Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Pakistani Disapproval of U.S. Leadership Soars in 2012

Posted 7 years ago on Feb. 14, 2013, 5:27 p.m. EST by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



Read the Rules
[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Liberals dont care about war anymore. Death by war is the most atrocious aspect of corporate greed, and yet we tend to put it someone in the 5-10 range in order of importance. DC doesnt even put it in the top 10 anymore.

People immigrating here apparently is a bigger issue than us drowning in our own lust for power, at the expense of innocent poor people in th eMiddle East and Africa.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Ok, not that no one cares, its just not around anymore. I mean, we are invading Africa without a peep.

I JUST saw an ad on MSNBC about a doc on the Bush invasion of Iraq. Wtf. What about our current state of affairs?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Why would MSNBC report anything on Africa?

I think the definition of insanity applies here.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago


Throw in Libya, Sudan, Mali, Uganda, etc and we have all out takeover by military force underway. Not neoliberalism takeover, straight up neocon takeover.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

I understand this. I thought you guys had that aspect covered and would post regularly on it. I focused on Egypt-except that I began to note significant changes in what was on the English sites for material. So, I am mostly reading through it. That doesn't mean that liberals are ignoring it.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Ah ok gotcha.

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

"Liberals dont care about war anymore"? What about UFPJ, Code Pink, JustForeignPolicy, NPR, Chomsky, Wolff. Hedges, M. Moore. and many others.

In fact it is ONLY liberals fighting our criminal military actions.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

they are more activist liberals. They are not the institutionalized liberal majority known as democrats. Democrats and republicans are pro-war. That is what OTP is talking about

and Chris Hedges talks about it in his book Death of the Liberal Class also.

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

politicians suck! Liberal movement/politicians died in the 70's/80's and are now being reborn.

Occupy has begun that process and many liberal/progressive groups have been empowered to once again stand up, & speak out.

I don't know what your friend was "thinking" I could only respond to the comment he made.

Maybe you agree that liberals don't care about war anymore but I disagree, I listed a fraction that do.

The real issue, true statement is:

Conservatives, care only about creating/waging war, now and for the last 40 years at least. Can you list any? Even one?

See that is an example of a true statement that does need any explanation, exception, qualifyer, or prevarication.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

"The nation embraces the dangerous delusion that we are on a providential mission to save the rest of the world from itself, to impose our virtues, which we see as superior to all other virtues - on others and that we have a right to do that by force. This belief has corrupted both democrats and republicans." - Chris Hedges

The 2 party system is pro-war. Look at the voting records. Look at who lobbies them and funds their campaigns.

[-] 0 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

Politicians suck! I agree the duopoly must end!

but it is ONLY liberals who are protesting our criminal military action.!!!!

Liberals care, It's the conservatives that don't. Right??

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

If you want to act like the Ron Paul movement didn't exist, sure you can say that. Ron teamed up with Kucinich to try and prevent the Iraq war. Also a lot of members in Veterans Against the War vary.

But yeah the overwhelming majority of conservatives/republicans are pro-war. Acting like I'm denying that is solely based on your assumptions.

It depends on how you classify the term liberal. I wouldn't consider democrats to be liberal. Sticking inside the establishment mold is not really liberal. But the overwhelming majority of society has spoken. Democrats are considered liberals.

Democrats and Republicans vote for war.

You should check out Hedges' book Death of the Liberal Class.

[-] 0 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

Read it. Heard him speak on it.

Democrats are liberals? If you mean dem politicians, I'm gonna have to disagree. Dems politicians/movements died in the 70's-80's. Dems have moved right ever since. Maybe dem pols (with some exceptions) are moderates. Had to be to get the corp money and win elections in this country that has moved right in the last 30 years.


If you mean dem people (non pols) I suppose a bigger percent of non pol dems ARE liberal.

In any event liberalism is on the rise. Occupy and other newly empowered progressive groups have gotten new life.

In time this movement should grow and can influence the country andeven the corrupt politicians we are sick of.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

You can't oppose war by voting for candidates that are pro-war.

I do not think Democrats are liberals. I said that already. But the majority of this nation views them as the liberal class. Anyone outside of that is usually brushed away as a radical. Just like when they crushed OWS and Occupy Oakland with violent force. The majority of "Dem people (non pols)" vote for the candidates, that you do not consider to be liberals, because "they have to or else." So how is that liberal?

But yes I agree, Occupy will lead to better things.

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 7 years ago

The vast majority of the anti-war Liberals lost their balls when the Dems took over, starting in 2006. Remember how the D's regained control of Congress by promising to quickly end all the wars? How'd that work out? After that failure, most people were more worried about not making the Dems look bad then with ending a war, so they kept their mouth shut.

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

What about UFPJ, Code Pink, JustForeignPolicy, NPR, Chomsky, Wolff. Hedges, M. Moore. and many others.

In fact it is ONLY liberals fighting our criminal military actions.

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 7 years ago

"Vast majority" means most, not all. Even you have to acknowledge the drop in volume after Pelosi took over.

And damn it VQ, stop repeating yourself over and over. Pick up, some new habits.

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

Liberal movements are growing now that OWS has lit the fuse. It's only upwards now. So I disagree that most liberals are quiet. We are louder than we have been in 40 years.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Classic liberals?

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

Huh? is that like classic coke? I was responding to you comment regarding "liberals".

Maybe you want to go back and change your comment to "classic liberals". While you're at it maybe you can add your definition.

Until then perhaps you can just respond to my comment listing just a fraction of the liberal anti war movements/people.

and respond to this if you feel for it.:

Conservatives care about creating wars now and always have. Can you name any anti war conservatives?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Do you consider the thousands of students going to RP events last year conservatives?

I dont, but I bet you do.

[-] 1 points by imagine40 (383) 7 years ago

Ron Paul? I thought he died? So than I guess you're arguing that "Liberals don't care about war" & conservatives are anti war?

Ever read Superman comics.?


[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Ummm...thats not what Im saying at all... you are reverting back to Vkag land. Self correct and return when fixed.

Otherwise we are going to have to get that flaming ring and the unicycle back out :)

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

assumptions are always the most intelligent form of an argument.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

what do you consider them?

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Normal college kids that see an out of control government run by robots that recognized someone who seemed like a normal person and had some different ideas.

Whether they would like to go all the way with all of those ideas is to be determined by time. but the reaction was fairly predictable given the 9% approval rating of congress, and the youth pretty much hating anything political at this point.

[+] -8 points by highlander (-163) 7 years ago

Like I really give a shit what Pakistan thinks

[-] 7 points by Renneye (3874) 7 years ago

Obtuse racist a$$hole!!!

[+] -6 points by highlander (-163) 7 years ago

Wow. Now that I think about it, maybe I was a bit off color on that statement. Let me think - harboring bin Laden, hotbed of terrorism, getting in the way of our war in Afganistan. Nah, I think I will stick with that statement.

[-] 4 points by Renneye (3874) 7 years ago

Where's the love highlander? Our government is killing our fellow human beings?!

The sentiments stated in the article are of the Pakistani People, not the Pakistani government (items listed in your post, by the way, are debatable).

I'm sure if Pakistan or any other country were blowing up Americans from the sky, and you were scared out of your mind to go to work every day, terrified of sending your kids to school or the market, for fear of being incinerated in midstep...its reasonable to think that the approval rating from Americans towards Pakistan's government would plummet.

The thing is 'low-roader'...that the murderous foreign policy of the arrogant U.S., whose image of blatant nation building...is now as fused to the word 'American', as an ugly, conjoined, stupid twin, in the global psyche. Pakistanians are not the only ones who think badly of the U.S. The sentiment of the U.S. as the global bully, is the consensus that is spreading quickly to most reasonable people throughout the world. 1+1=2...this is not rocket science. Oops! Well, I suppose it is...for all the good its done us :-(

[-] -3 points by highlander (-163) 7 years ago

I understand your point of view. I am seriously torn. One part of me wishes for the world love and peace that is sought. I, unfortunately, am a cynical reader of history. The people that move ahead, win the game, make the rules, are the strong and powerful. The biggest gun, the sharpest stick. Even in the 21st century, the military and economically powerful are the movers and winners. The cold war? the game of global domination? It is still being played. And I want the USA to win all the marbles.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

That thirst for power is what destroys every empire too. There is a balance. Bombing countries all over the place and attempting to take over the globe will eventually ruin us.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

The US is increasingly ruled by a global oligarchy, that is, very rich people who live in other countries, who are allied with the super rich of the US. These are the people who "win", when they use the US as their weapon against other countries.

Unfortunately, it is your loss as well as mine when these people win against the poor of the world, this is because they are trying to reduce us to the level of poverty, and will eventually use their tools of war against us as well, if we let them.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 7 years ago

You can still have the sharpest stick and biggest guns without slaughtering and invading people and countries around the world.

I hear you if we're attacked we should attack back in full force. But I also think it's important to understand the motivations behind an attack on us....a detective looks for motives - not because he sympathizes with the killer - but to understand why it was done.

Would you not take up arms and attack a country that was actively stealing our resources and setting up military bases across the US? I sure as hell would.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

The detective analogy is a good talking point.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 7 years ago

You should...because the number of countries that have a favorable view of the US is shrinking.

[+] -5 points by highlander (-163) 7 years ago

I may have worried about that at one time. I grew up under Reagan, whose motto was force and unrelenting force to make the Soviet Union back down. Then came Clinton and the apparent appeasement through the Oslo Accords, peaceful negotiations, foreign aid, etc. After all of that, we still get attacked. If 9/11 had any effect on me, it is my loss of concern for what the world thinks of the US. The world respects force; the world respects power. I sometimes think, when my mood is right, that I would prefer the US to be feared then loved. Funny, here in the 21st century, so much has changed, yet nothing has changed, force and the threat of war set policy. I would rather be on top of the heap.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 7 years ago

If you want the US to be feared, you may be the one who is in fear of it some day, that is, if it goes Nazi or Soviet, and starts throwing US citizens in concentration camps.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 7 years ago

I would read Robert Papes "Dying to Win"....you can get it used for a quarter on amazon. I think it would open your eyes. The book deals specifically with facts and data on suicide terrorism and how/why it occurs. The author has done the most comprehensive study of it ever. Studying and obtaining individual data on each one...motivations...educations...religious beliefs...and on and on. The data will floor you.

This sums it up pretty well though..the difference is Pape gives the data to back up the argument:


Clinton wasn't the angel everyone thinks he was. He was actively engaged in the middle east and many other countries...without congressional approval.