(1)Name countries that have a definitely weak relationship with the
United States, yet have a generally capitalist economy, are generally
liberal/free countries, and finally have a generally stable
government. Note the language mix which people in that country can
speak. Note the most common religions of the country.
(2)Do you see a link between the inability of the other country to
speak English and/or Spanish, etc. and the quality of relationship? No
detailed statistical analysis necessary, just an educated guess is ok.
(3)Do you see a link to a difference of religion in the countries?
Again, no detailed statistic analysis necessary.

Its not particularly important that there is any ordered list
involved. I'm not too concerned about someone being placed third when
they "ought to be placed sixth". If you can think up some great
ranking system then more power to you, but it isn't at all necessary
to answer the question. Its OK if many of the countries are small
insignificant specks that hardly a soul knows of.

I believe signs of a weak relationship may be a lack of trade
treaties, extradition treaties, or weapons-agreement treaties. Recent
wars on opposing sides are a pretty good sign the attitude is sour.
There are probably more signs I'm not thinking of, but they may take
too much time to research. Not sure where I would find what languages
a country can speak, but I know have seen such a list before.

Well, many industrialized countries are pretty upset with the U.S.
over the Iraq War, Kyoto, and other issues. Those countries include
France, Germany, the Low Countries and, with its new government,
Spain. All of those countries are free, capitalist countries (with
lots of people who speak English.)

I'm not entirely sure what you are after.

There are two main areas of 'disagreement'
1) Pure economics - ie: trade
2) Iraq (and possibly other US foreign ventures)

The trade side is almost comical, both the EC and the USA are really
trade protection areas - the EC sticks quotas/tariffs on South
American bananas and the US threatens tax on cashmere.  As I
understand it the S American banana producers are ultimately owned by
British companies, and cashmere sales in the USA shot up.
There was also some messing around with steel that was irritating.
There is the competitive USD devaluation thing, but that is relatively new.

On the political side, it is not so amusing, after 9/11 just about
every country that had (or used to have) a problem with terrorism (UK,
Spain, Russia, even France, Germany and Italy) were pretty
sympathetic. 'Liberating' Afghanistan was not really that
controversial.

The big problem came with Iraq, for a start there was no justification
for that invasion - well none for anyone with the faintest idea of
current affairs and an IQ above 50 - and on top of it there was the US
'feeding frenzy' about how much money would be made from
reconstruction.
That 'feeding frenzy' was quite disgusting, from a non USA point of
view it looked as if the US was crowing over a bag of candy.
Also, I believe, a number of countries that had been trading with Iraq
found themselves holding bad debts.

Ironically, that 'feeding frenzy' looks ill founded.

To even a moderately well informed European, the USA's recent
activities look unsophisticated, rather vulgar - and also doomed to
failure.

Rather a lot of European countries have memories of 'imperialism',
rather unpleasant memories, and are rather wary of watching a giant
toddler throwing its weight around without listening to (well
intentioned) advice.

Another problem is probably alarm.
Under Clinton the US appeared considerate and 'reasonable', one change
of government and it has turned into something that is almost
unrecognizable.
Well actually a monster.

As for 'recent wars on opposing sides' Germany and Japan are keeping a
low profile. You might have a point of correllation there, but it does
not look significant to me.

With regards to mwalcoff's mention of Kyoto, I'm not so sure, that
stuff sounds like a con to me. Setting up an 'Enron' to trade CO2 is
nearly as ludicrous as something I heard about trapping and burying
CO2.

Ditto the USA's refusal to play ball with some form of 'International
Court', not a problem - just common sense.

Both could have been more diplomatically handled, but I doubt either
were particularly significant.

Religion.  An interesting one, it is quite possible that excessive
'USA Religion' makes people cringe.

Just a UK view.

While there are disagreements over the Iraq war, I seriously doubt if,
military strength and economic gain from being on either side being
equal, that Germany would side with Saddam if forced to pick sides. Of
course in Germanies case it can be argued that economic gain was the
primary reason they disapproved of the war. I would comment more on
the war but that seems like an entirely new issue.