Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sunshine

Global poll: World more dangerous with Bush

Recommended Posts

LONDON (Reuters) - A majority of people surveyed in a global poll think the re-election of George Bush (news - web sites) has made the world more dangerous and many view Americans negatively as well, the BBC said Wednesday.

The survey by the British broadcaster showed that only three countries -- India, the Philippines and Poland -- out of 21 polled thought the world was safer following Bush's election win in November.

Bush will be inaugurated for his second term Thursday.

On average across all countries, 58 percent of the 22,000 surveyed said they believed Bush's re-election made the world more dangerous.

"This is quite a grim picture for the U.S.," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at America's University of Maryland.

The survey found that 56 percent of Americans thought Bush's win was good for the world with 39 percent disagreeing.

Traditional U.S. allies in western Europe, such as Britain (64 percent), France (75 percent), and Germany (77 percent), were among the most negative about Bush's re-election.

A majority in Italy (54 percent) and Australia (61 percent), which both have troops in Iraq (news - web sites), also thought his win had made the world more dangerous.

Anti-Bush sentiment was strongest in Turkey, with 82 percent thinking his win was bad for peace compared to just 6 percent in support. A large majority in Latin American countries, including 58 percent in close neighbor Mexico, were also negative.

Analysts said the poll had far-reaching implications, suggesting a serious rise in anti-U.S. feeling in general, with 42 percent saying it had made them feel worse about Americans compared to 25 percent who made it think more of them.

IRAQ OPPOSITION

There was also overwhelming opposition to sending troops to Iraq, even among close allies such as Britain.

"Fully one in four British citizens say the Bush re-election has made them more opposed to sending troops to Iraq, resulting in a total of 63 per cent now opposed," said Doug Miller, president of GlobeScan which carried out the poll.

"Our research makes very clear that the re-election of President Bush (news - web sites) has further isolated America from the world."

The survey found that 47 percent of those questioned now see U.S. influence in the world as largely negative.

"Those saying the U.S. itself is having a clearly negative influence in the world still do not constitute a definitive world-wide majority, suggesting there may be some underlying openness to repairing relations with the U.S.," he said.

The survey was conducted between Nov. 15, 2004 and Jan. 5, 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Interesting article. To me Bush needs to stand up and be a leader in more then just power, but in trust. IMHO though he isn't more dangerous, just won't lead on that issue globally and he should start like yesterday. We need allies and we need to take their opinion seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't care what foreigners think of us. They don't put food on my table, wash my clothes, and I've live all my life without their help and I can live the rest of it without them too. They want the US's aid and trade, but then they piss on us whenever they can.

To hell with 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't care what foreigners think of us.  They don't put food on my table, wash my clothes, and I've live all my life without their help and I can live the rest of it without them too.  They want the US's aid and trade, but then they piss on us whenever they can. 

To hell with 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Couldn't have said it better monsoon :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't care what foreigners think of us.  They don't put food on my table, wash my clothes, and I've live all my life without their help and I can live the rest of it without them too.  They want the US's aid and trade, but then they piss on us whenever they can. 

To hell with 'em.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We only have one planet, it would behoove us all to cooperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think exactly like that Metro but think for a moment of a European or Asian reading that. I admire the self-reliance and the confidence of America but when it boils over to statements like that it only fuels our enemies.

To me America is at its strongest when we set the world example, yes thats leadership and puts us in the captains chair most days, but hubris is the most dangerous thing to a successful nation. Pride is essential, hubris is dangerous. Just my two cents interested in hearing other points of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has the chance to do it when the tsunami happended, but he choosed to remain in the back seat until people said that USA is stingy. Besides, he send Powell and Jeb to Asia, instead of himself. He could have step up and take the lead in this, but his reactions conflict of his words, maybe because he didnt invest in Indonesia Oil???? In addition, spending tax payer money for some lavish party at this time....doents seem to be appropriate, isnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has the chance to do it when the tsunami happended, but he choosed to remain in the back seat until people said that USA is stingy. Besides, he send Powell and Jeb to Asia, instead of himself. He could have step up and take the lead in this, but his reactions conflict of his words, maybe because he didnt invest in Indonesia Oil???? In addition, spending tax payer money for some lavish party at this time....doents seem to be appropriate, isnt it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, Bush waited because he doesn't make unnecessarily hasty decisions. That why every nations initial pledge was like in the thousands or low millions of dollars. Nobody was sure how many people were killed or displaced when it first happened. There was no information except that it had happened. It is unwise to just name some random number just to appease a few people.

Now think about it, what benefit is it to him to go see the destruction? The Secretary of State is the person who will deal with the foriegn nations that were effected. Jeb is also logical because Florida experienced several major hurricanes since Jeb has been governor and he is experienced with devastation on a relatable scale (though obviously a smaller one).

Then you take the Inaugural festivities. I don't know what that standard is for these events, but every presidential inaguartion has them. You can rest assured the Clinton probably spent a similar amount.

I sincerely hope this thread does not become a Bush bashing thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think exactly like that Metro but think for a moment of a European or Asian reading that.  I admire the self-reliance and the confidence of America but when it boils over to statements like that it only fuels our enemies. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh quite being self righteous. I don't care if you have a different opinion, but don't assume me being honest about my feelings changes anyone's opinion of America. The Europeans dislike each other more than they dislike the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We only have one planet, it would behoove us all to cooperate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, as human beings on this one earth, the only way to survive is to cooperate. We all share one commonality - Earth and without world cooperation then, no we are not safer (the policy of this president, to only worry about Texas and THEN the US)

No, Bush waited because he doesn't make unnecessarily hasty decisions. That why every nations initial pledge was like in the thousands or low millions of dollars. Nobody was sure how many people were killed or displaced when it first happened. There was no information except that it had happened. It is unwise to just  name some random number just to appease a few people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I truly doubt that... he waited until after the holidays so it wouldn't inconvienence one of his numerous vacations.

I would like to define what the article meant by "more dangerous". I think that Bush has made it more difficult for US citizens to travel which is a physical danger. I also, think the policies of this government has made it harder for our students to learn from world scholars b/c of Homeland Security policy - which is a danger of preparing our children for work in a world economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely give my opinion on politically related topics here b/c they are pretty much just people giving their opinions and completely unwilling to listen to anyone else's. Pretty much just petty fighting imo. But why not this once...

I personally do not agree with/like a lot of president bush's policies, but I don't think the world is necessarily more dangerous because of him. However, I do think it is very short-sided and ignorant (the dicitonary.com version, not the put-down one) to say you can live without foreigners so who cares what they think america doesn't need them. Do you honestly think america has become modern prosperous america, or could maintain itself, without the involvement of foreign countries? Come on, if we are going to discuss large issues use reason not emotional small minded rhetoric. Look at the tags on everything you buy that create your great american life... is it all made in the good ol usa? And don't you think we generate a lot of money for america by selling our goods to other nations as well? If not, why don't you suggest to coca-cola, or any other major american corporation, that they abandon their european ventures because we don't need them to be america the great. They would geat a great laugh at the small mindedness of such a suggestion for sure. Let's atleast *ACT* like we have an understanding of globalization and global issues if we are going to try and discuss them.

Sorry I know that reply was off-topic from the thread subject but i felt like I had to say it. But again, my short answer is no. And we should try and remember that we all share more in common with one another than with the leaders of the political parties we align ourself with, and not get too caught up in the closed-minded fighting among each other while losing sight of the REAL issues facing REAL people in america and across the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.