Would you consider yourself to be Anti-American?

Saruman

Im not anti-American but i would not be too fond of their foreign policy!

I also think electing one person to make decisions for the whole world is a bit stupid to be honest. I mean they seem to just elect a dictator. With Bush especially, Clinton seemed pretty cool compared to Bush.

Before Bush was elected what did he do? sharpened pencils or something.. now he dictates what the rest of the world can do and he was not even Americas first choice?? Stupid election process... While the Irish Government is nothing to be proud of at least it works for the most part. Our President is a figurehead and makes no major decisions. Our Prime minister has no authority to declare war or stupid things like that either, he answers to the Dail and they answer to us. In the US though the president appears to make all the decisions and can go against the senate and so against the will of the people. I know this can happen here too but not to the same degree.

As for Americans themselves? they are just people... some are cool, some are muppets others are just crazy and others are amazing people.. just like any other nation in the world.

Cork

Im not anti-American but i would not be too fond of their foreign policy!

I too am not anti-American. But I am worried that countries are putting self interests above that of the UN.

I think the UN needs to be a forum for resolution. France & the US need to decide what do do about Saddam. But, they need to keep the Iraqi people first and foremost in their minds and relegate their own interests down the packing order.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
Whatever you think about the morality of going to war, taken as a thing, the plan put forward by the United States is a civilizational advance on the order of magnitude of Hammurabi's codification of laws. No one has ever waged war the way America is preparing to wage it in Iraq. If this precedent becomes the human race's new standard for warfare, then it will be a happy day indeed.

Which is why the principled anti-Americans are wrong. A society that fights in this manner is not to be feared.

Really? Perhaps you could explain how the quality of such weapons etc will prevent repeat of events such as the multiple bombings of UN resources in Afghanistan?

The US, just like Iraq, is involved in pre-war propaganda. They tell us that Saddam has been trying to get his hands on US uniforms so that he can get "US lookalikes" to commit atrocities and blame them on the US. They tell us that their pattern of war is designed to do X, Y, and Z. Whenever this fails to happen, we will no doubt be informed that it was an exception rather than a rule, and that there was some good reason. The press will make a hullabaloo for a day or two, or until something else interesting happens, and then we will hear no more about it.

Not so long ago, the US were dismissing the notion that bombing electricity generating stations was a war crime. Now they tell us that they will try and avoid bombing these things, meaning that only the important targets will be selected.

Forgive me if I withhold judgement on how humanitarian the selection of important targets turns out to be.

At the end of the day, this is hardly an endorsement of the US plan for war, nor should it be taken as a convincing argument by anyone who has a moral disagreement with the notion of this war or the reasons given for it.

Until the facts bear out the claims, it is nothing more than propaganda - "trust us, this war is not only necessary, but it will be clean too". If people werent trusting that it was necessary, why would they suddenly decide that its ok even if its not necessary, because the same people tell me it will be clean. The same people who claim a visually controlled remotely guided plane made of balsa wood, duct tape and a bush-strimmer engine is a delivery mechanism for a weapon of mass destruction? The same people who were mandated to offer full intelligence to the weapons inspectors, and yet cannot or will not provide any evidence to back up their claims that they know WMDs are about? The same people who have produced statements about how Iraq had misled inspectors about missiles, when it was the information from the declaration itself which led to the missiles being declared as

Sorry, there is a shortage of credibility running in the statements and reasons for war coming out of the US and the Pentagon. I honestly dont think their arguments have swayed anyone...unless you count those who now believe (for example) that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 cause thats what their government has told them, and it would never lie.

So why should this new "look how nice we are" statement make any difference?

After all, what would you expect the US to say? "Hell, yeah, we
re gonna bomb those ragheads back into the stone age, and who cares about innocent deaths"??? I somehow doubt it. I know they dont intend to reduce the country to rubble. I just also know that unless there has been a radical shift in military thinking, this is nothing more than soundbitism, so I will withhold judgement until the US proves that this will indeed be a humanitarian war, if such a thing can exist.

Statements give no-one the moral high ground, and I do not trust either sides honesty enough to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

jc

The Corinthian

There seems to be a predominant feeling of “I’m not anti-American, but am anti the current American administration” here, but I’m not certain that I should take it seriously. After all, American foreign policy while presently more aggressive than in the past has not changed in philosophy. In fact, this aggression has become increasingly more proactive ever since the end of the Cold War, independent of the current administration.

As such, I just can’t shake the feeling that many who are protesting how they’re “not anti-American” are not unlike those who are “not anti-Traveller” but would still not want them living on their doorstep.

Cork

I do not like Bush. But I feel Saddam should have complied with resolution 1441. But we should not get our feelings for Bush overflow onto our feelings for the US. the US has been a good friend to Ireland.

Saddam should have been as fouthright in telling the UN of his weapons. But Geoge W. should have waited a while longer to hightlight Saddams unwillingness to disarrm to the other members of the security council.

They should have than decided upon appropriate action.

I'm sorry but i really love this reason for war. We are only protecting ourselves. I've been watching Fox News for the last few days, and vomit would be a good description concerning the attitude they've taken towards this war.

Basically, America is having this war, to prevent an attack on their country. I actually have no problem with that concept. However what i do have a problem, with is the level of threat here. Saddam, has not made an aggressive move in the last 12 years. Even when he did, it was against Kuwait, not a western country. There have been no real evidence presented that Saddam has any terrorist links for the last decade, and yet, Bush in his speech, made references to such.

This is what i really dont like about america atm. The twisting of concepts, ideals, and facts to justify a military action.

But I feel Saddam should have complied with resolution 1441.

I agree totally.

But we should not get our feelings for Bush overflow onto our feelings for the US. the US has been a good friend to Ireland

For the 1st part, i agree. For the second, i'm not going to debate this again, since enough has been said on the matter.

I think the UN needs to be a forum for resolution

The UN is dying. This war just highlights it.

Which is why the principled anti-Americans are wrong. A society that fights in this manner is not to be feared

Actually any society that fights is to be feared. Moreso, any society that is willing to dictate policy to another nation, is to be feared. Have you not seen how blame for Sept 11 has been shifted to Iraq? I fear the US, because they have become the most powerful loose-cannon in the world. Nobody is safe now, since they can blame them for Sept 11, and then invade.

BUT EVEN IF you grant them their premise, by their own strategic lights, the principled anti-Americans are wrong to oppose the coming war. An ambitious America is much less fearsome than one which is wounded or insecure. Imagine that France wins the debate and the United States walks away from Iraq. Saddam is left intact, and those who would do America harm are emboldened. Imagine if, as Mansoor Ijaz has speculated could happen, a dirty bomb goes off in an American harbor. What if the next September 11 involves not just the destruction of three buildings, but a major U.S. city?

The US has opened Pandora's Box. They have to follow through now, somply because they have given a real reason to Iraq, to continue a war, even should the US withdraw. The US by being this aggressive, has given Iraq no other option, but to fight.

So even if you are inclined to believe the worst about America, the world will still be better off once Saddam has been removed. At the end of the day, even the most principled anti-Americanism is wrong on Iraq."

I disagree. I don't find myself wrong, in my "anti-americanism". Its a personal thing, in that each person will have different reasons.

But in the case of Iraq, I don't think myself to be wrong. I agree that Saddam should be removed, However, i don't like the reasons behind this war. The evidence provided has been dodgy in the extreme especially when Iraq is suggested as a terrorist country. I have no problem with invasion when approved by the UN, but a single Nation pushing for War is always disturbing.

I'm being anti-american because i fear them. I fear what this administration, can do. I fear the way the American Population is currently thinking towards the world. They're acting in such a manner, that if it was a nation like Ethiopia, we'd automatically step in to stop it. America is off on a tangent, ridding the world of its "evils".

I hope they don't create too many evils by their own actions.

bug

Ok here's the thing.. I'm changing my mind... I thought I was anti- american administration.. but really, as per the Corinthian's comments in a previous post I was fooling myself..

You see I've tried to remain impartial, judge each individual rather than sterotype a whole nation. But did 50% of them really agree with that speech last night by Bush, don't they question his motives?. Did they not watch Hans Blix? Did they not read?I cant stand this idiocy anymore..to be quite honest I pity them.

Cork

But along with being unhappy with Bush. I am more unhappy with Saddam. Saddam has not complied with resolution 1441. This resolution called for immediate disarment. Resolution 1441 is now iver 4 months old.

But Bush is very gung ho. The people of Iraq will be better off without Saddam. I think the world will also be a safer place without Saddam.

But the US has been a great friend to Ireland. Don't judge the US on the actions of G.w. Bush.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
But Bush is very gung ho. The people of Iraq will be better off without Saddam. I think the world will also be a safer place without Saddam.

One of the curious ironies of the situation in Afghanistan was that the Taliban regime had fairly broad support, in that they removed the violent anarchy of the warlords before them, uniting most of the country. An oppressive regime is often preferential to rule by the gun.

Today, many parts of Afghanistan have again fallen into the control of warlords, and the central government is largely seen as being militarily propped up by the US - not unlike the Communist regime previously propped up by the Soviets.

If the US pulls out it’s troops without solving the issue of these Warlords, then everything will be back to square one again for the Afghans.

But the US has been a great friend to Ireland. Don't judge the US on the actions of G.w. Bush.

I’m obliviously missing something here. They sponsored talks in Northern Ireland where much of their influence was based upon the fact that the Irish-American community funded much of the paramilitary activity in the first place. Other than that, US firms employs a good few people in Ireland in return for generous tax breaks. We also buy their goods. Oh, and they invite our politicians to the Whitehouse around St. Patrick’s Day.

So I would say that the US is an ally, certainly; has given some political assistance; absolutely; but great friend? Wouldn’t that would make the Germans blood brothers, given the amount of money they’ve shelled out for us.

Von

Originally posted by The Corinthian
An oppressive regime is often preferential to rule by the gun.

That looks like a fierce oxymoron to me. Or is it a paradox?

So I would say that the US is an ally, certainly; has given some political assistance; absolutely; but great friend? Wouldn’t that would make the Germans blood brothers, given the amount of money they’ve shelled out for us.

In return for political assistance, the American parties can get Irish American votes. It's a fair deal. Irish American support could be crucial in 2004. So maybe Ireland's bargaining position is not as weak as it might seem.

America is not a monolithic society, culturally or politically so anyone who uses the term Anti-American to slag anyone else is probably an idiot. Anyone who says they are anti-American is unquestionably an idiot. Eomer, I was engaged to an American for a while and I can assure you that although she's got far more reasons to hate the US than you do, she's still proud of being American. She'd kick your bigoted pimply arse.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von
That looks like a fierce oxymoron to me. Or is it a paradox?

Sorry, more correctly - An oppressive regime is often preferential to violent anarchy.

Éomer of Rohan

An oppressive regime is often preferential to violent anarchy.

Which concievably the US could unleash in IRaq given the varying religions and clan strife no? The only way to suppress THIS would be to fire on civilian militia; is the US so prepared to kill innocent men and women who have taken up arms to defend their lives and those of their children?

Sarky

I used to be merely pro-america but anti-current administration, but a few tv programs I've recently seen have changed my perspective. The relentless self interest and bully tactics that Bush is almost openly pursuing is not particularly endearing, but it's been going on for a long time. The stuff about Nixon, Kissinger and Chavez seems almost exactly the same to the Iraq thing today. Just look at the list of things America did in Bowling for Columbine.

For the last 50 years or so, American policy has been incredibly self-centred and ruthless, to the extent that they'll probably only offer aid if they can get something back, whether that be votes or resources. Any country that goes against their wishes, such as Venezuela, is meddled with. There they tried to oust a democratically elected president on the grounds that it would hurt some big US businesses.

For the record, yes, Saddam is not good for Iraq. But neither is a US controled puppet ruler, which is what Iraq will get if America fights and wins this war.

Sorry if that dragged it off topic, but the above shows the reasons for my current lack of trust in America. I use "America" to denote the country and its rulers, as opposed to the man on the street with little or no say in international affairs. Lord knows I have a few American friends that feel exactly the same way...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Which concievably the US could unleash in IRaq given the varying religions and clan strife no? The only way to suppress THIS would be to fire on civilian militia; is the US so prepared to kill innocent men and women who have taken up arms to defend their lives and those of their children?

Propaganda Rant Alert

Please qualify what you’ve just said. Iraq and Afghanistan are quite different demographically, so what you’ve just said certainly does not necessarily follow.

TomF

I just found an interesting and short article by an author who almost seems to have lifted his inspiration from some of the more spittle-flecked postings on this board. The article appears at:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/383elnhd.asp

Here' are two separate paragraphs from it.

"But a large chunk of public opinion outside the United States has other motivations: It is now implacably hostile; it blindly condones the murder of Americans, whether by terrorist stunts today or WMD tomorrow. For some awful reason, it refuses to see America for what it really is--a large community of normal people--families, children, workplace colleagues--just like themselves. Instead it sees corporations, entertainment, and processed food. For some odd reason these things have given rise to an extraordinary malice."


"Plainly, America is a large presence. Often this tends to suffocate people, especially in wealthy countries. (Anti-American rage rarely erupts in poor or ex-Communist countries, unless motivated by militant religion or politics.) One can ask with some legitimacy: Can American corporations actually get larger, can its military forces grow even more powerful, can its entertainment culture grow even more dominant? Is there room for anyone else in the world?"

Anyone who says they are anti-American is unquestionably an idiot

Von, i think most people are responding to this poll, not as such stating proudly that they're anti-american. However, on the other hand, you have the right to call such people, idiots, just as i can call YOU an idiot.

Eomer, I was engaged to an American for a while and I can assure you that although she's got far more reasons to hate the US than you do, she's still proud of being American.

we might get pissed at the Irish government at times, but i think we're all happy/proud of being Irish. This doesn't prevent us from disliking another nation, or its policies.

She'd kick your bigoted pimply arse

Crap. We are not talking about holding meetings for people who hate america. I doubt anyone thats stated in this thread that they're anti-american, actually hate americans. I dislike the current attitude in america, and the policies currently in force. As per earlier discussions in this thread, thats close to being anti-american.

Von

Originally posted by klaz
Von, i think most people are responding to this poll, not as such stating proudly that they're anti-american. However, on the other hand, you have the right to call such people, idiots, just as i can call YOU an idiot.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I think that that is the reason that there is 'pro - America anti - Bush' option. I wrongly took that one, having realised now that I AM anti-american culture, american popular politics, american 'education' and so on.

I REST MY CASE SIR.

Von,
U might consider actually saying something, rather than just saying "I rest my case".

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Von,
U might consider actually saying something, rather than just saying "I rest my case".

Not unless he's resting his case

I would, however, question the strength of an argument which uses one example as a sufficiently strong argument to illustrate the truth/falsity of a claim made about most posters.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Well, I thank most of you for some of that enlightened and certainly insulting attack.

Good for Von, resting his case and all that crap but you see that misses the point that ultimately the boundaries of this post are ill-defined (apologies to whoever started it).

I do indeed despise the American government, the fundamentalist christianity, the popular culture, the advertising, the utterly biased media, the gun culture, the racism, the unthinking belief in the government, the ignorance of world affairs, the obsession with materialism, the obsession with 'being American' w.r.t. sports etc at school, wrestling and every other harebrained more-muscle-than-brains type activities.....this list goes on a bit more in similar vein.

All of this makes up varying sections of American society, yes? But now I am asking each of you to define the motion; do all these dislikes make me anti-american?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
All of this makes up varying sections of American society, yes? But now I am asking each of you to define the motion; do all these dislikes make me anti-american?

No, not necessarily, but, wishing any kind of Sucess, whether veiled or unveiled to Osama Bin Ladens activities, definitely would.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

No, not necessarily, but, wishing any kind of Sucess, whether veiled or unveiled to Osama Bin Ladens activities, definitely would

Is there another way to stop what, IMO, is the desecration destruction and domination of the world by the USA?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Is there another way to stop what, IMO, is the desecration destruction and domination of the world by the USA?

Are you again using this Board to support terrorism??
Because , quite frankly, thats what Al Qu'eda is a Terrorist organisation that belittles, the great faith that is Islam, by it's activities, and indeed, has a warped view of it's principals.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Are you again using this Board to support terrorism??
Because , quite frankly, thats what Al Qu'eda is a Terrorist organisation that belittles, the great faith that is Islam, by it's activities, and indeed, has a warped view of it's principals

I notice you didn't answer the question. And no, I was simply asking a question, challenging people to show that there was another way to challenge the USA.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I notice you didn't answer the question. And no, I was simply asking a question, challenging people to show that there was another way to challenge the USA.

Thats fine, just concerned, as reading your question could imply support for Bin Laden and his ilk.
I'm glad that you have cleared that up for me, you are opposed to Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.

To answer your question, well, the only answer is people power, convince enough countries, including China, Franceand Russia to militarily oppose the U.S, when they publically oppose them with words.
But that won't happen will it? because, in reality, they don't really oppose, what the U.S are doing... not when the might of their military is staying at home and not putting actions where their mouths are.
Pragmatism.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Thats fine, just concerned, as reading your question could imply support for Bin Laden and his ilk.I'm glad that you have cleared that up for me, you are opposed to Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.

Stop misinterpreting what I say. I did not say I did not support them nor that I did - simply that in my last post I was not indicating support.

To answer your question, well, the only answer is people power, convince enough countries, including China, Franceand Russia to militarily oppose the U.S, when they publically oppose them with words.
But that won't happen will it? because, in reality, they don't really oppose, what the U.S are doing... not when the might of their military is staying at home and not putting actions where their mouths are.

Ever heard of the Cold War? For parts of that China and Russia (at her height of military prowess) amongst MANY other nations stood against the US but it never really stopped them so no, people power as you put it will not stop the US and if countries oppose them politically then the US will do what it did over a 2nd UN resolution; circumvent whatever body they are being obstructed in.

They DO oppose what the US is doing - maybe for the wrong reason however - such as France and her oil bounty.

Von

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I do indeed despise the American government,

Americans don't like them either. Only half the electorate votes and only half of them voted for the present government.

the fundamentalist christianity,

There's plenty of that here in case you haven't noticed.

the popular culture,

Marx Brothers, Simpsons, Mark Leyner, The Ramones, They Might Be Giants, Southpark, The Onion, Martin Scorcese, Bill Hicks, Spinal Tap, the Terminator films, etc etc etc. I like 'em all so **** any braindead humourless scrotum that doesn't.

the advertising,

Plenty of that here I believe.

the utterly biased media,

An awful lot of the best investigative journalism comes from the US, certainly not from Ireland.

the gun culture,

We have booze culture. They both kill people but it's business. What's your point?

the racism,

Plenty of that here. Was racism invented by America?

the unthinking belief in the government,

Plenty of that here. But what about 'left wing heroes' like Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky blah blah blah. Are they not really american?

the ignorance of world affairs,

Plenty of that here.

the obsession with materialism,

When did we become a nation of Ghandis?

the obsession with 'being American' w.r.t. sports etc at school, wrestling and every other harebrained more-muscle-than-brains type activities.....this list goes on a bit more in similar vein.

Plenty of emphasis on manly sports here too. And on being 'Oirish'. Americans find euro football hooliganism impossible to understand.

do all these dislikes make me anti-american?

They make you a bigot. You've already said you're anti-american so yes. Unless you're lying. Read Orwell's essay Notes On Nationalism. He might have written it specifically with you in mind.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
do all these dislikes make me anti-american?

Dunno. Deciding that "piss arsed yanks" or some such comment was more relevant to your stance than your initial claims of only being anti-US-Administration when I asked you to decide.....that makes you anti-american.

Unless you were lying, or have changed your mind.

jc

p.s. You asked....so dont complain if you dont like the answers.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Stop misinterpreting what I say. I did not say I did not support them nor that I did - simply that in my last post I was not indicating support.

Thats a very evasive retort, indicative, of what I suggested above looks like, a thinly veiled appeciation of Al Queda.
So I will ask you then to clearly state your position, do you support Al Qu'eda ie terrorism.
Are you Anti-American? because, support for Al Queda would suggest that, in it's most complete form.

Ever heard of the Cold War? For parts of that China and Russia (at her height of military prowess) amongst MANY other nations stood against the US but it never really stopped them so no, people power as you put it will not stop the US and if countries oppose them politically then the US will do what it did over a 2nd UN resolution; circumvent whatever body they are being obstructed in.

you are confirming what I was saying.
Today these states are being Pragmatic. They know that international politics is a trade off, a case of , you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
The other large nations leave open the possibility, that they could do exactly the same as the U.S is doing now, that particularily applies to China and Russia.
And why exactly did the cold war end?? And who exactly tore down the Berlin wall.
Yeap people! People who wanted out of a dictatorial Regime.
For a view point or a system to win in the end, the silent majority has to be convinced of it's worth also.
And thats eventually how the cold war was won by the west, with the help of NATO's presence of course, which delayed us all being over run by communism.
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Thats a very evasive retort, indicative, of what I suggested above looks like, a thinly veiled appeciation of Al Queda.

I wish for the end of American influence in a world better off without it - nothing more. If al - quaeda achieve that, so be it though I will never agree with there methods. Saying that I know no different way.

And why exactly did the cold war end??

Because the new Free Market system forced the command economy of soviet russia to implode. So?

And who exactly tore down the Berlin wall.
Yeap people! People who wanted out of a dictatorial Regime.
For a view point or a system to win in the end, the silent majority has to be convinced of it's worth also.

If people tore down the Berlin wall, the regime could not have been THAT dictatorial considering there then would have been a Hungary 1956 or a Tiananmen Square 1991 style event had the Soviets objected.
It was not people power that brought the USSR to its knees; it was a command economy that was no longer being based on the very principles that it was designed for and thus it destroyed itself - not from pressure via 'the people' all of whom had objected to the Soviet control of Eastern Europe since 1945.