Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of this; which is why I didn't say that the US should merely "recognize" hatred and distrust.

You didn't, no. I was simply trying to help you use the correct word for the argument you were making.

 Seaward wrote:

You didn't, no. I was simply trying to help you use the correct word for the argument you were making.

My argument is that the US should care about the way it is perceived internationally because, at the very least, it engages in frequent military interventions and its citizens frequently travel to other countries.

I understand that you don't want to think about "hearts and minds", but the reality is that it is necessary.

NK doesnt have hundreds of long range nukes, aircraft carriers all over the world and a history of invading anywhere with oi... erm... well...

Though they and the US both have a healthy persecution complex, paranoia, run away spending on the armed forces and a belief in their own superiority over everyone else...

In a worldwide poll these results don't seem particularly surprising. I would vote for the US as number one threat to world peace and I have little fear of them invading the UK... just no one tell them we have oil!

 dogma wrote:
My argument is that the US should care about the way it is perceived internationally because, at the very least, it engages in frequent military interventions and its citizens frequently travel to other countries.

I understand that you don't want to think about "hearts and minds", but the reality is that it is necessary.

The reality is that you're making an argument for caring about localized opinion when it comes to military intervention - why should we care what Botswana thinks if we're invading Japan? - and for, once again, recognizing hotspots of anti-Americanism when it comes to issuing travel advisories. That's it.

Caring about international opinion as to who's the greatest threat to world peace is pretty pointless. I'd be surprised if we weren't at the top of that list since the end of the Cold War. To quote Newton, "Haters gonna hate."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
NK doesnt have hundreds of long range nukes, aircraft carriers all over the world and a history of invading anywhere with oi... erm... well...

You've got a point. We'd be nowhere without that Afghani oil.

Annoy enough people in enough places and eventually you will have trouble. From granting trade rights, placing of bases, overfly rights, and even sourcing equipment and services... people will start to look elsewhere first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
You've got a point. We'd be nowhere without that Afghani oil.

Well, you've got to generate terrorists somewhere in order to justify invading places...

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Annoy enough people in enough places and eventually you will have trouble. From granting trade rights, placing of bases, overfly rights, and even sourcing equipment and services... people will start to look elsewhere first.

Not really, no. What the government does vs. what the people under the government want it to do are often entirely different concepts. A lot of Japanese have wanted us off Okinawa since 1945; we're getting an expanded base.

@ Sccoty pufff jr...

The United States fighting men have been deployed to the African continent more than you know, undermining evil men.

When someone fears something there is a respect. i.e. A hiker in the woods fears the bear, so he respects the bear's territory, and avoids it, for fear of being killed by the bear. That is an intelligent way to deal with the bear.

 Seaward wrote:

The reality is that you're making an argument for caring about localized opinion when it comes to military intervention - why should we care what Botswana thinks if we're invading Japan? - and for, once again, recognizing hotspots of anti-Americanism when it comes to issuing travel advisories. That's it.

Are you of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" only denotes the so-called "international community"?

 Seaward wrote:

Caring about international opinion as to who's the greatest threat to world peace is pretty pointless.

I specifically said that this survey shouldn't be regarded as a single poll, but a collection of many polls. You're conflating arguments made by several different people and attributing them to a single person (Me, in this case.), which is one of your worse habits.

We not only cause fear we also annoy folk. Sit back and enjoy your tea, and be thankful your name isn't Fritz...

 dogma wrote:
Are you of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" only denotes the so-called "international community"?

I'm of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" can denote any number of things. In the case of the polling presented, it denotes popular opinion in a variety of countries.

I specifically said that this survey shouldn't be regarded as a single poll, but a collection of many polls. You're conflating arguments made by several different people and attributing them to a single person (Me, in this case.), which is one of your worse habits.

Those are some rather large stones to be chucking about in such a small glass house.

 Kelly502 wrote:
@ Sccoty pufff jr...

The United States fighting men have been deployed to the African continent more than you know, undermining evil men.

We've also done a great deal to prop up evil men elsewhere. We do what is in our best interest, just like every other country. While we generally try to do the right thing, just like most other countries, so lets not put on the blue and red tights and fly around the forum, either. There are a good deal of military interventions where the "right thing to do" would have been to act, and I strenuously argued against them, but I don't think that was an evil decision.

 Kelly502 wrote:
When someone fears something there is a respect. i.e. A hiker in the woods fears the bear, so he respects the bear's territory, and avoids it, for fear of being killed by the bear. That is an intelligent way to deal with the bear.

This is a flawed analogy for a lot of different reasons that have already been expressed by SilverMK2.

Is is better to be feared, or to be loved? I fear my boss*, so I perform at my job... adequately, while looking for better opportunities. I love my family, so I selflessly go above and beyond for them. They're both useful, but I think you generally get miles per gallon out of love. Or the international community equivalent of such.


*my boss is actually very nice, and I like my job, I'm just making an analogy, with "my boss" as an abstraction for fear of the consequences of being fired

Just making a point that fear is a form of respect. I did not state that causing folk to fear you is a good way to have a form of respect, or a relationship with them.

I think there are leaders out there that need to fear the United States, they need to fear that if they overstep international laws that the United States will probably do something about it. I am speaking of dictators, and such.

Since we all know there are many types of relationships, respectful ones, and fearful ones, friendly, and hateful, that the point has been made so let's not throw on the black robe, and don the gavel, and buzz around the forum either.

I want to become a mercenary and travel through war-torn third world countries just slaughtering people for unspecified causes.

Because that's really what the world expects of me as a US Marine anyway, isn't it?

 Kelly502 wrote:
@ Sccoty pufff jr...

The United States fighting men have been deployed to the African continent more than you know, undermining evil men.

I am well aware that the United States has military involvement in Africa, much like we do in every part of the world. Just exactly how successful have we been at "undermining evil men" in Africa? I also know it has recently ratcheted up a notch in some areas (like Mali and Sudan, but that is to stem the tide of radical Islam and Chinese influence, respectively) but when has the African continent has ever been the primary concern of American foreign policy or the public at large?

When someone fears something there is a respect. i.e. A hiker in the woods fears the bear, so he respects the bear's territory, and avoids it, for fear of being killed by the bear. That is an intelligent way to deal with the bear.

Again, that is a horrible analogy with absolutely no bearing on international foreign relations.

" Fear is not respect; coercing people with fear is not an intelligent way to build long standing relationships. "

Your quoted argument from earlier. I was just making a point that fear is a form of respect. You said no it is not repsect. Having fear of the bear killing him, the hiker respects the bear's territory.

Did I ever say coercing folks with fear is good? I did not. But if they fear us then so be it. There are leaders out there who fear the gun behind every blade of grass, otherwise if they did not they would have invaded, and learned to respect the guns behind the grass.

You've missed the point.

How successful have "we" been at undermining or eliminating evil men there? I didn't know you served, I thought you were in construction. Usually stating "we" means you've been directly involved.

I hear that on occasion the US likes to sell and buy goods/services from other countries.

Ah, the classic 'you aren't in the military so shut up' defense. Good to see.

#1! #1!!! Oh yeah!!!

 Ahtman wrote:
I hear that on occasion the US likes to sell and buy goods/services from other countries.

China, India and Russia are quickly catching up as premier consumers, who aren't quite as picky as Americans and will literally buy anything to fit their simple and unrefined expectations.

Your average uninformed foreigner probably doesn't know that he is living in a world totally fabricated around satisfying the American economy, and the pervasive commercialism that we represent.

 Seaward wrote:

I'm of the opinion that the phrase "international opinion" can denote any number of things. In the case of the polling presented, it denotes popular opinion in a variety of countries.

Yes, but not the popular opinion of the world; an argument I made on page two and restated on page three.

The argument we are presently having, at least absent your attempts at deflection, is over whether or not the US should "care" about international opinion given that, minimally, it tends to engage in military intervention and its citizens tend to travel to other countries.

 LordofHats wrote:
Wow. We're as scared of Canada as we are of Pakistan? Damn Canada. You dun be dangerous

HE WHO CONTROLS THE MAPLE CONTROLS THE UNIVERSE!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
the individual countries are all here
http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/country_results/7/37/

aussies are afraid of, in order:

USA 17%
afghanistan 15%
north korea 15%
iran 9%
china 6%
iraq6%
syria 4%
pakistan4%
austrialia 4%
israel 3%
russia1%
canada doesnt even make up 1%


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh god... i just read canada's...

of all the people to think canada is a threat, canadians are the ones to think so more then anyone else at 2% of canadians think canada is the biggest threat...

canadas biggest percieved threat is the USA tied for first with IRAN at 17%

Thats incredibly incorrect. I have it on good information Aussies are afraid of:
1. Killer spiders
2. Killer wasps
3. Killer drop bears
4. Killer lizards (crocodiles)
5. Killer flying snakes
6. Killer fish (great whites)

In essence Aussies are afraid of no country, save their own...

 motyak wrote:
Ah, the classic 'you aren't in the military so shut up' defense. Good to see.

Yeah, up until that point I thought a good discussion could yet take place. Oh well.

 Kelly502 wrote:
" Fear is not respect; coercing people with fear is not an intelligent way to build long standing relationships. "

Your quoted argument from earlier. I was just making a point that fear is a form of respect. You said no it is not repsect. Having fear of the bear killing him, the hiker respects the bear's territory.

Did I ever say coercing folks with fear is good? I did not. But if they fear us then so be it. There are leaders out there who fear the gun behind every blade of grass, otherwise if they did not they would have invaded, and learned to respect the guns behind the grass.

You've missed the point.

How successful have "we" been at undermining or eliminating evil men there? I didn't know you served, I thought you were in construction. Usually stating "we" means you've been directly involved.

Fear equals respect only to the weak minded. Again, any foreign policy based on fear will not be productive, hence it is undesirable if any meaningful progress is to be made. You could understand that it you drop your machismo and look past your terrible analogy.

I also find it odd that you think the trade I make a living with somehow makes me unequipped to enter parlance with you over foreign policy.

You, my friend, have missed the point.

 Ouze wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Ah, the classic 'you aren't in the military so shut up' defense. Good to see.

Yeah, up until that point I thought a good discussion could yet take place. Oh well.

We need to help ourselves first before we help others.

This chart suggests we can get it done soon:

Think I will add to the jokes...

What IS to be afraid of is that the USA would be near impossible to oppose.
All it would take is one really careful despot getting voted in and getting some of the more aggressive elements on-side and see it go down hill in a hurry.

Nah... won't happen.

We're much too divided for that to ever occur.

And some says divided government is really bad. o.O

 Talizvar wrote:
Think I will add to the jokes...

What IS to be afraid of is that the USA would be near impossible to oppose.
All it would take is one really careful despot getting voted in and getting some of the more aggressive elements on-side and see it go down hill in a hurry.

Wasn't there an Orson Scott Card book like that?

Ah yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(2006_novel)

 Kelly502 wrote:
We not only cause fear we also annoy folk. Sit back and enjoy your tea, and be thankful your name isn't Fritz...

There was this one nation called the Soviet Union. You might recall hearing about it at some time...

It is better to be loved than to be feared.

But if you cannot be loved then you must be feared.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:
We not only cause fear we also annoy folk. Sit back and enjoy your tea, and be thankful your name isn't Fritz...

There was this one nation called the Soviet Union. You might recall hearing about it at some time...

I just came back into this thread...

Is that how silly it's gotten now. We're being compaired to the Soviet Union?