fayfreethinkers.com

DAR
If you have someone who has the Midas touch in reverse, put him charge of the most influential country on the planet.

***
International poll shows world is turning against Americans, not just President Bush

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday May 17, 2006

In increasing numbers, people around the globe resent American power and wealth and reject specific actions like the occupation of Iraq and the campaign against democratically elected Palestinian leaders, in-depth international polling shows, (information-restricted) Newshouse News Service reports Wednesday. Excerpts:

...In the past, while Europeans, Asians and Arabs might have disliked American policies or specific U.S. leaders, they liked and admired Americans themselves. Polls now show an ominous turn. Majorities around the world think Americans are greedy, violent and rude, and fewer than half in countries like Poland, Spain, Canada, China and Russia think Americans are honest.

The dislike is accelerating among youths, Stokes said. For instance, 20 percent of Britons under age 30 have an unfavorable opinion of Americans, double the percentage of 2002. More than half of those asked in France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Britain said the "spread of American ideas and customs" was a "bad thing."

...Almost half of those polled in Britain, France and Germany dispute the whole concept of a global war on terrorism, and a majority of Europeans believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. More than two-thirds of Germans, French and Turks believe American leaders lied about the reasons for war and believe the United States is less trustworthy than it once was.

In Brazil, 52 percent held a favorable view of the United States in 2002; by the following year that had dropped to 34 percent. In Russia, the pro-America portion of the population dropped from 61 percent to 36 percent over a year.


Full Article here

D.

The last three states where Bush's approval is slightly above half:
.

.
.

The rest of the world waited patiently from 2001 through 2004 before judging America in general based on Bush in particular, especially since he wasn't actually elected in the first place. When he was re-elected, even though the results are more than questionable in some states, they decided that America had gone "to the Dark Side" - and if I didn't know those elections were questionable at best, I might agree with them. As it is, we will have a lot of peace to make with the rest of the world when (& if - those questionable elections just keep happening) we manage to get rid of the people behind this administration.

There should be a revolution going on in this country, and there isn't. All those opposed to BushCo are just complaining about it and should be mounting an organized effort to overthrow him. Other countries probably see our unwillingness/inability to do that as apathy or support - either way, it looks like if we're not against him, we're for him...

Revolutions (as opposed to secessions) generally don't work, since they do nothing about subservient attitudes. They simply lead to a new oppressor. The French Revolution led to Napoleon, the Russian Revolution to Lenin. (The so-called "American Revolution" was actually a secession, not a revolution. No one tried to take over the government in London.)

The solution for the USEmpire is devolution (aka breakup) as occurred in the USSR. Between hyperinflation and terrorism, it will happen sooner than most people think. In the meantime, instead of fomenting revolution, I suggest that you build alternative structures outside the State apparatus, like private currencies and courts, and support your local underground economy.

Hogeye's solution would only work if the little pieces that the no longer United states break up into are militarily strong enough to withstand being taken over by their neighbors. Otherwise, a "ground up" replacement of representatives - the same way the Rs did their "stealth" takeover, starting with school boards some 30 years ago - may work. Term limits was supposed to solve the problem - manditorily getting rid of the incumbents every so often was supposed to make sure corrupting power didn't stay in the same hands long enough to do real damage. Unfortunately, it didn't address the issue of where do you get the money to run a campaign in the first place, and as long as corporate money pays for elections (and owns the media), corporate issues will be first in the hearts of those elected by it. Starting local and then state to change campaign law - without abriding 1st Amendment rights - will be tricky, but does change the dynamic. Politicians will always "dance with them that brung 'em" - so we need to change who brings them.

A non-violent revolution every election day is built into our Constitution. The Founders really thought, and I agree, that ballots were better than bullets - if nothing else it reduces "collateral damage".

Barbara wrote:Hogeye's solution would only work if the little pieces that the no longer United states break up into are militarily strong enough to withstand being taken over by their neighbors.

LOL! It is ludicrous to think that Missouri would attack Arkansas, or Jopliners would attack Bella Vistaites. Sure, there's a positive probability, but certainly less than the probability of some foreign terrorists (or foreign State) attacking the USEmpire in revenge for its frequent interventions, occupations, and murders.

Term limits and campaign finance reform are merely cosmetic. Neither address the real problem - massive goverment power. So long as politicians have humongous power to wield and sell, it really doesn't matter how often you change faces and who gets to bribe.

Such touching faith in humanity. The Kosovo problem didn't start until Tito died - he was a strong dictator who by his not particularly nice military strength held together with a minimum of violence groups of people who otherwise are quite happy to attack each other and take each others' property (real and personal) in the name of some god or racial purity of whatever excuse they can come up with. Iraq remained a nation under the iron fist of Saddam, but is falling apart now - and yes, those "parts" are attacking each other. In societies where the differences are not so obvious (religion or ethnicity), a more peaceful form of government works - but there are always people who can convince themselves that it is right and holy to kill other people and take their stuff. We've had one major attack in America by foreign terrorists in protest of whatever American are doing to them (perceived or real - unfortunately, mostly real). We've had many more attacks, some worse than others, by American terrorists on American soil in "protest" of one thing or another. An unfortunately large number of people would join such activities if there wasn't an overall law forbidding it. Think for a minute about the Civil War, also know as the War Between the States and the War of the Southern Secession - a major war among neighboring states, that could have devolved into chaos if one government hadn't remained together and the seceeding states hadn't created another. And chaos brings out the raider in many - check out the history of the Kansas-Missouri border before, during, and right after that war. It's government that stops that kind of thing from happening. Get rid of government, and we get the bad old days - where you are either part of a raider group or will be victimized by one (or more), or both.