How do you people from U.S.A. feel with G. Bush as your president?

Interesting replies.
I've never been so amazed of american citizens when Bush got re-elected. I mean, I feel most people are stupid in Finland too, but that was just insane. I don't know if any other country would vote that kind of a "character" as a president, and for two times.Then just something I've noticed, I might be wrong too.
USA was largely hated (well not hated but something of that gesture) before G. Bush got in to power. Now it's grown a lot worse. The funny thing is, every american tourist still seems to think that all other countries just love americans.Any idea why?

we have this little complex were we think we are the greatest hands down. and that we are bringing democracy to others, and are the light of the free world. we also have tendency to ignore others who don't agree. all in all, a dangerous mix.we're too arogant to notice that we are the greatest hands down, that we don't bring democracy to others, and we are no longer a "shining light". whatever bit of that we did have left long ago when we started supporting dictators who weren't communist. that's the only reason we embargoed Cuba. Not for the dictatorship--becuase its communist. And they burned down american assets.

I think you guys are being a little hard on yourselves.The fact is that most people of most nations are fairly unimpressed with how their elected officials represent them.
There is a significant population of most countries that have some fairly uneducated opinions. America is just in a position of power where this and the political consequences matter more in global terms.I find Blair's evangelical approach to foreign policy positively mortifying and despair at the view of the UK that this results in around the world.Yes Bush is a travesty but as the replies above demonstrate there are many many Americans who are just as (if not in fact more so)concerned about his actions as those of us elsewhere.

and this is exactly why I can't pat the US on its back for being just like everyone else w/ the "uneducated decisions" you talk of. this is why I have to be hard on the US. I can't say, oh well, it doesn't really matter that we've a doofus leading us because other nations do, because it does matter.now, were I a citizen of some tiny country that has no real power, I might not care so much (but I don't know, never been one or lived in one). but when what your country says and does has a great effect across the globe, you just can't afford to be lax with bad decisions.

Yeah, no one is asking you to go easy on the US. It is exactly right -- you must do what you can to make the world a better place it live in.But it is true that Americans are no more evil nor no more good than any other people in the world. When the European powers were the dominant world players, they committed gross crimes against humanity in their colonies. Now it is the US who is the dominant world power, and so it lies on the shoulders of Americans to commit such atrocities to keep the world economic system humming well enough so that the standard of living in North America, Europe, and Japan remain high.And when the US finally goes bankrupt and can't afford it's large military structure, it will again lie on the shoulders of the European Union to maintain the neo-colonial global economy.It would be nice, though, if at some point the citizens of the dominant power would finally say that enough is enough, and that they will not tolerate such policies being carried out in their names, and so provide an example for future dominant powers. However, unfortunate as it is, it will always be the responsibility of the oppressed to effect their own liberation. Any change in the global order will begin in the developed countries (which have too much at stake in the maintenance of the current exploitive system) will have to come at the initiative of the oppressed in the colonial vassal states.And hopefully there will be enough sympathetic citizens in the developed powers to support these liberation movements when they come.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Well I agree that the more powerful the country the more responsibility it has to act responsibly in the world and I would definitely not pat the American electorate on the metaphorical back for electing a leader as stunningly bad as GWB. I would still draw a distincion between the actions of a nations government and the way the people of that nation should be viewed.Unfortunately I do not think it is realistic to expect many of the average citizens of any country to think much beyond the confines of their own small day to day world and consider the impact of their vote on the world at large.
I would love it if that were the case but cannot see how that can be changed anytime soon.To most people of most democratic countries the main issues are 1) Will I have a job 2) How much tax will I pay 3) Will my family have access to affordable education and healthcare. I would suggest that after these prioriteis single issue policies regarding such things as abortion, transport and specific local issues come next.Global impact for the vast majority of people is barely a consideration. That is as true for the US as many other nations.Must admit I never expected to find myself here defending the US.....

It's not entirely clear that we did, though. I mean surely you've heard of the massive and systemic election problems (miscounted votes, illegally-canceled voter registrations) of both the 2000 and 2004 elections? I'd say there's considerable doubt that Bush was elected at all. Certainly in the first election, the majority of Americans voted for Gore instead; unfortunately his brother's political appointees in Florida were able to cast enough doubt on the results of a poorly-administered election to send the case to the Supreme Court, where a bunch of Bush's father's appointees handed him the election and the White House.

I think you're day dreaming a little much here. Yes, it's true that Bush's ratings are down. But as long as there are ghey people and christians in this country, conservatism will never go away. In fact, even if a drug company develops a drug that supresses the gay gene, or whatever the hell that makes one gay, and the "cure" is forced upon all ghey people, conservatives will find some other group of people to persecute.In any case, the fact that the dems only very slightly outnumber the reps in congress is proof enough that we are far from seeing the going away party of conservativism.

---

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

quote:

---

Yes, it's true that Bush's ratings are down. But as long as there are ghey people and christians in this country, conservatism will never go away.

---

I doubt that Crash thinks, or even wants that.But it used to be that radical conservatives were in the fringe with no real power. It used to be that Barry Goldwater was the "scary, arch-conservative", but these days he'd have no place in the NeoCon Party.Have you heard the new terminology that some conservatives are using to refer to themselves in order to distance themselves from the NeoCons? They're calling themselves "Realists", which is a reference to an article in which a NeoCon staffer referred to all us poor schmucks who aren't the NeoCons in power as those in the "Reality-Based Community".

no, realist is a term referring to a sector of the political science community which develops theories based on the rational state actory model in which the governments make decisions based on state interests rather than morals or irrationality. their claim of being realists reflects their desire to be recognized as people who will pursue necessities and not vendettas.

Myself, I would be more worried about the systemic problems than about one goober getting into office once in a while.I have been very impressed by the number of sensible Americans who are members of EvC. (I hope there are more sensible Americans who are not members of EvC, but they're harder to detect.)But what good is it to have sensible citizens when their votes don't "count"?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

not doing a great job at that though.If they truly wanted to be "realist" in their approach to foreign policy, they are going to have to scrap all this talk about spreading democracy. And stop believing that they are.also, the realist model is not just simply raison d'etat (i think I spelled that right). it also includes balance of power maintained by military power (traditionally. I don't think that this is an effective method on its own anymore, and while I'm a realist for the most part, I strongly feel that other types of power are very important). This balance is what keeps the peace because it makes war highly expensive to wage. No, what we have running the country are a bunch of idealists who don't realize the consequences of their actions in the world.You want to see an excellent example of realism at work, you need to look at Europe during the era known as the "Concert of Europe", after the Napoleonic Wars and prior to World War One. Only one major war between the major powers occurred during that era--the Crimean. And they call what we're in the long peace. . The Crimean War was nothing compared to the Napoleonic or World Wars. I often worry about the historical aptidtude of many political scientists.

As a point of information more than half the people have less than the average intelligence. The data is skewed and bottoms out at ~20 IQ as functional living, but no top end (technically). With 100 as the "defined" average this means it takes more 20's to average a 180+ out.

the neocons are the ones planning to spread democracy. you're cute, but keep up. these so called "realists" are the republicans who are seeking to move back to a true conservative position. they are really, ordinarily, solid realists, actually. that's why bush 1 left iraq as was--because he was a stabilizing force in the region. now he's gone and look what happened. i never liked bush 1, but at least his political theory was sound. balance of power also includes other types of power, especially in neorealist circles who include international level actors. soft power--such as normative controls--is strongly considered, as is economic power. yes, and if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that we were talking about the republicans who are trying to separate themselves from the current regime. yes, i know. i'm a master's student. i'm more than aware. i'm also more than aware that this is what delayed and then caused world war 1. had there not been such a delicate and intricate network of treaties, the german aggression on serbia would not have brought france and england et al into russia's mobilization to protect serbia.

germany didn't act against serbia.germany gave the austrian-hungary empire a "blank check", so to speak, in dealing with serbia. that's the immediate cuase of WWI.A deeper cause goes back to the franco-prussian war of (1871, i think?). Germany took Alsace-Lorraine, which the chancellor, Bismark, strongly advised against doing. he knew that the french would want revenge. they got their revenge, all right.the other problem with the concert right before WWI was that there was no one who was great at playing the game. The last master, Bismark, had been fired by the new emperor, Wilheim III. Reason--the young emperor just didn't like having an old fogey telling him what to do. You also had the mental instability of Wilheim--he purposely pushed issues in the hope of war breaking out. He wanted to demonstrate Germany's power (and many speculate that the problems with one of his arms helped this--he was always showing off how great he was, despite his arm). It was this same reason that led him to enter into a naval race with Britain. The Empire was young and desparate to prove itself to the older members of the system.Another cause of WWI was that none of the state leaders went to the funeral of the archduke. minor point, you might say, but here they could have at least been able to meet and difuse the situation.Basically, WWI is a tragedy as far as wars are concerned. There was no real reason to fight it, and it only served to destroy three empires that were teetering on the brink--Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman. Millions died in Europe for very tiny land grabs, and then they were stupid enough to create the Versailles Treaty. You either completely crush your enemy so there is no hope of him coming back, or you don't do anything severe enough to want them to get revenge.oh, and I didn't realize you were getting a master's in poly sci (i'm assuming here, as I'm taking those classes for international affairs, which I've just started on). good luck with it.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.