Why Do People Hate America

sovtek

Originally posted by claidheamh
I wasn't ignoring inspections/statements of the past President. President Clinton's actions weren't correct, due to the same misinformation we see today; However, his actions were nowhere the same level that our current President deemed necessary.

Considering that virtually no cooperation was given to the inspectors under Clinton, continued bombing and invasion of Iraq airspace giving further motivation to Saddam to obstruct the inspection process and they were pulled out ahead of a considerable bombing campaign (after CIA being part of the inspection team) ...that's an understatement. I might also point out that those actions, though dispicable, weren't nearly as such compared to actually invading Iraq so as to secure lucrative contracts for Cheney and friends, strategic advantage in an oil rich land and helping secure Israel's colonial exploits.
All professed aims of the Bush regime.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino You also have a host of nations demanding if not strongly suggesting or else mentality the US to sign the Kyoto treaty (a very bad treaty), land mine treaty, World Court, and other analogous international treaties, trestises, and actions.

If you look at the company America keeps with regard to what treaties it's party to these days it speaks loads to national priorities.
Then our child president turns around and calls these nations "rogue states".
I'm reminded of that episode of Family Guy where he declares his house a soveirgn nation, Petoria. The pool party!

There has always been "anti-Americanism." Although it was not covered extensively by the media, historically most locals from various countries considered it radical and anarchist by the very definition before the fall.

So basically our sworn enemy was the hive of anti-Americanism. How shocking and how dare they!

After the fall of the Soviet Union, "anti-Americanism" has been rising.

Actually I think we've covered this specious term "anti-American" as actually being criticism of the American government in general.
Besides that it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

It started from the anti-globalization establishment in 1995 and has now become part of the kosher, mainstream media by most nations.

When everyone in the room is looking at you strangely it's probably a good time to check yourself.

claidheamh

Originally posted by claidheamh
I wasn't ignoring inspections/statements of the past President. President Clinton's actions weren't correct, due to the same misinformation we see today; However, his actions were nowhere the same level that our current President deemed necessary.

and

Originally posted by sovtek
Considering that virtually no cooperation was given to the inspectors under Clinton, continued bombing and invasion of Iraq airspace giving further motivation to Saddam to obstruct the inspection process and they were pulled out ahead of a considerable bombing campaign (after CIA being part of the inspection team) ...that's an understatement. I might also point out that those actions, though dispicable, weren't nearly as such compared to actually invading Iraq so as to secure lucrative contracts for Cheney and friends, strategic advantage in an oil rich land and helping secure Israel's colonial exploits.
All professed aims of the Bush regime.

No argument here. I think our previous statements are in agreement. Like I posted earlier, I think this historic blundering just adds to the reasons why other nationals do not trust the US and have a particularly negative view of the US as a whole.

BTW, has anyone heard recent opinions of people such as Mary Robinson, on foreign concerning the US, it's failed intelligence...? Just curious.

LegacyUser

americas had maybe 60-70 years, compared to the roman, british and other empires/major players of the past it aint much and it's not gonna last much longer, i'm not too bothered about them really, let them shine for a while, all empires fall and this one hasn't got 50 years left in it, china is where its at in the future, once it goes democratic nothing will stop its rise and it will take something huge to knock it down again given its enormous population

monument

So in less then 50 years we’ll see - the fall of the US “Empire”, China becoming democratic, and modern weapons – some how – not been able to wipe out enormous populations?

Yea right, whatever – I’ll believe it when it happens.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Now back to the superbowl.

No doubt to watch the... ahem... sport...

Shanka

americas had maybe 60-70 years, compared to the roman, british and other empires/major players of the past it aint much and it's not gonna last much longer, i'm not too bothered about them really, let them shine for a while, all empires fall and this one hasn't got 50 years left in it, china is where its at in the future, once it goes democratic nothing will stop its rise and it will take something huge to knock it down again given its enormous population

I read somewhere that China has an insane male / female ratio - basically as a result of their strict child birth laws. In 2030 it will be roughly 7 : 1 male / female. In a country of that size with that large a population - Its a good guess that they will want to make a mark on the world (with all that testosterone running amok!) But regardless of this, I agree that China is one to watch out for... They are defo shaping up to be a rival superpower - but I think it will be sometime before they can hope to rival the US.

I think America will find that they will not have the total lack of opposition they enjoy currently.

This 'new' cold war is already developing in the form of a re-newed space race. China are aiming to put a man on the moon in the next 10 years - Bush wants to build a permanent base on the moon with a view to putting a man on Mars (though this has fallen away more recently - It was dropped from the state of the nation speech)

Though China has a long long way to go before it that hope to catch up with the US - The Americans are aware that they are facing competition - spurring this new interest in space.

Like the space race with the USSR, I think that this race is an acceptable alternative to war...

I don't think China and the US will go to war anytime soon - they benefit too much from co-operation and neither side has anything to gain from such a fight... (well except world domination but that's probably more trouble than its worth)

Finally - all this talk of America and its Empire - I really don't think Americans want an empire - real or imagined - However, I think the Bush administration does.. but that's very different to what the average American wants.

I actually think that George jr's days are numbered. It would appear that Kerry is doing very well in the democratic primaries - and polls today said that if the election was tomorrow, between Kerry and Bush - Kerry would win by about 6% - I know that polls are dodgy but its a long way to the election... ALLOT of Americans want rid of bush and I think they will vote accordingly in November.





I realise that much of what I've said is not backed by any hard evidence so please don't flame me if you think otherwise! You can disagree without insulting me!

clearz

I would first like to say that I don’t dislike the American people I feel sorry for them. As an onlooker into the great American experiment I see how the vast majority of them are so helplessly under control. (Not free, as they like to think of themselves) If you ever seen the matrix film you will understand what I am saying.

The American government and corporations are the machines.

The American people are the normal humans.

America is the world that has been pulled over their eyes to blind them from the truth.

Maybe ‘the truth’ is that the world is a far from perfect place. There is war, disease and all the stuff we know about that is wrong with the world.

Akrasia

The world will fall over and die if China develops a competing economy to America. the polution of 1.5 billion more people suddenly consuming like we do will be more than the envoronment can handle

Hobbes

your assuming they will. China has already had to deal with a large population so they would be aware of such issues. The EU would be on par with the US.

US on the other hand *wastes* more resources then any other country in the world. I am not talking about using but wasting.

Oil is a good example. the only reason the EU probably doesn't waste as much as the US does (and they piss it away sometimes) is because it is so expensive.

The world will fall over and die if China develops a competing economy to America.

I doubt it will happen like that. Its more likely that the American economy will drop in power to a level that China can reach. As things stand more countries are competing with the major powers in industry, technology etc. so the current powers might find themselves very disadvantaged in the near future. Especially if the EU can get its act together.

Maybe ‘the truth’ is that the world is a far from perfect place. There is war, disease and all the stuff we know about that is wrong with the world.

I doubt that very much. They know, they just act like the rest of us. Everybody is guilty of taking a blind eye to the suffering of the world.

Hell, i turn away charities that show up at my door pleading abt the suffering in Africa. Why? Because i don't care any longer. I dd once. But no matter what you do, it just continues, and more and more need help. (i'm still signed up to two charities from when i was in college, but no more.)

The US probably feels the same. Most americans, i know, believe that the US saved Europe in both WW1, & WW2. Iraq in both cases, they view as saving the world from itself. So they've gotten tired of the crap that goes with being a superpower with a finger in every pie. So the average american is a little bit sick of it.

The Americans i know, just want to live their lives. They're proud to be american, and they're generally proud of what their governments have achieved. They don't really give a crap abt the rest of the world anymore. Too much bull****, in their eyes.

(note: before i get flamed completely, i would like to mention that i am referring to americans i know and have spoken to. I'm not making assumptions abt every american on the face of the planet.)

Redleslie

Does this 1939 Joseph Goebbels quote (taken from a collection of his speeches) sound familiar?

They hate our people because it is decent, brave, industrious, hardworking and intelligent. They hate our views, our social policies, and our accomplishments. They hate us as a Reich and as a community. They have forced us into a struggle for life and death. We will defend ourselves accordingly.

Geromino

Originally posted by claidheamh
courtesy of Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>;

I was not looking for a webster dictionary of a word that can be applied in a thousand different directions. However, judging by your response, I would presume that my idealogy is based on ignorance.

I wasn't ignoring inspections/statements of the past President. President Clinton's actions weren't correct, due to the same misinformation we see today; However, his actions were nowhere the same level that our current President deemed necessary. They were both wrong, which adds to the fodder for, "reasons to be unhappy with America."
I am unsure of your term, 'disparage of,' being that the word, 'disparage,' is a transitive verb.

Iraq was WAS NOT THE VICTIM. Kuwaitis would agree to this statement as well as most Arab nations. Some nations like France, Germany, Syria, and Iran, have used the situation to further their own political goals, whatever they might be. Iraq gave no unfettered access in its history with the inspectors, spied on them, changed their stories numerous times. At least seven, count them at least seven, condemned Iraq for not cooperating. How many times do you give a nation a chance? Too many for this old coot! Even the last chief weapons inspector said that in March 2003, yet he did provide allegedly assurances that Iraq was cooperating.

That is a common thought thought. Not mine, but common. I think the educational system was at a crossroads. Had the 60's revolution not occured, I think a whole lotta fundamentalistic (Christian) education would be occuring in our system...but this is not the place for that tangent.

It may be common, but it is highly accurate. The last president who did anything to increase educational requirements was Eisenhaur. All other presidents have only increased the amount of loans and grants for schools districts to operate. Yet, a religion called humanism has entered the educational system which has perverted values and reasoning to the nith degree. Now, before you have yourself a conniption, increasing the educational standards would not result in Christian fundamentalism, but more educated, more reasoned young students who have more opportunities than there predecessors. The 60's revolution has only brought dispair to family values, and accountability for one's own actions.

Our country, and it's flippant international attitude is a direct result of our foreign policy.
I think you would have a hard time proving racism.

Yet you have already experienced racism based on nationality with the statement, "stupid American." Flippant international attitude? Our foreign policy, since the fall of the Soviet Union, has been one of reactionary, not evolutionary. And since 1992, you have had ethnic cleansing in Africa, Asia, and Southern Europe. All associated with former Soviet client states with brutal dictactors. Before that time, it was to prevent the spread of communism. Note: I am not debating the specific merits of foreign policy but only to point out the different strategies at two significant points in time. This leads me to my next question, are we better off only having two camps, so to speak, or with six camps, each with their own agendas and evolving alliances that mix the pre-1992 with the post 1992 event on the fall of the Soviet Union?

Originally posted by CorinthianNot all wants are for raw materials - many goods and services, such as clothing, cuisine and entertainment are indicative of the culture exporting them.

Corinthian, we trade based on our human desires and reasoning, i.e. we want, need, or desire something. Trade consists raw materials, intermediate goods, finished goods, services, and direct investment. We can trade for an intermediate good in order to produce a product unique for one's country. We trade in order to obtain a larger macro economic goal or goals set forth by the internal and external market structures. We do not live in a utopia, Corinthian.

I wouldn’t condone what Chirac did with regard to the EU candidates, but that doesn’t excuse anyone else for playing the bullyboy either.

The question is not condoning what Chirac did in general. My question is are you equally vehement about what Chirac did as with the US or are you cavelier about what Chirac did?

However, by the very article you have liked to the author claims that it “on the singular idea that something associated with the United States, something at the core of American life, is deeply wrong and threatening to the rest of the world”. It became threatening when the rest of the World was told that we had to accept it or become irrelevant. Or worse.

The point by the professor at George Mason University was that some criticism is now personifying the United States into a category unlike any in history. No where has the United States ever demanded a gross generalization that you have described Corinthian. I have found no factual basis in this statement, but only mark it as political hysteria. It has however, asserted its position, as well as the EU, China, and other specific countries what it feels is right and has had long discussions, meetings, and other forms to come into a common goal (Can you say the G-7 summit, 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Iraq, just to name a few). However, let me point out a part of the editorial by Prof Ceasar's assertion which you have ignored, "As long as its influence remains, rational discussion of the practical differences between America and Europe becomes more and more difficult. No issue or question is addressed on its merits, and instead commentators tend to reason from conclusions to facts rather than from facts to conclusions.... " We can have disagreement, but personifying a group of poeple or government on baseless foundations is inherently wrong and proves nothing but contempt and hatred toward the government and the people.

Geromino

Originally posted by Redleslie
Does this 1939 Joseph Goebbels quote (taken from a collection of his speeches) sound familiar?

This can be said of practically every nation at one point in time or another. I do not see the specific relevance of this statement.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, look at how Geromino is reacting to seeing others proclaim how the US should be run, and you can get a good idea of what to excpect

You get a helping of "you don't understand us", a dollop of "you don't share our values and are therefore wrong to judge us by your values", and a smidgen of "what damned business of yours is it anyway".
jc

Well, let me see here. If Ireland runs a deficit more than 3% of their GDP, then the EU takes drastic action, even at the cost of economic recovery. Where is the US in this equation? Oh wait a minute, I don't understand Europeans and how they operate. LOL!

Bonkey, what in the crud is this. Have I ever told you what you need to do politically? Or how to run your country, if you have one? Or how you should conduct yourselves? Or what is wrong with your country culturally, politically, economically, and historically while given a value to that analysis? No I have not. I do not tell my associates what they need to do when they ask me. I may give advice, but never tell them what to do. Now, if you think opinion or advice is telling what to do, then..............

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
If you look at the company America keeps with regard to what treaties it's party to these days it speaks loads to national priorities.
Then our child president turns around and calls these nations "rogue states".
I'm reminded of that episode of Family Guy where he declares his house a soveirgn nation, Petoria. The pool party!

I hope you were being sarcastic, Sovtek. If you were not, then I can go in either direction. First, you do realize that there are several treaties with the US and Ireland. Or are you using cafeteria style politics and history in picking and choosing nonlinear events to make a allegedly logical argument (McCarthyism). Or if you associate with ax murders, does that mean you are one too?

So basically our sworn enemy was the hive of anti-Americanism. How shocking and how dare they!

Who said anything about we?

Actually I think we've covered this specious term "anti-American" as actually being criticism of the American government in general.
Besides that it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Personally, I dislike the term "anti-Americanism." There needs to be constructive criticism, we don't have that here. Ranting (emotional, misguided) does not constitute any validity in an argument, given its context. I wish there were specific terms to describe diatribe rantings, like yours, and constructive criticism that has been expressed by professionals is what we do not have here, in general. Some have expressed consturtive criticism, but most have not.

When everyone in the room is looking at you strangely it's probably a good time to check yourself.

How quaint! So, you make the fool look like normal and the normal look foolish. Well, that is extreme liberal relativism for you!

Redleslie

Originally posted by Geromino
Personally, I dislike the term "anti-Americanism."

Then why do you keep using it in your posts (eg, There has always been "anti-Americanism.") and why do you post links to rubbish articles with titles like "A summary of anti-Americanism."?

Originally posted by Geromino
This can be said of practically every nation at one point in time or another.

No it can't really. Unless you can provide specific examples of practically every nation doing so. In the cases where it's true that the "they hate us" line has been offered as justification to mount invasions of other countries, we know in hindsight that in each case, there was much more to it than that. Power can rarely be seen to be pursued for its own sake.

I do not see the specific relevance of this statement.

The art of propaganda and the attempts to exploit nationalist loyalties are entirely relevant these days, there being a war (against terror) on and all. Goebbels was attempting to whip up a mood of nationalistic hysteria amongst Germans in order to make it easier to shove them into a war they did not want. There are a few interesting comparisons between the language and techniques used by him and that used today by the US and UK governments to enlist support for war. Eg, Bush and Blair gave us the willies with the dodgy dossier, Goebbels revealed a fiendish Polish plot to seize territory. "...the German representative in Warsaw reported to Berlin on 8 May that maps were being distributed in Polish cities that showed the border moved into German territory past Beuthen, Oppeln, Gleiwitz, Breslau, Stettin and Kolberg." That probably sounded plausible enough at the time but I dunno if they ever bothered having a Hutton style enquiry though.

Incidentally, since I find that many of America's most aggressively forthright critics in recent times are actually American (Bill Hicks and Gore Vidal for example), does that make them in essence, anti-American? If so, how can a person be anti-himself? Apart from anything else, that presents a something of a philosophical problem.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Corinthian, we trade based on our human desires and reasoning, i.e. we want, need, or desire something. Trade consists raw materials, intermediate goods, finished goods, services, and direct investment. We can trade for an intermediate good in order to produce a product unique for one's country. We trade in order to obtain a larger macro economic goal or goals set forth by the internal and external market structures. We do not live in a utopia, Corinthian.

Stop obfuscating the point with that psudo-intellectual tripe. I said that there is a cultural aspect to trade, which there is in many of those intermediate and finished goods and services you mentioned. Otherwise there would be no specific demand for French wine, German beer, Italian fashion Thai silk or Greek olives. In trading for such goods and services, one is in part buying into the culture of the exporter. All nations experience an economic demand in each other’s culture, which was my point - not some generic freshman’s definition of trade.

The question is not condoning what Chirac did in general. My question is are you equally vehement about what Chirac did as with the US or are you cavelier about what Chirac did?

Absolutely, if he were to unilaterally act upon those threats. As it is, I would condemn them as a serious diplomatic blunder and thus against greater European interests.

The point by the professor at George Mason University was that some criticism is now personifying the United States into a category unlike any in history. No where has the United States ever demanded a gross generalization that you have described Corinthian. I have found no factual basis in this statement, but only mark it as political hysteria.

Let’s look at my statement of hysteria, then, shall we?

“It became threatening when the rest of the World was told that we had to accept it or become irrelevant. Or worse.”

We have what has been recently been dubbed as a hyperpower, decide a course of action on behalf of the international community and when it was unable to get that community to agree with it, threatened that it (the UN) risked becoming “irrelevant”, while a swathe of allies in Europe who disagreed were accordingly dubbed “old Europe” as a sign of their “irrelevance” in US eyes.

And the price for such disagreement? At the very least frosty relations and disbarment from the spoils of war. At a more serious level embargoes for those nations seen as uncooperative and concessions or even aid for those who obey (regardless of these nations’ support for terror or democratic status). And in some cases, even the threat or suggestion that regime change would be encouraged covertly or facilitated overtly.

These are actual facts. If you wish to question any of the above, I’ll be more than happy to give you a lesson in humility. Now, then unless you are in complete denial (which I suspect may well be possible), you have to concede that there is a basis to these concerns that is not simply a product of hysteria.

It has however, asserted its position, as well as the EU, China, and other specific countries what it feels is right and has had long discussions, meetings, and other forms to come into a common goal (Can you say the G-7 summit, 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Iraq, just to name a few).

We are not discussing a nations right to assert its position, only it’s right to impose it on other nations.

However, let me point out a part of the editorial by Prof Ceasar's assertion which you have ignored, "As long as its influence remains, rational discussion of the practical differences between America and Europe becomes more and more difficult. No issue or question is addressed on its merits, and instead commentators tend to reason from conclusions to facts rather than from facts to conclusions.... "

The principle practical difference between the US and Europe - and for that matter the rest of the World - is that the US acted unilaterally; she went for a resolution looking for the authorisation for military action, and when she saw she wasn’t going to get one (or even a ‘moral majority’ of the SC), she went and did it anyway. To date the US has not addressed this matter outside of justifying it. That is was a mistake or wrong does not even seem to be on the agenda for discussion. Hardly rational.

We can have disagreement, but personifying a group of poeple or government on baseless foundations is inherently wrong and proves nothing but contempt and hatred toward the government and the people.

No reasonable individual is attempting to demonise Americans themselves, although such a backlash is the inevitable result of your government’s policies and actions.

America did much the same to the French, after all - or had you forgotten about all those ‘freedom fries’ (a good that has no cultural significance, no doubt :rolleyes: ).

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Iraq was WAS NOT THE VICTIM. Kuwaitis would agree to this statement as well as most Arab nations.

Me and the boys were out at teh weekend, right, and we found this bunch of complete weeds coming out of a pub...right?

So anyway...I beat the crap out of one of them, and then me and my mates agreed he had it coming to him for looking at me funny. We towered over his mates, and asked them if they agreed he had ti coming, or if they wanted to join him. They all agreed he had it coming too.

Isn't victimless crime (as analagised to Geromino's standards) great. As long as the agressors and the next potential victims agree there was no victim......there was no victim.

Bonkey, what in the crud is this

Its me pointing out that you seem to be of the opinion that non-Americans have no right to Freedom of Speech, because you are constantly holding people up for daring to express their opinion on a particular subject in a public forum.

It also appears to becoming a relatively standard "I can't actually argue this point, so here's a handy way out" tactic I'm seeing become more and more prevalent, so its something that I just don't take very well.

The rest of your "did I ever" indignity serves to prove my point nicely.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
How quaint!

Duty Honor Country

Well, that is extreme liberal relativism for you!

Some call it democracy.

Shanka

This can be said of practically every nation at one point in time or another. I do not see the specific relevance of this statement.

Bush quotes:

"It's a different kind of war because we're fighting people who are -- they send youngsters to their suicidal deaths and they try to find a dark cave. They're kind of lurching around in the dark corners of some cities around the world. They're in over 60 countries. And slowly but surely, we're dismantling the terrorist network, which hates us because of what we love. See, they hate the fact that we love freedom. They can't stand the fact that in this country people can worship the almighty God any way he or she sees fit." - Shreveport, Louisiana, Dec. 10, 2002

"Those of us who love freedom must work together to do everything we can to disrupt, deny and bring to justice these people who have no soul, no conscience, people that hate freedom." - Washington, D.C., Oct. 14, 2002

and...

"They're nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers. You've just got to understand that about the nature of the enemy. They hate us because we love. They hate, we love freedom, is why they hate us, and we're not going to quit loving freedom." - Davenport, Iowa, Sep. 16, 2002

1939 Joseph Goebbels quote:

"They hate our people because it is decent, brave, industrious, hardworking and intelligent. They hate our views, our social policies, and our accomplishments. They hate us as a Reich and as a community. They have forced us into a struggle for life and death. We will defend ourselves accordingly."




Is this specific enough for you?

One of the worst aspects of the Bush administration is their use of simplistic rabble rousing comments like the above to get what they want. These comments are alarming to the rest of the world because they are total generalisations and overly simplistic in nature. (Not to mention their propaganda value.) They are not the type of comments you would expect to hear from the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. (hardly statesman like)

And to those of us who are familiar with pre-war German history - hearing Bush talk like that...

Its extremely scary.

Geromino

Originally posted by Shanka
Is this specific enough for you?

One of the worst aspects of the Bush administration is their use of simplistic rabble rousing comments like the above to get what they want. These comments are alarming to the rest of the world because they are total generalisations and overly simplistic in nature. (Not to mention their propaganda value.) They are not the type of comments you would expect to hear from the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. (hardly statesman like)

And to those of us who are familiar with pre-war German history - hearing Bush talk like that...

Its extremely scary.

"Summary: Despite what many argue, Arab and Muslim rage at the United States has had very little to do with actual U.S. policies--policies that have been remarkably pro-Arab over the past 50 years. Promoting anti-Americanism is simply the best way Muslim leaders have found to distract their publics from the real problem: internal mismanagement. New U.S. policies or a PR campaign will not change matters....For years now, anti-Americanism has served as a means of last resort by which failed political systems and movements in the Middle East try to improve their standing. The United States is blamed for much that is bad in the Arab world, and it is used as an excuse for political and social oppression and economic stagnation. By assigning responsibility for their own shortcomings to Washington, Arab leaders distract their subjects' attention from the internal weaknesses that are their real problems"

This comes from "Foreign Affairs" Magazine in which the author, Barry Rubin who is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and Editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, summarizes his latest article in the magazine. Kinda looks familiar doesn't it? Except in this case, they are using the US as the tool to get what "they" want!

However, what specifically are you arguing against in Bush's excepts? Do you believe that OBL is doing the things because he was called to? Or do you think it was for something else, like the freedoms we enjoy? Do you even know what Islamic fundamentalism is? Have you ever been to Nigeria? Did you know that in Nigeria it used to be a Christian country. Now, fundamentalist Islamists have all but banned any form of religious freedom except what they practice?

Geromino

Originally posted by Redleslie
Then why do you keep using it in your posts (eg, There has always been "anti-Americanism.") and why do you post links to rubbish articles with titles like "A summary of anti-Americanism."?

What I am trying to do is divide out between justified and unjustified criticism. I am leaving open, specifically, how to define justified and unjustified criticism although I know there are a few on this board which will state all criticism is justified. I do not like terms which lumps altogether those who can construcively criticize and those who just want to rant.

No it can't really. Unless you can provide specific examples of practically every nation doing so. In the cases where it's true that the "they hate us" line has been offered as justification to mount invasions of other countries, we know in hindsight that in each case, there was much more to it than that. Power can rarely be seen to be pursued for its own sake.

It is quite easy to ignore any event in which you politically agree with even though the said parties were doing the same thing. In a "Foreign Affairs" Magazine which I gave an except, you can see the same idealogy except using a country as a tool to get the political leaders what they want. History is full of these types of events and if you care to look at historic events of England, France, Russia, Cuba, China, Japan, Thailand, Korea, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Argentina, France, Canada, Ireland, and others, you will see the point. I am not interested in whether you agree politically the decisions at the time specified in history, but the overall picture which the same situation occurs. True, the names have been changed to fit the worldly outlook, but the same formula exists throughtout the world and history!

The art of propaganda and the attempts to exploit nationalist loyalties are entirely relevant these days, there being a war (against terror) on and all. Goebbels was attempting to whip up a mood of nationalistic hysteria amongst Germans in order to make it easier to shove them into a war they did not want. There are a few interesting comparisons between the language and techniques used by him and that used today by the US and UK governments to enlist support for war. Eg, Bush and Blair gave us the willies with the dodgy dossier, Goebbels revealed a fiendish Polish plot to seize territory. "...the German representative in Warsaw reported to Berlin on 8 May that maps were being distributed in Polish cities that showed the border moved into German territory past Beuthen, Oppeln, Gleiwitz, Breslau, Stettin and Kolberg." That probably sounded plausible enough at the time but I dunno if they ever bothered having a Hutton style enquiry though.

Incidentally, since I find that many of America's most aggressively forthright critics in recent times are actually American (Bill Hicks and Gore Vidal for example), does that make them in essence, anti-American? If so, how can a person be anti-himself? Apart from anything else, that presents a something of a philosophical problem.

First, I am not specifically discussing Iraq althought I doubt it you read the IISS book on Iraq's WMD dossier. However, "The reasons why the Islamists believe that the current rulers of most countries in the region must be deposed are one or all of the following: 1) they do not apply the Shari'a, or not strictly enough; 2) they are personally venal and corrupt, and prone to a degree of luxurious self-indulgence which contravenes the Islamic sense of social justice; 3) they are perceived as clients of the Western powers, particularly the hegemonic superpower.

The Islamic fundamentalist outlook is driven by the perception that the present world order, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the second Gulf war, is inherently biased in favour of the United States and other Western powers. The domestic problems which the Muslim states of the Middle East and those of the Third World face can be explained, according to this viewpoint, as the result of economic pressure and exploitation, and political and cultural domination, from these Western powers directly or through international bodies like the United Nations and its agencies, which they tend to monopolize and use to their own ends. The mindset is vividly represented by the prominent Islamist spokesman, Kalim Siddiqui: "The fact is that the `progress' achieved in Europe and North America is due largely, though not only, to one single factor almost never mentioned by anyone—plunder." [Crescent International, December 16-31, 1992. p. 7]."

Knowing this, I would not call Bush's speech propogandist and lacking in thought, unless of course you really don't believe there are Islamic terrorists in the world but just misguided and misunderstood individuals who happen to blow themselves up. Was it intended to boost pride, no. However, the quotes from Bush's speech would show one of the reasons why the United States is fighting terrorism. If you want another example, you might want to take a look at why Australia was attacked in Bali by Al Queda. Hint: "see Islamic Terrorists are not fighting for third world liberation. As they announce repeatedly, they are messianic organizations explicitly fighting to restore a pan Islamic Caliphate governed by Islamic law. Throughout the world, they methodically kill people opposed to the Caliphate, whether UN or non-UN, Muslim or non-Muslim, left or right, American, British, Israeli, French or Australian." and "Samudra’s statements reiterate bin Laden's November 12, 2002 audiotape, which stressed that Australian victims were picked partly because of Australia's "despicable effort to separate East Timor" from Indonesia and claimed "The crusader Australian forces landed to separate East Timor, which is part of the Islamic world." For good measure, he also castigated the UN and "this criminal, Kofi Annan… " for "putting pressure on the Indonesian government."

al-Qaeda and its Terrorist allies are not confused. They know what Australia, supported by the UN under de Mello’s leadership, did for the independence of East Timor, and they hate Australia, as well as the UN, for its own action." This sorta puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Me and the boys were out at teh weekend, right, and we found this bunch of complete weeds coming out of a pub...right?

So anyway...I beat the crap out of one of them, and then me and my mates agreed he had it coming to him for looking at me funny. We towered over his mates, and asked them if they agreed he had ti coming, or if they wanted to join him. They all agreed he had it coming too.

Isn't victimless crime (as analagised to Geromino's standards) great. As long as the agressors and the next potential victims agree there was no victim......there was no victim.

I would use the term justifiable homicide as a more appropiate anology with Iraq. Iraq was not some innocent bystandard who got caught up in American foreign policy. Hussein wanted to be the next Nebechenezzar. This would be a very bad sign for both US and Europe if it were to ever happened. In my example, you would be ignoring all the incidents which led up to the justifiable homicide and concentrate soley on the person who committed the act as though nothing before hand had occured.

Its me pointing out that you seem to be of the opinion that non-Americans have no right to Freedom of Speech, because you are constantly holding people up for daring to express their opinion on a particular subject in a public forum.

It also appears to becoming a relatively standard "I can't actually argue this point, so here's a handy way out" tactic I'm seeing become more and more prevalent, so its something that I just don't take very well.

The rest of your "did I ever" indignity serves to prove my point nicely.

Let me be blunt Bonkey. You are assuming something about me based on interpretations of posts that I made and a grossly defined political idealogy that you think you know precisely what I believe in. You are not a pyschic nor do you know who I am and what I personally believe in. You know nothing about me except for a very select few details, and even those are very general in perspective. If you think by going into past posts and puling them out and stating, "Here is what you really said blah blah blah" it will not work with me.


Quite frankly Bonkey, your post is very close to that being slanderous and libelous in my personal view. If you disagree with me, then fine state it and move on. Do not harbor this type of attitude of personification like some five year old child with a chip on their shoulder. It is getting quite old!

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
I would use the term justifiable homicide as a more appropiate anology with Iraq.

So you believe justifiable homicide is victimless? I'm sure the dead person at the end of it would disagree with you. They may be a deserving victim, but they're still a victim.

You are assuming something about me based on interpretations of posts that I made and a grossly defined political idealogy that you think you know precisely what I believe in.

I see. And exactly what are you doing with your oft-repeated comments about "anti-Americanism" regarding posters on this forum, if not the exact same?

Are you saying you are wrong to do this? Or just that different standards apply to the two of us - that its ok for you to make assumptions that others may find offensive, but its well out of order when someone does it to you?

You are not a pyschic nor do you know who I am and what I personally believe in.

Nor do I care who you are or what you personally believe in. I base my posts around what you post here - nothing more, nothing less. It is the arguments within those posts, and the manner in which they are executed that I am commenting on.

As you said - I'm not psychic, so all I can do is make the simple assumption that what you post here is honest. If you say "America is right", I will assume you mean it. If you say "what business of yours is this anyway", rather than discussing the point, then I have to assume that you believe that - at best - my right to discuss this topic is somehow conditional.

Quite frankly Bonkey, your post is very close to that being slanderous and libelous in my personal view.

Im happy for you. There's a report button you could have used, and two other moderators who aren't going to just take my side. Then there's the admins above them. If you felt I was out of order, there's a well-established process which you could follow to do something about it.

And until you do, you can conintue blustering like this all you like, but it means nothing to me.

If you disagree with me, then fine state it and move on.
Do not harbor this type of attitude of personification like some five year old child with a chip on their shoulder. It is getting quite old!

I answered a question drawing reference to a poster who's in-board attitude of the US is a very close facsimile of how I saw the answer to the question posed.

Exactly where is the chip on my shoulder? I'm not the one who posted back with "what the crud is this?" because I didn't like the comparison that was drawn. Rather than showing me how my assessment of your stated stance was wrong, you then fall back on this "you know nothing about the real me" malarkey which, quite frankly, has nothing to do with anything.

If you have a problem with my assessment of your stated stance, show me where its wrong. Discuss the issue. Argue your point. Thats what this forum is supposed to be about - not telling people that they can't or shouldn't talk about something.

Alternately, if you have a complaint about my posts, then report them rather than getting all indignant....as the rules tell you to.

But lets spare everyone else your (apparent) righteous indignation because quite frankly, it has no place here.

jc

dr_manhattan

geromino - some points (though to be honest, I really can't imagine you'll pay any attention)

you quoted:

"Despite what many argue, Arab and Muslim rage at the United States has had very little to do with actual U.S. policies--policies that have been remarkably pro-Arab over the past 50 years"

Okay, now before you start posing questions such as "do you even know what islamic fundamentalism is?" Please know that I was brought up by a fluent arabic speaker who learned his arabic in palestine in the early 60s and continued to work in the middle east up until 1982, which involved a 2 year stint in baghdad. So spare me: i have an amount of knowledge on the subject, but I claim no expertise: only Sky channel think there's such a thing as an "islam expert"

(but there again, only sky channel would invent the term "islamist", which I've never seen before a year ago. What does that term mean, as distinct from "moslem" or "islamic"?)

First off, can you tell me how US policy has been "pro arab"? And can you also tell me how that equates to afghanistan, indonesia, and pakistan in terms of being in any way conciliatory towards islam? Are the terms "arab" and "islamist" interchangeable?

Fact is nobody here is claiming islamic fundamentalism is a good thing (to the best of my knowledge) and of course, most certainly, arab leaders, who have generally for the past 50 years consisted of the Scum of the earth, have used anti americanism to feed their insatiable appetite for stealing their peoples' money to buy gold pistols.

But does this mean that there is no basis for eastern/islamic hatred of america? I don't think so. I would like an explanation of how america's support of israel's illegal occupation, despite such events as israel's faked attack on a US vessel in 1971 to provoke a war against syria, comes off as "pro arab"? Add to that the iraqi, iranian and libyan emargoes, throw in the support of the murderous saudi regime and once again, how is this "pro-arab"?

And again, these leaders:

Saddam Hussein: britain's asassin turned puppet leader
Osama Bin Laden: the CIA's richkid demagogue puppet to beat the russians in afghanistan
Muammar Quaddafi: A sandhurst educated lunatic run amok

Basically, a lot of these so-called leaders were installed by us, and their regimes supported by us. I'm not saying that justifies islamic fundamentalism, I'm just saying that this situation is not new. It was not new when laurence of arabia betrayed all his mates.

(point of issue: why is it that people say "islam versus the west" so much? Why is it not "the east versus the west" or "christianity versus islam"? Why do we manipulate prose to seem like we are detached and dispassionate, while they are religious nuts? Last I looked, Tony Blair and George bush were in and out of churches, spouting christian ****e every second of the day - so why are "we" not "christianity" but a minority of unelected lunatics have to be "islam"?)

Anyways, the "west" has created a situation long ago through daft colonial ratraces, and has consistently declined to make any real move to make amends. Instead we have continued to exploit and double deal with a bunch of people who never much liked us anyways. So it's hardly bloody surprising that when they check out our flatscreen TVs and satellite guided tomahawk missiles that they continue to dislike us, and think of us as lazy, blinkered, arrogant thieves.

Because that's what we bloody well are. America managed to wipe out the last bunch of people it stole from, the natives. Do native americans dislike white americans because they "hate freedom"? No, I think it's because they would like to be cut in on the freedom deal, cos a lot of it comes off their hard work and sweat.

My 2 cents anyways: but i don't think I'll be replying on this one - these debates just go on and on, cos most people aren't interested in changing their opinions ;-)

Shanka

Geromino, you seem to have completely missed the point of previous post - bewilderingly, you also seem to have taken what I said personally somehow. I don't see the point in addressing your post regarding "Foreign Affairs" Magazine as in all fairness, it bears little relevance to what I was saying - and also - I don't actually understand what your point was... you'll need to clarify.

But to address your other questions...

However, what specifically are you arguing against in Bush's excepts?

I am not specifically arguing against anything in Bush's remarks - What I was attempting to do was draw out the similarities between the language used by Bush in the past 3 years and the language used by the Nazi government in the 1930's. Specifically, I used Bush quotes where he uses the word 'hate' - as in "they hate us because..."

Now before you jump down my throat - I am not saying that the Bush Administration are nazis. Many people have concluded that this type of language has been used many governments in the past. And I agree with that to certain extent. What I am arguing is that Bush's over simplification of the facts in relation to why Al-Qaeida is fighting this war against the west is extremely dangerous -

Why is it dangerous? Because when you describe people like that, (people without souls? ffs) its difficult for the ignorant to tell specifically who is being talked about. And as a result, many assume Mr President of the USA is talking about ALL Muslims - or even everyone from Asia. Its dangerous AND its irresponsible - And not the kind of behaviour you would expect from the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

The result is that you spread the boundaries of the conflict - When Muslims feel that they are being targeted - they fight back - then we retaliate and so on. You then have WWIII on your hands.

No-one is arguing that Al-Qaeida should not be fought. However, theres an intelligent way to do this and theres a stupid way to do this - Invading Iraq for example was not the brightest move made in the war on terror thus far. Why? because it expanded the conflict to include alot more people. Namely, the Iraqi people.

Do you even know what Islamic fundamentalism is?

er, yes I do... Otherwise I wouldn't have an opinion on this subject. It still doesn't make any difference to my disgust with Bush's remarks.

Have you ever been to Nigeria?

No - I haven't - But I never even mentioned Nigeria in my post - Where did you get Nigeria from?

Did you know that in Nigeria it used to be a Christian country

Yes - I also know that it wasn't always Christian - It was converted to Christianity by white European missionaries - But what has this got to do with Bush's speeches?

Now, fundamentalist Islamists have all but banned any form of religious freedom except what they practice?

I knew that too... I know what the old Islamic fundamentalism is all about - I don't agree with it but I don't think I should have the right to invade their country just to make them stop.

BarryFry

Originally posted by dr_manhattan


Anyways, the "west" has created a situation long ago through daft colonial ratraces, and has consistently declined to make any real move to make amends. Instead we have continued to exploit and double deal with a bunch of people who never much liked us anyways. So it's hardly bloody surprising that when they check out our flatscreen TVs and satellite guided tomahawk missiles that they continue to dislike us, and think of us as lazy, blinkered, arrogant thieves.

Because that's what we bloody well are. America managed to wipe out the last bunch of people it stole from, the natives. Do native americans dislike white americans because they "hate freedom"? No, I think it's because they would like to be cut in on the freedom deal, cos a lot of it comes off their hard work and sweat.

My 2 cents anyways: but i don't think I'll be replying on this one - these debates just go on and on, cos most people aren't interested in changing their opinions ;-)

Well, you seem pretty entrenched in left-wing cliche, and would appear to be the last person who would be prepared to change their opinion.

However, I'll ask you one question, that you must think about with a completely open mind for at least fifteen minutes, before giving a considered reply:

Can you ABSOLUTELY guarantee that the middle-east, or anywhere else, would DEFINITELY be a better place if they had never been subject to western imperialism?

I am personally loath to believe that things are quite so simple.

(Note: I am not defending imperialism as a moral concept)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BarryFry
Can you ABSOLUTELY guarantee that the middle-east, or anywhere else, would DEFINITELY be a better place if they had never been subject to western imperialism?

What a silly argument. How can he ABSOLUTELY guarantee or prove such an assertion any more than you can ABSOLUTELY guarantee or prove the alternatives? All he can do is point to evidence that would make it more likely and reasonable then those alternatives.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by BarryFry
Well, you seem pretty entrenched in left-wing cliche, and would appear to be the last person who would be prepared to change their opinion.

However, I'll ask you one question, that you must think about with a completely open mind for at least fifteen minutes, before giving a considered reply:

Can you ABSOLUTELY guarantee that the middle-east, or anywhere else, would DEFINITELY be a better place if they had never been subject to western imperialism?

I am personally loath to believe that things are quite so simple.

(Note: I am not defending imperialism as a moral concept)

I think dr_manhattan sums up the argument pretty well there. There's tonnes been written about the direct effect of European and American involvement in the Middle East.

To begin with, the West's perception of the Middle East, its culture and its people, as a regressive and politically and religiously fragmented place of ancient high-culture - the field of study called Orientalism - had enormous effects on the Middle East as soon as the West got involved.

As a general example, when the West began to deal with ruling classes in the Middle East, they used their power as a 'modern' civilization (everything that 'modern' entails including military power) to link the Middle East to the West with the promise of development and wealth. Subsequently, the process of elite-led modernisation had a dual effect. On one hand, it generated a strand of intense Arabic nationalism of the kind we may now call Islamic fundamentalism - it was a reaction against further rapid change in the face of a feeling of losing one's culture. On the other hand, and simultaneously, Western involvement prompted a generation of Islamic nationalists modernists who attempted to fuse Arabic culture(s) with Western values and ideals. What occurred subsequently was a massive polarisation in the political system between traditionalists and modernisers, poor/ordinary people and middle-class/elite Western-oriented compradors. Western appetities contributed significantly (some say single-handedly) to an explosive political culture which had, until then, not existed.

As a specific example, the civil war in Lebanon is a pretty good one. In the West, it was presented as a was fought over ancient religious antagonisms. That can't be further from the truth. Historically, Lebanon was a very religiously tolerant state; Muslims, Jews, Christians and Dreuze lived together. The society was stratified but on elite-worker class lines but religion was not a concern - in fact, the state administration may have been a middle-class and elite domain but it was categorically trans-sectarian. But when the French took over, everything changed. With typically Western assumptions about 'civilization' in the Middle East, the French politically divided the country along religious lines; they thought they were saving themselves the trouble of having to deal with the (entirely non-existent) religious antagonism that might threaten their hegemony. They introduced a voting system in which Muslims could only vote for Muslim candidates, Christians can only vote for Christian candidates etc. Eventually, the power differentials between the religions caused a real religio-political conflict that was never there in the first place. Fast forward a few years and you have a bloody civil war.

Yes, I'd say imperialism has a lot to do with why people in the Middle East have a problem with America. You see, the main imperial power in the Middle East used to be Western Europe, now it's America - by its own admission. People tend to not like invaders, you know? Remember 'Invaders from Mars'?

Time and again, US politicians and bureaucrats have stated that US foreign policy has always been to dominate the globe, to make the world safe for its interests. Paul Nitze, author of NSC-68, the US's Cold War doctrine, said that the repeated aim of the US since 1946 has been to construct an international system that worked entirely in their interests. Robert MacNamara, Kennedy's Secretary of State, said that America's 'containment' strategy had not been so much a policy of containment but, rather, an effort to force the USSR and the world to conform to America's rules. For example, it's clear that the United Nations was constructed as an organisation that would keep things the same. Why else was all the power focused on the Security Council? Why else were the five nuclear countries given the veto? Since then, the institution that was set up to prevent war and promote development hasn't really achieved its goal. I wonder why.

US supremacy isn't a bogeyman imagined by a paranoiac. It's something that's been admitted by its most senior architects. People in the Middle East are right to be angry. Maybe they're even right to hate America. I just hope they find ways to constructively and positively oppose Western intervention instead of reflecting back the negative image the West had of them 100 years ago.

I don't think that's a left-wing cliché, it's what happened.