BBC poll: Rest of world favours Obama

Obama is not one of us and never has been.

He doesn't care about our freedom.

Just as Obama voters care about the bad economy as long as Obama is there to give them government handouts.

 

The takeaway from this thread is that American conservatives/Republicans are apparently paranoid-yet-arrogant (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s whose entire knowledge of the world comes from bumper stickers.

 

Actually not. It is funny how polls can be one way or the other and just like statistics can be used in many ways. How the question is asked is always important.

Yeah I wish the US would withdraw from everything, become isolationist and say (*)(*)(*)(*) the rest of the world.

 

His own words he wants to spread the wealth...do you think he would only limit that to our own country? It's not a leap at all believing that he wants to do so among nations, especially because of his up bringing and some work he's done on foreign affairs, like nuclear arms reduction with Russia (which I'm sure they will faithfully abide by, right?)

More on topic...Obama has been a disaster for our economy, he's got to go. I care about foreigners and other countries (even lived in some of them), but that isn't more important to me than the status of my own country.

 

I've lived in two other countries, wonderful experiences both times, and I appreciate my country the more I see what it could be like. The people are amazing, the conditions not so much. No way would I want my country to be more like theirs. Obama is taking us there.

 

Sure, and the BBC did not release the actual question wording. But it doesn't appear to have been that complicated: they asked who they would prefer to win the U.S. election.

There are reasons to think that Obama would do better in such a poll regardless -- much better name recognition outside the U.S., for one thing.

But there's no basis for simply labeling the poll biased at this point.

And anyway, I wasn't addressing the poll so much as the ugly, ignorant response to it from conservatives in this thread.

That's a tempting idea, but isolationism just doesn't work in today's world. If we withdraw, somebody else will step forward. And I can't think of any other country I want taking over the role of superpower.

We used to be able to ignore the rest of the world because we were safe behind our oceans. That's just not the case anymore.

We used to be able to ignore the rest of the world because we were relatively independent economically. That's just not the case anymore, either. The global economy means we are dependent for important resources on politically fragile areas all over the world. And the growth of China and India, for instance, means the competition for those resources is getting stiffer. Our long-term security depends on ensuring stability in those regions and our continued access to those resources.

 

Just on the russians. We always have demanded the right to verify compliance with arms reduction agreements. As Reagan said "trust but verify". Russia not interested in the arms race anymore , it costs too much. We should reduce as well, we can destroy the world many times over. How many warheads do we need beyond that capability?

 

I've traveled a lot, and I'm always glad to come home, too. It's familiar, if nothing else. But there's a difference between not wanting to live abroad and not giving a d*** what the rest of the world thinks. We have to share the planet with everyone else, and we are increasingly entwined with the rest of the world economically. It's just plain stupid to unnecessarily (*)(*)(*)(*) off people we may need/want as allies and partners down the road.

 

When I say withdraw and isolationist I mean more on the level of becoming more like Russia in a way (put the giant to sleep). Let other countries foot the bill. When we have things that are of our interest at sea then guard it. If a vessel that is not flying our flag comes under attack let it sink. For too long our dollar has been footing the bill for world security.

Germany and England have top notch militaries. The UK has a powerful nave that is second to none when put to the test. The German tanks and land units are awesome.

We need to withdraw and let the wars happen. They want to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about us then let them have it. Get out of the ME. Israel will sink or swim on their own.

Yeah I have heard people for years say we need to stand and fight with Israel and they say it is in Gods will. Well if it is Gods will they will stand. We can support our allies with humanitarian aid.

America is falling and it is getting faster.

 

Who cares, talk about disgrace, your hooligans disgrace you almost on a daily basis.

 

Obama2012

 

Gee - I really can't imagine why the rest of the world would want Obama in power for four more years --- roflmao....

 

You betcha!

And would you like fries with that?

 

I think Obama's worried by this poll. Last time they were unanimous in supporting him, this time Pakistan prefers Mitt!

 

So how is Obama weak when he managed to make Germany and other countries to send more of their „awesome land units“ to help you out in Afghanistan? If it wasn’t for Obamas popularity over here there would have been no way for our politicians to sell that move to our electorate. If Obama gets European nations to let their militaries help you do your dirty work for you should be delighted.

I heard Republicans say that "leading from behind" in Libya was a sign of weakness, in fact it was nothing but Obama letting Europe "foot the bill". Clever!

First thing Romney would be likely to do is to (*)(*)(*)(*) off everybody so much that they couldn’t care less about abiding by the sanctions the US wants to put on Iran. Rather than "getting out of the ME" Romney would probably get you into another war there as soon as his buddy Nethanjahu snips with his fingers, unsettling the whole region and thus making your (and our) gas bills much higher than they are already.

Ironically with pretty much every point on your wishlist you ought to vote for Obama.

 

Mitt gave Pakistan a handjob Monday night. When's the last time Obama gave Pakistan a handjob?

 

Well, the terrorists wanted to destroy our economy and Bush did everything he could to help them with that - and they wanted to make the American people afraid. They've apparently succeeded with conservatives at least who announce constantly how afraid they are of those terrorists who every 9-11, sit in front of their TV sets and watch the mournful ceremonies and listing of names by wives who've remarried and moved on years go and children who were too young to remember their parent and laugh themselves silly and high-five each other at the yearly reminder and clear evidence of the damage they did to us which some are determined will never stop.

I can't help but remember the news reports from London the day after the subway bombings and the people out in force to get back on the subway with their bandages and casts - in effect saying "Screw you, terrorists! You don't scare me!" and robbing the terrorists of their intended victory of terrorizing the people. It showed a lot more courage and backbone than most conservative Americans showed.

And in our Revolutionary War, if it weren't for the French, we'd all be speaking the King's English today.

 

LIBYA, and now another bombshell on another liberal org.
Do you trust the BBC?

A cover up of a children sexual abuse scandal is being exposed. It was going on for years.

 

LIBYA, and now another bombshell on another liberal org.
Do you trust the BBC?

A cover up of a children sexual abuse scandal is being exposed. It was going on for years.

 

You're suggesting that because there's a sex scandal somewhere in the company, that the news is slanted? What logic.

I'm not a big fan of BBC news -- I find it both shallow and tedious in many places -- but there's no need to be ridiculous.

Sort of like the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church. Except the BBC's scandal involved one guy.

 

TRying to make friends doesnt work. We need to stand by our core principals and then who sides ;with us, sides with us for the right reasons.
Appeasing islamists doesnt work.

 

Complete and total hogwash - nothing but RW talking heads' talking points. Lmfao!

 

How many people do we really need on our side? How many of those people actually need us on their side? That's where the real problem is.

 

Not when you approach things like an ignorant cowboy or bully, no.

But yes, it does work. And has, throughout history.

Simplistic and stupid. Of course we have to stand by our core principles. But friendship is a two-way street. Allies have their own interests, and those have to be respected and considered. Not necessarily accepted, but at least taken into consideration.

Further, talking to enemies is how you a) reduce tensions, b) discover ways to resolve differences and c) over time, not have them be enemies any more. Is that an inexorable progression? No. Some governments are simply repugnant, and some differences are simply too deeply rooted. But it is *always* better to have communication than not.

Nice strawman; nobody is suggesting that.

 

As many as possible. In Afghanistan, non-U.S. troops make up a third of the force. We could not have sustained the effort there without their help.

I'd say lots. Even countries that grumble about U.S. hegemony enjoy the peace we bring and have no real desire to boost their own military spending to make up for our departure.

But that doesn't mean they won't get pissed off and start looking for other options if we use our hegemony to bully other countries in areas that have nothing to do with our core national interests. As we have often done.