Assuming that's true (Bush is the one and only to call for a Palestinian state), that's a good step. What has he done to bring this about?

I remember his "roadmap" period, and I don't remember seeing a sincere effort to have it happen. It's as if he plunked it down, and expected it just to make itself happen.

Shit, dude, even Israelis think the US is too pro-Israel in its dealings regarding Palestine. Americans were the only people to even have a plurality thinking America was even handed in I/P issues.

I will give credit to Bush for that one thing, but my point was only that the previous person seemed to be relying solely on the Aid $ figure which is not what affects most people's calculus about who the US favours more.

Besides, a 2-state solution is at best neutral. There are plenty on the Palestinian side that see a 1-state solution, and Israel isn't the state, whether or not the Jews are in it.

The Wye River accords Clinton worked out with Arafat and Barak would have amounted to a Palestinian state anyway.

It was an honest question. I don't know why European poll responses ought to matter very much, or Korean poll responses, or Turkish poll responses. I expect American policymakers to take American interests under consideration. I don't think that the sort of public opinion monitors by the Pew polls matters very much to our national priorities.

Did you notice how little help you got from the world patching Iraq together? Remember how the last Gulf war was? Or even the non-UN sanctioned strikes in Kosovo? How many American lives would have been saved by substantial force contributions from other nations to the Iraq rebuilding effort, particularly Muslim nations. Think it wouldn't have helped to have Egyptian , Syrian or maybe even Iranian troops alongside American ones in Iraq?

And the list of countries who helped you even minimally in Iraq is about to even get shorter if you go into Iran. Even if it is justified.

Maybe America can do without anyone's help in the world, but that's not the same thing as it not mattering at all.

The people of the Third World are united by two things, a wise man once said: their hatred of the U.S. and their desire for a Green Card. Polls aside, people vote with their feet and with their wallets. I have yet to see a Cuban on an inner-tube paddling to Sweden. The world isn't exactly turning up its nose at U.S. assets or trade.

Funny you mention Sweden. They take in far more Iraqi refugees than the US does. Multiples of what the US does.

The world didn't turn down Saddam's oil or Hitler's volkswagons either, but I fail to see how that is any kind of endorsement of your behaviour. The world largely lit candles and solemnly flew US flags after 9-11 this time. Next time, how many more nations will dance in the street?

What America thinks of France is an order of magnitude more important than what France thinks of America. The French, whom I admire in many ways, understand this, and naturally resent us for it. I don't think their resentment is very important.

Maybe not France alone, no. But add Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, Russia, and so on and so forth and eventually it starts to hurt.

America is a nation unlike any that has existed before. We cannot be judged by what still passes for wisdom or civilization in the UK or Saudi Arabia, if indeed we can meaningfully judged at all. You may as well criticize a thunderstorm or a sunrise.

This is pure sophistry. Right and wrong did not change from yesterday. Rome fell. History judges them.

It was a response to your post that in effect said "So what if they hate us?"

It's possible if that view ("who cares") won out, it would be a positive development for America - abandoning all notions of exceptionalism, and honestly dealing with the desire for empire.

Or it would be an unmitigated disaster that only serves to force more and more of the world to unite against America and return to a multi-polar era.

China + Russia + India + Japan would be a formidable adversary for example. Think it's not possible? France and Britain were hardly best friends either back in the days of the Triple Alliance vs The Triple Entente.

In either event, it is valuable for Americans to have this debate and either try to be a good world citizen or honestly admit they just want more power and resources for themselves and fuck the rest.

But I object to the obdurate stupidity of those who think the world's opinion of the US doesn't amount to anything. It's one thing to decide you can deal with being hated and feared, but another to pretend you won't suffer any consequences for it.

Question for those that believe this: George Bush is manifestly unable to achieve any significant aspect of his domestic policy agenda. Yet he is the President, and Commander In Chief of the Armed forces. Why are his powers insufficient to incite compliance in congress with his wishes?

The answer is soft power. And if you think his low approval ratings have nothing to do with that, I can't help you.

One of my favourite commenters here (and a guy who should update his own blog more often) said this of another topic, but I think it applies here:

Call it Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! conservatism. But, at bottom, it's the only kind of conservatism left in America of any political consequence.

Bottom line: They no longer even try to make reasonable arguments. Reason is for sissies. They are all about The Triumph of the Will. It's not that they're Nazis. They're nihilists. They have nothing but scorn for anyone who believes in anything. Pure self-assertion is the sum of their "philosophy." (See, also, Narcissitic Personality Disorder.)

-- Paul Rosenberg