(Btw, please pick a unique pseudonym, as this is against site rules I believe.)

In short, our standing in the world is not the result of America turning into a quasi-fascist population, although, granted, some part of our population *is* just that.. No, our standing in the world is the result of a coup by elements of our society that would have been far smarter to stay behind the scenes. These elements have shown fairly clearly that brazen greed, corruption, and power-hunger don't play too well in the long run.

True as this may be, I suspect that the distinction is lost on the victims of the Bush regime's policies, but also on many of their disgusted observers. I'm guessing that a lot of people abroad must despise not only the Bush regime for its policies, but also the American people for having either elected them into office, or having allowed them to cheat their way into office--and either way for having supported their policies for an extended period of time. Remember, most Americans supported the Iraq war, before it, and after it, until the WMD failed to materialize and we became bogged down in the occupation.

An historical analogy is Nazi Germany. I suspect that anti-German feelings in the US at the time (especially once the US had entered the war) were not limited merely to the actual Nazi regime, but also extended towards Germany and Germans (and their willing allies) as a whole. However, one should also remember that upon Germany's defeat, while the Nazis have continued to be seen as thoroughly evil and reprehensible by most people, it didn't take long for Americans to come to regard Germany and Germans as allies and friends (as soon as the '48-49 airlift). Which, I think, tends to support your assertion.

I think that all countries--not just the US, but perhaps especially the US right now since we are the most powerful and prominent country in the world--tend to be regarded based on their current policies and activities. While there has never been a period in the post-WWII era in which the US has not engaged in arrogant, aggressive and imperial military and economic policies, the extent to which it has engaged in such policies, and the manner and egregiousness in which it has done so, has tended to be reflected in international views of the US.

Under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Bush I and Clinton, US foriegn policy tended to be less (but certainly not completely) arrogant, militaristic and imperialistic, which tended to make the US more "popular". And under Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush II, US foriegn policy tended to be more (and under Bush II vastly more) arrogant, militaristic and imperialistic, which tended to make the US less "popular". Nothing mysterious about this.

So long as we're the world's dominant economic and military power, pursuing imperialistic policies, we will ALWAYS be disliked to a certain extent abroad. But the extent to which we are disliked will always tend to reflect the extent to which and manner in which our current regime's policies are, in fact, arrogant, militaristic and imperious. That there is or appears to be a direct correlation between the current regime's massively arrogant, militaristic and imperious policies and massive anti-US sentiment should surprise no one.

What should surprise people--abroad as well as at home--is that we have allowed such policies to happen in the first place, and, perhaps even worse, allowed them to continue unabated. THAT, I think, represents something fairly new and even surprising in US foreign policy. We have always pursued such policies to some extent. But never, to my recollection, to such an extent, and for so long. Well, not since our wars in SE Asia and support for right-wing dictators in S America, Africa and Asia some 35-40 years ago. Even Reagan, as bad as he was, wasn't as bad as the Johnson/Nixon, and now Bush II foreign policies.

Bottom line, we are as liked or disliked, as our current foreign policies and actions justify.