Newsweek reports United States is the 2nd most hated country in the world

[Paco Dennis]

I don't particularly give a damn which nations "hate" the U.S. Existentialism isn't a popularity contest. I'm concerned solely with the success of the USA.

The fact is, the Big Dog on the Hill will always be hated by somebody. I'm pretty sure that's written in some sort of anthropological tome somewhere. Ergo, to some, it doesn't matter what the USA does or doesn't do to that subset. Hate will emanate from them regardless.

IMHO, the USA has done more to "fix" issues than perhaps most nations. If that isn't good enough, well, there's the door.

The military veteran’s perspective reflects a pragmatic, America-first worldview that prioritizes U.S. interests over global perceptions. However, his stance is flawed for several reasons:

### 1. **Dismissing Global Opinion Can Be Strategically Dangerous**
- While existentialism isn’t a "popularity contest," international relations *are*. Alliances, trade agreements, and diplomatic cooperation rely on trust and mutual respect.
- If the U.S. is widely disliked, it becomes harder to rally support for sanctions, military actions, or global initiatives (e.g., countering China, climate agreements).
- History shows that unchecked unilateralism (e.g., Iraq War backlash) can isolate the U.S. and empower adversaries.

### 2. **"Hate Is Inevitable" Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy**
- Yes, powerful nations will always face resentment, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. should ignore *why* some nations resent it.
- Much anti-U.S. sentiment stems from specific policies (e.g., drone strikes, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes)—not just envy or irrational hatred.
- Assuming hate is unavoidable can justify reckless actions that *increase* hostility unnecessarily.

### 3. **"The U.S. Fixes More Than Most" Is a Selective Narrative**
- The U.S. has indeed contributed to global stability (Marshall Plan, disease eradication, disaster relief), but it has also:
- Overthrown democracies (Iran 1953, Chile 1973).
- Backed brutal regimes (Saudi Arabia, Cold War proxies).
- Ignored treaties (Paris Accord, UN Human Rights Council under Trump).
- Many nations (especially in the Global South) see the U.S. as a destabilizing force, not a benevolent fixer.

### 4. **"There’s the Door" Ignores Interdependence**
- The U.S. cannot thrive in isolation. It depends on:
- Global supply chains (e.g., semiconductors, rare earth minerals).
- Cooperation against transnational threats (pandemics, cyberattacks).
- Allies to counterbalance China and Russia.
- Telling critics to "leave" assumes the U.S. doesn’t need them—a dangerous illusion in a multipolar world.

### 5. **Moral Leadership Matters**
- The veteran’s stance reduces foreign policy to pure transactional power, ignoring that U.S. influence has long relied on *soft power* (culture, ideals, diplomacy).
- If the U.S. openly scorns global opinion, it cedes moral authority to rivals (e.g., China’s "non-interference" propaganda).

### **Conclusion**
The veteran isn’t *entirely* wrong—the U.S. can’t please everyone, and some hatred is inevitable. But dismissing all criticism as irrelevant is shortsighted. A smarter approach:
- **Acknowledge legitimate grievances** (e.g., past interventions, hypocrisy on human rights).
- **Choose battles wisely**—avoid unnecessary conflicts that fuel resentment.
- **Leverage alliances** instead of alienating them.

Strength isn’t just about ignoring hate—it’s about minimizing it where possible and managing it where it’s not.

That was "deepseek.ai
I gave up on making sense.

 

[smiley]

The military veteran’s perspective reflects a pragmatic, America-first worldview that prioritizes U.S. interests over global perceptions. However, his stance is flawed for several reasons:

### 1. **Dismissing Global Opinion Can Be Strategically Dangerous**
- While existentialism isn’t a "popularity contest," international relations *are*. Alliances, trade agreements, and diplomatic cooperation rely on trust and mutual respect.
- If the U.S. is widely disliked, it becomes harder to rally support for sanctions, military actions, or global initiatives (e.g., countering China, climate agreements).
- History shows that unchecked unilateralism (e.g., Iraq War backlash) can isolate the U.S. and empower adversaries.

### 2. **"Hate Is Inevitable" Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy**
- Yes, powerful nations will always face resentment, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. should ignore *why* some nations resent it.
- Much anti-U.S. sentiment stems from specific policies (e.g., drone strikes, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes)—not just envy or irrational hatred.
- Assuming hate is unavoidable can justify reckless actions that *increase* hostility unnecessarily.

### 3. **"The U.S. Fixes More Than Most" Is a Selective Narrative**
- The U.S. has indeed contributed to global stability (Marshall Plan, disease eradication, disaster relief), but it has also:
- Overthrown democracies (Iran 1953, Chile 1973).
- Backed brutal regimes (Saudi Arabia, Cold War proxies).
- Ignored treaties (Paris Accord, UN Human Rights Council under Trump).
- Many nations (especially in the Global South) see the U.S. as a destabilizing force, not a benevolent fixer.

### 4. **"There’s the Door" Ignores Interdependence**
- The U.S. cannot thrive in isolation. It depends on:
- Global supply chains (e.g., semiconductors, rare earth minerals).
- Cooperation against transnational threats (pandemics, cyberattacks).
- Allies to counterbalance China and Russia.
- Telling critics to "leave" assumes the U.S. doesn’t need them—a dangerous illusion in a multipolar world.

### 5. **Moral Leadership Matters**
- The veteran’s stance reduces foreign policy to pure transactional power, ignoring that U.S. influence has long relied on *soft power* (culture, ideals, diplomacy).
- If the U.S. openly scorns global opinion, it cedes moral authority to rivals (e.g., China’s "non-interference" propaganda).

### **Conclusion**
The veteran isn’t *entirely* wrong—the U.S. can’t please everyone, and some hatred is inevitable. But dismissing all criticism as irrelevant is shortsighted. A smarter approach:
- **Acknowledge legitimate grievances** (e.g., past interventions, hypocrisy on human rights).
- **Choose battles wisely**—avoid unnecessary conflicts that fuel resentment.
- **Leverage alliances** instead of alienating them.

Strength isn’t just about ignoring hate—it’s about minimizing it where possible and managing it where it’s not.

That was "deepseek.ai
I gave up on making sense.

I liked that ; well researched ; calmly explained - during my sojourn in usa I met some peaceful quiet thoughtful 'yanks' couldn't believe my own ears ; then a few loud and brassy ones - but heh we all sorta spoke english and we won WWII together

 

[January]

I love my country, warts and all, and if called upon to serve again to defend her, you betcha.

and s o do other people about their countries.

No issue with americans or anyone loving their country - the issue was with people then claiming everyone else was jealous and wanted to live there - no they dont, they feel same about their country and want to stay there, as you do about yours.

 

[January]

Or in the amount of publicity it receives.

the opposite , I would say.

I dont think the perception of US gun deaths is because of media coverage - it is factual information readily found outside the current news.

Any gun murder here of, say, 2 people, gets widespread media publicity for days - the same in US is commonplace enough to be non national newsworthy.

 

[oslooskar]

I'll bet they know more about our Constitution and our past Presidents than most Americans do. And they certainly know more than most Americans know about the populations or political workings of other countries.

Australia is a much smaller country in terms of population and is geographically isolated, so there’s naturally a greater awareness of international events and the need to understand other countries.

 

[Dave03]

This has become my personal 2nd most hated thread.

 

[papa tiger]

I'll stick with everybody loves a sucker!

 

[smiley]

This has become my personal 2nd most hated thread.

in part I think that maybe because we can't talk about the elephant in the china shop?

 

[Twostep]

the opposite , I would say.

I dont think the perception of US gun deaths is because of media coverage - it is factual information readily found outside the current news.

Any gun murder here of, say, 2 people, gets widespread media publicity for days - the same in US is commonplace enough to be non national newsworthy.

And you know that based on what please?

 

[Lawrence00]

Australia is a much smaller country in terms of population and is geographically isolated, so there’s naturally a greater awareness of international events and the need to understand other countries.

I watched Crocodile Dundee, so I'm somewhat of an expert on Australia.

 

[smiley]

I did. Was that at the same time, or earlier?

round the same have a book that some govt official [ white guy and wife ] living on the peak wrote about it - they stayed for most of it I believe - fascinating read - can try and dig it out if ya want? - think it might have been a Perth man?

 

[Warrigal]

The military veteran’s perspective reflects a pragmatic, America-first worldview that prioritizes U.S. interests over global perceptions. However, his stance is flawed for several reasons:

### 1. **Dismissing Global Opinion Can Be Strategically Dangerous**
- While existentialism isn’t a "popularity contest," international relations *are*. Alliances, trade agreements, and diplomatic cooperation rely on trust and mutual respect.
- If the U.S. is widely disliked, it becomes harder to rally support for sanctions, military actions, or global initiatives (e.g., countering China, climate agreements).
- History shows that unchecked unilateralism (e.g., Iraq War backlash) can isolate the U.S. and empower adversaries.

### 2. **"Hate Is Inevitable" Is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy**
- Yes, powerful nations will always face resentment, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. should ignore *why* some nations resent it.
- Much anti-U.S. sentiment stems from specific policies (e.g., drone strikes, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes)—not just envy or irrational hatred.
- Assuming hate is unavoidable can justify reckless actions that *increase* hostility unnecessarily.

### 3. **"The U.S. Fixes More Than Most" Is a Selective Narrative**
- The U.S. has indeed contributed to global stability (Marshall Plan, disease eradication, disaster relief), but it has also:
- Overthrown democracies (Iran 1953, Chile 1973).
- Backed brutal regimes (Saudi Arabia, Cold War proxies).
- Ignored treaties (Paris Accord, UN Human Rights Council under Trump).
- Many nations (especially in the Global South) see the U.S. as a destabilizing force, not a benevolent fixer.

### 4. **"There’s the Door" Ignores Interdependence**
- The U.S. cannot thrive in isolation. It depends on:
- Global supply chains (e.g., semiconductors, rare earth minerals).
- Cooperation against transnational threats (pandemics, cyberattacks).
- Allies to counterbalance China and Russia.
- Telling critics to "leave" assumes the U.S. doesn’t need them—a dangerous illusion in a multipolar world.

### 5. **Moral Leadership Matters**
- The veteran’s stance reduces foreign policy to pure transactional power, ignoring that U.S. influence has long relied on *soft power* (culture, ideals, diplomacy).
- If the U.S. openly scorns global opinion, it cedes moral authority to rivals (e.g., China’s "non-interference" propaganda).

### **Conclusion**
The veteran isn’t *entirely* wrong—the U.S. can’t please everyone, and some hatred is inevitable. But dismissing all criticism as irrelevant is shortsighted. A smarter approach:
- **Acknowledge legitimate grievances** (e.g., past interventions, hypocrisy on human rights).
- **Choose battles wisely**—avoid unnecessary conflicts that fuel resentment.
- **Leverage alliances** instead of alienating them.

Strength isn’t just about ignoring hate—it’s about minimizing it where possible and managing it where it’s not.

That was "deepseek.ai
I gave up on making sense.

WOW!!! deepseek.ai? Impressive compilation.

 

[smiley]

yea will all be using it soon! and then who will believe who?

 

[Warrigal]

Australia is a much smaller country in terms of population and is geographically isolated, so there’s naturally a greater awareness of international events and the need to understand other countries.

There's truth in that statement. There is also truth in a metaphor written by one of our novelists/historians who wrote, not exactly in these words, that the continent is inhabited by (white) people who live mainly around the edges. The centre is very sparsely populated. For this reason, we tend to look outwards more than we look inwards.

In our middle years, Hubby and I took time off work and went on a five month round-the-world trip travelling through US, Canada, and UK. It hit us between the eyes that news about Australia was pretty much non-existent.

That trip taught me a lot about our lack of significance to the rest of the world. It also caused me to ponder what it means to be Australian, and I realised that our natural character is not fixed. As we absorb people from all around the world, the Australian characteristics are still evolving but the land, this empty hearted country, plays a big part in shaping us as a people. So does the sky. I am a child of the Southern Cross.

 

[Warrigal]

This has become my personal 2nd most hated thread.

Stay sane, Dave.

If you must, close your eyes and stuff your fingers in your ears. Whistle a merry tune until you feel better.

 

[Warrigal]

I'll stick with everybody loves a sucker!

An unusual opinion. I would have thought just the opposite.

 

[Warrigal]

And you know that based on what please?

The internet. I only have to google "gun deaths in America" to see how commonplace they are. Granted, the population figures of US and Australia are very different but on a per capita basis (as in per 100 000 people) the mortality and morbidity rates are very different.

Try it for yourself. You will not like what you find.

 

[hollydolly]

Nearly 47,000 people died of gun-related injuries in the United States in 2023, according to the latest available statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.


If this was a pandemic ...the world would be hysterical ^^^^^^




In the year ending March 2024, there were 22 homicide victims in England and Wales who were killed by shooting. This represented 4% of all homicides and was a decrease of seven from the previous year.

 

[Paco Dennis]

in part I think that maybe because we can't talk about the elephant in the china shop?

There are more than one.

 

[smiley]

There are more than one.

not a bloody herd of them surely? no wonder there is poo poo everywhere? and waving tru..........?

 

[Twostep]

The internet. I only have to google "gun deaths in America" to see how commonplace they are. Granted, the population figures of US and Australia are very different but on a per capita basis (as in per 100 000 people) the mortality and morbidity rates are very different.

Try it for yourself. You will not like what you find.

All is well in Australia.

 

[Warrigal]

yea will all be using it soon! and then who will believe who?

There is now a flood of AI generated videos appearing on my Facebook feed. Because I like watching videos of cats, dogs and wild animals I'm getting a lot of feelgood fakes. I'm learning to recognise the fakes from reality.

I reckon the human mind will be able to adapt to AI and sort out the human content from something compiled by a piece of software.

 

[smiley]

All is well in Australia.

relatively speaking yes - but we are addressing some hardcore issues like the legal recognition and position of our first nation peoples? and now or future relationship with USA? We are assisting the south sea islanders more and more and keeping China at bay and attempting to buy back the port we gave away to them? [the chinese that is]

 

[Warrigal]

relatively speaking yes - but we are addressing some hardcore issues like the legal recognition and position of our first nation peoples? and now or future relationship with USA? We are assisting the south sea islanders more and more and keeping China at bay and attempting to buy back the port we gave away to them?

Don't exaggerate. Port Darwin hasn't gone anywhere. We only rented it out to the Chinese. They just wanted to be neighbourly to the Americans at Pine Gap. How could anything go wrong?

 

[smiley]

yea wez tryin to hold them back from the south pacific isles whilst 'renting out our ports'? no sense there? - how much rent were they paying for example?