America is and has been the most powerful nation in the world. Are other nation's now believing our President is soft enough that they can provoke the US without reprecussions?
Every president has a different way of Ruling. (You and I could be different Managers but lead our teams in different ways. I could take the soft approach - you could take the tough approach. At the end of the day, we'll still accomplish our goals effectively).
So, lets leave him be.
Sure, that's exactly what everyone said about the previous president, right?
Are you saying, "leave him be" like the Democraat's did Bush? Today Obama takes every opportunity to bash Bush.
We're not perceived as weak because of who leads us, but because we can't seem to keep our financial house in order. That being said, I think current economic policy from Washington will make things worse, not better regarding our "weakness".
Well, Harvey, what should we do? Bomb North Korea or just wait and see what happens? Jumping into a war may not be our best recourse at this time.
If America is appears weak it is because we have strained our military to the limit under GW. Under GW America appeared self serving and arrogant. We lost a lot of the goodwill that had been created in previous years. Now President O’Bama has to try to fix the mess.
Pete, the US and it's military has been the elephant in the room since the end of the Second World War. We've never had the goodwill of the world because when you have a military like the US and use it as we have, people resent it. To blame it on one person shows ignorance of history. "Yanqui go home!" did not start with GW's reign, but heck all the way back to TR.
Don't you dare use Rosevelt's name in vain!!!!!!
I believe you have gone too far with your assessment.
We were never weak, our plan in Iraq was poor. America's good will is always touchy. Look at how Obama was perceived when he went to Europe. They thought; nice guy, but I'm not going to do what he wants.
I think your assessment is off. In Europe, now yeah, Obama approaches super star status. And I don't know how many Europeans I know here in Sedona who are extremely happy that we elected him and are not still trippin' down the road with our 'cowboy diplomacy.'
I think LDT reads a lot of old pre-Kissinger age books. I think you are living in the Kissinger era.
I lived through the Kissinger era and Vietnam. I had friends that didn't come back from Vietnam and my brother was wounded there. I know that GW's "I'm American screw you" attitude did not win a whole lot of friends for America. That happened in recent years. I worked overseas during GW's time and I got really tired of making excuses for that guy.
By adding troops?
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/0 … ops-arrive
I keep forgetting. He's a Liberal and they always mean well.
But...there was a lot of good will towards the US throughout the world after 9/11 and that just dissipated after the war in Iraq began.
Sure there was, but it didn't really matter what we did, someone somewhere would cry foul. We really could not have reacted any differently due to the way we fund our military. It's use it or lose it. So every branch had to get some fight time in, otherwise Congress would have cut their budget. The smart thing to have done would have been to send in SF to get a lay of the land, pinpoint Osama and his buds and either take them out or bag them for return to the US. That would have nipped all of this in the bud, but politically it wasn't feasible.
Why not? He more than anyone started us on the road to empire.
Empire's take over countries, absorb their people and impose their laws. Are you telling us our country does this?
Ask a Filipino or Puerto Rican. For that matter ask a German or Japanese. Yes we do impose our laws on others.
I know many of bboth, they love America. They are completely different situations. Puerto Rico votes regularly if they want to become a state. Phillipeanos revere Douglas MacArthur. We do NOT rule either.
Not the Philippines, not anymore anyway. But MacArthur's daddy played a pivotal role in crushing a Filipino rebellion against the US after the Spanish American War. That war was our first foray into empire and imperial ambition. Incidentally, that's why MacArthur was in the Philippines at the entrance of the US into the Big II. The Filipino people knew his family.
Of course Puerto Rico doesn't want to become a state. I grew up on military bases and they were full of Puerto Ricans, Samoans, Blacks, Whites, Asians pretty much every ethnic group in the US. They get all of the benefits with none of the hassles of citizenship. It's a great deal for them, just like it's a great deal for the people who live on Guam. The fact is that these areas were not once part of the US. They were spoils of war and we treated them as such.
I agree with you but we do not "rule" those countries.
Apparently our definitions of rule aren't the same.
All the Phillipeanos I know say the US does not control them. They have their own corrupt leaders. I know relatives of Aquino and Ramirez. Along with a couple of ex-mayors.
Of course not, we granted the Filipinos their independence after World War II. But the rest of our possessions from the Spanish American War are administered as territories of the US. It might make them eligible for statehood, but because they are territories, they can never secede from the US.
I had a Japanese under grad student while in University. Once we were a little close I asked her about how they feel about US when they used Nuclear bombs on Japan. She told me that the present young generation doesn't care and are mostly into American way of life like Baseball and all. Some are turning into Christians and others are becoming Atheists unlike there ancestors who believe in Shinto. Her grand parents moan about there culture being slowly lost. And her grand parents still resent the horrors of that sad day and despise that even there constitution had a American General MacArthur formulate it (since they were defeated in WW11). Just thought I would share that.
Baseball has been in Japan for over 130 years, so no one's grandparents are shocked at that as some kind of cultural invasion. Christianity has been in Japan a LOT longer than that. The whole 'atheists' and 'shinto' and whatnot thing is actually a bit complicated, so... And of course older folks have been complaining about 'that younger generation losing their culture' everywhere since the first set of grandchildren were born on earth. I would take the 'younger generation doesn't care' with a similar grain of salt. Nobody likes the legacy of the bombings. The post-war constitution is a little more of a complex historical issue, but it is obviously well within the purview of the current government (or many, many before it) to change any and all parts of it. This comes up not infrequently in the Diet.
Before you get upset, this is not to contest what you posted, just to add some more context.
America is strong in words... but weak in deeds, under Obama!
I think that most nations realise that the US is capable of destroying them on a whim. So I suppose the answer is no to the original question.
I'm trying to remember the name of the general who said 'from time to time we need to throw a third world country against the wall just to show that we mean business.' Anyone help me out with that quote?
Once ExxonMobil, Shell, Citigroup, J. P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Halliburton, and Bechtel have made their multinational arrangements, everything else will fall into place nicely. If it doesn't, because some uppity mullah or tin-pot dictator creates a snag, the U.S. Marines are always available, in the immortal words of the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen, "to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
--Robert Higgs, on crackpot realism
As there are many people on hubpages from other countries, I would like to hear what they have to say. Americans just can't see the whole picture because we are in the picture.
Thanks to Lita for pointing me here. I feel US stands for free speech, human rights and democracy. In this regard I feel US has alienated folks from other countries in the past few years by not caring for other countries views or getting a broader consensus (beyond UK). People tend to see actions more than the sound bytes. When people see Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib then the very same ideals that America stands for seems diminished in the eyes of other countries.
One of the positives I see as an outsider(I am from India) in recent days is progress made as far as holding detainees with no clear charges being tried(whether closing down completely is a good idea I am not sure but given the reputation maybe). But recently I have also seen in BBC America about similar to Abu Ghraib prison abuses being still carried out in Afghanistan. I hope some progress is made on that front too. These are still early days for Obama and I would reserve my opinion about the positive results until the first anniversary. There is an old Indian saying that says when one is in a ditch one should stop digging. In this case it feels like some of the old ways have at least reduced if not eliminated completely. Let us all hope for a better safer world.
Followed CW here, so here is a view from Greece, according to people I know and the Greek media
Certainly, nobody doubts US military power. In terms of language and rhetoric, we have been waiting for somebody to tone it all down. Strength is not just about sabre-rattling and intimidation, but about listening to what the other side has to say. Diplomacy also takes strength.
Pretty happy with how things are going under the new administration, although it is early days. This is a very volatile part of the world, and we hope that the US can be a force for good.
See how happy you are as unemployment rises and taxes increase. The cap and trade is nothing more than a tax. I predict unemployment to hit at least 15%. Obama will be a one term President. Talk about inheriting a mess, see the next guy. How many zero's can you count?
We don't have any unemployment rises or tax increases, so I do not see your point
Unemployment IS up in Greece and stands at around 9.4%. That's nothing to brag about.
But Sufi is one of those self-determined 'choice' people. All actually independent and rugged individualist and that. You know, what y'all think about wanting and dream to be?
And I think his answer was about the actual dissonance between his response and the OP's response.
Are you gonna start in with the mind reading AGAIN, Ma'am?
Nah, but making fun of you once or twice a day is only sporting, SIR.
Correct - the response had little relevance to my statement, which was an answer to Blackngoldbanana's question. The OP seemed to assume that I am American, despite the fact that I mentioned that I live in Greece.
No, so I fail to see why you responded to my post with a rant about US employment and tax. The thread was about whether the rest of the world perceived the US as weak. I gave what seems to be the prevailing view in Greece.
You took issue with an answer I never gave to a question you never asked
It probably won't pass the Senate (Pelosi took a big #2 on democracy in the House), but if it does it will end up being the largest tax in the nation's history.
CW, Obama is in a trap. It's not a trap of his own making, but hey he wanted the job and he's welcome to it. If he stops housing terrorists and one of them later does some sort of terrorist act then he's going to be held accountable. I've always been a fan of isolationism. There really isn't a real reason for us to go gallivanting around the world like we do. It just stirs up resentment.
LDT- My thoughts exactly. US already has enough problems at home now. Glad to see Sufi's perspective and join him in wishing the US to be a "force for good". But at the same time I am aware given the Indian history that sometimes imperialism(and now sphere of influence) begins with the mentality of "civilizing/force for good" philosophy.
PS: No offense meant to any Brits. I was just stating my personal opinion.
No offense taken - it is completely true
Really!!! Even you think so. WOW! You are so unbiased and tend to see things from even other perspectives. In India we used to read those memoirs of Governor Generals/Viceroys who felt they were "civilizing" the natives and they were a "force for good". But India had a civilization(even before British occupation) which maybe different but never the less a civilization. I sometimes see some parallels between the erstwhile British and US today although imperialism has changed to sphere of influence now.
Oh, heck, yeah, CW. And what do you think we did over hear to the Native Americans? I live by a landmark called Bloody Basin, where a bunch of Native American Indians were killed...
We all recognize (or most of us)colonialism and imperialism--most of that was done half a century ago. The US thing within the world stage right now is a little different--more complicated, but yes.
Gee, thanks, TK... Maybe when I write my next book I'll hire you to proofread for me. OR...maybe NOT.
I'd pay $8.50 an hour. I'm sure that could help you out, right?
Oh, sorry I start at $60/hr. I could give you a discount if you can't afford it, but not that much.
If it was "mercantilism" (as LDT stresses) then I feel at least US should be open about it i.e., going to Iraq was for oil money and not create a fear scenario or use a moral stand point of protecting democracy, freedoms and human rights. US also sometimes seems to have a heightened sense of insecurity and trying to imagine itself as being always a "nation at war". When towards the north/south they have Canada/Mexico as neighbors and surrounded by water both sides. Russia/China have lots of commercial relationships to ever pose a direct threat of attacking US. I feel the politicians want to keep this tempo so that the real issues of food, education, health and housing can be side tracked. At least this downturn in economy can be an opportunity to realign/change US priorities a little away from defense/world focus towards domestic problems.
Isolationism was great at the start of WWll wasn't it! Obama now knows our guests at Gitmo are too dangerous to let go. Seventeen of those released were later killed on the battle field.
FDR pushed us into that one. The year before Pearl Harbor, he moved the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet to Pearl from San Diego. When you add that to the provocations he'd been giving the Germans and Japanese it seems pretty much a foregone conclusion that he wanted to get us in a war. He probably wanted to draw attention away from his failed New Deal policies. Much like Lincoln at Fort Sumter, he needed someone else to fire the first shot. Heck we were in a shooting war with the Germans before Pearl. Ever hear of the Undeclared Naval War?
As for Papa Obama, he's getting a real life lesson in the differences between slamming a sitting President on the campaign trail and being the guy in the hotseat. Let's see how well he does. Somehow I think he'll pull the compromise card try to obscure the issue. In that he will be as bad as Bush, except he will try to make it sound like a feat of statesmanship rather than a feat of realpolitik.
This "idiot" (and I say that with all the respect he has earned) does not believe in domestic compromise!Moving to Pearl Harbor a year earlier is a real propocation. Just before Dec. 7, the Japanese spoke at the "League of Nation's saying; Japan does not want war with the USA. Then they attacked!
Now he will keep some of our "guests." Stay tuned to any station.
So far I am encouraged by the administration of Obama. To me it is not weak to engage in diplomacy. It's nice change from the America - the bully of the previous administration. There is a reason why, all over the world, the staunchest supporters of George W.Bush were one by one voted out; it was a backlash.
I hope that Obama can continue to engage with other countries without the cowboy diplomacy. But in reality it will take a long time to repair the damage to America's reputation. I think that there are many waiting to see what happens as the term progresses. It is early days yet.
In my view strength comes from more than just stumbling around waving a gun (or a bomb or two). Strength can only come with wisdom, and to tell the truth, I thought America was weak under GWB because it seemed they weren't wise. Instead they were a bully in the playground. Don't confuse military might with strength or think that having a gun pointed at you gets respect. It doesn't.
And what will sitting down with Iran's leaders do?
Looking at history, can you tell me when sitting down and talking ever worked in the Muslim world? How often has it worked in Africa? Maybe we should talk Asia. Don't continue to be fooled by Obama, he is a production of the Chicago political machine.
Check his thoughts on unemployment, he thought it would top out at 8%. Then it went to 9 and now 10%. I predict 15%. Lets see how much you like his positions then.
The true obamaholics will blame Bush no matter how long it takes until the economy inevitably cycles up again (hopefully, despite whatever whacky policies are enacted), at which point their idol will be hailed as the greatest genius in the history of earth. If he stays around long enough for the economy to cycle down again, THEN we will see.
It's no wonder there are so many on drugs and have mental issues when everyone has a guilt trip laid on them. We cannot change the past. Wringing our hands and crying about spilt milk will not change what happened one iota. I realize there are some on here that are perfect and never have treated anyone poorly, but the majority are imperfect. Still beating a dead horse may make some feel superior, looking at the past is fruitless. Planning for a better future is much more productive.
From a UK perspective America is not perceived as weak under Obama - quite the reverse. Negotiation and diplomacy are valued far more highly that the brute force that Bush employed. Many in the UK saw Bush as weak. 1. because his level of intelligence was questionable (to put it politely) 2. because he was an irrational bully and 3. because he was a puppet to commercial interests. I think Obama will reduce the massive amounts America spends on defence and war and put that money into dealing with the massive social problems the country has.
You have NO idea whom Obama is beholden to. Presently it begins with the Unions and now General Electric. You probably have no idea of how Chicago politics works. Obama did nothing to get where he is now. He barely had a voting record in the Illinois or US Senate.
He is all packaging, union's and getting the vote out. The last one means ethnicity and lower class. Liberal's are apparently ready for socialism. A few extremely wealthy individuals are pulling his strings. Low income people think their community organization's are run "by the people" but they are run by the wealthy. They do what they're told without knowing who is really telling them what to do.
Only the names change...when Republicans are in office, only a few wealthy people pull the strings then too, and their supporters, who like to think that they are equally wealthy suck up to them. They do what they are told with the hopes that they will get something out of it. You imply that the poor people don't realize what the wealthy powers are doing. That's not true, they know that they are being screwed, they might not know their names, but it doesn't much matter. Poor does not equate dumb.
You're right I don't know who Obama is beholden to or about Chicago politics but the question was about perceptions of America under Obama. Under the last adminstration America was seen as the big bully in the playground. Extremely confrontational - which I think actually encourages other countries to take the offensive against them as no one likes to be bullied. Taking that approach breeds extremism.
I think Obama is aware of that. His approach to politics is more mature. Diplomacy may take longer but will achieve better results in the end. Just look at the example of Northern Ireland. Nations, just as people, need relationships based on mutual respect to effect any kind of satisfying and long lasting improvement.
For your sake too, you'd better hope he doesn't go too far down that road.
So many mistake kindness for weakness. Now, some are mistaking carefulness and being smart as a weakness. lol
I agree, you can't win with some people no matter what you do.
It doesn't matter so much what we want to see as weakness or not, it matters what our enemies see as weakness because that is what will motivate them to attack or restrain.
So many countries only respond to power, look at your history.
Nobody is your greater enemy as yourself TK. Stop policing the World, and nobody will think about attacking you
Either way you will stop soon, for a lack of resources.
by ixwa 10 years ago
When Obama became President, how was America perceived in the World? And what has, if anything, chan
by Kawai 4 years ago
Is Obama a good president?I don't live in the states so it would be interesting get a feel of how people living there think of him..did you personally benefited from his presidency?
by Dave McClure 12 years ago
------------------------------------------------------------KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said yesterday that he is in full agreement with President Obama's newly announced strategy for the country, saying it was "exactly what the Afghan people were hoping...
by OLYHOOCH 9 years ago
Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's...
by TimTurner 11 years ago
According to a report, the Obama administration has left the country VULNERABLE to a bioterrorism attack. Obama failed to appoint anyone with a biodefense background while Clinton and Bush did.You can read the report here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … reat_N.htmObama...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
After oil prices came down to record lows after the Great 2008 Recession during the Obama administration, they have skyrocketed since Trump took office. Around the beginning of 2016, Brent Oil prices were around $30/bbl. Today, they are north of $80/bbl.Why?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|