Talk:Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Snipped from the article by User:Hojimachong


On the other hand, Guantanamo Bay still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction remain unfound. --Gulik2 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
Comes from this recent news article. Check here for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
  • March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
  • January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
  • November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --JLindon 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Hojimachong, why did you declare this to be an essay? The posts on the "essay" page are simply signed edits like on a debate or talk page. I'm not sure if I missed something, but I find it odd. --JLindon 14:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Okay, the "essay" tag was now removed. Does this mean that the above comments can be moved back? I'm confused. --JLindon 07:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Moved from Essay. Post on the talk page!

On the other hand, Guantanamo Bay still hasn't been shut down, and those pesky Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction remain unfound. --Gulik2 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Just having "pro-American leaders" isn't enough to restore the image, I'm afraid:
In a recent poll of international travellers, commissioned by Discover America Partnership, a coalition of US tourist organisations, 70 per cent of respondents said they feared US officials more than terrorists or criminals. Another 66 per cent worried they would be detained for some minor blunder, such as wrongly filling out an official form or being mistaken for a terrorist, while 55 per cent say officials are "rude."
Comes from this recent news article. Check here for details. Some things that might be worth a look on that page:
  • March 22, 2007 -- New Figures From Dept. of Commerce Show Continued Decline in Overseas Travel to U.S.
  • January 23, 2007 -- Decline in U.S. Share of Global Travelers Since 9/11 Cost Nation $93 Billion; $15 Billion in Lost Taxes
  • November 20, 2006 - Study: Perceived Treatment of Foreign Travelers Driving Away Visitors, Damaging America’s Image Abroad
I'm most likely not going to engage in a lengthy debate about this since my online time is limited, so I'd rather spend it on working on articles. I just wanted to add this as food for thought. There's more to the US image than the opinion of some leading politicians. --JLindon 14:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

You're convinced the Dems hate America, aren't you, JP? At any rate, Blair's out in the UK...so much for Bush's buddy there. Pendayho 16:48, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, many of them do, actually. And, by the way, Blair, a Liberal person, politically, like FDR here, at least knew danger when he saw it, and supported the US policy in Iraq. He is being replaced by an even more pro-US leader, strong Bush supporter, from the Conservative Party, like Thatcher was. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Tony Blair will be replaced by Gordon Brown. If you're referring to David Cameron he has made comments distancing himself from Tony Blair's pro-Bush line.[1] In any case there is a difference between the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the left and criticisms of the Bush administration from the right. A lot of conservatives in Europe dislike Bush for his perceived fiscal irresponsibility. --Jalapeno 05:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • No argument there, about the fiscal irresponsibility. Bush hasn't exactly been a "Tiger" fighting off spending, but Europeans need to remember that in America, only the Congress can appropriate money. Given it was controled by Republicans until recently, all the more shameful, IMO. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:12, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Most Europeans wouldn't make much distinction between the policies of a Republican president and the policies of a Republican congress that supports him -- they're just seen as parts of the same political movement with collective responsibility for the actions they take. More important is the point that you shouldn't assume politicians from the political right in Europe will be any more pro-Bush or pro-American than those from the Left. That would have been a reasonable assumption during the Cold War when support for the USA was useful in establishing anti-communist credentials, but these days that is no longer an important issue. Similarly the Reagan/Thatcher axis shared common ground in how to tackle common domestic issues, but these days the important domestic issues in Europe are often different from those in the USA, and in any case domestic policy during the Bush administration is not considered to be a shining example to be emulated by most European conservatives. There is no longer any overriding reason for European conservatives to be pro-American or pro-Bush. --Jalapeno 05:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Yet the new French President seems to contradict what you are saying.....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 06:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Is this REALLY an essay?

The initial poster removed the "Essay" template and inserted a "Debate" template. That kinda told me that this is meant to be a debate, not an essay. --JLindon 15:33, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Moved from page, again!

You criticize liberals' use of the phrase "USA image" (I believe they actually say "America's image") but then use the incredibly jingoistic phrase "Coalition of the Willing:" are the White House's 'talking points' less meaningless than other 'talking points'? 84% of the invasion force was American; 15% was British. That leaves the remaining 1% of ground forces to be composed of Australian, Polish, and Danish forces - wow, some coalition. It pales in comparison to the original Coalition in 1991. But wait, more nations have joined the coalition of the willing! South Korea, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, the glorious state of Kazakhstan... I could go on. I mean, what would we do without Moldova's twelve soldiers?
Also, I seriously doubt the world hates us for our porno. And what's this about Europeans hating us for our capitalism? Sure, they may be more socialist than we are, but they're hardly communists. Most of Europe is in the EU Free Trade bloc. You know, free trade? Capitalism? Economists love that stuff. The reason people hate us is more complex than "they hate our freedom" - although that is a nifty, jingoistic argument. I believe it has more to do with those in power (Hamas, Syria, and the like) being smart and seeing that they can hold onto their power by unifying those under them against the 'evil West', so that those people don't realize that the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah are crooks who couldn't care less about them. -Fuzzy901 16:14, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
  • "You" would be the original debate-topic starter, from the first page. What happened here? -Fuzzy901 00:34, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
No, it was Jpatt. I moved it to the Essay namespace. --Hojimachongtalk 00:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools