Why would the USA want "everyone" to "like" us and How far should we go to get This Universal "Love"?

Answer 1

I am a bit Machiavellian about this issue, I really am not interested if they like or love us, and am more interested that they fear us. It seems to make our point of view rise to the top of their agendas quicker.

Answer 2

Like, Dislike, who cares? This is no popularity contest.

What American SHOULD be demanding is RESPECT. The way to GET respect is to give it, something we haven't done in 7 years. By invading a sovereign nation without UN approval or sanction, all Bush did was confirm EVERYONE'S most paranoid fears about the US. Had Bush stayed with Afghanistan, we would not have anywhere NEAR the quagmire we have now. People respected us when we were attacked, they don't now. Why not? Because of the Imperialist moves of our suspiciously elected President.

Bush has shown the world he has NO interest in fighting terrorism, as he himself defines it. Our embassy in Greece was blown up... why don't we have troops in Greece? Embassies and Americans in Africa have been attacked, but we haven't sent troops THERE to "combat terrorism", why not? It's this blatant hypocracy which causes the rest of the world to view us with justifiable suspicion and mistrust.

Bush said in his May 27th Press Conference, he would remove the troops immediately if the Iraqi government and the people wanted him to. He hoped they WOULDN'T but if they DID, we would leave at once. Then this past Friday, your President let slip his intention to have forces in Iraq for the next "50 years".

If Putin tried these tactics we would be hollering to the UN to stop him immediately.

Reagan's "Star Wars" missile shield? It was ALWAYS a bluff to up the ante in the Cold War, while US still could and the Soviets couldn't. For Bush to put his support behind it is surely madness, or murderous arrogance, I can't decide which.

Love's a joke, but I'll take Respect over Fear anyday. And if our President wasn't so concerned with Iraqi oil, he would realize this and act accordingly.

Answer 3

I don't think it is neccessary that our allies or enemies for that matter like us, I do believe it is neccessary and prudent that they respect us. Which currently neither do. Respect and trust goes a long way, and for our leaders to be viewed as lacking in truthfulness and integrity makes it difficult for us to work with them expecially in combating terrorrists. The world now knows that Our President was less than truthful (or at least they perceive him to be) Due to the lack of WMD's in Iraq, that Bush swore were there, and that he had absolute proof of them,. What is the chance that that our allies will trust us when we make the same assertian in the future? This respect also extends to our "soft power" or perceived power. This is in contrast to our "hard power" or actual military force. If our soft power is in tact and effective we are respected and the hard power only needs to be used in limited form to achieve our goals. Lately our soft power has suffered. Starting with our neglect in Somalia and leaving after the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident, was perceived as a weekness. Our failure to effectively retaliate (all the way back to Beirut) and currently, our inability to secure a far less superior country and fighting force (by no fault of our military, I fault the leadership and planning) has done us a great disservice in the world.

Answer 4

I'm going to have to reject your thesis. The 'USA' isn't a person. It has no capacity to 'want' anything. As an independent nation it's certainly to our overall advantage for our government to be on good terms with as many other independent national governments as possible. As a rule this is a function of being fair, honest, ethical and as the situation warrants, helpful. By adhering to these standards of conduct a nation is generally respected, and by being respected economic and social interaction is enhanced. Win/win! Nations that wish us harm in spite of our commitment to the above must be aware that we have both the capacity and will to defend our interests. Our national emblem, an eagel clutching an olive branch and arrows, peace and war, makes this commitment obvious. Pulling Uncle Sam's beard has never been a good option for anyone, while being co-operative in an international sense has never proven to be a disadvantage to other national governments. Nobody I'm aware of has suggested anything like a desire for 'universal love'. You'll have to explain that one. I think you're making an attempt to once again beat up the 'liberal' strawman enemy. Asking loaded questions may give you a nice warm feeling inside, but overall the asker comes off as snotty and immature. If the shoe fits.......

Answer 5

Like many people, event-4-star totally misquotes Niccolo Machiavelli about being loved and hated. What he actually said is that it is best for the ruler to be both loved and feared; but if he cannot achieve both, then it is better to be feared than loved. He should, however, avoid making himself hated. So, actually, there are 4 possibilities, not 2: (1) to be loved; (2) to be feared; (3) to be feared and loved; and (4) to be hated.

I'd take fear over love any day. Let them think whatever they want to think, as long as they just mouth off and don't mess with us.

Answer 6

I would prefer to see us get back to our isolationist roots. If someone needs our help ending a genocide and they ask for it, then okay. Otherwise I'd like to see us leave the world alone and let them fend for themselves while we do the same.

We can take care of ourselves and defend ourselves. Conservatives routinely criticize the liberal philosophy of caring for everyone from cradle to grave. Well how is that any different than claiming we have a "moral obligation" to police the world? Protecting American business interests is not a legimate reason to get your troops killed.

Answer 7

Of course, it is better to be liked than hated but our country cannot make decisions based on what would be popular with the rest of the world. The needs of our own country must come first. We shouldn't worry about gaining any Universal "Love".

Answer 8

This so-called "Universal Love" is an unrealistic utopian concept that exists only in the liberal dream world. The USA needs to do what is right...and what is right is not always what is popular. Ronald Reagan, we miss you.

Answer 9

You pose a very interesting question. I have been trying for years to figure out why the liberal press is so worried about whether we are loved or not loved by the world. Our politicians are trying to bankrupt the working stiff to buy love with foreign aid money; while our own citizens die from lack of affordable medical care and our infrastructure crumbles. Break out the fiddles for the fires of the last days of empire.

Answer 10

I do not care if they like us. Why on earth does the leading country in the world care if some other country likes them. That sounds like something out of the mouths of whacky liberals.

Answer 11

These liberals sound like women in an abusive relationship "he said he loved me and promised not to punch me anymore". While we do want to have allies and friends, we need to always, above all, put the interest and national security of the United States first. I've never seen such hateful ignorance as I've seen on here. I'm thinking the terrorist and communist are just on here to make us think these are actual Americans with these distorted ideas.