I think it's a bit disingenuous to frame this as an open question when the goal is really argumentative. But ignoring that...
I also think that the question needs to be better framed. "Do European countries hate the usa" clearly ignores a great deal of diversity between countries and attempts to generalize millions of individual opinions into some sort of national zeitgeist. That's a problematic exercise at best. More importantly though, attitudes (both individual and this fanciful national "shared feeling" if it exists) change over time. When the United states was a baby, I'm sure you're aware that France and Great Briton had very different outlooks on it, in terms of how "friendly" they were. An example going back to the birth of the US might seem a bit far fetched, but I'm just trying to get a point across. The US is a fairly young country, and the last several posts here seem to be framing things heavily in terms of the two Iraq wars. The two Iraq wars were certainly divisive within and without the US but, but I think it takes more than those things to form a solid opinion on a country. Moreover, as I said, the opinion of individuals in Nation A towards Nation B in ~2000 are quite probably different than they were in 1975, not to mention 1950. Go back too many quarter centuries and the USA doesn't even exist (while you'd have to keep going back much further before European countries vanished).
And that's another outlook issue. European nations/Europe and England/Etc have spent much more time at war with other nations in states of relative parity than the US has. The US has obviously been involved in dramatic, incredibly significant, military conflicts with other nations during it's existence. No one's trying to deny the relevance of WWI/2, Vietnam, Korea, etc. But I think the European history of conflict within the continent and amongst each other has really played a role in developing that culture in a way that the US simply was never exposed to. Again - not to diminish the vital role of the US in WW2 or anything, but even there the war is significantly different because the US is traveling to it (in a very beneficial way for all involved, but that's not the point). The US got embroiled in one civil war that was bloody and horrible. Other wars really haven't occurred on our soil to any significant extent though. Again, this isn't to disparage the relevance of those that did (1812, etc). But I don't think you'd find many Americans today who genuinely had their cultural outlook shaped as a result of the war of 1812 or the other wars that briefly did come to the US.
I think that's a strong basis for a cultural disagreement between the US and other nations, when it comes to using force. It's not that European nations are completely incapable of using force either. It's an active choice to minimize the necessity of it. The amount of discretionary government spending in the US that goes to the military is something frightening. I forget the exact number, but I think it falls a bit short of 60%, while the amount going into education is closer to 6%. Meanwhile, we have a military larger than the next god knows how many countries combined. We simply have more than we need. That's another point of order some people might hold against the US. Personally I don't think education should be short changed and NASA should be shut down, while we prepare for a fictional war against the rest of the world.
I would strongly disagree with people saying "but I can't change things, I don't have the money, I'm poor, I'm just one person, etc." That's a weak excuse, especially in a country that where individuals have as much relative freedom as the US. I mean - Look. If violent dictatorships can be thrown off, then gerrymandering politicians can theoretically be kicked out of office. On a scale of Possible 10 - Impossible 0, changing the way the US government works isn't a 0, and claiming it is is just a form of avoiding responsibility.
Are you yourself directly responsible for any poor policies or decisions of the government? Of course not. Can you fix it all by yourself? Again, of course not. But individuals do need to take responsibility. I don't know if you watch it, but last night's daily show was talking about a congressman (i think?) who got recalled from office in Colorado after passing some mild gun laws that had been polled as having 80% approval or thereabout (stuff pertaining to background checks, etc). He got kicked out of office despite the popularity of what he was doing because no one who supported him showed up to the recall election, while a vast majority of the 20% opposed managed to get out and vote. So ... saying "I don't have money, I can't fix politics" is potentially a pretty damaging outlook to take in countries where your voice actually can get (somewhat) heard. Don't do that.
Don't say all of our politicians are idiots/dumb/just in it for themselves and the money either, because that's also a stereotype and not true (although it's based on far too much reality, sadly). If you really want to get rich, there are avenues for you to do much better in business than in politics. And if you're really dumb, you're going to have trouble putting together enough of an organization to get elected (with more or less difficulty based on what you're running for, and where you're running for it, of course). But if you're a successful politician at a significant level, you're probably not usually a complete fool despite the fun it can be to paint them as such.
I'll stop here because I'm trailing off a bit. But I'm sure no reasonable person hates the US as a whole, just as no reasonable person in the US hated France as a whole because their government didn't support our Iraqi adventure (mass hysteria, emotions, and all that aside, if anyone genuinely hate everyone in another nation because they don't support your government's war, I firmly believe that you're not a reasonable person. "Support our war or die" is something I'd expect on a N. Korean propaganda poster, not in US public discourse). And yeah, opinions shouldn't be formed by the latest war, or the fact that one nation tends to do one thing in their foreign policy. They should be formed on a much much broader range of ideas both across concepts and across time. I think Irisado has done a great job pointing out various specific economic things etc, and that's just a start. You could spend years and make a career of looking at why people in country A look at country B as they do.