What if George Washington had cared what the Europeans thought?

Question

I find it funny that Europeans, specifically the British and the Germans, expect Americans to vote for Obama because they like him. The same Europeans who liked Obama also responded in the same survey that they would like to see a weaker America. I am a Republican and will not change that.

I thought that the US was created to be different than Europe, not to be a socialist country like most European countries are. America was founded on libertarian and conservative principles that emphasized individual freedom, not dependence on the government.

If George Washington went by European approval ratings, America would still be a British colony. If Harry Truman (who had a 22% approval rating but did what was right) went by European approval ratings, then World War II would have resulted in millions more lives being lost. President Bush has done what he thought was right and I support him because he is my Commander in Chief.

Answer 1

He did care.

Without the help of the French, we would never have won the Revolutionary War.

We were also assisted by Spain and the Netherlands.  

Leaders who don't care what other nations think are not leaders at all -- they are fools.

Answer 2

I dont know what Washington thought of Europeans ,But as far as Britian was concerned the war of independence was merely an exstension of the on going hostlities between themselves and France(and to a lesser extent Spain).The raw materials that could be could be gained from the US (Fur and Timber mainly)could also be got from Canada ,Britain saw India as it's number one asset (the jewel in the crown)

Sorry I know thats not what your discussing here  but people dont seem to be aware of the British/French angle , the French took any chance they could to attack the British hence one of the reasons they were involved in the war of independence

The US was different to Eurpean nations .it was built on liberty and freedom .everyone being equal but not in a socialist way (It would take to much time to detail to explain it here)

The french revolution that came  very soon after the US war of independence was partly inspired by what happened in America.

The difference is that the Americans put the faith in God(In God we trust) the French put there faith in its people .

Answer 3

Good call. Over 75% of the country supported Bush and his actions post 9/11. Now that things get a little tough and the war isn't as easy as they thought they want to tuck tail and run. Imagine if we gave up after a few losses in the Revolutionairy war, or WWII.

Socialism is a plague. It keeps people in a perpetual cycle of dependence on the government, which is the complete opposite of the ideals that this country was founded upon.  

Answer 4

I'm British and i don't care but it makes funny TV sometimes our shows are THAT bad

Commander in Chief LOL

Answer 5

I have an idea your media is at it again 250,000 turned up in Germany to see him apparently well i have no idea of the amount of Americans in Germany but i would say most were probably American nobody turned up in Britain to see him apart from a few low level ministers and the rest of us couldn't give a monkeys about the USA AND YOUR POLITICS i am sure there are a few people who would welcome any change in America as Mr Bush has been blamed for everything what they do not realise the next President will be blamed for everything as well eventually.

Answer 6

Actually most Europeans agreed with American independence.. that's why the French and Spanish fought with you guys against Britain... where do you think the statue of Liberty came from?

But.. you're right it doesn't matter what people think of America.  I wouldn't really care what foreigners thought of my candidates for government.. neither should Americans.

Answer 7

Which survey are you talking about, James?

I think you'll find that most people in Europe who profess a preference for Obama do so because he's not like either Bush or McCain, who would frankly be nothing more to US foreign policy than another four years of the same. If the net result of that is a weakened US, so be it; frankly I couldn't care less whether the US is weak or strong as long as the next major military excursion doesn't involve us. But frankly, your military could stop developing new equipment right now and in three years time you'd still be ahead of the rest of the world. And on the flip side, your government would be able to spend money on things that are worth having in any country.. like basic healthcare available to all without personal cost. Something 'loser' socialist countries already do, in many cases.

President Bush may have done what he thought was right, but as an ex-British serviceman caught up in a war which practically everyone I fought with, including some US Navy officers, thought was illegal, I say it was very much about oil and legally very dubious at the very least.

Something you may not know about the Iraq War, which Washington claims regularly was not about oil, is that the first troops into Iraq were two companies of Royal Marines landed by helicopter onto the Al Faw peninsula specifically tasked to secure the oil refinery located there. The only action ahead of that was two special forces units taking over two distribution platforms in the Northern Gulf. Funny, that the first action in a war is not to destroy oil producing capability but to take it over to ensure the safe supply of oil to be sold by the future government ... which would be, at least initially, friendly to the US and happy to sell it to the US. Highly suspect, to say the least.

Oh, Bush is not trying to isolate the US. But his foreign policy is ensuring that this precise result will be the abiding legacy of his tenure in office.

Interestingly, when the US was founded, Socialism didn't exist. Anywhere. Not even in Europe. So it's hardly surprising the Founding Fathers didn't subscribe to the idea since no one had actually thought of it.

Answer 8

Who said we British want Obama...were fed up of hearing about him...we just want to be left alone.

Answer 9

This above post is a joke he keeps referring to the burning down of the white house

  

  He is so proud that they and the cannucks burned down the white house and all the books in the library of Congress

Yes and we the whole city of Ottawa As we declared war on them in 1812 and they sued for peace would you care to have a 3rd go at it robert

Answer 10

He was quite concerned with what the French Monarchy thought and socialism did not exist when the United States was created.  

Answer 11

I am sorry to say this but the questioner is living in another age that has gone by at least 30 years!Yes!It does show  his age!This age was when America sneezed and the rest of the world caught cold!But now America is now at the cross roads of it's economic might!To be truthful to the questioner !America is now about to be superseded by China,India and the European countries as far as the economic 'pecking order' is concerned.Now!No one country can be an island and independent!We all need each other in global trade and defence!Keep going back to when the Americans defeated the British at Yorktown and when the British  and Canadians defeated the Americans on August 24th,1814 at Bladensburg fields is long gone!

History is for ever evolving and it is difficult to make way for another country to be 'top dog' But that is evolution!

Answer 12

Lol that made me laugh firstly America was not created so it wouldn't be a socialist country i don't know the exact circumstances why they rebelled but ti had to do something with British taxes, furthermore i would hardly call the absolute monarchy's of France and Spain at the time of revolution socialist, you also seem to forget socialism only came into being in the middle of the 19th century with most parties only starting to see any real success after WWI e.g Labours victory in Britain in 1925.

Im also getting annoyed with right wing republicans coming on here and saying europe is socialist we are not, if you check the political spectrum you will find socialism is quite far left with massive governemnt involement in the economy e.g state ownership of industry, just because we give out some benefits in health and unemployment does not make us socialist take the UK as an example we've had Labour in the last ten years and they have gone even further than Thatcher in their bid for privatisation of the few remaining state owned companies.

Answer 13

lol, well said.  We don't have Americans like that anymore in our Democrat Party population.  They've morphed into nanny boy Europeans themselves.

Great post.