View of US's global role 'worse'

The view of the US's role in the world has deteriorated both internationally and domestically, a BBC poll suggests.
The World Service survey, conducted in 25 nations including the US, found that three in four respondents disapproved of how Washington has dealt with Iraq.

The majority of the 26,381 respondents also disapproved of the way five other foreign policy areas have been handled.

The poll, released ahead of President Bush's State of the Union speech, was conducted between November and January.


Poll findings in more detail


At-a-glance


The number of those who said the US was a positive influence in the world fell in 18 nations polled in previous years.

In those countries, 29% of people said the US had a positive influence, down from 36% last year and 40% two years ago.

Across the 25 countries polled, 49% of respondents said the US played a mainly negative role in the world.


What happened dems? You said that if only the democrats toomk control the world would love us again.......well that doesnt seem to be the case...........

BTW, I could give a flying **** what any non-America thinks about this country....they don't live here so they don't matter.......but I got to wonder......if we are hated so much.....why is this country the number one country for people to migrate too?

Yes they hate us only until they can come here to get a free hand out off the backs of working Americans.:not:

It's been deteriorating for several years now. Mostly because we have insane, bloodthirsty, corrupt and stupid people leading the country.

LOL. The dems have had Congressional power for the last, what?, eighteen days, and their apparent failure to turn around the damage done by some two thousand two hundred days -- and counting -- of Bush rule is chalked up by the right as some sort of victory?

:rofl: :rofl:

jeeze thats hardly worth an answer but I dont think the US will ever recover its reputation. In fact it will probably get worse before GWB leaves office. I am sure he will do more to make us look like fools.

LOL. The dems have had Congressional power for the last, what?, eighteen days, and their apparent failure to turn around the damage done by some two thousand two hundred days -- and counting -- of Bush rule is chalked up by the right as some sort of victory?

:rofl: :rofl:

Yet you libs blamed Bush for 9/11 after only being in office for 8 months after 8 years of a liberal president doing nothing to fight the ever spreading threat of terrorism on US soil........

right back at ya.........:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This thread is teh stupid.

This thread is teh stupid.

yup you should know.......

lol people hate us because we are the world police.... but **** them, they shouldnt be doing things we dont agree with.

nobody likes cops. but i dont like criminals much more.

doesnt really matter if its librals or conservatives, Id say. same result.

We are not the world police we just think we are. At the present time most of the world views us as the World delinquent in a kind of Oliver and Hardy kind of way. We have a leader who most view as an idiot with no imagination at all. Our efforts at military adventureism are failing. We are seen as fiscally irresponsibile, and the world sees us as divided. All the while a certain portion of us appear to view the world through rose colored glasses in which Americans are the tough guys who can whip anyone. The truth the world sees is a bunch of guys in turbans and bedsheets can stop us in our tracks.

Skytrooper, your opinion that it doesn't matter what non-Amercians think is exactly why the world doesn't like the US. Our foreign policy is based on much the same position.
And however inflated our American egos are, we cannot take on the whole world. Our country is not invincible.

Skytrooper, your opinion that it doesn't matter what non-Amercians think is exactly why the world doesn't like the US.Huh? I can't recall when any other nation took into consideration our opinions before making their foreign policy. We're not doing anything differently than anyone else. I have a feeling that the nations of the world simply resent our ability to put our policy into action in ways they couldn't dream of.

I say it's better to be feared than loved.


And however inflated our American egos are, we cannot take on the whole world. Our country is not invincible.I don't think we need to take on the whole world. The British and Japanese are in lock step with us. The Germans and the French complain a lot, but probably wouldn't have the stomach for a real war. That leaves...who? Our military spending is more than all the other nations combined (minus France, Germany, England, & Japan). We might not be invincible...but for all practical purposes, we might as well be. One aircraft carrier has more war making ability than 50% or 75%of the world's nations. We have 8 or 10 of those things (or is it 12?).

Huh? I can't recall when any other nation took into consideration our opinions before making their foreign policy. We're not doing anything differently than anyone else.

Then you guys are in no position to be lodging diplomatic complaints and the like when China blows a satellite out of orbit.

Unless, of course, you're willing to consider other nation's concerns about your FP. :|

Commie lover.

We might not be
invincible...but for all practical purposes, we might as well be. One
aircraft carrier has more war making ability than 50% or 75%of the
world's nations. We have 8 or 10 of those things (or is it 12?).
I think your viewing it as United States = United States Military. But there is more to our country than the military.
We have a powerful military, but we support it at the expense of social programs too. And over the past 25-30 years it has been expanding too, thus costing more and more. If we didn't spend so much on the military, then we could actually improve the infrastructure of the US and deal with some of the more pressing social issues.
And it's not like what I'm saying is without precedent either. Eisenhower, when he becamse President, saw that the Soviet Union was sinking most of their GDP into the military. Rather than fight that battle with them head on, he reduced the size of the military and focused instead on missles for defense. And by the end of his second term, we had our interstate system being developed.
Basically, just because we can go around picking on most other countries doesn't mean it's a good idea. The US has over 300 million people, and our government should be more interested in doing what's in their interests rather than playing war games all the time.

We don't have any choice in the matter Mississippi.

We don't have any choice in the matter Mississippi.

We ALWAYS have a choice. Foreign policy is one of the most complex areas of government. That's why traditionally the brightest and the best were groomed for a life as diplomats and the skilful of negotiators chosen for positions such as US Ambassador to the UN. Bush installed Bolton who has publicly attacked the very existence of the UN, where is the logic in that?

Surely the last 3 years have shown that Force of Arms does not give a nation status in the eyes of the world? The US and it's allies have poured men, materiel and cash into the Middle East with no discernable benefit and to the detriment of their standing as representing Freedom, Liberty and Democracy.
Instead the US (as a nation) is reviled for bullying tactics, abuse of human rights and a Stalinist shroud of secrecy over decisions being made by the Executive branch bypassing the "checks and balances" of Congress.

Commie lover.

And you're a master baiter. :nice:

:) good one Kanuck. I once had a Karate Sensei named Bates or Sensei Bates. In English Master Bates. He hated being called Master.

Do I have this right? The American PR continues to go down the tubes and this Yahoo is blaming the Dems. Too droll, too insane. Sh*t suckered again.:(

Join the club no-one like the Brits either, but we are used to it.

Hell we dont even like eachother.

We don't have any choice in the matter Mississippi.
Individually, I agree with you.
I have a feeling, though, that if southerners quit volunteering to go fight these wars, the Federal Government's policies would have to change somewhat.

Individually, I agree with you.
I have a feeling, though, that if southerners quit volunteering to go fight these wars, the Federal Government's policies would have to change somewhat.

But then we couldn't get rid of our Southerners. What else are we going to do with them?