government was to be a compact among citizens -each surrendering only a small and equal portion of liberty.
European’s have no understanding of the subtle, but profound difference. Nor do they understand our federal system and how it affects our operating limitations in international politics. Obama comes from a European ideological view. The traditional American view seems cowboyish to them.
People around the world who are pinning their hopes on Barack Obama better have a fall-back position. :)
did I call you an “idiot?”
noooooooooooooooooooooooo...
but since you are copping an attitude...”f off” ahole..
gezzzzzzzzzzzzz... it’s saturday, and I’m getting ‘tude from some clown that just signed up...
ROFLMAO
I don’t get it. The very people who eschew our “red neck”(and winning behaviour I might add) populace and horrible capitalistic economy, are the first to scream for help when it is needed.
I don’t expect love from these folks. But the ideal answer from Europe would be...We won’t ask those nasty, red neck capitalists for help again.
That’ll show us, lol.
we've been floating, leaderless, in a sense....
WE NEED MCCAIN AND SARAH PALIN.....DEAR GOD, WE NEED THEM!!!!
Countries dont have friends. This is not kindergarden
They have interests and allies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.