Did Bush make the US unpopular?

[Thanas]

He has without question.
He adopted and carried out policies that most of our European "allies" and large portions of thier voters don't support, and has been demonized over it ever since.

Heh. "Allies". The true word to use there is allies, sunshine. Or do you think it to be the duty of an ally to blindly follow where stupid leads them to? I hate people like you who try to insinuate that anyone who does not support the administration is no ally by writing "allies".

And Bush has not been demonized. Or show me one foreign media source that demonized Bush.

[Kanastrous]

He's treated our foreign friends like "allies," quotation marks used consciously. And - unsurprisingly - they don't appreciate it.

[Spyder]

The US was always very unpopular amongst foreign intellectuals and some people that follow international politics. Things like rendition, bombing medicine factories, trade bullfuckery, interference in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations, PNAC and starting stupid arse wars, none of this is actually new to the US and it's important to note that both political parties have their share of the blame.

However, what George has accomplished is an increase in visibility of all the US's wrongdoings, bringing them to the attention of intellectuals and political followers but to the average person. This due largely to an increase in the magnitude of fuck-ups and the increased attention the US received in the wake of 9/11.

Basically, George has become a mascot of failure. In some ways this is actually a good thing as it demonstrates the importance of having strong competent leadership.

[Darth Wong]

I have always presumed that Bush made the US more unpopular around the globe. Having looked around it does seem to have fluctuated throughout his presidency, most importantly I have been unable to find figures of reports from before his time as President. Can anyone enlighten me and point me to evidence for or against?

He has without question.
He adopted and carried out policies that most of our European "allies" and large portions of thier voters don't support, and has been demonized over it ever since.

I take it you feel that a real ally is basically a vassal state? Sort of like the way a real friend is basically a yes-man, and would never ever tell you that you did anything wrong, no matter what you did?

[Stark]

I actually believed that until around 9/11. A little bit afterward.

Anyone who remembers the international mood during the leadup to the first Gulf War cannot take this OP seriously. People don't have to agree with the Americans in all things to support them when they represent good things, and seeing so much of the western world come together behind America to do Something Good is so far away from the current atmosphere it's hilarious.

[American Infidel]

He has without question.
He adopted and carried out policies that most of our European "allies" and large portions of thier voters don't support, and has been demonized over it ever since.

Heh. "Allies". The true word to use there is allies, sunshine. Or do you think it to be the duty of an ally to blindly follow where stupid leads them to? I hate people like you who try to insinuate that anyone who does not support the administration is no ally by writing "allies".

Allies have shared national interests, policies, and joint cooperation. Countries which do not share our national interests, policies, or cooperate are not allies. Since the Europeans and our global issues are a mixed bag, I use quotations.

[Darth Wong]

Allies have shared national interests, policies, and joint cooperation.

Ah, so the War on Terror claims yet another victim: the dictionary.

[Thanas]

He has without question.
He adopted and carried out policies that most of our European "allies" and large portions of thier voters don't support, and has been demonized over it ever since.

Heh. "Allies". The true word to use there is allies, sunshine. Or do you think it to be the duty of an ally to blindly follow where stupid leads them to? I hate people like you who try to insinuate that anyone who does not support the administration is no ally by writing "allies".

Allies have shared national interests, policies, and joint cooperation. Countries which do not share our national interests, policies, or cooperate are not allies. Since the Europeans and our global issues are a mixed bag, I use quotations.

You demonstrate you have no concept of what an ally is. Hint: In WWII, the allies all had dissimilar national interests/policies and very different ideas on cooperation. Obviously, they were never allied. Same goes for Prussia and Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain and Russia, Rome and the Greeks etc. In every alliance in history the partners had at least some different points of view.

In short, you are an imbecile who knows nothing of history or what an ally is. Your definition of an ally is indeed that of a vassal state or a clone.

[Big Orange]

Basically, George has become a mascot of failure. In some ways this is actually a good thing as it demonstrates the importance of having strong competent leadership.

A demonstration that directly or indirectly ended the lives of thousands and potentially ruined the lives of millions.

[Darth Wong]

It's ironic that American Idiot is inadvertently demonstrating why George Bush has lowered the world's opinion of America, by using some classic Republican talking points and honestly not realizing how badly fucked they are. He's too stupid to realize what it says about yourself when you define "ally" as "yes-man".

[Big Orange]

When you annoy allies and misuse their trust, you look like a idiotic bully when you say it's their fault. It's not hard to hate a person or organization that does that.

[American Infidel]

Heh. "Allies". The true word to use there is allies, sunshine. Or do you think it to be the duty of an ally to blindly follow where stupid leads them to? I hate people like you who try to insinuate that anyone who does not support the administration is no ally by writing "allies".

Allies have shared national interests, policies, and joint cooperation. Countries which do not share our national interests, policies, or cooperate are not allies. Since the Europeans and our global issues are a mixed bag, I use quotations.

You demonstrate you have no concept of what an ally is. Hint: In WWII, the allies all had dissimilar national interests/policies and very different ideas on cooperation. Obviously, they were never allied. Same goes for Prussia and Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain and Russia, Rome and the Greeks etc. In every alliance in history the partners had at least some different points of view.

In short, you are an imbecile who knows nothing of history or what an ally is. Your definition of an ally is indeed that of a vassal state or a clone.

The WWII Allies had a common goal and pursued common actions and policies towards that goal. Defeating the axis powers.
In short, you are a fucking moron.

[American Infidel]

He's too stupid to realize what it says about yourself when you define "ally" as "yes-man".

You're too stupid to read and understand my post.

[Stark]

Are you really saying that it's that simple? All of the allies were constantly sacrificing various needs, goals or requirements for the greater good. This is in no way comparable to 'you do what we say' or 'we all agree on everything'.

[SirNitram]

Now watch as the idiot evades the comment about the dictionary, because he has no rebuttal.

As for the question of America already being disliked, yes, it was. But this excuse, lie, whine, and justification always ignores this, which I demonstrate via metaphor.

You have a broken leg. Do you 1) Keep weight off it and put it in a splint, taking steps to either keep it from getting worse, or making it better? Or do you 2) Ram your leg into the path of a pneumatic hammer until it's pulped?

American conservatives favor option 2.

[American Infidel]

Now watch as the idiot evades the comment about the dictionary, because he has no rebuttal.

a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

It was ignored because it did not merit response.

[Thanas]

You demonstrate you have no concept of what an ally is. Hint: In WWII, the allies all had dissimilar national interests/policies and very different ideas on cooperation. Obviously, they were never allied. Same goes for Prussia and Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain and Russia, Rome and the Greeks etc. In every alliance in history the partners had at least some different points of view.

In short, you are an imbecile who knows nothing of history or what an ally is. Your definition of an ally is indeed that of a vassal state or a clone.

The WWII Allies had a common goal and pursued common actions and policies towards that goal. Defeating the axis powers.
In short, you are a fucking moron.

They had a common goal. They did not agree on the policies or on the actions, not even the US and the UK did so. They did not even agree on a long term plan about Germany or about coordinated offenses. Have you even read anything beyond fauxnews.com about that time period? Fuck you, you ignorant imbecile.

Today's NATO nations too have a common goal. Defeating terrorism. They too pursue common actions and policies towards that goal, they do however not share every policy with each other.

Fuck off, ignoramus.

[Thanas]

Now watch as the idiot evades the comment about the dictionary, because he has no rebuttal.

a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

It was ignored because it did not merit response.

So then explain how Europe and the US do not fit that definition, troll. Or does it saysthat they have to share everything with each other?

[Steve]

Now watch as the idiot evades the comment about the dictionary, because he has no rebuttal.

a person, group, or nation that is associated with another or others for some common cause or purpose

It was ignored because it did not merit response.

Key word there: some common cause or purpose.

The common cause of the UK, USA, and Soviet Union in WWII was defeat of the Axis powers. But they hardly had completely matching desires or interests, given things like Churchill's determination to maintain the Empire vis-a-vis Roosevelt's disdain for it, Stalin's view of the war basically being to expand Communism and improve Soviet security, etc.

Allies need not, and usually do not, have completely matching priorities and interests. Maintaining alliances is usually delicate work of balancing conflicting priorities and interests between allies. The alliance might have a leader nation, true, but it isn't immune from the need to compromise with allies unless it wishes to throw off the fiction of alliance and try and force its subordinates into vassal-state status. Like, say, the evolution of the Athenian Empire from the alliance against Persia.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The WWII Allies had a common goal and pursued common actions and policies towards that goal. Defeating the axis powers.
In short, you are a fucking moron.

Fascinating. I never knew countries as strong willed as the US, Russia and Britain would so willingly align their own policies with each other and compromise their own interests "for the greater good".

And yeah, the centuries of British suspicion of Russian power didn't play into British policy yeah, never did. Oh that worthless plan to defeat the Red Army after WWII never materialised oh that was everyone's figment of imagination.

[American Infidel]

You demonstrate you have no concept of what an ally is. Hint: In WWII, the allies all had dissimilar national interests/policies and very different ideas on cooperation. Obviously, they were never allied. Same goes for Prussia and Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, Great Britain and Russia, Rome and the Greeks etc. In every alliance in history the partners had at least some different points of view.

In short, you are an imbecile who knows nothing of history or what an ally is. Your definition of an ally is indeed that of a vassal state or a clone.

The WWII Allies had a common goal and pursued common actions and policies towards that goal. Defeating the axis powers.
In short, you are a fucking moron.

They had a common goal. They did not agree on the policies or on the actions, not even the US and the UK did so. They did not even agree on a long term plan about Germany or about coordinated offenses. Have you even read anything beyond fauxnews.com about that time period? Fuck you, you ignorant imbecile.

Today's NATO nations too have a common goal. Defeating terrorism. They too pursue common actions and policies towards that goal, they do however not share every policy with each other.

Fuck off, ignoramus.

I guess you've never heard of the joint allied invasions of Italy, Normandy, and the Netherlands.

[Stark]

Are you saying cooperating in a military operation means their policies are identical or nearly so? Does this preclude the existence of major disagreements and even errors and losses cause by a lack of cooperation or buy-in to each other's goals?

I'm sorry, it seems like you're saying that D-Day means the Allies worked as a smoothly cooperating team throughout the war, when this is not the case at all.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I guess you've never heard of the joint allied invasions of Italy, Normandy, and the Netherlands.

Does that change the fact that the three Allies were incredibly suspicious of each other, or are you just dishonestly trying to ignore that fact?

[Thanas]

I guess you've never heard of the joint allied invasions of Italy, Normandy, and the Netherlands.

Funny story, that one. Of course they all agreed that it was a fantastic plan and everyone immediately agreed with each other, right? Oh wait, they didn't. I guess you are unfamiliar with the disagreements of Eisenhower and Montgomery, right?


But never mind your bad knowledge about History, let's get back to the original point:

How are the US and the European Nations not allies?

Answer that, asshole.

[Steve]

I guess you've never heard of the joint allied invasions of Italy, Normandy, and the Netherlands.

Are you fucking retarded? The point is not whether the coalition that fought WWII was an alliance, but whether alliances are always 100% in agreement on aspects of policy, which they are usually not.

Even the very invasions you're bringing up involved careful negotiation and planning at multiple levels of the Allies' military and government, not some magic uniform consensus part and parcel with being "allies". The invasion of Italy itself was a result of compromise between Allies, between American insistance on invading France ASAP and British beliefs that more time was needed and that Germany could nibbled away at along the Mediterrenean.

Seriously, if you're going to ignore what's being said just fucking leave, I have no patience for fools.