Well, America wasn't always a hated country. In fact, after 9/11 there was an enormous amount of support for this country. Especially after the devastating terrorist attack that affected this nation, there appeared to be an almost unanimous support for the United States. With outpouring of support from international communities, and a unanimous agreement that those that attacked the United States should be pursued, there was little to no objections to the United States pursuing Afghanistan and Al-Qaida after an attack of this nature.

It was only until the United States under this current administration decided to invade Iraq that the entire world appeared to turn against America. Due to the drastic shift that occurred from overwhelming support to increasing negativity in such a short period of time, it seems this issue and the actions that resulted from it, more than others was a major cause for the current unfavorable opinions against America.

Unlike Afghanistan, there was no evidence that Iraq and its leader had anything to do with the attack that occurred, or was in any way involved with Al-Qaida. Despite this lack of evidence, the United States still chose to pursue Iraq and start a war with this country, stating it was a threat based solely on the claim that the country of Iraq contained weapons of mass destruction. These weapons of mass destruction, the sole justification for beginning this war, we now know were never found. Since these weapons were never found, many feel that it is clear that the United States did not pursue the necessary action and research before deciding to pursue an ongoing war with this nation. Even if these weapons were found, there were many other countries that also had hostile feelings towards the United States that contained severe weapons, however, were never pursued with violence or war(an example of this would be North Korea, a country which contains nuclear weapons, weapons which can be considered the ultimate weapon of mass destruction). Since these countries were never pursued with war, many questioned why Iraq instead was being pursued so strongly.

There was also question as to why other military action wasn't pursued aside from war, such as improvement of U.N. inspections. Despite claims from the current administration that an action of this nature would not be beneficial, and a complete war was necessary, since there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, it is suggested that the previous U.N. inspections were already successful and that a war was unnecessary to pursue.

Other past instances proved that containment of a dangerous country was possible without resorting to war. For instance, during the cold war era, Russia/Soviet Union was a country that was viewed as the greatest threat to the United States. Despite the perception of this country being an enormous threat, and its possession of severe weapons (nuclear weapons), the country was contained for over 40 years without the pursuit of a war. Because of instances like these where countries that were viewed as hostile were able to be contained without resorting to a complete violent confrontation, and the fact that there was no evidence that Iraq had any involvement with the attack that occurred against the United States, many decided that a war with Iraq was unnecessary.

Even the claims of human rights violations (which was not used as a reason for going to war, but was mentioned) did not provide sufficient explanation for war. This is mainly because, unlike the Kosovo crisis in which there was a community plea begging for assistance, there wasn't a similar plea from the Iraqi citizens to pursue war in order to deal with human rights violations, and the fact that so many other countries were also accused of being guilty of human rights violations themselves, however were also not pursued with war, many again wondered why Iraq was specifically being pursued more than other countries.

Whether one agrees with these reasons or not, it was because of these strong reasons that the world community agreed that a war was not necessary with Iraq. The limited evidence that Iraq was indeed a threat, and the fact that the United States was deciding to engage in a conflict with a country that had many common attributes to other countries that were never pursued with violent action or war, caused many in the international community to grow increasingly concerned. Since it is universally accepted that war should be considered only as a last resort, many did not feel that the U.S. pursued the necessary actions before deciding to completely start a war with Iraq. There was also a major concern that the U.S. was also not pursuing the necessary planning before engaging in a conflict with Iraq, especially in terms of preparing not only for violent engagement, but an end to this conflict as well. Because of these major concerns, many decided to protest an oncoming conflict with Iraq. Especially with these concerns and doubts about Iraq, many did not want the United States to engage in a conflict that might destabilize an entire region, risk civilian lives, and the lives of those in the American military and in other countries that decided to possibly assist America in pursuing this conflict.

However, instead of acknowledging these concerns, or at least trying to convince other countries beyond a reasonable doubt that a war with Iraq was in fact necessary, the current President resorted to what were viewed as insulting actions. These actions included stating that simply voicing these concerns was the same as allying with the same terrorists that had previously attacked the United States. Because of these statements and other disregarding actions, even the countries that were viewed as the most consistently supportive to the United States, began to form an increasingly negative and hostile opinion of the U.S. The insulting actions that occurred, and the fact that their concerns and opinions were being ignored, especially over an action that would effect the lives of many, caused many to feel that the current leaders of the United States were arrogant. The U.S. was then viewed as a country that could decide to do whatever it wanted and desired irregardless of world opinion and concern. Many were so angered by this extreme disregard, that even the most amiable to the U.S. decided to withdraw support from America, especially in terms of this conflict, and negative opinions of the U.S., especially from countries that were already viewed as hostile towards the U.S., worsened.

There are some that would not blame this current administration for the large negativity that has emerged after the actions that have occurred from pursuing this conflict. It is true that long before this situation occurred, the United States has made other failed foreign policy prior to this conflict, that there are other cultural and moral disagreements between countries that cause discourse towards the U.S., and the fact that America has been viewed as the most powerful country in the world has also caused concern. However, despite these facts, there really is no other explanation as to why a period of time that was viewed as the potential for the greatest support for America turned so negative in such a short period of time other than the action that occurred from pursuing a war in Iraq. Especially because of the failures that occurred during this time period, position on foreign policy is considered an important consideration when choosing a future presidential candidate, and one that each of the future presidential candidates needs, and is currently trying to address.

maybe the rest of the world is just a hateful place full of hypocrites.

and use the USA as a scapegoat.

Well, I'm American, and I've been overseas.

Not that this makes me an expert on anything, mind you, but I do have a slightly broader view than some.

I don't hate America, or my fellow Americans, but we can all be kind of narrow minded at times. We voted for someone who hasn't necessarily been the best frontman for the world to see, but not everyone here is a gun-toting bible-bashing moronic redneck. No offense, to anyone who would like to take offense, but I live with people like that, though we who aren't far outnumber them. Our schools sometimes teach us history on a slant, but most countries do as well.

Our politics have NOT made us popular, but really, everyone's history contains mistakes. It's due to our supposed 'power' globally that we're always in the news, that and a tendency to stick our noses where they really don't belong.

I am tired of people putting us all down because of the decisions of a few. We try. We may not always vote for the right person, but power changes a person, as do factors we know nothing about.

not really the us
 

it's not the us thats hated it's the people in the us that are really the ones who are hated. people think the us is hated because it's a reflection of the ones in the us. we are the ones that generate hate and because of that people hate the unided states. every day a new child is learning hatred because that is the customs norm

Re: The US, why is it hated?
 

I love America, but it has problems. Society as a whole is going down the drain, and our policies hurt us. The people, in general, are very moral, but obviously, a good number are not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed to end the war in the Pacific. Japan would have kept fighting us and killing more of our people and their people (and other peoples) if we hadn't bombed them. It did work, but at a cost. Think about it. Hundreds of thousands or MILLIONS? Millions had already died in that stupid war. It was time to end it.

We are billions of dollars in debt. We are not rich. We just borrow money from everyone including our own people. WHat gets me though is if most other countries hate the us then why are they lending them money?

As an American myself, I can't really speak for other countries... however, it might possibly be that. The general consensus between all my friends is that America has a tendency to decide what another country wants without real evidence, like in Iraq. They don't want our democracy, particularly when we don't have democracy completely worked out in the first place. We seem to think that we are the best country, when we have some serious problems. And while nationalism is a common attribute to most countries, we tend to take it to extremes. The "in-your-face" attitude doesn't just cause discord between other countries, but in our own as well. People will yell at you if you even look foreign, at least in my cozy little Indiana home...

This is my understanding. I have no source for this, so go nuts proving me wrong.

My understanding is, while the US is in debt to countries, there are many countries in debt to the US. The US pays off debts with money gotten from other countries paying their debts. If that made sence...

'sides, its still the richest. Pretty much every country is in debt, as is my understanding.

Also, if the US lends money, it means more countries get in debt to it. If you put interest on that debt, profit. That's the cynical reason.
The optimist reason is that if the US didn't lend countries money, it would get even less popular, am I right?




Yeah, you pretty much hear bad and weird from america. I'm not american myself, but all news I get from america on TV is either bad or weird.

It would certainly lead to people into having a biased opinion! :lol:

I'm Asian, but I live in Canada.
I only like the states cuz it's really nice, in some places and has good shopping malls.
But the way they run the places there, doesn't seem right for some reason :/

Re: The US, why is it hated?
 

Japan attacks China and Korea
and claims to be the superior Asian...yet they are loved pfft :lol:

I hate when people hate Americans... XD

It's not the fault of the people that the government doesn't listen to us. The majority of the population is against the war in Iraq, against Bush, and still he's in office on his second term. e_e

The United States isn't hated because it's the United States, it's hated because it's the superpower of the world. See it seems in any way of life, whether it be cats, dog, humans, or any living organism in general there always seems to be someone or some group better or more powerful than the rest. Our primal instints tell us that whoever is the strongest is global enemy number one ((I.e. The united states is widely documented at the current world superpower)) Thus resulting in our ego, our wars, our enemies. I myself do not believe the U.S. is the strongest, I think many groups can take us down but they arn't dumbasses, they know if they attack and win they'd be global enemy #1.

^^
God it makes me mad when people steriotype like this. There are so many points to this that are misunderstood.

1. The war in Nam was to protect another country, while we shouldn't have interveined, the war was already being fought. Also if you notice the title 'World War' it wasn't only the U.S. so another reason why you cannot say it was just us, whether we joined or not that war was going to happen.

2. You do know that most countries have no idea what the true problems are, you may think that the U.S. government is the only one that covers up but in fact every country in the world has something to hide, and most of the time for good reasons.

3. You're steriotyping that all Americans believe what they're told like brained-washed. When you say that you might as well be calling us grease and coke filled idiot rednecks, which is another common steriotype. Only some of the more 'politically slow' people that live back in the day times believe the shit.

4. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were acts of WAR. You do understand the term 'war' don't you? You make it sound like the bombs were out of the blue. They were dropped in retalliation of the BOMBING OF OUR LAND. Why should we have stopped the bombs, do you really think they had our welfare in mind when they destroyed a national base? That would be just like sitting and taking punches. If someone stabbed you and you punched them back you'd be a little pissed if you got suspension and they got a detension wouldn't you?

5. We do have a pretty bad record as far as violence but you've got to look at the world hun. Every country has violence, every country has needed to use force. You're singling out one part of the world and talking foul but if you looked at the world as a whole you'd see it isn't "Iraq and the U.S. are violent prone" you'd see "Our world in GENERAL is violent, Earth is at/approaching an all our war" Thus the name WORLD WAR.

6. Again, as I read i'm seeing more and more of steriotyping that the Bid Bad Mean United States is picking on the Poor Defenseless World. That's not how it is, you cannot truly say the wars are our fault until you can say we fired and they never fired back. End of story.