News China more popular than U.S. overseas

[Smurf]

Heeeeey, i think america most important values are democracy and freedom.. and one of the primary goals of america was to bring "Democracy" to the middle east...I see they are doing just finee

To be fair Burnsys, Uzbekistan isn't in the middle east.

 

[Burnsys]

To be fair Burnsys, Uzbekistan isn't in the middle east.

Thanks for correcting me... now i understand! democracy is only for the middle east, the rest of the world must have dictatorships!

 

[Mercator]

You forgot osama bin laden (Oooh! BURN!)

He was/is ? only a would be dictator.

What the above rant on Europe has shown is that (part of) American opinion is so biased that they seem to be astonished to find out that they actually don't have arguments or examples when pushed to provide them. This is a kind of naive ignorance which is part of the reason why they don't understand why China is becoming more poular in the world, and Europe already is. Vanesch' observations about moral higher ground are to the point and that is why eventually it will be Europe to help control the damage in Iraq. To some extent they already have, there is a striking differnce between the behaviour of and the reaction against the British troops in Basrah and the US troops.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Having read through the entire contents of this board, I see one major problem with the American premise: this is not a question of how you see yourselves but how outsiders see both the USA and China.

There is a great irrelevancy in the argument, ‘Well, they may see us that way but …’

We’re arguing that ‘the sky is blue’ and you are arguing ‘but the sky shouldn’t be blue because …’

The fact is, you ARE perceived as the destroyers of the UN, the Invaders of Iraq, the ‘Bombers of Markets’, the torturers of prisoners and ultimately, the breakers of your own laws.

The question is not how you see yourselves or how you can ‘explain away’ the many straws that go into breaking the Camel’s back but that this is all on display for the rest of the world to view while you all seemingly attempt to put splints on the camels legs.

China, on the other hand has kept a fairly low profile enhanced by your dominance in world headlines.

There were 16 people detained and released at the anniversary of the Tiananmen ‘protest’.

The Dalai Lama got done for selling the same book to two publishers bringing into question the level of honesty from the man.

And now China is handling negotiations with the North Koreans because Bush heated things up with the world with cowboy sayings like ‘Bring it on’, ‘Axis of Evil’.

You know what has been the most damaging?

The inability of America to say ‘sorry’ when caught with their pants down.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The inability of America to say ‘sorry’ when caught with their pants down.

America: so sawrry. <bows, pulls up pants>

 

[The Smoking Man]

America: so sawrry. <bows, pulls up pants>

Taking lessons from Koizumi?

 

[Mercator]

Taking lessons from Koizumi?

That's how I know you

 

[loseyourname]

Can you give me ONE example of a dictatorship giving money to a European country? THAt would be great news. ( Let's exclude the US for the time being )

They don't exactly donate money to the nation as foreign aid. Iraq was the example, though. French and Russian politicians were benefiting a great deal from Oil for Food, as were certain UN figures. These happened to be the same people who opposed going into Iraq. Had central figures in the Bush administration been receiving illegal money from this program, they probably would have opposed the action, too. That's all I'm saying. It's a little silly of either of us to think that our nation is inherently more moral than the other. The leaders are constantly changing, and each have their own moral profile. Heck, it's pretty ridiculous even to speak of the moral profile of the 'European' leadership? Europe is a pretty diverse place with its moral ups and downs. Switzerland has been pretty good over the past few decades; Serbia, not so good. Finland has a pretty decent history of benevolence and peacefulness; England has a history that has ruined large nations and arguably entire continents. I also think its pretty silly to ask me for example of dictatorships financially supporting European leaders when, over the past decade or so, many European leaders have been dictators!

One last note: none of the dictatorships you listed ever gave any money to the US. The closest thing you might have there is the House of Saud pouring investment money into US enterprises, although I have no idea whether or not they've ever given money directly to politicians.

 

[Mercator]

They don't exactly donate money to the nation as foreign aid. Iraq was the example, though. French and Russian politicians were benefiting a great deal from Oil for Food, as were certain UN figures. These happened to be the same people who opposed going into Iraq. Had central figures in the Bush administration been receiving illegal money from this program, they probably would have opposed the action, too. That's all I'm saying. It's a little silly of either of us to think that our nation is inherently more moral than the other. The leaders are constantly changing, and each have their own moral profile. Heck, it's pretty ridiculous even to speak of the moral profile of the 'European' leadership? Europe is a pretty diverse place with its moral ups and downs. Switzerland has been pretty good over the past few decades; Serbia, not so good. Finland has a pretty decent history of benevolence and peacefulness; England has a history that has ruined large nations and arguably entire continents. I also think its pretty silly to ask me for example of dictatorships financially supporting European leaders when, over the past decade or so, many European leaders have been dictators!

One last note: none of the dictatorships you listed ever gave any money to the US. The closest thing you might have there is the House of Saud pouring investment money into US enterprises, although I have no idea whether or not they've ever given money directly to politicians.

The "Food for oil scandal" suddenly lost a lot of it's attraction for the US public, when it became clear that also Americans have been involved. Furthermore, the US has always been the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. So follow the money and you know where the bad guys are. Of course there have been European individuals profiting from this situation, but your statement that Dictators supported European countries? And some key figures can hardly be pinned down on a country. Marc Rich was born in Belgium, made his fortune in the US and now lives in Switzerland. Everybody in the energy sector knows that this man was and is a key figure in most any dirty oil deal around the world, including Iraq. Yet it was not Chirac who pardoned him for massive fraud and more,just before leaving office but Clinton.
The European dictatorships you mention, were East European countries. It is the merit of the Eu that these countries now turned into democracies and have spectacular results in their economic growth. Americans look at Europe as weak. You conveniently forget that we took all tyhee poor countires on baord and are transforming them into prosperous members of network Europe. again, I would like to see the US do that with their poor Southern neighbors.
And finally: do you really believe that there would be a one way relationship between two governments? If the US is supporting Islam Karimov, we can be damn sure that he gives SOMETHING in return that you need.

 

[The Smoking Man]

One last note: none of the dictatorships you listed ever gave any money to the US. The closest thing you might have there is the House of Saud pouring investment money into US enterprises, although I have no idea whether or not they've ever given money directly to politicians.

Well, that would be as a result of the 'New and Improved' ways of accepting [read laundering] money.

The only difference between a Banana Republican and a Neocon is the level of sophistication of the bribe/renumeration process.

Sometimes that 'cash' isn't cash at all but a level of influence in the direction of an industry and favourable conditions tha make wealth aquisition as easy as breathing.

Is there anyone here who is still going to maintain, for example that the conduct of Halliburton over the past 15 years is without blemish and that the eventual elevation of Cheney to VP was coincidental?

Here we get to more evidence of 'perception' when a nation can be taken to war with the US government first pointing at Afghanistan and then at Iraq with broad sweeping statements about supporting terrorism and paying off Palestinian Bombers.

Did all Americans sleep through the admission of Prince Bandar bin Sultan (aka: Bandar 'Bush') on NBC's Meet the Press when he stated:

MR. RUSSERT: Prince, the former general consul to the Department of Treasury, David Aufhauser...

PRINCE BANDAR: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...a professional, a lawyer, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Question: "With regard to the trail of money ... and whether it leads in some cases to Saudi Arabia?" Aufhauser: "In many cases it is the epicenter." Question: "And does that trail of money also show money going to al Qaeda?" Aufhauser: "Yes." "Is the money from Saudi Arabia a significant source of funding for terrorism generally?" Aufhauser: "Yes. Principally al Qaeda but many other recipients as well."

This was the scene in April 2002, when your king, a state-sponsored telethon--and look at these pictures--raised over $92 million and the money was "for Palestinian martyrs"...

PRINCE BANDAR: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...suicide bombers who blew up Israeli children, school buses, restaurants. Here's the Treasury Department of the United States saying that Saudi money is funding al-Qaeda. You're having telethons raising money for Palestine suicide bombers, and you sit here and say, "How could people say these terrible things about us?"

PRINCE BANDAR: Yes, I say that very easily because nothing stands still. If you are saying before 9/11 we didn't have our thing together, yes, but nor did you. Look what 9/11 is showing. However, since...

MR. RUSSERT: This was April of 2003.

PRINCE BANDAR: I understand. Since then, since 9/11, when after we recovered from the shock, we looked at all our procedures, and we have come through and we're proud of it.

How did Americans sleep through that?

On Sunday, April 18, 2004 Prince Bandar openly admitted on television in the USA that he and his country supported both privately and as a state, the funding of Al Qieda and The palestinian Suicide Bombers.

Now given that 15 of the 19 bombers on 9/11 were Saudi Nationals, there are just a few people here in the rest of the world who are still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

War was declared on evidence thinner than Saran Wrap and yet we have this gaping anomoly.

This is the difference between the unsophisticated 'Oil for Food' scam accepted in banana republics and the level of sophistication of a carefully engineered First World campaign.