What is the world's view on the american people?

Question

please don't mention Bush in your answer....just tell me about the average american.

Answer 1

I once wrote about this as a report in university for my politics course.
I'm not American but as I was in an American University, I wanted to know both points of views.
American people in general are far away from what's happening in the world around them yet they shape with their votes the political line of the whole world. I think American people should pay more attention to international events that are happening due to american policies to know why many people don't like them. In my survey, I had a very interesting answer
American people are kind, but they are politically shallow.
I know its not my duty as a citizen of a country to pay attention to what happens at the other end of the globe for example, but this should be completely different for a superpower country that can control the whole world. You are given the opportunity to shape the world into a better place, yet the average American doesn't take this into consideration when casting a vote into the ballot.

Answer 2

I think the average American is: ignorant of other cultures, rude to people of different origins, selfish, arrogant, greedy, uncaring, unsympathetic, ungracious, disrespectful, dishonest, obese, passive, and unintelligent. When I see you people on TV I hate you less than when I meet you In reality. What does that say about you? You really need to change because sooner or later you won't just have a war on terror. This is coming from a Canadian too! And we are the closest thing you have to an Allie. Shape up or ship out!

Answer 3

From Canada: The Toronto Star
Woman elected Speaker of U.S. House
January 05, 2007 Tim Harper

"Canadians will likely find this new Congress, with Democrats in charge, more enlightened on its northern neighbour – given its leadership tilt to the northeast and border states – and more in tune with Canadian social values.

But it's also a Congress that can be expected to be a more protectionist trading partner, and one that will likely reopen the battle over access to Canadian prescription drugs. And it will be intent on proving its bona fides when it comes to border security."

From Mexico: El Universal
In 2007, Mexico Must Not Be 'Scapegoated' By U.S. By Ana María Salazar, Translated by Carly Gatzert December 29, 2006

"It is far easier for Democratic and Republican candidates to attack Mexico than to come up with a solution to the problem of Iraq and the almost 3,000 deaths of American soldiers.

What will constitute the greatest challenges for U.S.-Mexican relations in 2007? During the 2006 Mexican presidential campaign, the candidates promised a radical change in relations with Washington and accused President Fox of being a foreign policy entreguista [one who sells out his country for private gain] for dismissing relations with Europe while pursuing an openly aggressive policy against neighboring states like Venezuela and Cuba."

From England: The tension mounts
The Guardian Friday January 12, 2007

"From Iran's point of view, the US presence in the region is rapidly becoming more aggressive. First, Washington announced that it was going to send a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. Then, the UN security council imposed sanctions. Then, there were leaks in Israeli and British press suggesting that Israel is considering using its nuclear arsenal to destroy the one that Iran is widely believed to be trying to build. America, meanwhile, is putting more pressure on international banks to pull out of Iranian ventures, in a move which hit Iran's oil sector and its only means of earning hard currency.

The mood in Damascus is equally bleak. Courted by Tony Blair's personal envoy and spurned by Washington, Syria knows that it could help an Iraqi government by bringing on board the exiled remnants of Saddam's Ba'athist party."

From: Germany - Financial Times Deutschland - Original Article (German) 'Half-Hearted' Troop Buildup 'Stinks of a Bad Compromise'
By Gideon Rachman Translated by Armin Broeggelwirth January 4, 2007

"The USA might send still more soldiers into the Iraq - but at the same time it no longer insists that victory is possible. Now under debate are ways to deal with the possibility of defeat.

If victory cannot be achieved in Iraq, the USA must think over how it will deal with defeat. Two possible goals present themselves: Firstly, the number of additional dead should be minimized - both among Iraqis and allied forces. Secondly, everything should be done to prevent the chaos in Iraq from engulfing the entire region in conflict. At least the latter should be doable, because Turkey and "moderate" Arab countries like Saudi Arabia have interests in the Iraqi game.

Even if the USA loses in Iraq, it still controls enormous military and economic resources to deter opponents and reward friends in the Middle East. Saddam’s execution shows - at least - that it's dangerous to make an enemy of the United States."

From Australia: The Age
"Rattled America will find it can't spin itself out of this one" Bob Ellis January 5, 2007

"And who will trust the Americans now, after this (Saddam's execution) and Abu Ghraib and hurricane Katrina, to get any process right in any country including their own? Not the British soldiers on the ground in Helmland Province, Afghanistan. Not the Australian "security guards" in downtown Baghdad. Not the Iraqi dentists, doctors, nurses, restaurateurs and university lecturers daily fleeing the country. Not the children with toothache. Not the pregnant women with nowhere to go to give birth. Not the grandmothers of dead babies in humidicribs whose electricity gave out. Not the middle-class parents afraid to put their children on school buses lest they never see them again.

And who in the US will trust the American Army, the State Department and the current American rulers of Baghdad either? Not the 30,000 boys and girls wounded, nor their families. Not the 13,000 or 15,000 parents and siblings bereaved. Not the mayors of the towns the 3000 dead kids came from.

The US is facing outright defeat — and worldwide contempt as never before — because of the Saddam gallows Grand Guignol and the secular Golgotha his jeering, black-hooded captors turned it into. And none of this need have happened. All the cluey US spin-men had to do, after consulting a few legal experts, was yield him up to lengthy trial by the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague; let him give big speeches the media would soon tire of; and let him grow very old and sad in jail.

But they didn't, and the consequences are dire and daily mounting. Soon they'll have Tariq Aziz to deal with. He's a Christian, a friend of Pope John Paul, and literate, well-spoken, Anglicised evidence of how broad-based a secular government Saddam ran, and how much 4 million university graduates, civil servants, medical professionals, lawyers, judges, soldiers, police and schoolteachers miss him now, in a world of veils and checkpoints and daylight kidnappings and suicide bombings and 10,000 policemen killed in two years.

Will Tariq Aziz hang? Will his breaking neck and open eyes and slowly swinging corpse be telerecorded too? Will he be allowed his beloved P. G. Wodehouse and Agatha Christie paperbacks in his cell on death row? Will he get a final press conference? Will he be allowed to wear a suit and tie? What questions will he be allowed to answer?

In freedom's name we have helped the US start this barbarous process. In freedom's name we too are called barbarians now, by fairly civilised peoples who may have a point.

And we Australians are in the thick of it. Staying on, to "finish the job". The job may not be all that's finished by the time we're done."

Answer 4

Basically "They that live by the sword, die by the sword".

Answer 5

lambs