Should we Americans care what the world thinks of us?

[j2k4]

This is enlightening - read!

Do We Care What They Think of America?
By Mona Charen
Friday, April 4, 2008


If there's one thing the Democrats are certain they can accomplish provided they win in November (and it doesn't matter, for this purpose, which of the two candidates becomes the nominee) it will be the restoration of America's tattered world reputation. Barack Obama has promised that his first priority is to get the United States out of Iraq and "restore our standing in the world." Mrs. Clinton has said that an "urgent task" for the next president is to "restore America's standing in the world." Other Democrats hit this theme over and over again. Sen. Pat Leahy offered the standard version in his endorsement of Obama: "We need a president who can reintroduce America to the world and reintroduce America to ourselves."

Well, everyone likes to be loved, but Democrats seem more than a little obsessed with America's international reputation. Recall that in 2004, John Kerry described the matter as "primary" to the presidential race. "Foreign leaders" were apparently tapping Kerry on the shoulder at restaurants to express their dim view of his country.

Why is it so important to win an international popularity contest? If America is not popular in the world, what are the other nations going to do to us? Stop buying our products? Kick us out of the U.N.? Vote us off the island?

Actually, some of those consequences, particularly the U.N. bit, don't sound so awful.

A new poll commissioned by the BBC World Service will doubtless give Democrats more fits. Questioning respondents in 34 countries, the BBC asked for opinions about 13 countries -- Brazil, Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the U.S.A. -- and the European Union. The United States did not fare very well. On average, 47 percent of those questioned had a "mainly negative" view of America's influence in the world, versus only 35 percent with a "mainly positive" view. Unsurprisingly, Israel was second to the bottom, below everyone except Iran. The European Union did well with a 52 percent positive rating, as did Japan (56). Germany, too, clocked in with a 56 percent positive rating.

I wonder whether Democrats ever indulge the suspicion that "world opinion" may be bunk? Let's contrast, for example, the popularity of Israel (19 percent positive, 52 percent negative) and North Korea (23 percent positive, 44 percent negative). Israel is a fully functioning democracy with a free press, an independent judiciary, one of the highest standards of living in the world (including for its Arab citizens who enjoy a far higher standard of living than the average Arab in any Arab country), full civil rights, and the rule of law -- all of this despite being under relentless terrorist attack.

North Korea's people suffered a catastrophic famine that took (by the BBC's estimate) one in ten lives in the 1990s and continues to cause desperate suffering to the present day. The communist economy produces so little that the regime has taken to counterfeiting and arms dealing to obtain hard currency. North Korea is flouting the United Nations by building nuclear weapons, trading missiles to any bidder including other rogue nations, and saber rattling towards South Korea, Japan and the United States. The state maintains a Stalinist grip at home that forbids even whispering against the "Dear Leader" and has imprisoned and executed countless opponents.

Or consider the popularity of China. Forty-seven percent of respondents rated China's influence as "mostly positive" and only 32 percent considered its world role to be "mostly negative." The United States, again, was rated 35 positive and 47 percent negative. Let's see, there's a brutal crackdown on Tibet, constant threats toward Taiwan, complete repression of political and religious liberty, forced sterilization and abortion, military and diplomatic support for the genocidal regime in Sudan that has destroyed Darfur, and thousands of other violations of human rights and human dignity.

And the United States? Well, we've conducted a difficult, frustrating, but essentially benevolent five-year effort to liberalize and democratize two very tough customers: Afghanistan and Iraq. And we've imprisoned several hundred known and suspected terrorists -- giving them medical care, culturally sensitive food, prayer rugs, a Koran and a dental plan.

Actually, these international polls may not mean much. If the U.S. were truly unpopular, would we be building fences to keep immigrants out? Would the U.S. be the world's third most popular tourist destination? And would the world's people be glad to not have the U.S. available when another catastrophe like the Asian tsunami or the Bosnian crisis looms?

Contra Pat Leahy, we do not need to reintroduce America to the world, we need to remember that the world's moral focus can be strangely distorted.

It seems much of the world hasn't a clue...

[IdolEyes787]

So it appears you think America should operate much like a schoolyard bully who fears no consquence to his actions and therefore believes himself to be above reproach.

[Imagine_If]

Hmmf..did you ever?

[j2k4]

So it appears you think America should operate much like a schoolyard bully who fears no consquence to his actions and therefore believes himself to be above reproach.

Your perception of what "it appears" to be couldn't be wronger.

I suggest you abandon the knee-jerk reaction you have offered and reassess, parsing the cited information with care this time. :whistling

BTW-

Don't leap to the conclusion that I am a "nasty" person.

[Imagine_If]

So it appears you think America should operate much like a schoolyard bully who fears no consquence to his actions and therefore believes himself to be above reproach.

Your perception of what "it appears" to be couldn't be wronger.

I suggest you abandon the knee-jerk reaction you have offered and reassess, parsing the cited information with care this time. :whistling

BTW-

Don't leap to the conclusion that I am a "nasty" person.:yup:

j/k :noes:

We are talking about America or Kev, Kev?

[Skiz]

:yup:

j/k :noes:

We are talking about America or Kev, Kev?

Why would you think 'America'?

[j2k4]

So it appears you think America should operate much like a schoolyard bully who fears no consquence to his actions and therefore believes himself to be above reproach.

Your perception of what "it appears" to be couldn't be wronger.

I suggest you abandon the knee-jerk reaction you have offered and reassess, parsing the cited information with care this time. :whistling

BTW-

Don't leap to the conclusion that I am a "nasty" person.


We are talking about America or Kev, Kev?

I believe I am the you above-referenced.

[IdolEyes787]

[quote=IdolEyes787;2791634]

Don't leap to the conclusion that I am a "nasty" person.

I never concluded that you were a "nasty" anything .
If America was worse it would be perceived more favorably?
I apologize but the implied humor in the article escapes me.
The U.S. is vilified for the some of the very things Ms. Charen lists as it's virtues.
Am I still missing something?

[M3dium]

Hell no we shouldn't care what others think.

[j2k4]

[quote=j2k4;2791984]

I never concluded that you were a "nasty" anything .
If America was worse it would be perceived more favorably?
I apologize but the implied humor in the article escapes me.
The U.S. is vilified for the some of the very things Ms. Charen lists as it's virtues.
Am I still missing something?

Yes, and it should be very obvious, even if you are Canadian.

Or even, say, Chinese.

[j2k4]

Hell no we shouldn't care what others think.

Oh, come now, I think we should, absolutely.

Trouble is that others occasionally need to be taught how to think.

Emend - I have just received a very gracious invitation to dinner; I shall attend later...

[bigboab]

No. Why change the habit of a lifetime?:whistling

[chamaeleo]

Hell no we shouldn't care what others think.

Oh, come now, I think we should, absolutely.

Trouble is that others occasionally need to be taught how to think.

Emend - I have just received a very gracious invitation to dinner; I shall attend later...


:huh: a fund raiser I suppose

[lynx]

Are you saying that the US should be allowed to act like an arsehole because there are bigger arseholes around the world?

[j2k4]

Are you saying that the US should be allowed to act like an arsehole because there are bigger arseholes around the world?

Not at all..

Please, brother lynx, tell me I don't have to explain it to you. :whistling

[Skiz]

You have to wonder, who are the pollsters talking to when they "discover" that North Korea is viewed more favorably than the USA?

[j2k4]

You have to wonder, who are the pollsters talking to when they "discover" that North Korea is viewed more favorably than the USA?

Well, a few things sort of leap out at me:


Auntie Beeb is in charge, so the poll must be a fair, pure, and representative (our British friends insist that this is so, after all), and the 34 countries polled (I admit I have no idea which countries were included) gave the United States a failing grade, as compared (most notably) to China and North Korea.

Now, though the BBC cannot be cast as adhering to the British government's allied stance (remember - the government throws the funding into the Beeb's playpen, then turns a blind eye) one can, without undue charity, assume the BBC knows how to conduct a proper poll, which in turn means that a great majority of those polled who expressed disdain for the U.S. expressed substantially less of same for North Korea and China.

For starters I'd like someone to reconcile (however symbolically) these two, umm, positions... :whistling

[Snee]

And the United States? Well, we've conducted a difficult, frustrating, but essentially benevolent five-year effort to liberalize and democratize two very tough customers: Afghanistan and Iraq. And we've imprisoned several hundred known and suspected terrorists -- giving them medical care, culturally sensitive food, prayer rugs, a Koran and a dental plan.


Somehow, I sense a bias.

[barakokula]

Let's see, there's a brutal crackdown on Tibet, constant threats toward Taiwan, complete repression of political and religious liberty, forced sterilization and abortion, military and diplomatic support for the genocidal regime in Sudan that has destroyed Darfur, and thousands of other violations of human rights and human dignity.

And the United States? Well, we've conducted a difficult, frustrating, but essentially benevolent five-year effort to liberalize and democratize two very tough customers: Afghanistan and Iraq. And we've imprisoned several hundred known and suspected terrorists -- giving them medical care, culturally sensitive food, prayer rugs, a Koran and a dental plan.

Actually, these international polls may not mean much. If the U.S. were truly unpopular, would we be building fences to keep immigrants out? Would the U.S. be the world's third most popular tourist destination? And would the world's people be glad to not have the U.S. available when another catastrophe like the Asian tsunami or the Bosnian crisis looms?

Contra Pat Leahy, we do not need to reintroduce America to the world, we need to remember that the world's moral focus can be strangely distorted.

[I][COLOR="Blue"]It seems much of the world hasn't a clue...This article takes for a fact that every person on the world thinks like an average american. That having a fast food restaurant nearby and a wide variety of channels on your tv is the most important thing in life. Oh,yeah,and a dental plan.

So important that it's imperative to invade a country and totally destroy the government,position yourself over oil wells and leave the country in shambles,so that a million ppl died since. Because of the dental plan,sure. Worlds oral hygiene is US #1 priority. :lol:

Article's biased,and that's an understatement.

[Quylui]

Of course not. Their perspective is controlled by what they see and what they don't, and in most cases their only outlook is the media. It might as well be high school... did you care about what everyone who didn't know you thought about you in school?

We could make all the great decisions we wanted, but even doing this couldn't dictate people's perceptions of us. It's not a battle worth fighting, either.

[lynx]

The article neglects to point out that the US claims a higher standard to those against which it is being compared unfavourably.

Hardly surprising then that when it fails to achieve the standards most people would determine to be acceptable that it receives a higher level of criticism. I feel certain that those countries who fail, by an even greater margin, to reach acceptable standards would be just a severely criticised if they claimed the same high standards in the first place.

In addition, by being in the position of the most powerful country on Earth, failure to meet what are generally regarded as acceptable standards implies an abuse of that power, with the attendant extra criticism that attaches.

[j2k4]

The article neglects to point out that the US claims a higher standard to those against which it is being compared unfavourably.

Hardly surprising then that when it fails to achieve the standards most people would determine to be acceptable that it receives a higher level of criticism. I feel certain that those countries who fail, by an even greater margin, to reach acceptable standards would be just a severely criticised if they claimed the same high standards in the first place.

In addition, by being in the position of the most powerful country on Earth, failure to meet what are generally regarded as acceptable standards implies an abuse of that power, with the attendant extra criticism that attaches.

Okay, then - back to the poll and it's methodologies:

If the question is asked-

How would you rate the positive/negative effect/reputation of (name the country) in the international arena?

-of the United States and whomever else, what polling mechanism denotes/describes the bias you just outlined?

Or is there an arbitrary caveat which reads to the effect of, "based on the standards normally espoused by the country in question"?

One would think that, absent such a condition, countries such as North Korea or China should rate much, much higher, given they claim no standard of acceptable behavior...

As a sidenote, I wonder if I dare query as to Auntie Beeb's integrity in this matter; seems there might be a small matter of commission by omission.

I suppose, too, in the interest of honest play, while I occasionally bristle at some criticisms of The U.S., I don't put much stock in such polls, one way or another. :whistling

[devilsadvocate]

Should Americans care? well that all depends on what is trying to be achieved. If the goal is to make people from other nations stop wanting to blow us up then I think yes we should care what they think. This doesn't mean we have to agree with them. If it comes to helping with things like disasters we shouldn't be caring what they think, we should do it because it's the right thing to do and not for any desire for gratituted or respect. On the world stage there is a fine line between us being a good neighbor and being a busybody and we are not the ones that decide which one we are. Even the most well intentioned busybody tends to be resented to some degree.

[lynx]

You need to remember that the foreign policies of the US affect billions of non-US citizens, while the internal politics of North Korea and China affect very few who aren't in those countries.

People will react more intensely to those things that affect them directly, it's human nature, and no matter how you phrase the question it doesn't change the actual way the US is perceived.

Without seeing how the original poll was worded it is difficult to be sure, but I got the impression that (amongst other things) the poll asked about the influence of these countries on the rest of the world. Hardly surprising then that the country which has the biggest influence shows the biggest hit at a time when things are not going well.

If the poll mixed up results regarding external influences and internal policies then the charge of bias is justified, but I suspect that it is just the author of the article who wants to imply that this is what happened.

Remember, just because you don't like the message, that's no reason to shoot the messenger.

[ilw]

In the last 2 presidential terms you have pretty much sunk the geneva convention, the icbm treaty, the kyoto agreement, the torture convention, the nuclear proliferation agreement, the international criminal court...

[Snee]

This sums up my thoughts on this, and how someone might look at it:

You could say american media ought to take some of the blame for how people see America.

Every election seems to involve smear tactics, and the media then blows it up to enormous proportions. Every celebrity, politicians and otherwise go under the microscope, everything gets blown up out of proportion, and the worse they can make something sound, the better.

The world sees all those things too.

Doesn't stop with celebrities or elections, either, if it's possible to make a sensation out of something, it's done.

Sometimes they make you look like idiots, and sometimes it just makes you look bad.

I guess it's a matter of supply and demand, though. If people stopped consuming there'd be no market for it.

-

Then there's the arrogance. America's got things like the world series, which is really all about america. Things like that can be construed as meaning that all that matters is America, the world here in actuality being america.

I've also seen excerpts from speeches by Bush and other american politicians where they seemed to imply that the USA is God's chosen nation.

And when americans do something that's actually good, like help with disasters, well, then that gets turned into some sort of metaphorical ritual back-patting for all the world to see, too. Possibly to the point of seeming to imply that the americans helping did better than anybody else, looking at the size of the contribution, rather than the one performed per individual.

And then whatever America considers being generous of them gets brought up at times like this, and the rest of the world are ingrates. Sometimes I hear the ingrate argument, even though americans had nothing to do with the well-being of the person being called an ingrate.

And there's things like the american president being referred to as "the greatest man on earth", and so on, and so forth.

And the myriad of movies where americans save the planet, or whatever.

Most nations on the planet have their moments of extreme patriotism and arrogance, though, but couple America's to the reach of their media and they end up parading it in front of the whole world, again.

-

Then there are american franchises, which pop up everywhere. Again it's supply and demand, to some extent, but it doesn't help that there's enough money behind them to soak up huge losses and create a demand via advertising before they start turning a profit. Not everyone likes something like a McDonald's, everwhere.

-

And then there's the fact that american companies have enough money to buy everything that runs well, meaning that companies others closely associate with their own nationality end up in american hands.

-

And then there are the little things, like Halloween suddenly being celebrated in countries that previously didn't thanks to children watching american movies and some toy-franchise seeing an opportunity to "import" the holiday and sell more dress-up stuff.

Some will look at this and feel that there's a slow ongoing americanisation of their culture.

-

As for military efforts, and such:

Like lynx says, foreign policies of countries you consider "bad" are generally not as noticeable. Like devilsadvocate writes, the USA risks being seen as a busybody, in fact I do reckon a lot of people probably already do.

It probably doesn't help that an excuse for the war in Iraq ("WMDs") was a lie or that americans once trained Bin Laden, or that Noriega (possibly) once was on an american payroll, either. Some might say that the USA creates its enemies, and that people suffer because of that.

And naturally, we all know about that, too, thanks to the media, ours and yours. While only a fraction of the bad stuff countries like North Korea are up to gets out, probably, thanks to their press not being free, and them isolating themselves from the rest of the world rather than attempting to influence all of it.

-

Before someone starts arguing with me over something I've said, do consider that this is just how it is, or how it can be seen.

I'm not making any value judgements beyond saying that this is how things can be percieved, whether it's entirely accurate to percieve all of it that way, is another matter.


As for the particular article, and me, I think the title alone is pretty arrogant.

America does have a tremendous influence on the world right now, in that the whole world notices what america is up to, and much of it has had it's economy affected by the USA, as well.

Right now America is still doing all right, but should things be felt as intolerable by the rest of the world, to the point of many nations getting together to do something about it, America would certainly feel it.

[thewizeard]

In any case it's too late for the USA, whatever the world thinks about "It" . The balance of economic power is shifting rapidly and soon it will be time for it to pay the bill. The risk of course is that it will feel like a cornered cat.. and behave as one.

[Squeamous]

This is enlightening - read!


I was going to, until you wrote that.

[Biggles]

There are aspects of the commentary that have merit.

It is not a popularity contest and policies have to be measured against political and economic necessities. The US is very active in geopolitics and is therefore always going to be the turkey with the longest neck. Brazil has many social problems but its world face is one of beautiful girls and sublime football players. (Soccer being a currency that has enormous value just about everywhere.) Brazil is not going to get a bad score - that is simply a fact of life. Likewise, Europe is seen as benign and where a lot of nice to have stuff comes from and not particularly exploitative (perhaps an unfair call there but those are the breaks)

Where I think the commentary is weak is the attempt to somehow redress the balance. Israel may be a democracy but it has neighbour problems which frequently hit the headlines and 1/6 in the world are Muslims and presumably some of the 34 countries were Muslim. It is also considered to have an illegal nuclear programme. It is always going to take a hit in any poll because of these things and perhaps a desire in the rest of the world to wish away the whole damned ME problem.

The poll is unlikely to have captured the recent unrest in Tibet and Taiwan is little more than background noise to most people in World. In short the poll probably captured Olympic happy buzz and the supply of cheap large screen LCD TVs. That said China today is a far more open place than even 20 years ago.

Possibly the most ill considered part of the piece is the part regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the most conservative figures have over 100,000 innocent civilians dead in these two benevolent wars. That is not to say that there are no noble motives in these endeavours but a lot of eggs were broken making this omelet and the dish doesn't look ready to serve yet. She skimmed over a hell of a lot of suffering in a couple of glib sentences. Exactly why, one might argue, the US got a low score.

In summary, she is right, it is not a popularity contest and a foreign policy geared to just being popular is wrong headed. Is this the Democrat stance though? Her analysis is, however, weak. People are not being perverse. Countries whose primary global interface are either through sport, culture or trade are going to make a more positive impact than one which has a strong interventionist geopolitical strategy. That is just the nature of things. Iran and North Korea were not popular, by the way, so the world community did not have things upside down - I think it was having to share similar ratings to them that actually irked her :)

[ilw]

biggles - how would you answer the poll question about the effect of the current administration on the world?
v. positive - v. negative?


edit: and its not soccer its football.

[Biggles]

biggles - how would you answer the poll question about the effect of the current administration on the world?
v. positive - v. negative?


edit: and its not soccer its football.

There is little doubt in my mind that the GW/Rumsfeld unique brand of charm has had a negative on perceptions of the US around the World. Clinton, regardless of his cigar tricks was well received and raised US stock, especially in those countries not at loggerheads with the US in the ME. You can't please all the people all the time.


I know it is footie (so does Kev) - I was just being all international for the sake of other readers.

[ilw]

biggles - how would you answer the poll question about the effect of the current administration on the world?
v. positive - v. negative?


edit: and its not soccer its football.

There is little doubt in my mind that the GW/Rumsfeld unique brand of charm has had a negative on perceptions of the US around the World. Clinton, regardless of his cigar tricks was well received and raised US stock, especially in those countries not at loggerheads with the US in the ME. You can't please all the people all the time.


I know it is footie (so does Kev) - I was just being all international for the sake of other readers.

a very politician like answer :sly:
i was looking for an answer on whether you think their influence on the world has been positive or negative?

[Biggles]

There is little doubt in my mind that the GW/Rumsfeld unique brand of charm has had a negative on perceptions of the US around the World. Clinton, regardless of his cigar tricks was well received and raised US stock, especially in those countries not at loggerheads with the US in the ME. You can't please all the people all the time.


I know it is footie (so does Kev) - I was just being all international for the sake of other readers.

a very politician like answer :sly:
i was looking for an answer on whether you think their influence on the world has been positive or negative?


The US operates on many levels and much of what the US has done has been positive.

I rather liked the Winston Churchill quote "The US always does the right thing...once it has exhausted the other possibilities". So on balance I think the US has made a positive contribution to the World but it has also made mistakes - amongst which I would include electing GW :sneaky:

[Snee]

The aussies ought to be pretty worried about americans, anyways. (http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=2646)

[j2k4]

The aussies ought to be pretty worried about americans, anyways. (http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=2646)

Well then.

Inutterable ignorance isn't only an American phenomenon. :whistling

[Snee]

I know.

We have the inbred section to remind us of that.

[thewizeard]

The aussies ought to be pretty worried about americans, anyways. (http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=2646)

Well then.

Inutterable ignorance isn't only an American phenomenon. :whistling

Apparently not and clearly contagious; perhaps the temporary solution is to put all Americans into quarantine, while the World considers Her options?.

[j2k4]

Well then.

Inutterable ignorance isn't only an American phenomenon. :whistling

Apparently not and clearly contagious; perhaps the temporary solution is to put all Americans into quarantine, while the World considers Her options?.

The "World" is now a feminine deity?

A bitch, too, I suppose. :whistling

[Nemrod]

Of course you should do.
Everybody should... not for making your policies based on what others want or need, any country has the right to do the best for its citizenships... but this is a world with hundreds of nations, and you, more than any other, have a huge responsibility with all of them.
No one can deny that USA is the most powerful, but that implies a huge range of things you have to take in consideration, making things only for american interest no matters what is very risky, and not fair.
History teaches a lot... there have been great and powerful empires, and all of them knew the fall, almost always painful, humiliating and miserable... because at some point they only took care of themselves in the belief they were invincible and only were happy looking at their navels.

[j2k4]

Of course you should do.
Everybody should... not for making your policies based on what others want or need, any country has the right to do the best for its citizenships... but this is a world with hundreds of nations, and you, more than any other, have a huge responsibility with all of them.
No one can deny that USA is the most powerful, but that implies a huge range of things you have to take in consideration, making things only for american interest no matters what is very risky, and not fair.
History teaches a lot... there have been great and powerful empires, and all of them knew the fall, almost always painful, humiliating and miserable... because at some point they only took care of themselves in the belief they were invincible and only were happy looking at their navels.

What does history teach us about the Soviets?

What will history teach us about current-day China?

Given that this turnabout in international opinion is universally considered to have coincided with the advent of the Bush administration, please prepare for our edification a comprehensive comparison of Bush's foreign policy to Bill Clinton's, with special attention given to the ratio of action to rhetoric.

[ilw]

Given that this turnabout in international opinion is universally considered to have coincided with the advent of the Bush administration,
not sure how much of a turnabout there has been around the world, europe yes, but the rest?
Maybe the change in opinion had always been on the cards since the end of the cold war. maybe that marked a shift in the way europeans saw america, from vital ally to competitor. Maybe people thought that a post cold-war america should act differently to before. Or maybe Mr Bush is a knob-jockey.

[bornwithnoname]

I like the quarantine option. We pull back all our citizens from everywhere. Then we expel everyone from our country who is not a citizen. Then everybody will happy. I know I will.

[j2k4]

Given that this turnabout in international opinion is universally considered to have coincided with the advent of the Bush administration,
not sure how much of a turnabout there has been around the world, europe yes, but the rest?
Maybe the change in opinion had always been on the cards since the end of the cold war. maybe that marked a shift in the way europeans saw america, from vital ally to competitor. Maybe people thought that a post cold-war america should act differently to before. Or maybe Mr Bush is a knob-jockey.

The end of the Cold War certainly did mark a change in the relationship between western Europe and the U.S., though we are still relatively well-thought-of in the former Eastern Bloc countries, who have an abiding affinity for the Brits as well, owing to the efforts of your Mrs. Thatcher in aid of vanquishing the Soviets.

The fact of NATO's survival (and growth) considering the defunct status of the Warsaw Pact continues however to nettle Mr. Putin, whose recent attitudes seem to run counter to those he exhibited earlier in the Bush administration.

It is apparent he feels threatened by the continued existence of NATO, and certainly resents the dissolution of the old USSR.

There is also an undeniable western European resentment of US presence/hegemony, but I wonder what the reaction would be to a unilateral decision to withdraw US resources from Europe, et.al., with a commensurate need for the current host countries (who are in quite a budget bind over their overweening and ever-expanding social programs already) to expand their defensive capabilities to compensate, or do you consider any expansionist mind-set to have been forever banished from your neighboring cultures?

Also, if you had to mind your own defense (with the attendant regional responsibilities) from A to Z, do you think you might find a few things on your new plate a bit less palatable?

Do you think any of this would change your view of the US's difficulty in sorting the situation? :dabs:

[ilw]

it kinda cuts both ways, the US has on numerous applied pressure to prevent the EU forming a military force. I presume NATO must offer you sufficient benefit in terms of bargaining power that you feel it worthwhile.

An EU defence force is hard to implement for a number of reasons, but i don't think cash is really the main one, obviously we wouldn't spend as much as you guys do, but then i think your level of defence spending is fecking crazy. You spend roughly as much as the rest of the planet and a large chunk of that is wasted.

As for the current geopolitical situation in terms of threats and things that the EU defence force might have to deal with, I reckon theres not a great deal of threat at the moment, and its hard to tell what will happen long term. There is the possibility of various wars breaking out in europe, but its unlikely to involve invasion of an EU nation (except pos cyprus) so i assume that would be more an issue for an UN task force (if intervention were required).
Russia isn't currently threatening and i don't think Putin has any desire to invade former USSR nations (although i think Russia will attempt to put some under its sway).

[j2k4]

it kinda cuts both ways, the US has on numerous applied pressure to prevent the EU forming a military force. I presume NATO must offer you sufficient benefit in terms of bargaining power that you feel it worthwhile.

You make my point; the US "pressure" is applied for any number of reasons, not least of which is the undeniable difficulty in assembling a coherent force from the disparate entities of the EU - this is apparent to us, if not to you.

While variety may the spice of life, it also makes for dis-unity where the rubber meets the road, and while the US can occasionally exhibit schizophrenic behaviors as re: it's defense, it is rarely of more than two or three minds, whereas you-all start with a minimum of perhaps seven or eight.

Your ordinance would corrode while the generals were deciding whether or not to strategize.


An EU defence force is hard to implement for a number of reasons,

See above.


but i don't think cash is really the main one, obviously we wouldn't spend as much as you guys do,

Obviously?

How can you know that?


but then i think your level of defence spending is fecking crazy. You spend roughly as much as the rest of the planet and a large chunk of that is wasted.

It certainly is inordinate, but how can you deduce that cumulative spending by the EU wouldn't equal or (more likely) even outstrip that of the US?

How do you think the array of abilities/talents/ideas/inclinations/ideals/ideologies the EU would bring to bear on the question of defense could be anything but extremely wasteful and duplicative?

Has there been a rebirth of the attitude of intracontinental cooperation for which the EU is so historically famous?


As for the current geopolitical situation in terms of threats and things that the EU defence force might have to deal with, I reckon theres not a great deal of threat at the moment, and its hard to tell what will happen long term.

Terrorists are largely immune from geopolitical considerations, but apart from that, your acknowledgment of the possibility of future concerns should be sufficient to negate a dismissal of current ones.


There is the possibility of various wars breaking out in europe, but its unlikely to involve invasion of an EU nation (except pos cyprus) so i assume that would be more an issue for an UN task force (if intervention were required).

A UN task force?

Shirley you jest.

Hitler was a tin-pot until he wasn't one anymore, and he would have laughed at the UN.

Give "sanctions" time to work, and he'd already be marching.

To quote a previous poster, History teaches a lot...


Russia isn't currently threatening and i don't think Putin has any desire to invade former USSR nations (although i think Russia will attempt to put some under its sway).

And if Putin achieves the latter without resorting to the former, at least he hasn't invaded?

Sounds downright Chamberlainesque, if you ask me.

The Soviets were famous for working from the inside out, via the expedient of insurgency; they didn't have to actually do a whole lot of invading in their heyday.

History.

[ilw]

can't be arsed to respond to it all so i'll just say: yes its a problem getting countries to work together, NATO has the same problem. A suggestion has been floated that a european defence force from just the biggest several nations could be formed which could help ease these issues.

I can't be certain that we wouldn't spend as much as you, but lets face it you spend as much on 'defence' as the rest of the planet put together. We are spectacularly unlikely to do the same unless russia really does invade...

fighting terrorists with the military doesn't really work. It might be interesting to wonder what the EU would've done if 9/11 happened here, but i doubt it would've involved invading afghanistan and iraq.

perhaps sway is too strong a word, maybe influence would've been better. And in a post-cold war society is there much difference between a european nation being influenced by Russia and one being influenced by America? You're both competitors to EU influence... Russia has the bigger potential to be a destabilising force on our borders and the decline of democracy is a seriously bad indicator, but Russia could also be an excellent ally and fundamentally we're not enemies anymore.

[j2k4]

can't be arsed to respond to it all so i'll just say: yes its a problem getting countries to work together, NATO has the same problem. A suggestion has been floated that a european defence force from just the biggest several nations could be formed which could help ease these issues.

Can't be arsed?

For shame, Ian.

Here's a question:

Say we dissolve NATO, if for no reason other than to subtract the US from the equation, which should formally relieve us of any obligation to backstop the EU or any of it's various parts in any circumstance.

What then?


I can't be certain that we wouldn't spend as much as you, but lets face it you spend as much on 'defence' as the rest of the planet put together. We are spectacularly unlikely to do the same unless russia really does invade...

"Spectacularly unlikely"?

Russia is not about to invade any country that can 1) fight back effectively, or 2) has nukes.

However:

Such preparedness as the US has practiced since WWII has been on the order of covering any and every potentiality.

You and your cohort could/should anticipate having to do the same, with the attendant expense.

BTW-

Waiting to 'overspend' on defense until the invasion has begun is not much of a strategy; in fact, spending anything at all might prove impossible at that juncture. :whistling



fighting terrorists with the military doesn't really work. It might be interesting to wonder what the EU would've done if 9/11 happened here, but i doubt it would've involved invading afghanistan and iraq.

Well, then.

What does work against terrorists?

I submit that networked international intelligence backed-up by a flexible military response capability is the only method available for dealing with terrorists.

Or would you prefer a mercenary force of some sort?

Please consider the likelihood of such a force answering to your beloved UN and Geneva accords.

Don't really know what else you'd consider...


perhaps sway is too strong a word, maybe influence would've been better. And in a post-cold war society is there much difference between a european nation being influenced by Russia and one being influenced by America? You're both competitors to EU influence... Russia has the bigger potential to be a destabilising force on our borders and the decline of democracy is a seriously bad indicator, but Russia could also be an excellent ally and fundamentally we're not enemies anymore.

Have you considered that Russia's original expansionist tendencies may not necessarily have been born of or attributable to Communism.

I'm sure they still believe themselves ultimately to be the 800 lb. gorilla in your neighborhood.

[kalypso]

This country is in the state it's in because we've cared too much about how the rest of the world views us. Our government needs to sweep around it's own front door before it assaults other countries that are not our concern. I'm all for keeping our enemies at bay, but at what cost I ask you?

[invadercat]

nobody ever cares about anybody other than themselves. its simple as that :)

[eram]

simple answer : YES :)

[j2k4]

simple answer : YES :)

Incorrect.

The only simple answer is "no".

This fact does not make "yes" a practical answer, however.

[bilkenter]

Havent read after 3rd page, what surprises me is the Israel, USA was the first one to approve the nation of Israel as far as i know and most of them have negative opinions about USA, it is to be expected i guess after all years

[ilw]

I can't be certain that we wouldn't spend as much as you, but lets face it you spend as much on 'defence' as the rest of the planet put together. We are spectacularly unlikely to do the same unless russia really does invade...

"Spectacularly unlikely"?

Russia is not about to invade any country that can 1) fight back effectively, or 2) has nukes.

However:

Such preparedness as the US has practiced since WWII has been on the order of covering any and every potentiality.

You and your cohort could/should anticipate having to do the same, with the attendant expense.

I reckon part of the reason your budget is incredibly high is because your military isn't about defence its about offence (force projection), so that you are capable of conducting a basic war anywhere in the world even without any friendly bases to fly from. As you say this is about covering every possibility, but I don't think we would ever pursue such a high level of offensive capability. A european defence force would probably focus on defence (crazy i know). The other reason i reckon you spend so much on defence is because from the little i know of it, I think the DoD spends craploads unnecessarily (as a government run body i'm sure you'll agree :P)

[Acumen]

nobody ever cares about anybody other than themselves. its simple as that :)
The inference then would be that Americans should care what the worlds thinks of them insofar as it concerns their ability to survive and replicate.

America should just abide by objective, unchanging values. I think they're collectively called a Constitution.

The question that should instead be asked, then, is should the United States follow their Constitution. Depending on your opinion of the Constitution, the answer should be apparent; and this question would be irrelevant, to the extent that morality is only concerned (see paragraph 1).

[maxitout]

I think you should not care about what the world thinks of you, but you should care about your own standards and do what is right - and what you know to be right.

You should not start a war that is not justifed ("false evidence" as they call it - which means LIE), you should not bomb everywhere in the world for economic interests justifying it with "Terrorism".

I am also concerned about the restriction of all kinds of freedoms and privacy, just to "fight terror". The problem with fighting an invisible enemy on an unlimited territory for an unlimited amount of time is: You can do ANYTHING and justify it with "fighting terror".

See it as my 2 cents.

I strongly hope the future will bring better developments and better policy from the world's leading country.

[j2k4]

nobody ever cares about anybody other than themselves. its simple as that :)
The inference then would be that Americans should care what the worlds thinks of them insofar as it concerns their ability to survive and replicate.

America should just abide by objective, unchanging values. I think they're collectively called a Constitution.

The question that should instead be asked, then, is should the United States follow their Constitution. Depending on your opinion of the Constitution, the answer should be apparent; and this question would be irrelevant, to the extent that morality is only concerned (see paragraph 1).

Flagged for excessive logic.

That kind of thinking has been known to lead to U.N. sanctions. :nono:

[ilw]

The inference then would be that Americans should care what the worlds thinks of them insofar as it concerns their ability to survive and replicate.

America should just abide by objective, unchanging values. I think they're collectively called a Constitution.



Flagged for excessive logic.



Is there such a thing as an objective unchanging value?

Language is too vague, reality too varied and the inherent assumptions are subject to change

[j2k4]

Flagged for excessive logic.



Is there such a thing as an objective unchanging value?

Certainly...do you think there isn't?

Why should we assume a de facto posture of empathy with people/groups/countries/entities who will continually, habitually and willfully misinterpret any "value" statement, depending on their own whims or wants?


Language is too vague, reality too varied and the inherent assumptions are subject to change

Here, now:

Language should be (and usually is) easily read and weighted, however, given the multiple burdens of also withstanding "vagueness", "variable reality", and preconceived "assumptions", inherent or otherwise, I don't wonder why the consumers of such language aren't held to even the lowest standards by their international brethren.

Definitions are, these days, largely in the ear of the "beholder", and those who seem confused most often are by-and-large in opposition to the U.S., especially when by their opposition they run the "risk" of an incoming president's, um.......largesse.

Obama carries the promise of much greater foreign aid/development bucks than W., if for no other reason than he (inherently, as a democrat) promises to do even the dumb things "better than the current (Bush, Republican) administration did".

You know it's troo. :whistling

[Acumen]

Is there such a thing as an objective unchanging value?
A virtue is objectified when a group of people make it so. Virtue does originate in the mind of an individual, so is in essence subjective; but after it is divulged from the individual and enforced by a democracy or an oligarchy, or any other form of collective, it is then stripped of its subjectivity and is placed firmly into the objective reality of every single individual in that society.

[bigboab]

Is there such a thing as an objective unchanging value?
A virtue is objectified when a group of people make it so. Virtue does originate in the mind of an individual, so is in essence subjective; but after it is divulged from the individual and enforced by a democracy or an oligarchy, or any other form of collective, it is then stripped of its subjectivity and is placed firmly into the objective reality of every single individual in that society.

That cleared that up then.:cry:

[ilw]

When i think unchanging values I think religious fundamentalists :/

Name an unchanging value (i.e. one you expect to hold forever)

[j2k4]

When i think unchanging values I think religious fundamentalists :/

Name an unchanging value (i.e. one you expect to hold forever)

Reformulate, Ian.

Values by their nature resist change.

You seem to be advocating moral relativism, which (taken to an absurd but illustrative extreme) allows us to say that when we consider how to end the strife in Darfur, we have two options, one being that we wade in on behalf of the oppressed and fight the oppressors (the long route), or we aid the oppressors in exterminating the oppressed (much shorter); in both instances, we achieve our ends.

[ilw]

no i'm not advocating moral relativism, although i used to think it was valid, i now only think it is useful to gain perspective, in the end you still have to base your decisions on what you think is right. (btw i don't think you're example really is moral relativism, moral relativisim is more about not assuming your morals are correct/universal)

back on topic, I don't think i can reformulate my sort of challenge. Name a value and i'll try to point out the assumptions contained within it and suggest a future scenario where it is invalid.

My basic point is that all values are subjective and context dependent and so will eventually become invalid. Saying that they are objective because a group of people agree on them at one stage in time is false imo because the group and the world will change.