Do you think the international reputation of US suffered during Bush administration?

Could you please compare the "international reputation" of the US with other national governments and analyze why those other governments have a better international social standing and image? Could you then do an interest-analysis of what those governments achieve and how?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because people don't truly examine other governments, those governments don't have to take the decisions the US does and it's incredibly sheik to hate on the US.

Here's a perfect example of what I mean. Bush did not start rendition anymore than Obama ended military tribunals at Gitmo (they still occur).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fact Sheet: Extraordinary Rendition | American Civil Liberties Union
Dec 6, 2005... its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. ... Thus, the rendition program has allowed agents of the United ...

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition

Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue - Telegraph
Feb 1, 2009 ... The highly controversial anti-terror practice of rendition will continue under Barack Obama, it has emerged.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html

 

The rest of world has it's own sins to answer for, pointing the finger always leaves 3 pointing back at you.

 

As always, any "facts" posted by Buffalo are incorrect - no matter how many times he has been corrected on them (three, now, for this one). Rendition does not date to Clinton.

As with most of the evils afflicting us now, rendition was introduced by Reagan, continued with moderation by Bush and then Clinton, and expanded into reckless and damaging new fields by W.

It was W who altered the former program of occasionally and unusually kidnapping those wanted for crimes by the US to face trial in the US. W expanded and refocused the program, began the widespread and ordinary use of rendition to kidnap people and take them to other countries to be tortured, either in one of several US "interrogation" centers established in various countries or other governments's facilities, either in US intelligence interests or as favors to foreign heads of state for whatever reason.

At least one person was kidnapped in America ( a Canadian passing through) and rendered to Syria for months of torture in the service of US intelligence. (Apparently he was innocent of terrorism. If innocence is relevant any more). That of course violates several provisions of the US Constitution W swore to uphold, in particular habeus corpus, but so far no legal action has been taken.

The effect this has had on America's reputation is the predictable one, from the exposure of such programs.

 

It is a non sequiter, so there is not a yes or no answer.

 

LOL, you should take your own advice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

JamesR I have expressed my opinion, sorry you fail to understand it.

 

I think there is little doubt the American reputation was taken through the bathroom floor during the George II administration. I cannot recount when our external reputation has been so low as it was during the George II years.

The country was a mess when President Obama walked into the White House. At best it will be many years before our international image can be restored. Worse, I think many Americans think less of ourselves as a result of the George II administration. The George II handling of the wars was at best not in keeping with American ideals. Both wars were badly bungled on many fronts. If it could be screwed up, George II would screw it up.

George II is now busy trying to put lipstick on his administration and trying to sell his new book. But from what I hear, it is not selling well which in and of itself is telling. Not even the so called "conservatives" are buying his book in large numbers. Sarah Palin by contrast can throw out blank paper and have it on the best seller list for a week. I suppose her foundations buying up her books may be one of the reasons her books hit the best seller list for a few days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/world/main649513.shtml

 

yes it suffered. Bush's presidency was a blight on humanity

 

Yes it did. The US was supposed to be the "good guys" and under Bush more people started to wonder if they were the "bad guys"....especially after Iraq, where Saddam was the "bad guy" but somehow US seemed to come out of it as the war-mongering lying-through-its teeth nation looking to explot an oil rich nation using its military force to do what it wanted regardless. Which is probably why Buffalo Roam won't answer the question, after all whay should he or any American really care what other nations think of the US? What concern is it to them? America has to look out for itself...

 

James it is a non sequitur, it doesn't matter who is in office, no matter what the U.S. does the world is going to critisize us for what ever we do.

We do nothing we are accused of being selfish and not caring, we become involved and we are accused of being selfish and wanting everything our way, and not caring.

It doesn't matter if it is Clinton, Bush, Obama, the world wants it's cake and eat it too when it comes to the U.S.

 

It seems an honest straight forward answer still eludes you mr. roam.

 

I reiterate, people don't truly examine other governments, those governments don't have to take the decisions the US does and it's incredibly sheik to hate on the US.

In other words, it's kind of ridiculous for people in Egpyt and India and Pakistan -- and just go down the list, really -- to hate on the US when, in fact, their governments are demostrably worse.

In the cases when you're dealing with comparables, say Europeans countries and the like, you've got a hefty dose of snobbery at work (IE -- they still don't like the US today, and you can see that on this site with the America has no culture BS) and they fail to realize that America has to make decisions their government does not (seeing as their goverment gets to freeload on our hegemony).

Everything for you goes back to Reagan.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rendition has been around for a long, long time -- and the Supreme Court has upheld it. What your beef seems to be with is that intelligence services started using it more.

If you think that just started under W, you're somewhat delusional. All W. really did was allow American operatives to be active agents in the renditions they had witnessed, through other intelligence services, for years.