Is America Really THAT Bad?!

I recently read three articles by authors Fareed Zakaria ("The Rise of the Rest"), Kishore Mahbubani ("The Case Against the Rest"), and Tony Judt ("What Have We Learned, If Anything?"). In all three articles, the authors held nothing back and seemed to attack the United States in one way or another as to how we are improperly conducting ourselves, our actions, our wrongdoings, our issues, etc. Last time I checked, America was a pretty good place that does some pretty good things. Although all three articles, however sparingly, sometimes include plausible assertions, the attitudes and energies of the authors and overall pieces were very negative and their disapproving opinions were definitely made evident. Out of all three articles, Zakaria's "The Rise of the Rest," is the least critical. Overall the article says that although America might not be the "major attraction" in the world in the near future, it will still be able to lead. We will have to learn different lessons from different cultures, countries, and parts of the world that previously learned and adapted lessons from our culture. Regardless of Zakaria's concluding neutral position, he doesn't refrain from taking some blows again the Home of the Brave. Out of all his comments I had a problem with, the one that stayed with me the most was, "For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it." Grant it, he is saying that some of our practices, like using the metric system, are uncommon and the rest of the world uses a different system. However, this was his overall sentiment regarding the US and I believe that it is wrong to assert that the United States is not joined to the World. Who is helping out countries in need, fighting in a war in order to gain positive results for non-Americans, and who has a past filled with diplomatic and charitable actions towards a world that needed help?
Mahbubani, author of "The Case Against the West," argues that America is not happy about the gains Asia is making and the threats it poses in becoming the world power, usurping America from its throne. In addition, Mahbubani says that the United States used to be Earth's greatest asset, but now it's Earth's biggest "liability." Huh?! After comparing the west to Winston Churchill, blaming Israel's bombing of Lebanon, and speculating about actions that could have been taken by governments in the Cold War, I read Mahbubani's article not with a grain, but a handful of salt. Although he does make reasonable points when mentioning the hypocrisy of the US regarding Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, his overall claims don't have any merit and in my opinion, weaken his defense.
Finally, Tony Judt's article, "What Have We Learned, If Anything?“ paints a very critical position on how the US hasn't learned from its past mistakes or the past in general and, as a result, is paying the consequences. In a reader's digest version, Judt argues that the US compared to the rest of the world, has not learned the lessons from past actions in history and instead has a completely altered and untrue view of the world and how to handle things. For instance, he claims that the US unabashedly enters war while the rest of the world resorts to war as a last resort. Not only that, he argues that the practice of torture by the United States is flat out wrong and that we need to re-evaluate the direction we are headed in. Overall, it is easy to conclude that Tony Judt thinks America needs to take a crash course in history and learn from the results of events in the 20th century, learn from them, and make positive decisions.

BOTTOM LINE: Two out of the three said authors are NOT from the United States of America. The third is a very opinionated left wing columnist who, although makes interesting claims, can never seem to back his information up. Now, I in no way mean any offense to the two authors who have international backgrounds. However, they have a biased opinion because of relations and connections to their homes in different parts of the world. It is impossible to remain neutral regarding a subject in which your home is involved. Also, regarding Judt, I am not expressing any sort of negative connotation towards his political stance. However, by going off what he believes is right, what he believes is wrong, and what he believes should be the first thing changed, Judt goes off of emotion and not fact. Instead of presenting the reader with evidence, he bombards him or her with charged emotions. All three articles, in one place or another, reveal a decent point. Overall though, all three articles are misleading speculation.