BF2S Forums Countries with the most negative image globally

Pug wrote:

Vilham wrote:

"You know what, you're absolutely right, the US does want to impose their ideology of liberal democracy and trans-atlantic values on others.  And exactly how do you know what the inhabitants of other countries want? Have you ever lived in a communist country or a country ruled by a dictator to know what the inhabitants of those countries want?  There are 12 new countries in the European Union who would disagree with you about America's desire to shape the world according to their ideology." Is what he said which is saying that America is great and should be able to do what they want because their policy always works.

He based that on only his experience and as i stated originally his one experience doesnt make him right. The world isnt the same anywhere.

He says this " And exactly how do you know what the inhabitants of other countries want? " and yet it also applies to him, making him a hypocrite, which was my original point. He claims to know what others want but claims that we cant.

His claim is most people want the installation of democratic values (note I did not say democracy).  The democratic value highlighted is the freedom from oppression.  And you disagree because we can't make that leap in logic?

Did you even see my maps? Nearly the whole world has democracy, but only just over half are counted as free. Iraq has democracy and yet it isnt classed as free. Democracy does NOT equal freedom.

Ok, I've read up to page 5 but times running out for me to post, so I will without finishing the rest.  Here are my quick overviews and responses that I remember to post:


This is obviously a post about how people outside of America hate America.  This country was based on freedoms and the pursuit of happiness.  We tended to stay out of wars until it was affecting us directly.  (This is why we didn't join the world wars until late)  We broke out the Atomic Bomb on Japan because it was the only way to defeat them.  Their armies would fight to the death, and if we were to try to take mainland Japan, the Americans would have had the biggest death toll of the war. 

The world is a unified economy, this statement is true.  We are very successful and because of this America wants to protect this.  Think of it as a game of BF2, you are all working together on your team, but if you see an opportunity to go and get some extra points at the same time, wouldn't you go do it?  If someone was going for your UAV trailor, would you just let him blow it up and then go repair it?  No, you'd defend it forthright and save yourself time and effort.  What I mean by this is, yes, America is working with the world economy, but we're not just going to sit back and let other countries come in and disrupt our workings.  I admit, I feel that the war in Iraq is mainly a quest for oil, but still, if not doing anything causes our economy to slip and sending troops over causes the economy to grow, which would you choose.

I admit, I'm one of those people who think along the lines of "If they aren't attacking us, why interfere? That's how the country was founded."  But don't get me wrong, I will never disrespect our troops who risk their lives every second being in hostel territory.  I may disprove the war, but we're in it, and so is my support.

Don't judge a country because of who runs it.  I'm sure most Germans during WWII were noble people, but because of one group of people, it will forever be marked in history.  Same goes for America and every other country that exists.  Don't judge a country by their politicians, rather their populations.

Vilham wrote:

The_Jester wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Please give me one example where America has "freed" a country by invading it and it has lasted beyond a few years.

Italy.
Undisputable.

I would just like to say. Your wrong. I think you will find the commonwealth was there too and did just as much as the Americans, my Granddad was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

Oh really? Your Granddad was there? You MUST be right then. I mean, with the almighty Wikipedia on your side, nobody's gonna argue with you.

I (and like the last 5 generations of my family) happen to live in the North-Eastern corner of Italy. 30 km from Trieste, one of the key points of every single post-war treaty and conference. The southern tip of the Iron Courtain.
And I happen to know very well what happened here, so keep your Wikipedia rubbish for the other "I know it all" flamers.

Sure, they was not alone. There was Brits and kiwis here.
Do this negate what the US did for my country? No.
Your question was "Please give me one example where America has "freed" a country by invading it and it has lasted beyond a few years."
So I'm gonna say it again: Italy. Undisputable.
They invaded our country to open a southern front and free us.
Or maybe wasn't they americans because they was not alone?


They are not alone in Iraq either.

Vilham wrote:

The_Jester wrote:

Vilham wrote:

I would just like to say. Your wrong. I think you will find the commonwealth was there too and did just as much as the Americans, my Granddad was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

Oh really? Your Granddad was there? You MUST be right then. I mean, with the almighty Wikipedia on your side, nobody's gonna argue with you.

I (and like the last 5 generations of my family) happen to live in the North-Eastern corner of Italy. 30 km from Trieste, one of the key points of every single post-war treaty and conference. The southern tip of the Iron Courtain.
And I happen to know very well what happened here, so keep your Wikipedia rubbish for the other "I know it all" flamers.

Sure, they was not alone. There was Brits and kiwis here.
Do this negate what the US did for my country? No.
Your question was "Please give me one example where America has "freed" a country by invading it and it has lasted beyond a few years."
So I'm gonna say it again: Italy. Undisputable.
They invaded our country to open a southern front and free us.
Or maybe wasn't they americans because they was not alone?


They are not alone in Iraq either.

lol free you... you were the axis you moron, it was only after the allies trashed you and the Germans abandoned you that you went turncoat on the axis.

If i understand you right and your logic we could say that every single german during WWII was a Nazi?

Vilham wrote:

The_Jester wrote:

Vilham wrote:

I would just like to say. Your wrong. I think you will find the commonwealth was there too and did just as much as the Americans, my Granddad was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

Oh really? Your Granddad was there? You MUST be right then. I mean, with the almighty Wikipedia on your side, nobody's gonna argue with you.

I (and like the last 5 generations of my family) happen to live in the North-Eastern corner of Italy. 30 km from Trieste, one of the key points of every single post-war treaty and conference. The southern tip of the Iron Courtain.
And I happen to know very well what happened here, so keep your Wikipedia rubbish for the other "I know it all" flamers.

Sure, they was not alone. There was Brits and kiwis here.
Do this negate what the US did for my country? No.
Your question was "Please give me one example where America has "freed" a country by invading it and it has lasted beyond a few years."
So I'm gonna say it again: Italy. Undisputable.
They invaded our country to open a southern front and free us.
Or maybe wasn't they americans because they was not alone?


They are not alone in Iraq either.

lol free you... you were the axis you moron, it was only after the allies trashed you and the Germans abandoned you that you went turncoat on the axis.

You obviously know jack shit about what happened here.
Stick to your precious Wikipedia, idiot.

This is from a article I was reading regarding this poll. I think it provides some good insight in understanding why we have these numbers. It is not necessarily our people or our values that are viewed negatively, but rather the actions of our elected leaders. This is just an excerpt. The rest can be found here.

America's Image in the World

Testimony of Dr. Steven Kull

Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
Editor, WorldPublicOpinion.org

March 6, 2007 – 10:00 AM

Before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight

The good news is that there is an abundance of evidence that the unhappiness with the US is not a rejection of US values. People around the world say that the problems they have with the US concern its policies, not its values.

Large majorities of Muslims also say this in polls that we conducted for the University of Maryland’s START center. Most Muslims reject the idea that there is a fundamental clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Values such as democracy and international law are more popular than the ideas of al Qaeda.

In focus groups that I have conducted throughout the world, the most common complaint I hear is not about American values but that the US is being hypocritical; that it is not living up to its values. Complaining that the US is hypocritical is a backhanded compliment. The implicit statement is that if the US were to live up to its values this would be something positive.

This support for American values has deep roots that go back to the period immediately after World War II. At that time US was so overwhelmingly powerful relative to the rest of the world that it would have been able to impose an American empire.

But it did not do that. Instead the US championed a world order based on international law and said that it too would be constrained by this system. It endorsed a system built around the United Nations that prohibited the unilateral use of force except in self defense, and respected national sovereignty. It promoted democracy. It promoted respect for human rights within countries and in dealings between countries. It promoted an equitable and open system of trade and free enterprise that did not favor the strong over the weak. And through its aid programs it sought to integrate poor countries into the international economy.

There is substantial evidence that the values and the ideas for world order that the US promoted have become widely accepted. In 66 out of 67 countries polled for the World Values Survey, most agreed that “Democracy may have its problems but it is still better than any other form of government.” In 30 out of 32 countries polled for BBC, most people said that the UN is having a positive influence in the world. In 19 out of 20 countries polled by GlobeScan, a majority agreed that “the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.” And there is no significant indication that support for these principles is in decline.

The problem is that of late there has been a growing perception that the US is not living up to its principles. In a recent poll we conducted we found widespread perceptions that the US is violating international law in its treatment of detainees at Guantanamo.

The US image as a promoter of human rights has diminished. In 1998, USIA found that 59 percent of the British and 61 percent of Germans said the United States was doing a good job promoting human rights. Today, 56 percent of the British and 78 percent of Germans say the US is doing a bad job.

Contrary to the United States’ history of largesse, a Pew poll found that in 38 out of 43 countries most felt that US policies were worsening the gap between rich and poor, .

But perhaps the most fundamental issue is whether the US is constrained in its use of force. This is why there is so much concern about the US invasion of Iraq.
The complaint about Iraq is not so much that US forces removed Saddam Hussein. Rather it is that the US did so without getting UN approval; that it did not follow the international rules that the US is perceived as originally promoting.

This has left many countries uneasy about whether the potential use of US military power is constrained by the international system. While it may sound strange to Americans, in many countries around the world people express strong fears that the US will use military force against them. In virtually every country asked about this in polls done by Pew in 2003 and 2005, majorities perceived the US as a military threat to their country. This was even true of Turkey—our NATO ally— and Kuwait—a country the US has defended. It may be hard for us to understand how overwhelming US military power appears to other countries and how easily they worry that the US might use it.

So in summary, the challenge we face in dealing with the recent upsurge in negative feelings about US foreign policy, is not that we need to convince people of the value of the principles the US has tried to promote in the world. The world is already pretty much convinced. This is a tremendous asset for the US.

What the world is looking for is reassurance that the US is constrained by the rules that the US itself has promoted; that it is still committed to the rule of international law, to limits on the use of military force, to respect for human rights, and to fairness in the world economic system.

Were people around the world to gain more confidence in US intentions and perceive the US as having a renewed commitment to the values we have successfully cultivated in the world, there are strong reasons to believe that attitudes toward the US could shift rather quickly in a positive direction.

Konfusion0 wrote:

and Mussolini definitely should!

He was indeed doing  a really good job on our economy, instruction and overall living-standards.

He just should have stayed the hell out of Germany's business.

Bertster7 wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

@Velker: Israel was given a bit of land. They had no right to expand it as they did, and now they're getting US backup to keep what they stole from Palestine. Don't try to sweet talk something like that. Furthermore, terrorists aren't usually caught. Only civilians who are unfortunate enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Terrorists are usually smarter than that.

Actually that's not technically true. The British granted Jews permission to immigrate to the mandate of Palestine. When the volume of immigration was much higher than anticipated the British imposed restrictions on immigration, restrictions which the immigrants ignored. The Zionist organisation regarded these restrictions on immigration as a betrayal on the part of the British and persued a terror campaign against them and the Arab populace.

These terrorists then declared themselves a nation and got the full backing of the US. Soon after the UN granted Israel legitimacy under the partition plan.

Wasn't it only after Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq declared war on Israel that they took control of the now occupied land?

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-08 14:57:02)

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Konfusion0 wrote:

@Velker: Israel was given a bit of land. They had no right to expand it as they did, and now they're getting US backup to keep what they stole from Palestine. Don't try to sweet talk something like that. Furthermore, terrorists aren't usually caught. Only civilians who are unfortunate enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Terrorists are usually smarter than that.

Actually that's not technically true. The British granted Jews permission to immigrate to the mandate of Palestine. When the volume of immigration was much higher than anticipated the British imposed restrictions on immigration, restrictions which the immigrants ignored. The Zionist organisation regarded these restrictions on immigration as a betrayal on the part of the British and persued a terror campaign against them and the Arab populace.

These terrorists then declared themselves a nation and got the full backing of the US. Soon after the UN granted Israel legitimacy under the partition plan.

Wasn't it only after Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq declared war on Israel that they took control of the now occupied land?

I didn't go that far.
I only got upto the original partition plan, which of course was rejected by the Arab states and led to the war in which Israel expanded its borders beyond those laid down by the UN.

I was speaking of how Israel were not given the land, they took it and declared it their own. Only after that fact, and due entirely to the backing of the US, was the state of Israel given any kind of international legitimacy.

Bertster7 wrote:

I didn't go that far.
I only got upto the original partition plan, which of course was rejected by the Arab states and led to the war in which Israel expanded its borders beyond those laid down by the UN.

I was speaking of how Israel were not given the land, they took it and declared it their own. Only after that fact, and due entirely to the backing of the US, was the state of Israel given any kind of international legitimacy.

That was my question. Didn't they take it during the war? Or was the war a result of them taking the land? I think it should be returned of course if there is to be any chance at peace.

Why is it so hard to give them that little bunch of rocks and sand? Are 21,000 km² SO important, compared to 13 millions square kilometers of Arab countries?

They had been persecuted for fucking centuries and forced to straggle all over the world.
I'm not entering the debate, both sides have committed atrocities. There can't be a "right" side in that war.

I say just give them that little patch of land and leave them alone.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I didn't go that far.
I only got upto the original partition plan, which of course was rejected by the Arab states and led to the war in which Israel expanded its borders beyond those laid down by the UN.

I was speaking of how Israel were not given the land, they took it and declared it their own. Only after that fact, and due entirely to the backing of the US, was the state of Israel given any kind of international legitimacy.

That was my question. Didn't they take it during the war? Or was the war a result of them taking the land? I think it should be returned of course if there is to be any chance at peace.

For a start, we're both talking about different land, which confuses matters a bit. They took land during the war, which was a result of the Arab rejection of the partition plan. But Israel itself (even within the borders laid out by the partition plan) was taken, rather than given. Once the sustained campaign of terrorism drove the British from Palestine the Zionist organisation along with it's militant/terrorist branches were the dominant force in the region and declared Israel a state 1 day (I think) before the mandate had expired.

That is the taking of land I was refering to. They have also continually taken more and more land over the years, expanding Israel and pushing back the borders of Palestine.

None of these actions have been legal or, in any normal sense, moral.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I didn't go that far.
I only got upto the original partition plan, which of course was rejected by the Arab states and led to the war in which Israel expanded its borders beyond those laid down by the UN.

I was speaking of how Israel were not given the land, they took it and declared it their own. Only after that fact, and due entirely to the backing of the US, was the state of Israel given any kind of international legitimacy.

None of these actions have been legal or, in any normal sense, moral.

Tell me palestine does not do this crap all the time and I will then consider it a valid statement. Also, Kmarion, by giving up land Isreal won't get peace, just more bombs in a more condensed area.