"Leader of the Free World"

[Machjo]

I noticed some people in this forum call the presidential office that of the leader of the free world. So I have questions for such people:

1. Do you believe that the US alone comprises the free world?

2. If you believe that the free world includes other nations, then why doesn't the rest of the free world get to vote for its "leader"?

3. Who decided that the president of the US will lead the free world, assuming you believe that it extends beyond US borders?

Point is, the US president is NOT the leader of the free world (unless you believe that includes the US alone) but rather the nation which gets to vote for that office (i.e., the US), and his/her leadership stops at its borders.

So please, stop referring to that office as "leader of the free world" unless:

a. You believe that it only includes the US, or
b. You intend to give the rest of the free world a right to vote for him/her.

Until then, his/her authority stops at the US border, and that's that.

 

[applepowerpc]

I have never used the term myself, but I always took it to mean: a) U.S. is the leader of the free world, and b) the President is the leader of the U.S., therefore c) the President is the leader of the free world. There are different kinds of leaders. It's like, you can go out with a group of guys, and one guy calls the shots. No one officially made the guy leader, and he can't punish anybody for insubordination, but he's just informally the guy doing the leading. No big deal. No one minds.

I do believe the U.S. has been that kind of informal leader of the free world. However, with the U.S. basically being a jerk lately, there are people out there like you asking, "who made you leader?" And you're right--no one did.

 

[Machjo]

The US has never been a leader of the free world; it just has the biggest guns, which thus make it appear so.

This is not to say the US is not a great nation in its own right; just not superior.

We only need to look at its history to see that it's never been leader:

The US was alone in the Cuba Crisis, Vietnam, and Nicaragua; it has few allies in the current war in Iraq, and the only reason other nations entered Afghanistan, Korea and the first gulf war was because of UN approval, not US leadership.

So where exacly do we get this notion that the US is leader when so few follow? Canada and Argentina defended the right of US companies on their soil to sell to Cuba, and JFK had to back down. Canada and France refuse to send people back to the US without a guarantee that the US will not mette out capital punishment. The rest of the world remained in UNESCO despite the US and UK pulling out (and in the end, the US and UK followed the rest of the world in rejoining it), and most nations signed onto Kyoto despite the US abstaining. So seriously, where is this illusion of leadership?

 

[PastorMikeJ]

The US has never been a leader of the free world; it just has the biggest guns, which thus make it appear so.

This is not to say the US is not a great nation in its own right; just not superior.

We only need to look at its history to see that it's never been leader:

The US was alone in the Cuba Crisis, Vietnam, and Nicaragua; it has few allies in the current war in Iraq, and the only reason other nations entered Afghanistan, Korea and the first gulf war was because of UN approval, not US leadership.

So where exacly do we get this notion that the US is leader when so few follow? Canada and Argentina defended the right of US companies on their soil to sell to Cuba, and JFK had to back down. Canada and France refuse to send people back to the US without a guarantee that the US will not mette out capital punishment. The rest of the world remained in UNESCO despite the US and UK pulling out (and in the end, the US and UK followed the rest of the world in rejoining it), and most nations signed onto Kyoto despite the US abstaining. So seriously, where is this illusion of leadership?

just a point of interest...we were not alone in Vietnam...Australia, New Zealand, and S.Korea were there...they lost troops also...not as many as we did cuz they didn't have a half million troops there...but we weren't the only one there...In fact we were the only one the VC and the NVA would surrender to...S.Korea and Australia took no prisoners...
Just to correct a misconception....

 

[Machjo]

just a point of interest...we were not alone in Vietnam...Australia, New Zealand, and S.Korea were there...they lost troops also...not as many as we did cuz they didn't have a half million troops there...but we weren't the only one there...In fact we were the only one the VC and the NVA would surrender to...S.Korea and Australia took no prisoners...
Just to correct a misconception....

Thanks for the correction, but these four countries still don't comprise half of the free world!

 

[Letalis]

Why do you care what some call our president? Is it such a big deal that you have to make a hissy fit over it?

 

[Machjo]

Why do you care what some call our president? Is it such a big deal that you have to make a hissy fit over it?

It's actually quite offensive to me as a non-American that anyone should claim that the US prez is my leader when I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against him. Kinda non-democratic, don't you think?

 

[CCGirl]

Why do you care what some call our president? Is it such a big deal that you have to make a hissy fit over it?

People care because we all live in this world, the USA is not the "leader of the free world" to anyone but people of the USA! So why bother saying it? To keep deluding your collective selves? There is not much I can think of off the top of my head that the USA should be the "leader" of.

The US was alone in the Cuba Crisis, Vietnam, and Nicaragua; it has few allies in the current war in Iraq, and the only reason other nations entered Afghanistan, Korea and the first gulf war was because of UN approval, not US leadership.

(This reminds me of that horrifying thing, Ann Coulter, arguing in an interview that Canada most certainly had troops in Vietnam. Even when repeatedly corrected on this error, she refusd to admit her mistake! )

You need to add ALL of what they did to Central America in the 80's! And of course, the rest of the dirty wars too.

 

[CCGirl]

It's actually quite offensive to me as a non-American that anyone should claim that the US prez is my leader when I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against him. Kinda non-democratic, don't you think?

 

[Machjo]

If I'm not mistaken, there were Canadians in Vietnam, but individuals who had volunteered to join the US military. Idiots!

But as for the canadian government, it had nothing to do with it, while protecting plenty intelligent US citizens who'd crossed the border in protest.

 

[CCGirl]

If I'm not mistaken, there were Canadians in Vietnam, but individuals who had volunteered to join the US military. Idiots!

But as for the canadian government, it had nothing to do with it, while protecting plenty intelligent US citizens who'd crossed the border in protest.

Correct, and there was not too many either!

 

[SimplyMe]

I noticed some people in this forum call the presidential office that of the leader of the free world. So I have questions for such people:

1. Do you believe that the US alone comprises the free world?

2. If you believe that the free world includes other nations, then why doesn't the rest of the free world get to vote for its "leader"?

3. Who decided that the president of the US will lead the free world, assuming you believe that it extends beyond US borders?

Point is, the US president is NOT the leader of the free world (unless you believe that includes the US alone) but rather the nation which gets to vote for that office (i.e., the US), and his/her leadership stops at its borders.

So please, stop referring to that office as "leader of the free world" unless:

a. You believe that it only includes the US, or
b. You intend to give the rest of the free world a right to vote for him/her.

Until then, his/her authority stops at the US border, and that's that.

I actually think this is an outdated term. It came from the time when it was considered the "free world" and the "communist world" and the "big two" were the USA and the USSR. At the time, the US had troops in most countries in the "free world" and were a vital part of their defense, spelled out in the various defense treaties, such as NATO, ANZUS, SEATO, CENTO, etc. With the US being the common denominator in all of the treaties and being the lone superpower to counterbalance the USSR, the US (and it's president) were clearly seen as the leader.

Since the fall of the USSR and Communist Bloc of nations, these same countries no longer depend on the US for their defense. Additionally, the US has acted at times against the advice of most of the rest of the "free world". For these reasons, the term is not only obsolete but, at times, completely laughable.

 

[Letalis]

It's actually quite offensive to me as a non-American that anyone should claim that the US prez is my leader when I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against him. Kinda non-democratic, don't you think?

Perhaps you need to get out in the real world and stop being offended by words. I imagine there is much more out there to be offended by than a silly title that affects you in no way.

 

[Glaz]

It's actually quite offensive to me as a non-American that anyone should claim that the US prez is my leader when I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against him. Kinda non-democratic, don't you think?

Just another part of our evil plan. If you don't like it, I doubt whining on the internet will do anything to stop our ruthless slogan-making juggernaut.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps you need to get out in the real world and stop being offended by words. I imagine there is much more out there to be offended by than a silly title that affects you in no way.

Actually, it does affect me and the rest of the world. If people use the term unchallenged, some come to believe this, and it can affect their voting habits (i.e., voting for the US to stick its nose into every other nations' business.)

 

[applepowerpc]

You've had two explanations what is meant by it, and no evil, domineering harm was intended. It's time to let it go, lest you become the same warmongerer you accuse the U.S. of.

 

[Letalis]

Actually, it does affect me and the rest of the world. If people use the term unchallenged, some come to believe this, and it can affect their voting habits (i.e., voting for the US to stick its nose into every other nations' business.)

Riiight...

 

[simplicity]

I guess there are many parts of the world that are free. But being "leader of the free world" means being responsible for the front line, which I actually believe is true from a national standpoint. The believe the US is the leader of the free world. But I don't recognize the President of the US as the leader of the free world. He's just one guy, right. No single person should profess to lead the entire world.

 

[ACougar]

The term IMO is a relic of the Cold War, when the world was polarized between communist and capitalist societies. The Capitalist societies took great pride in having more liberties and freedoms, and since the U.S. was the most powerful "free" country we considered ourselves to be in the lead against "communist agression." The world has become a lot more complicated since then and I don't beleive the term can still be accurately applied to the U.S.

I noticed some people in this forum call the presidential office that of the leader of the free world. So I have questions for such people:

1. Do you believe that the US alone comprises the free world?

2. If you believe that the free world includes other nations, then why doesn't the rest of the free world get to vote for its "leader"?

3. Who decided that the president of the US will lead the free world, assuming you believe that it extends beyond US borders?

Point is, the US president is NOT the leader of the free world (unless you believe that includes the US alone) but rather the nation which gets to vote for that office (i.e., the US), and his/her leadership stops at its borders.

So please, stop referring to that office as "leader of the free world" unless:

a. You believe that it only includes the US, or
b. You intend to give the rest of the free world a right to vote for him/her.

Until then, his/her authority stops at the US border, and that's that.

 

[JPPT1974]

You've had two explanations what is meant by it, and no evil, domineering harm was intended. It's time to let it go, lest you become the same warmongerer you accuse the U.S. of.

Yes it is time to let it go
If you are against the USA, then shame on you!