Does any of that change the fact that Pew is not a un-biased source?

Neither is the American Enterprise Institute...so whats your point?

The issue for me is whether the perceptions of the US as a nation and the president as a world leader matters beyond our borders.

IMO, we should recognize that there is a negative perception and acknowledge it in our foreign policy as long as it doesnt hurt our national interests or national security.

On the other hand, according to another post of yours, it doesn't matter... "Not one fucking bit."

Different perspectives...*shrug*...thats life. You wont change my opinion and I wont change yours.

And as long as policy makers continue to worry about that, it hurts our national interests or national security.


God damm right about that.

It invalidates any point that one were to make that Pew published accurate data concerning perceptions from overseas. They are false studies and poor soruces of statistical measure, further reinforced by their bias.

As I said, our foreign policy should recognize it and acknowledge it as long as it does not hurt our national interests or national security.

It might even help. We dont live in a vacuum.

It should be a low priority. I doubt the Chinese, Russians, Indian's, Iranians, North Koreans, Israeli's, or Germans really care if we like them or not when they set international policy.

When John Bolton (AEI fellow) says "bomb Iran now", I dont think that is in our best interest. Sitting down with Iran (along with the other interested parties) one time makes more sense to me.

When Lynn Cheney (AEI fellow) said "we didnt torture or abuse detainees", I dont think that is in our best interest. Ending the policy of "enhanced interrogations" makes more sense to me.

Neither do I.

Not when they are killing US troops in Iraq. No way.

I don't think what Lynn Cheney or any Cheney says is important.

I don't that has been adequately defined. That is Liberal speak.

It is very much like Nixon going to China at the same time as the Chinese were supporting the North Vietnamese and killing US troops.

You negotiate with adversaries, not friends.

It is only important in the sense that it is seen and heard around the world, feeding negative perceptions.

It is US law and international treaty obligations...and again, it feeds those negative perceptions.

:lol:

I was just reading some quotes from Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, and Obama the man himself.

They are just to numerous to post.

I can just say that I hope nothing ever happens to Obama because Biden is a frightening replacement. :D

Support that all you want. It is still wrong and if he does he will risk re-election.

Really? I thought that Israel was our friend, at least that is what they and the Jewish Lobby tell us.


Damm, then you should be worried about what Biden has said in the last year or so.

I have always said that the US population never had what it took to finish The WOT, if you don't fight them on their terms at a time of your choosing you will lose. I am not really concerned with those negative perceptions if they serve our well being and safety in the long run. Effective international policy is not conducted worrying about what your adversaries or others think about you.

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -- Joe Biden

Here is Michelle on wealth redistribution:

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." -- Michelle Obama

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

You need to get some new friends.

Here is the non-partisan opinion

We had expected this sort of turnaround and are bouyed by it, and it's part of the reason we voted for O. However, the story is weak at this time, and in order for the results of this to be a realistic comparison between the two presidencies, we need to wait at least 7 more years, probably longer.

We notice that Presidential favorable/unfavorable rates almost universally go down during a Presidency, and we should expect a similar result here as world events occur. For example, had the poll been taken this week, the number for Poland would be cut in half.

In the interest of fairness, let's remember that Clinton started the free speech zone. Both parties hate opposing discourse. That Obama put up with armed nuts at or near his events (I have no idea how close they got to the President) shows a willingness to allow dissent at a level that can act as a safety valve. That is good politics.

Sure....all of that is true. Much like it is far too soon to claim Obama, or any particular ongoing program, is a failure after 9 months.

Pew conducts its Global Attitudes survey ever couple of years to examine changing attitudes over time, so this was not something out of the blue.

Putting the Bush-Obama comparisons aside, the Pew poll simply reinforced what was widely known from other polls and other measures, that at the end of the Bush presidency, perceptions of the US and confidence in our president as a world leader were at the lowest point in our lifetime....there is no place to go but up.

There are better, more serious measures of the impact of foreign policy decisions and actions on world perceptions....like US intel.

The best example might be the 2006 NIE that concluded, among other things, that the Iraq actions - invasion/occupation/prisoner abuses - became a "cause celebre" for terrorist movements around the world and that wide-spread anti-US sentiments among Muslims, particularly after the invasion/occupation and both in Western Europe and in Muslim countries, was a breeding ground for terrorists exploitation.

The world was on our side on Sept 12, 2001 and in a matter of one year with the decision to invade Iraq, we began to loose that good will and it only got worse and worse as more actions were revealed....not just as a result of US policy, but also the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric that still is highly visible among some (small) segments of the US population as well.

Oh, and I thought the Poles and Czechs were pretty much split down the middle on having US missile defense systems in their backyard...but leaning more to not having it.

just so that lil tidbit of a disclaimer doesn't get lost.

Right.....as I said, it was also the harsh anti-Muslim rhetoric (and the disparaging ot the Muslim religion as a whole) that followed 9/11 and has continued unabated among a (small) segment of the extreme right....a particular turn off for moderate Muslims around the world.

Got it. Keep painting the entirety of EITHER party with that BIG brush you got there.

WTF...what entirety? What part of SMALL segment dont you get?

How do you think it looks to moderate Muslims around the world when a member of Congress calls the first Muslim elected to Congress "un-American" for using the Koran at his swearing-in (Thomas Jefferson's Koran, btw)

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/01...e-swearing-in/

(read some of the comments at the bottom).

Or would it help if I post some of the nasty anti-Muslim signs at the Tea Parties or anti-Muslim comments made on the air by Beck/Limbaugh?

The ones who are Pandagon readers must be livid.

Lemme see here - in order . . .

I get the "small" part just fine - whats the big deal if its such a "small" part of the extreme end of a party? Why did you bother to even mention it?

I don't think about it. It isn't on MY list of importance really. Kinda like when one member says that the president is stupid, a liar, or whatever. A moderate muslim would know that.

No it wouldn't help - it wouldn't make a difference at all actually. And using more extremists like Beck/Limbaugh just further widens the brush you use to paint anyone who disagrees with you as an extremist. Are you jealous of them or something?

It was actually reported in the Washington Post :3eye:
A threat to American values?

Seriously, you dont think that gets circulated around the world and just might leave a bad impression of the US among moderate Muslims?

nope.

How about the 1600 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11...as reported by the FBI?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/MN224441.DTL

No bad impression of the US among moderate Muslims around the world?

Your take on it Dux, is informed by a melting pot culture in which getting along with others is a critical value.

Meanwhile, most Muslim countries don't think that way. Most of them have a deep tradition of highly inflammatory rhetoric. It's not uncommon for a small slight to be met with "I will kill you and your entire family." It's not uncommon for millions to line the streets with the rallying cry "Death to America". This happens even in moderate countries such as Lebanon.

So how do you think moderate Americans feel about Lebanon when millions - not just the occasional political fart-bag - gather in the streets to chant Death to America?

Exactly. They could give a shit. Sometimes they vacation there.

You are excusing the rhetoric in the US because "they" do in their own country and its part of their culture?

Ok...but, IMO, words and signs and acts matter...particularly because, unlike more homogeneous countries, the US values itself on its melting pot and welcoming those who might be "different"

I am not "excusing the rhetoric" (why do you always move the discussion around?), I am explaining to you why a moderate Muslim wouldn't even notice a blip on the map.

Let's put it another way. Post-9/11, no Muslims were killed. One person was killed, but the poor man was a Sikh.

So, in America, fanatics of a religious group can destroy several city blocks and it results in one death.

Meanwhile, a Danish newspaper can print some cartoons, and

I think the moderate Muslims understand.

Sorry if you thought I was "moving the discussion around"

The issue was about anti-Muslim rhetoric, signs and acts in the US...not in Muslim nations or Denmark....as contributing to the low perception of the US among the citizenry (not the govts) of Muslim countries...along with recent US policies (ie invading Iraq) and the historical support of Israel in the US.

Perhaps.

Young, exploitable Muslims...perhaps not so much.

Yes and I'm explaining to you why anti-Muslim rhetoric is not a factor, why that's a fantasy. Moderate Muslims can see that anti-Muslim rhetoric is lower in America than almost any country in the world. That includes all of Europe.

The NIE from several years ago that assessed the trends in global terrorism, identified "four underlying factors that are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement:

(1)Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq “jihad;”
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/De..._Judgments.pdf

IMO, those words, signs and acts further fuel that pervasive anti-US sentiment that already exists, particularly among the young.

So you don't think American Muslims are affected by congressmen and media types bashing Muslims?

As also noted in the NIE:

We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit...

Every time a member of Congress makes a derogatory comment about the Koran or suggests we should bomb Muslim holy sites...and anti-Muslim signs at town hall meetings..or rhetoric spewed on the radio....are exploited and make their way across the internet.

No.

There is a great deal more anti-Atheist sentiment in America than anti-Muslim sentiment. Atheists don't seem very anti-American.

And, if you're worried that there was a tiny minority of anti-Muslim sentiment at the moment that a Muslim was sworn in, you're busy not noticing that a Muslim was elected and sworn in. If you're worried about anti-Obamaites calling him a Muslim and then being anti-Muslim at tea parties, you're busy not noticing that he was called that last year... and then elected President.

Anti-Atheist sentiments are not used as recruiting propaganda around the world, where those doing the recruiting have no interest in portraying the "positive" side of a Muslim being elected to Congress.

It would be very convincing to show us a piece of this very prevalent propaganda from moderate Muslims, perhaps exploiting those very searchable statements. Since it's on the Internet, all we need is a link or three.

The propaganda is not from moderate Muslims and I dont speak/read Arabic so I cant provide links.

I simply agree with US intelligence assessments that terrorism is being fueled in part by anti-American sentiments and that the Internet is a tool for propagandizing and recruiting....and, IMO, these remarks, signs, etc. add fuel to the fire.

I dont think a congressman's deragtory remark about the Koran has as much impact as photos from Abu Grhbab, but nonetheless, it is one more piece of recruiting propaganda spread across Muslim countries....and neither has helped restore the US image.

20 posts later...

This stuff seems trivial, and I know many Dwellars hate our discussion, but I also know that the next time you hear this narrative, you'll know in your heart that it's weak cheese. weeeeak

The non-moderates don't need quotes from congressmen. They can just make shit up, and repeat it as their gospel... and they do.

We can't have this discussion in the Pandagon comments sections, and we can't have this discussion with the repulsive Freepers. We can only have it here.

The moderate Muslims know that, but when the mainstream media says something that jibs with what the extremists are ranting, it has to make them wonder if there's more the media isn't saying.

Extremists like you continue to make the same mistake that Beck or Limbaugh in someway represent conservative political values. You are like a little kid who keeps sticking his hand in the pen of a rabid dog and getting bit.

You mean sort of like when one guy makes a cartoon critical of Muslims?

Remember this one?

http://www.humanevents.com/images/islm_cartoon_7.jpg

[sarc]OOOOOOOOOooooooo.... BogaBoga! Heaven forbid we say anything critical of any group that happens to be Muslim, least we may offend. [/sarc]

But yet radical liberals stand up every day and bash Christians in the US or anyone who wants to profess their faith in a public forum, even if they are a politician.

IMHO this is the key to the discussion. And it happens whether the extremists are liberal-lefty's, tighty-righty's, or anti-Muslimists, the mainstream media pics it up, finds the extreme reaction to the anti-thesis of the view professed and then runs with it. Bruce wins the common sense award.

Why make shit up when it is given to you on a silver platter by members of Congress or America's top radio infotainer. So much easier to verify then made up crap.

Now I am done and Merc can call me more names, if it makes him feel better. ;)

Democratic Shrill. ;)

Wtf are "genuine liberals"?

You can always tell a genuine liberal from a fake. Just check the stitching.


:P

Welcome to the Cellar Idemosaka.

I thought you had to bite them or something.

No, wait, genuine liberals are the ones that are more afraid of you than you are of them.

They're the ones who are genuine.

yeh - genuine - not the tree huggers . . . :bolt:

...I resume that remark.....

The children shall chant songs of praise my comrades!

Elementary School Students Taught Pro-Obama Songs

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09...y5335819.shtml

WTF?

Yep. The end is near.

Wow - after hearing that - fuggit.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

One teacher in one elementary school in one state does something incredibly stupid.....and it goes viral on the conservative blogs.

The teacher should be reprimanded...the bloggers should chill.

So it turns out that the "incident" occurred in February as part of a little medley to celebrate Black History Month..fresh off of the inauguration of the nation's first black president.

I take back calling the teacher incredibly stupid or suggesting a reprimand.

Next February, if you dare to acknowledge Black History Month in a school assembly, just dont have kids sing about Obama...and be careful how you even include Obama's name when discussing the achievements of African-Americans or it will be twisted into "indoctrination." Stick to George Washington Carver....kids love peanut butter!

The bloggers attempting to make this anything bigger should still get a life.

Say what you want. It was inappropriate in any context. The Left-wing nuts would have had a meltdown if kiddies were singing praises of Bush in a similar manner on Presidents day.

Or during white history month.