USA Image problem?

An interesting link - discuss?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6288933.stm

oh, and no pure US-bashing please. Good debate only.

 

I'll be the first to comment on this, Ricky.
I don't think that the US should conduct itself in a way designed to increase it's popularity around the world. Principles are something that you don't compromise for the sake of popularity. Of course, our state department should do everything possible, within reason, to engage our allies however when our interests diverge, which happens often, that isn't possible. I don't see this as being anything new. The United Nations for instance has always been dominated by special interests and blocks that vote for reasons having nothing to do with the subject being decided.

 

Problem is that principles are already compromised. USA lost almost all credibility becouse of actions of two Bush jr. administrations. US is now seen as untrustworthy partner using double standards on anyone.
Annual US human rights abuses report is seen as a bad joke (Guantanamo, Abu Graib and use of torture saw to that).

Same goes for democraty reports (you did practicaly abolish Habeas Corpus, you have unwarranted wiretaps...). Also supporting any corrupt dictator that can be usefull isn't helping here.

Same goes for war crimes issues as starting a "preventive war" is by definition "waging of agresive war" (i belive that at Nuremberg this carried 20 years in prison sentance).

 

Only have have time for a quick note.

1) Most people have low option of Bush, the moments of crisis (9/11 New Orleans etc) the perception is he fluffed it.
2) The grounds for the Iraq War were false. Either through in competense or dishonesty. The fact that those that made those decisions didn't figuratively throw themselves on their swords speaks volumes.


However if there has to be a top dog (and lets face it there does, that the way people work) then I would rather it be the Yanks, since the US is a country with checks and balances. Unlike Russia or China which have neither.


Over all I'd have to say I think Bush has basically pissed away much of Americas moral high ground. Whoever replaces him is going to have a big job recovering the US's standing.

 

None of the things you mention are evidence of compromised principles to my way of looking at things. What you call human rights abuses and torture do not meet my criteria for those actions. The US has not abolished habeas corpus, not by a long shot. There have always been recognized limitations.
Every country has had dealings with so called "corrupt dictators" at one time or another. It is the reality of geopolitics.
The war in Iraq had the support of the US Congress and the people. Saddam's regime had been in violation of UN sanctions since 1991.
Do you consider the invasion of Afghanistan a war of aggression also?

 

Pulling at a few things...

American policy is and will always be what is seen to be in America's best interest (as with every other country). If they also find time to help out other countries then good for them. While America does not have to run its policies based on world opinion, it does have to worry about the opinion of its own citizens. Plus it could concievably run out of friends/allies if it deliberately annoys too many people, but I don't see that happening yet*.

America has done a few... questionable things. And even a few good things but with highly suspect stated reasons. So has every other nation I can think of, except possibly Greenland . However, America's dirty linen gets even more vigorously washed in public than most people's, so everybody knows about it. The USA seems to be something of a default villain for some media sources - although this might be because they talk big about freedoms etc and then along comes Guantanamo Bay. Or maybe because people simply take a perverse joy in seeing the big guy being apparently caught out.


Oh, and the poll also showed that the opinions of Americans, although more positive that that of 'everywhere else' was also largely negative. However, polls are (as the article states) a very subjective source. Maybe only people with an axe to grind answered it (that happens to most surveys/polls :roll: )

I've kinda lost track of where I am and where I was going, so I'll just state tat I kinda agree with Ebar (he is quite a sensible chap, overall, but he just needs to work harder on his fiction writing... )

*Although there are signs that his is starting to happen with the UK, incredibly enough

 

Does N.Vietnamese conduct towards pilots shot down over N. Vietnam meets you criteria? BTW they were not entitled to POW's as USA was not at war with N.Vietnam (de jure). Were Germans and Italians locking up suspected partisans/maquis into concentration camps like Rab, Mathausen.... right?

Technicaly everyone put in jail has right for due process ( citizen or not). Non citizens are protected in Vienna convention and have right to consular representation of country of which citizens they are. For example illegal immigrant from Mexico cought in US (or any other country signatory of mentioned convention) has a right to be represented by diplomatic representative of his country and due process according to the US law. Military commissions act is breaking of habeas corpus and international treaties. Either prisoner has a right to due process or he is designated as POW and treated accordingly to international treaties. If you think not, then take hypotetical case of US citizen cought in another country on minor offense. According to this logic that country has right to prevent him/her from consular representation and clearly allowed to lock him/her up after mock trial and throwing away the key or even execute him/her. Argument that this is not right wouldn't stand according to such logic as due process of of hypotetical country wouldn't apply to US citizen and as such USA has no right to interfere with internal matter of that country.

Hitler had support of the poeple when attacking Poland so what? he prewentively attacked Norway (let's just say semi-justifiable becouse of Franco_British plans for Narvik). Did that make him right in both cases? Did Iraq attack USA before invasion? If so please prove it. It would also be helpfull to list Iraqi violations of UN resolutions/sanctions that would justify invasion and occupation. And please don't start with that WMD issue.

Taliban regime did know about Al Quida plans for 9-11 even if their knowledge was not entirely specific and they did try to warn US. If they would kick out Al Quida after 9-11 i would have issues with US attack on them, but as they joined forces with them and protected them i belive that US led invasion of Afganistan was justified as defensive war (US was attacked first). This is completly different from so called "preventive war". If preventive war idioticy would be premissible in civilised society we would probably be glowing in the dark for last 50 or so years.

 

Not sure what your point is since the detainees at Gitmo did receive a hearing AFAIK thus due process.

Why not start with WMDs? It's only in retrospect that we know that no WMDs were found. There was evidence that Saddam was attempting to obtain WMDs...He had used them before. Some of the British intelligence people thought that he was and at least some of the US intelligence agencies thought so as well.

Countries with the capabilitywill do what they think is in the best interest of their safety and security no matter what the rest of the world thinks about it. There is no World Government.

 

Detainees will be pleased to know that they had consular representation and their lawyer present even if they did not see them.

There is such little thing called international law. Breaking it during war is usualy reffered to as a war crime.

Acctualy british "sexed-up" reports claimed that Saddam can use them in 45 minute time frame of giving the order. UN inspectors were not given enough time by the US & UK to inspect the sites after Saddam allowed inspectors in. US & UK inteligence did not pass "reliable" informations of which sites suposedly (according to US/UK inteligence 100%) contained WMD's ( Blix bitterly complained about that before invasion in televised UN reports). US/UK claim that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger was proven false (falsified) much before the invasion by IEIA. Not to mention Powell presentation in UN where documents and tapes were wrongly translated and given different meaning.

 

AFAIK US law doesn't require that for either POWs or enemy combatants.

International law is pretty much meaningless unless a country agrees to be bound by it. Cite the recognized provisions that the US has violated.
If that is the case why isn't their a hue and cry in the UN to have the US sanctioned?

Saddam had plenty of time to comply if he desired to do so. The deliberate attempts to frustrate the inspection process had been going on for years.

All this has to do with a standard of evidence that would satisfy you and many others that have a political axe to grind. The fact remains that Saddam was warned many times and he chose not to comply.

 

Yep.

Also, many if not most of the detanees at Guantanamo have been interviewed and returned to their homes.

 

Remember we're talking about perception here not fact. The perception is the Americans are loosing in Iraq. Now we aren't going to see the US army desperately casting equipment and weapons aside as it flees for the Saudi border, it just ain't going to happen. But the war is loosible if the people back in the US don't believe their leaders, a la Vietnam. Facts on the ground are immaterial.

Assorted other points in no real order

Now I'm sure we all remember 'your either with us or against us' it made a good sound bite but unfortunately I think this is the way the Bush presidency works, internally as well as externally. You either agree with Bush or your nothing. As I say good sound bite but not the way to win people over, comes across as arrogant. It encouraged other countries to take a ‘well sod you’ attitude.

Also there is the question of responsibility. I think we all agree that there has been major, major screw up during the last 6 years. Yet there has been no sign of anyone at the top or near the top taking any kind of moral responsibility. The only resignations have been when people were forced out.

There is the question of Bush himself. Quiet simply by this stage he regarded as a screw up, with the effect anything he does is now regarded as wrong, simply because its him doing it. This however might have a slightly positive effect. So much of the last 6 years is so associated with Bush personally his successor, particularly if their a democrat, might be able to make them failings of Bush rather than failing of the US. But that’s just the theory I hold on my optimistic days.

Final point, and this is the one that might have some of you accusing me of being Anti American scumbag, but before you do I refer you to the second last paragraph of my previous comment on this subject.

I think, and I think a lot of other people think the same, after 9/11 the Americans went out looking for some serious payback. Old Ben Laden went to ground and may well be pushing up daisies somewhere, depriving the US of its revenge. So the White House looked around and everyone’s favourite dictator Sadam suddenly fitted the bill. Was Sadam an evil son of a bitch who deserves to burn in the fires of any hell you care to mention? Well yes. But he’s not unique in that regard. But he was an Arab and he had bugged the US in the past so he now fitted the bill. If bringing Sadam down cost the lives of a few hundred thousand, well that’s okay because they’re only Arabs.

This is the perception. The facts might be different but perception is king.



American members, you may now start writing death threats.

 

I'm only interested in facts. Perception is illusory and is controlled to a large degree by the media which shows a persistent Leftist bias. Biased or not the media, at least in the US, is free to slant the news and comments however they like and shall remain free of state control. Even when what they do is bad for our nation. That's the way it is and we accept it.

 

Basicly perception is the rule and i can only agree with Ebar on this.

Around the world US had almost unnanimus support for war in Afganistan and Al Quida, even from very unexpected sides like Iran or me. European countries made large contributions in other parts of the world (example german troops are still stationed in Kenya). Administration squandered that when they attacked Iraq which was seen as personal project of couple of hawks in the administration (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Chaney). Hurling insults at old allies like France and Germany who helped around the globe and in Afganistan for not eagerly jumping on the train for Iraq was not helpfull. Even those who supported US started to distance themselves.

Basic perception around the world on conduct of Iraq war is that for US administration for interior political reasons US govement (not the military) managed to snach defeat from the jaws of victory. Basicly they managed to screw up becouse thy did not listen to what military had to say about things they know in their field. US poeple belived in the goverment and more or less supported the war, military belived in the goverment and had few objections about plans for war (that's normal as they would be in the line of fire) but goverment did not belive in the military and run the war their own way and in process managed to screw up. Basicly nobody (even me) expected US to mess up basicly a simple war and occupation so much.

 

The effect of the disapproval of the detractors is minimal because any contribution to the effort was minimal or nonexistent. I don't think most Americans are that concerned about how they are perceived by the rest of the world. It doesn't change anything significantly in our day to day lives. Anytime one tries to accomplish something there will always be ten people who stand around and say that it can't be done or criticize the effort. It has always been that way. It may very well be that the conflict in Iraq will end up being a wasted effort and it will solve nothing. That is a risk that you take when you decide to do something rather than just stand around and criticize and do nothing.

 

American members, you may now start writing death threats.

Ill give it time, what you said makes sense to me..

 

what is it about the gitmo archipeligo that so inrages the left ? is it the gas chamber and crematoria ,the 400 calories a day prison diet ,the rack and cat , perhaps the summary beheadings or ghastly medical experiments...cold showers, no satilite tv. ...what?

 

They need something to bellyache over so they can feel good about themselves.

 

In response to some of the assertions about Guantanamo...

The Australian media is telliing us that an Australian citizen (David Hicks) has been locked up without trial and without criminal charge since 2002... He was found in an Afghan training camp or something... Many Australian are outraged, seeing as many prisoners have been released,and sort of expect him to be treated a bit better because we're America's allies...

Shows an "image problem"... If America just tried him in a court, however rigged... There'd be less dissent in this part of the world at least...

 

sucks to be him but, he shouldn't of been in Afgahinstan.....

Such is the rule dont go out after dark